Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 47

Saint Seiya

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ryulong on 07:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of Saint Seiya characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Saint Seiya antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Athena's Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Saint Seiya Omega characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas – Anecdotes characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ryulong (talk · contribs) Onikiri (talk · contribs) 186.32.118.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Dispute overview I (Ryulong) have attempted to modify the pages to be in line with the current style guides (MOS:ANIME, MOS:JP) as well as remove material that does not fit in with Wikipedia's current policies (WP:OR, WP:OWN). However, Onikiri (talk · contribs) (who also edits while logged out as 186.32.118.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) refuses to accept any of the proposed changes, which includes removing literal translations of character names (the WP:OR issue) and adding the Japanese phonetic readings for character names that in no way match the usual readings of the Japanese writing systems provided (e.g., kanji normally read as "Tenmaza" are intended to be read as "Pegasasu", and I have added the katakana that are read as the latter). Onikiri basically refuses to discuss the changes I've proposed and has explicitly stated that he will revert things he disagrees with because he is the only one working on the pages. Consensus, while small, is against him in the discussion he started and it does not appear that he will be construcively working towards a conclusion at all; several "minor edits" of his have been reverts of my content. I do not know how to continue working with him at this rate because he is dismissive of everything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Several messages left for him which are mostly ignored Thread he started How do you think we can help? I believe a wider audience will help keep the conversation from going in a vicious cycle, and hopefully reach Onikiri where my dozen messages to him over the past 24 hours could not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Onikiri Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I have answered his messages. He sends like 20 messages to say the same thing. He insists in adding the katakana readings for character names that are already in kanji. The addition of katakana readings is redundant, superfluous and also clutters the text making it difficult to read. Some time ago, the katakana readings were included, but were removed by general consensus among the users, as I said, they were redundant, and removing it helped trim the size of the article. As I have told him, any change that actually contributes to the improvement of the articles, is very much welcome, but redundant text only helps to make the articles harder to read and to increase its size. About a year ago or maybe a little more, I undertook the task of trimming down the lists sizes, a task that needed the removal of superfluous text and the creation of separate lists to better organize the characters and make the lists much easier to read and smaller in bytes. The users back then agreed with the changes to the lists, and no major changes have been necessary since then. This user Ryulong only seeks to force in the lists what he thinks is necessary, but it is only superfluous text that only contribute to make the articles harder to read, it is superfluous because the info is already there in kanji, and additionally, the kanji forms are the most widely used forms of the names, in merchandise, in the comics, media, etc. Katakana forms are mostly an aid for children, for those not familiar with the western readings of the constellations and such, etc. He insists in adding superfluous elements, and that is the reason of the constant reverting and editing. As I tell him, any useful addition is very much welcome, but superfluous text is far from being useful. Onikiri (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Saint Seiya discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be hopefully shepherding this dispute to a resolution. As I've had some previous experience with Ryulong I'll stand back for a bit and see if there's any objection to me assisting. Let's wait until Onikiri responds. Question: Have either of you considered getting outsiders from WP Anime & Manga to give feedback on your dispute? Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Hello! Another volunteer willing to help out. So, does anyone have a reliable source as to which reading is considered official? And @ Onikiri, consensus can change.--SGCM (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Sources for name spelling requested below: Saint Seiya author, Masami Kurumada, used both kanji and katakana to spell the names of constellations and such, buth, mainly in kanji. The katakana is found in the form of furigana, that is, small characters over the kanji that act as a reading aid, but in japanese, mostly the kanji is used for the names of constellations. And in merchandise, as well, the furigana and katakana formas are just an assistance. Katakana are also used mostly in the names of constellations with no direct japanese equivalent such as Perseus or Heracles. For example: http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/9/25306030393-orig.jpg You can clearly read: 龍星座の紫龍, theconstellation name followed by the character name, and the furigana: ドラゴン - シリュウ over the kanji, as an aid for children or people unfamiliar with the kanji, but it is not essential to read the names. It comes useful in japanese articles, as they are used by native users, but in an english article, katakana forms are unneeded, as only a small fraction of readers can understand the japanese characters, thus they're superfluous. Another example: http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/9/25306133379-orig.jpg It reads clearly この天雄星ガールダのアイアコスがな (Kono Ten'yūsei Garūda no Aiakosu gana) the katakana form appears only as furigana, with the name that employs japanese words being spelled mainly in kanji, that is "Ten'yūsei", which translates to Heavenly Valiance Star, and the katakana is simply a prescindible reading aid, and it is used also in the part of the name that employs foreign names, that is, Garuda and Aiacos. There, its usefulness is not questioned, as in these cases, it is necessary, when, and only when foreign names are involved, but in the japanese part of it, it is not needed in a wikipedia english article. Furigana is mostly employed by children and foreign students, native speakers dont need it unless the kanji are indeed uncommon, which happens but not as often. Katakana is only needed in names that are foreign in origin, such as Perseus, Wyvern, Griffon, and even in some of such cases, Kurumada employed kanji, such as Kerberos: 地獄の番犬星座 (jigoku no banken seiza) with the furigana ケルベロス (Keruberosu= Kerberos) on top of them. In these cases, the katakana is not to be removed as it is the official spelling from the comics, but in the constellations it is simply not needed. Another example to further comprehension of the problem: For example, the Pegasus Saint name and constellation, in japanese, can be spelled as: 天馬星座の星矢 (Tenba seiza no Seiya) or ペガサスの星矢 (Pegasasu no Seiya) The first form is the most widely used in SS related merchandise and the original comics, and it can be read too as Pegasasu no Seiya. But the user Ryulong wants it to be spelled in the articles as 天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢 (Tenba seiza (Pegasasu) no Seiya) It is longer, redundant, and cluttering, and even confusing for readers that cant read japanese. Not to speak superfluous, as it says the same name twice. An he wants it this way for all the constellations, and other character names. Add to it, the romaji rendering of the japanese name template and you get this: Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢 |Tenba seiza (Pegasasu) no Seiya When you can simply have: Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座の星矢|Pegasasu no Seiya Much shorter, less confusing, and reduces size in bytes. The form of the names that has been used all this time in the articles is the simpler one, as it is shorter, concise, katakana is unneeded as it is superfluous and redundant. For some time, years ago, the katakana was added but it was removed after deciding it wasnt needed, for the same reasons explained here. In merchandise: http://www.hobbystock.jp/goods_img/hby-itf-00001747.0.jpg http://www.mpsnet.co.jp/hobbynet/photos/GASYASEIYA3L.jpg The kanji forms are prevalent, as evidenced. Additionally, the user Ryulong insisted in changing the official western rendering of the name of a character: Scorpio Milo. In japanese, the character name is spelled in the comics and merchandise as: 蠍座のミロ, with the furigana スコーピオン (Sukōpion). That means, it is intended to be read as Scorpion Milo, indeed. But in the west, the constellation he represents is not called Scorpion, it is known as Scorpius or Scorpio, so the correct rendering would be Scorpio Milo or Scorpius Milo. And Scorpio Milo is the form that is virtually ever present in all Saint Seiya related merchandise. This is another unnecessary change the user Ryulong is trying to force. Katakana forms are virtually used as aid only. Necessary for japanese articles at best, but in english articles, theyre totally superfluous. And in any case, I know consensus can change, but in the past, many users have discussed the matter at hand and then a decision has been made, but this user Ryulong hasn't even bothered to ask to do so, and also, what he intends to do, add superfluous text, seems rather unnecessary. In the past, the articles were tagged because of their large size in bytes, thats why i undertook the task of trimming down their size. Adding katakana again will only help to increase the articles size and the risk of the articles being tagged again. Add to that, the cluttering of the text, SPECIALLY for readers that don't understand japanese. Onikiri (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I saw my error with the Scorpio/Scorpion thing, and it's been fixed so stop complaining about it. The katakana is not superfluous or redundant. It is needed because text like 蠍座 is never written as "Scorpio(n)" in Japanese. And, Onikiri, I am only trying to add what would be found in furigana in the manga into the characters' names in the articles. This does not mean that I will romanize "天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢" as "Tenma Seiza (Pegasasu) no Seiya". I have never written it like that. All I did was take your {{nihongo|Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座の星矢|Pegasasu no Seiya}} and turned it into {{nihongo|Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢|Pegasasu no Seiya}}. This particularly important, because in the most recent edition there is a character whose name includes the phrase かじき座, which is normally Kajiki-za. However, in the context of the program it is Dorado. Issues like these are why I am insisting on the inclusion of all of the katakana forms, because the kanji, hiragana, and katakana names of characters are being read in a way that is drastically different from the way they are written. This would be like having a person who writes their name as "David" but it's pronounced as "Richard", and if we have a page about them we don't give any explanation as to why it's pronounced that way. The last reason why he's removing it is claiming the articles are too long. My versions of the pages are shorter than his, so I don't know why he's bringing that up. Onikiri has been refusing to budge on this issue. He keeps changing the reason why (if not falsely labeling edit summaries) and he has been throwing out all of the edits I have made to the pages just because he does not want the katakana on the pages, when I've made plenty of other formatting changes that make the pages easier to read to put them in line with MOS:ANIME and MOS:JP. In fact, I've just gone through the reverts Onikiri performed again to keep the formatting changes, but leave out the katakana. This is not the goal I want to seek, but Onikiri will keep throwing out all of the edits I've made to the pages unless the katakana is removed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Might I add, that anime mentions of the constellations names are not a reliable source, as they vary greatly, even from episode to episode. For example, the Orion constellation is mentioned as Orion-za, Orion Seiza, or simply Orion, in the first SS film, and in SS Omega. The Scutum constellation is mentioned as Tate-za, or Sukyūtamu-za, the Phoenix constellation has been mentioned as Fenikkusu-seiza, Fenikkusu, or even Hō'ō -seiza Fenikkusu, etc. While in the original comics, the names are much more homogeneous, without constant variants. Merchandise also keeps more in line with the names found in the original comics. It is much more reliable for the articles to use the comics as a source, rather than the anime adaptations, in which the names vary from episode to episode. Variants of the names are mostly found in the anime. Another example, The Dorado constellation that he mentions, it is called as "Kajiki-za Dorado", so both forms are used in the anime, and this was how it was already in the article, so I don't know why he complains about it. Onikiri (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The anime is as reliable a source as the manga, but that's not important. If the katakana/furigana is included with the names in Japan, then we should include it with the Japanese names on Wikipedia. There are dozens of terms that are in usage on these pages that have names written in kanji but pronounced in a completely different manner than they are written, and it is disingenuous to not show that the kanji are not normally read that way, which is also problematic when the names are pronounced differently depending on the medium.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC) And sorry, but the name "Scorpion" it is indeed written like that in japanese, but it is not intended to be read by us as such, as the constellation is not named Scorpion in the west, check proof: http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/9/25308305190-orig.jpg You can clearly read 蠍座のミロ and the furigana Scorpion : スコーピオン. Katakana indeed is not necessary in english articles, whereas in japanese ones it is, because of the wide range of variants a name can have due to multiple kanji readings, but even for native japanese readers, theyre not imprescindible, in an SS article at least, as the local constellation names are widely known in Japan. Katakana is not needed in english articles as it only makes the text harder to read and it is NOT useful for most english wikipedia users, only for those of us that understand japanese. And even us that do, don't really need it, kanji is enough. It's like the case of Saint, Kurumada spelled it as 聖闘士, with the furigana Seinto. So, japanese readers know that they don't have to read it seitōshi, but Seinto, but in english, you dont have to read it Seinto, but rather Saint. This is the case for Scorpion. Onikiri (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The katakana is needed because it's part of the way the name is presented in Japan. Your various scans from the manga prove this fact. And I'm sorry if I translated Milo's title wrong in English because I was not aware that he was called "Scorpio Milo" in the English adaptations. But this is not important. The fact is that by not giving the furigana, as presented in Japanese media, we are providing a disservice to our readers and they may think that (example) 聖闘士 is always "Seinto" and not "Seitōshi".—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC) t may indeed be useful for japanese and chinese wikipedia, but not in english wikipedia. Most english wikipedia users, I would dare to say, 90%, doesn't even need the japanese names. They are interested only in the english names, they will need katakana even less. What you say is true, katakana is clarifying, but not as much as it is in japanese or chinese wikipedias. In english wiki, it is just an additional, even superfluous text, and it maybe needed only in cases that are indeed rare or uncommon. Most english wikipedia users even ignore the japanese text, as it is something of interest more for japanese speakers, students, hardcore manga/anime fans and the like, not the casual reader, or even casual fans. Onikiri (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Hello, everyone. I would like to throw my two cents into the discussion and say that I believe the inclusion of the katakana in the cases Ryulong has specified would be beneficial to the articles. With the exception of Saint Seiya, these articles are about anime and manga that have not yet been licensed in English, so the question of whether users "need the Japanese names" is quite moot. In most cases, Japanese names are all there is and being that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is important that articles do not promote confusion among readers. Without the katakana spelling of forced readings of kanji, users will question whether the information they are given is correct if they see romaji that does not match the kanji in any way. Cyn starchaser (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Not sure if I understood, but SS is licensed in english, the manga was released entirely by VIZ...and the anime was released to some extent to. Also, the discussion is not about NOT including the japanese names, but about the superfluous katakana text. English readers are not missing anything as the japanese kanji names are already in the articles. Even in japanese the readers not always see the kana spellings of the names. →Onikiri (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC) The pages in dispute are not only related to Saint Seiya, but also the spin-off series Omega and The Lost Canvas, which have not been licensed in English. The furigana under analysis cannot be considered superfluous, as without it the kanji takes on a completely different, and unpredictable, reading. Cyn starchaser (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I'd just like to apologize to Hasteur and SGCM for the turn of events here. I believe we have made your jobs a little more difficult with this more public bickering.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC) So, what's the resolution then, I still think the katakana is superfluous and must be removed and only kept where necesaary. Onikiri (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Well at least three other people disagree with you, so maybe this shows that the consensus has changed so you shouldn't be removing it on the very minor basis that you do not like it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)*3: Onikiri, we don't make decisions for you. We only provide the venue and suggestions about resolving the dispute, but I'll try taking a crack at it. First of all the tagging of the article for size concerns was probably in relation to WP:SIZE which is concerned about the readable prose, not characters on the page. Second it's great that you've demonstrated the need for all the writing styles in the source material. Now looking at wikipedia's guidelines/manual of style/consensus It seems to suggest that if the source material is using multiple styles of writing the name, it makes sense to report it here. Wikipedia articles (especially ones on foreign language topics) are used by both foreign language speakers wanting to check their English comprehension and for English speakers to start to learn how to write/pronounce the foreign language. Therefore it seems reasonable that the extra identifiers are included. Obviously in these list articles it might make more sense to split the exceptionally large ones into smaller readable units (Heroes, Villains, Side Cast) to avoid the tag for size complaint. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC) That's what I did, about a year ago...Onikiri (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Ok, so how about the Manual of Style guidelines that Ryulong has pointed at? What about pinging WP:ANIME for feedback? Looking at the manual of style, I'm inclined to think it would be good to have the alternative writings be present even if it adds a small amount of extra text to the page. It appears you're personalizing this and treating yourself as the protector of this little corner of WP, I question if possibly WP:OWN applies to your actions. Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC) My knowledge of Japanese is minimal, so I've hesitated commenting so far, but I agree with Hasteur. The participation of third party WP:ANIME members would be helpful, and the article should follow the Manual of Style guideline on anime and manga articles.--SGCM (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I can agree with the katakana being included in the character names, but I think it should be included in the names only. Not long ago, earlier this year, some dude included it in every technique found in the character lists, including the japanese template, that is, romaji, japanese characters, etc. It was reverted, but it took several times for him or her...to desist. That was too much, as all of you can imagine. As I said, I can agree for it being included in the names, but it shouldn't be included in the technique names, as that is excessive. Onikiri (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Diff or a link to that sequence events? It's my understanding (and I could be wrong) that Ryulong is just wanting to do the character names. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we may have an agreement Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The technique names are pretty useless though. And I've added katakana for the constellation names as well as any proper nouns written in kanji that have any odd katakana spellings (ex. "Bronze Saint", "Mariners", "Cosmo").—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The kanji for the warrior factions was already there if I remember correctly, Cosmo wasn't, that is certain. About the technique list, it was created as reference material and additional info, as we included in the english articles the names in english. The original japanese forms were available for each character long ago, when each one had their own article. But after the merging was made, virtually all original japanese forms disappeared, that's why the list was created. Onikiri (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I mean the katakana forms of those words because 青銅聖闘士 is "Seidō Seitōshi" and not normally "Buronzu Seinto".—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Ok, it looks like both of you are now talking together and working to a consensus. Any objections to closing? Hasteur (talk) 12:03, 13 September 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.

Dissociative identity disorder

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WLU on 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Location of dispute Dissociative identity disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WLU (talk · contribs) Tylas (talk · contribs) MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Since early 2012 the DID has been edited and revised extensively. As part of this revision, extensive, essentially unreasonably long discussions have occurred on the talk page. The discussions have become repetitive and nobody is changing their minds based on them. Tylas, who has self-disclosed a diagnosis of DID, has repeatedly stated her belief that the traumagenic position regarding DID is the majority position, and that discussion of the other position be, at best, relegated to a single “Controversy” section or even a single paragraph. Myself and Mathew have repeatedly stated that this is inappropriate, and that dissenting opinions published in reliable sources (of which there are many) should be documented and discussed throughout the article per WP:STRUCTURE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? There are extensive and repetitive discussions on the current DID talk page and in the archives, numbering dozens of sections and thousands of characters illustrating an effort to address this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) How do you think we can help? An appropriate outcome in line with the WP:P&G would be one in which Tylas understands how a valid, source-based POV dispute is handled on Wikipedia. I do not want or expect Tylas to change her personal opinions about DID, but I would like to see the tendentious repetition that the traumagenic position is the dominant, mainstream position to stop. Essentially I would like the input of the larger community on the question of whether there are enough recent, reliable sources discussing the controversy over DID such that it should be a substantial portion of the page rather than relegating it to a single section or paragraph. Though Tylas now rarely edits the dissociative identity disorder page, the posting on talk pages is exhausting, lengthy and pointless. Neither side has convinced the other that their position is valid, it's just more repetition of the same thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by WLU Because the bot or auto-fill page didn't seem to be working, I had to fill all the sections in by hand - User:WLU This may not be the appropriate venue, so please refer if that is the case. The DID article is not currently very active, but any effort to edit will be met with the lengthy, repetitive talk page postings that I would like to see stopped. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Tylas I cannot battle people like WLU and Mathew alone. I think my time will be best served in places other than WP. Those 2 will just keep hounding me until I go. It's not worth the time and heartbreak to do this. Even if they leave, without proper guidelines in place to protect against the fringe organizations like the FMS, another editor with their fringe POV will always crop up to take their place. It's a shame that when someone knows a subject as well as I know DID, or Tom Cloyd did, we are ran off so that, at least in the case of the DID page, people that support the False Memory Society can push their agenda. http://www.fmsfonline.org/about.htmlWho runs the FMS Foundation? The Executive Director, Pamela Freyd, oversees the Foundation's programs and the fiscal and day-to-day operations of the Foundation. Just so you all understand a bit better, P. Freyds daughter is the editor of the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation that WLU and Matthew attack. It is her parents that set up the FMS to defend child abusers as well as parents that were falsely accused. The problem is they are quite fanatical about it, as are many of their supporters. It kills me to give up and let them continue to take over the DID page on WP, but I just cannot fight the fight here when they have so many people backing them up and know how to use the rules so well to work in their favor. Case closed. WLU and Mathew have won. Opening comments by MathewTownsend Agree with WLU's comments. If talk page guidelines are followed, it would reduce the massive and repetitious posts. The article should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. One organization with a specific POV shouldn't be declared the "experts" in the field and their sole guidelines referenced repeatedly as fact and used to refute material in peer reviewed journal review articles. Dissociative identity disorder discussion Uninvolved other than offering Tylas some advice on how to get on in Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS would seem to be the key guideline moderating everyone's editing here. Could involvement be sought from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine - I think part of the problem here may be down to the personalities involved and the way things have been said previously. Noticing also that I believe Dennis Brown has been mentoring Tylas, and some forbearance should be given to Tylas because she does have some difficulties in dealing with editing/other editors due to her problems. I know WP:NOTTHERAPY will probably be quoted by someone, but where someone is trying as hard as they can to edit while overcoming difficulties, I think we should have some tolerance. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Tylas is also being mentored by User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Tylas MathewTownsend (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Noting that this dispute is now apparently ongoing across wikis – the most recent outbreak on talk arose when I restored an interwiki to Simple that had been removed, and there is now ; a continuation of this dispute on Simple, complete with accusations of harassment. After my edit, participants on both sides of the debate have emailed me citing various misdeeds by the "other side". There are elements of both content and behavioural problems here, and it's going to take some careful negotiation to get things resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Hello visitors to DRN. Can we please refrain from further discussion untill Tylas has had an opportunity to respond to the claims? Thank you. HasteurMobile (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Will do. Just to note that Tylas has emailed me to say that she doesn't think she'll be able to get a response together until tomorrow Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Hey Who decides on here how a dispute is resolved? Everyone, both participants and volunteers, through consensus. It's an informal noticeboard, so there are no binding decisions or official judges. The only difference between a participant and a volunteer, is that a volunteer is any editor that has not been directly involved in the dispute. DRN is a place for discussion, and is not a court. If a consensus develops, which requires the input of all the editors, then the dispute is resolved.--SGCM (talk) 05:33, 12 September 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.

Steeler Nation#Criticism

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Marketdiamond on 02:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Steeler Nation#Hillbilly and Appalachia references. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bdb484 (talk · contribs) blackngold29 (talk · contribs) GrapedApe (talk · contribs) Marketdiamond (talk · contribs) 76.189.108.102 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Main point is the derogatory nature of "white trash" and "hillbillies", and with this offensive material the relevance (necessary to understanding an NFL fanbase?), notability of the source (a free weekly located more than 1,000 miles from the region), and its many factual inaccuracies given the Federally defined region and league defined team territories. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Multiple discussion on the talk page, with links to wiki definitions of the terms. How do you think we can help? Allow the article to revert to its encyclopedic nature (sans the Phoenix New Times quotes and conclusions) by removing false, irrelevant (to a sports fanbase) and not notably sourced offensive material. Opening comments by Bdb484 Hi, everyone. If you've already read through the entire talk page arguments, forgive the following quick recap. I added material about four years ago to balance out the page, which until then had been a pretty crazy mess of uncited, pro-Steeler drivel, which is about normal for a lot of these types of pages. I made a quick run-through to add new material for balance -- including the paragraph in question now -- and remove uncited material that sounded sketchy. This of course bothered a small number of editors, who had gotten the impression that anything negative about the team did not belong on the page, and who felt that the wording of my edits was over the top or otherwise posed POV problems. Objections included that the material was offensive, false, negative, and improperly sourced. Given those complaints, we reviewed the relevant policies and collaborated on a series of drafts until all those questions were addressed. After a couple of days, we found consensus, and the material has largely been stable since then, with the exception of the occasional vandal. This brings us to today. Over the last week, Marketdiamond has resurrected the previously settled questions. I believe they have all been thoroughly addressed, but I'm getting hammered being met with filibustery long posts on the talk page demanding that the material be taken down, because he feels that it is false (despite its being verified with an in-line citation to a reliable source) and offensive (despite Wikipedia not being censored). — Bdb484 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Also, blackngold29 hasn't edited in about a year, so it may not be productive to wait for him to chime in. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by blackngold29 As Bdb484 stated above I have not edited for a while, nor have I been involved in any of the previous discussion on these particular edits. I therefore will decline to comment. Thank you. --blackngold29 04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by GrapedApe In my opinion, WP:V allows the obnoxious criticisms of the team's fans, as they are cited to a reliable source. The problem was in the WP:NPOV way it had been written, which was as if the criticisms were "truth," not "criticisms made by X." So, I fixed it with these edits which clarified who made the insults, and the the context of those comments. In my opinion, that's the way to go, and everyone can just chillax.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Support: chillaxing. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by 76.189.108.102 OK, here's my trimmed-down version. ;) I didn't find this dispute until after I made edits to the article, so I thought I should add my name here. I am not a fan or foe of the Steelers, but I had some immediate concerns when I read the contentious content. Examiner.com cannot be used as a source per WP:PUS, which says its "content is by amateur writers and lacks editorial oversight." I removed the Examiner cites. Although content can't be censored, it does need to be worthy of inclusion and meet other basic guidelines - reliably sourced, written accurately, in context, etc. A lot of this contentious conent failed on one or more of these. WP:SYN and WP:NPOV were violated by (inaccurately) combining two lines from different sources, falsely implying that visiting fans frequently complain about Steelers fans. USA Today doesn't even mention the Steelers. SI.com cite doesn't support claims made in article; pure POV. The 1994 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article has no link, so no way to verify it supports the content. Most of the very derogatory language comes from the Phoenix New Times (PNT) story. The entire PNT article is undisputably from a rival source - based in the city of the Steelers Super Bowl opponent - and published just prior to the game. It's obviously a one-sided hit piece intended to entertain and incite Phoenix fans. Legitimate criticism in an article is of course fine, but the PNT story is purely tabloid journalism. Before I knew about this dispute, I rewrote the content a bit. I left in the PNT content but put it into context. Afterwards, I realized that it should just be removed because it fails reliability guidelines on multiple levels. By the way, an editor described all the PNT derogatory content as a "warning" to fans, which is total POV. Overall, the editors who inserted or support this contentious content seem to want to give the impression that Steeler Nation is widely disliked across the country. But the sourced material simply doesn't support it. It's a deep reach that's anchored by very weak sourcing, especially the PNT article which majorly fails the reliability test. I read that the editor who originally added the contentious content did so because they said the article had no criticisms of Steeler Nation, and so they figured they should find some to "balance" the article. The PNT article is what was found and used to feature the criticism. Anyone can easily finding trash-talking sources for any professional sports team. But the issue is about the reliability and credibility of the sources. Every team has rivals. Therefore, every team's fans obviously have other fans who don't like them. If there's going to be content that's negative about Steeler Nation, that's fine if it's encylopedic, reliably sourced and accurately presented in the article. All POV, original content, interpretations, and out-of-context language need to be left out. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC) The opening comment has 4603 characters. Can you trim it to 2000 characters? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC) OK, I reduced my original comments with the trimmed-down version above. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Steeler Nation#Criticism discussion I'm not very familiar with american sports affairs, so may I ask, whether the information in the section is factually wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC) There is a disagreement on this question among the involved editors. Of course, WP:V tells us that the question is not whether this is right or wrong, but whether it is backed up with a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC) No, WP:V tells us that the question about reliable sources only rises about the content that is appropriate. If this information is factually wrong, it doesn't belong to the article regardless of sources reporting it (unless there is enough misstatements to report the amount of misstatements, not the misstatements themselves). If it is accurate, it should stay. That is: unless the sources are spreading lies (which doesn't seem the case), there is no reason to remove the section (see WP:WELLKNOWN, which doesn't apply directly, but contains a rule for the closely related cases). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of WP:V, though I could definitely be wrong myself. But more importantly, I do agree that there's no reason (not yet, at least) to remove the section. My argument has been that if the reliably sourced material is inaccurate, then we should at least wait until there's a reliable source saying so to justify removing the content. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately the policy was recently heavily damaged for the sake of clarity, so now it is not clear at all. The relation of verifiability and truth is still covered in explanatory essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth § "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". So if something is known to be untrue, verifiability doesn't help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Hi all, appreciate the discussion on this. The bottom line for me is that the use of the derogatory, offensive and slurs w.t. and h.b. is not necessary to understanding a National Football League fanbase, is very bad encyclopedic policy to insert the Phoenix New Times racial stereotypes to something as broad as an NFL fanbase and because of those things is a clear and bright violation of WP:GFFENSE. Czarkoff, I am currently working on a very simplified map of the actual "factually wrong" items in the PNT article, to be as fair as I can the wiki article has been edited down since this request to delink the Appalachia = fanbase, w.t. & h.b. The factually wrong items of PNT is that it seems to draw weak conclusions based on a few irrelevant and separate "facts" mixing and matching stadium locations with "fanbases" (league defined territory and I'm assuming broadcast stations) along with the mixing and matching that Appalachia (which it is true Pittsburgh is in) completely equals the w.t. definition of among other things poor whites, names house slaves used to refer to whites (aside from the fact that Pennsylvania was a non-slave state since independence) and the h.b. phrase which is typically southern (Alabama) and even Ozarks (an area completely outside Appalachia). The w.t. and h.b. definitions are available on their wiki pages of which Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic Region, North (region) and Pittsburgh are never mentioned, the NFL territories and league defined "fanbases" I can also submit to this discussion. To the very limited extent the PNT article is factually accurate it seems to be similar to a Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, a few accurate but irrelevant statements cobbled together to incite and provoke (in the PNT's purpose a biased fanbase 2,000 miles away). The PNTs use of WP:GFFENSE and insertion of race and other biases only further substantiates that they are low on generally accepted facts. Thanks for the consideration. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but all of this seems quite unconvincing. First of all, neither whitetrash, nor hillbilly seem to qualify for WP:OFFENSIVE, which is specifically less relevant, given that the terms are sourced. Next, the question of precise geographical distribution is not explicitly connected to the description of the subject's members, so the accurateness of geographical definition of "fanbases" does not contribute to the verifiability of criticism. Now, as I contributed to this discussion as much as my awareness of US matters allows, I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your efforts, just for clarity WP:OFFENSIVE I always thought applied to all content including sourced quotes (especially those inserting racial/regional biases/slurs) into articles that have no relation to that race. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC) This whole discussion is non-sensical. The Phoenix New Times content was obviously just a comical piece from a local Phoenix freebie that was solely intended to taunt its team's Super Bowl opponent (the Steelers) and rev up their own fans. Therefore, it's not even close to being a realiable source. Just because something was published somewhere doesn't mean it's automatically worthy of being included in an article. The content should be removed and stay removed. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Though I retired from this case, I think I should reply: @Marketdiamond: though it might seem obvious, that WP:OFFENSIVE should equally apply to quotes and other statements (quotes don't differ much from illustrations in this regard). Still, there is strong long-standing consensus that being offensive is not enough to be excluded, and in this particular case the article clearly attributes the alleged offensive language to the particular source without presenting these words as the generally accepted properties of the subject. That said, I'm not convinced that these words are exactly what was meant in WP:OFFENSIVE, specifically that they are enough offensive to qualify for exclusion. @IP: Obviously? I see nothing obvious about that, and particularly I see a published article in a source with editorial review. In fact, I don't even see any reason to believe that the author belong to another fan organization or is otherwise non-neutral towards the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC) The fact that the content is offensive is not the issue; it's only about whether it is worthy of inclusion. And of course it's offensive. The newspaper calls the Steelers the "grubbiest, loudest, and nastiest fan base in all of sports", "White Trash America's team" and "hillbillies". If you don't see the obvious intent of the piece and the fact that the writer is a huge fan of the local team writing for the local freebie newspaper that is also a huge fan of the team, then you clearly should not be involved in this discussion. You seem not to understand that simply because something is published, whether the source is reliable or not, does not automatically make it noteworthy. The only issue here is solely about whether the content is worthy of inclusion. The answer by any unbiased standard is clearly no. This whole matter started when an anti-Steelers fan saw no criticism of the subject, felt it was necessary, and admittedly set out to find content, no matter what its source, that would trash the Steelers. Well, he found it. Right in the heart of Phoenix. This entire thread is laughable.--76.189.97.91 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Let's all restrain from advancing points until a new volunteer is assigned. Also 76.189.97.91 Wwelcome to Wikipedia! For the sake of clarity and focus please register with a username. Marketdiamond (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Marketdiamond, I am on your side in this discussion. Regarding your "clarity and focus" comment, I suggest you read WP:HUMAN and WP:URIP2. As it explains, "You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so." ;) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Apologies, not my intent, was due to wiki technical probs and me not 2x. A status not based on reality I struck. I have held ?s on non-76.189.97.91 points but await topic reopening. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your very nice response. :) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I'll take on the case. Can you show the specific text and the specific sources and them to the box below. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Here is the seeming Q.E.D. Appalachia=h.b.=w.t.=Steeler fans source material and the authors (I contend false as he says "anecdotal evidence") justification: [1] Thou a fallacy to have to prove a negative (that Pitt. is not the only team with or even the "team" for h.b and w.t.) Here is arguably anecdotal evidence of 11 other League defined team territories (fanbases) also existing in Appalachia: under "secondary markets" and [2] and [3], and radio [4], and book explanation of the concept [5] and the base maps explaining the "market" regions [6] and Appalachia [7][8]. Another article [9] where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here. Excerpts of h.b. and w.t. wiki articles on article talk as a "slur"/ "derogatory" both exposing the citation as being not reliable (so short of real factual conclusions that it resorts to racial slurs to make a point) and the absurdity of injecting racial identity/ethic slurs into sports fans article. Aside from the repeated "southern" and "slavery" origins/definitions of the terms. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Hi, you didn't add the specific text and specific source cited which is under dispute. There was a lot of text removed and restored. Steelers fans have also been singled out by newspapers in rival cities for inappropriate behavior during games – a frequent complaint from visiting fans in the NFL. References Giro, Tony (2009-01-15). "Why do we hate Steelers fans? Let me count the reasons". The Baltimore Examiner. Balitmore, Md. Retrieved 2009-01-31.Forrester, Paul (2007-11-07). "NFL Fan Value Experience: Pittsburgh Steelers". SI.com. Retrieved 2009-02-10. Cook, Ron (1994-12-18). "O'Donnell can't control critics or crazy bounces". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. p. D1. McCarthy, Michael (2008-08-06). "NFL unveils new code of conduct for its fans". USA Today. McLean, Virginia. Retrieved 2009-02-10. Is this the specific text under dispute in the lead? Is it the entire criticism section as well? i.e if you mention a source, also include the text, and state why it is either undue, original research, or unreliably referenced. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) IRWolfie, the 1st bullet point I wrote has the text "h.b." (hillbilly) and "w.t" ("whitetrash America's team") along with the PNT link (Cizmar, Martin citation #30)[10] it is multiple pages but the only relevant page is what link directs to. Sorry if I provided an overload, beyond the simple judgment if "w.t" and "h.b." are offensive/irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on sports fans the other 2 bullet points deal with refuting the fact/conclusions Cizmar reaches and then the source reliability. Appreciate your time and effort on this so I purposely arranged the bullet points to refute fact/conclusion then notability in a way that someone possibly unfamiliar with NFL fan areas, territories, TV networks that abide by them and the definition of Appalachia (and thus PNT's Cizmar h.b. and w.t.) could better understand. Also several posts prior an opposing editor stated something about the "section" to be clear my only deletion would be the h.b. and w.t. references or possibly all PNT Cizmar quotes, the Criticism section to me would stay put. Interested in hearing from others on this, and thanks again. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I just uploaded this to summarize all the links (and refutations to Cizmar) in the 2nd bullet point above. The map should be self explanatory though studying it for awhile will be necessary. You asked about "text" IRWolfie, the link to the PNT article page should suffice but be clear if you want me to quote Cizmar's paragraphs here. There is some wild Q.E.D. that Appalachia=w.t.=h.b.=Steeler Nation in it and then the Myron Cope yiddish phrases is somehow w.t. or h.b.? I can get real deep into everything I have against that page of the article line by line but I feel like readers will earn a degree in Pittsburgh studies if I do. Suffice to say (and it should be very obvious even to those unfamiliar with the region or football) that Cizmar uses tons of very weak and anecdotal connections to conclude the w.t. nation and h.b., similar to a Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, several unconnected irrelevant truths mashed up together to = a big false, or as Cizmar might say: to somehow say that Pittsburgh is "whitetrash nation" and that everyone will die from water today. Reliability is also questioned with bullet point 3 "Another article [11] where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here", and as mentioned earlier by several editors its a free alternative weekly that supports itself on "sin ads". Let me know if any further clarity is requested and please click the map link with the knowledge that radio and TV are multi million $ setups so if there is no fan demand or tons of it, that map reflects it. Marketdiamond (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I can't speak for Marketdiamond, but for brevity's sake, I'll try to present what I believe is his argument: that the Phoenix New Times is not a reliable source, and that any material sourced to it (specifically statements about Appalachia, "white trash" and "hillbillies") should be removed. Arguments proffered thus far against categorizing the PNT as a reliable source fall into a few categories: 1: PNT is free: This argument would disqualify nytimes.com and virtually all of the Internet. 2: PNT is an alt-weekly: This argument means nothing, and would disqualify Pulitzer winners like the Willamette Week (where the author of this article is currently employed, incidentally). 3: PNT is geographically separated from the subject it is writing about: Again, this argument would disqualify so many sources from writing about so many things it would be absolutely unworkable. We might as well nominate the Moon for WP:CSD. 4: PNT runs ads for escort services: Marketdiamond says he wouldn't hold himself to high journalistic standards if he worked for the PNT, so can we really trust it? 5: The author doesn't root for the Steelers: Be serious. Cizmar is an award-winning journalist who's worked for multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning papers. I suspect he can be trusted to write accurately. 6: PNT is wrong and I have original research to prove it: Marketdiamond is seeking to remove unflattering characterizations about Pittsburgh because they aren't supported by a map he drew to disprove them. This is classic WP:OR and POV-pushing. Obviously, none of these arguments actually have anything to do with actual Wikipedia standards for evaluating reliable sources. I suspect that Marketdiamond may already be aware of this, and that this is why his arguments are invariably couched in sprawling lectures about the minutia of Appalachian geography, NFL market boundaries and anything else that will keep us from simply applying WP:V. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC) It should be noted that the content we're discussing can be found in the page's last stable version, here. Jump to "Criticism," then to the third sentence of the first paragraph. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC) It's almost unbelievable how much time has been wasted here on issues that aren't even relevant. It's useless to debate whether the source is reliable or if the content is true. Regarding truth, some editors really need to understand that it's about verifiability, not truth; they need to educate themselves on WP:VNT. Other editors need to understand that even if content is reliably sourced, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in an article. They need to educate themselves on WP:WEIGHT, which says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Only one determination needs to be made here: Is the content worthy of inclusion? Period. So, are all the indisputably biased and derogatory descriptions used by a newspaper writer in the hometown of the Steelers' Super Bowl opponent worthy of inclusion? Answer that question and close this discussion. IMO, the content under debate here is clearly not worthy of inclusion, which renders all the other issues in this discussion moot. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) SUPPORT: I've restrained to only answer volunteers requests but I am--like you--am coming to realize this really is just that simple, great appreciation for the focused statement! Marketdiamond (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Note, the weight of this source should be assessed against the other sources about critical reception of SN, not just about anything related to SN. Otherwise nearly everything on this page is undue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Drafts Obviously, the article needs to mention critical reception of the subject to address the balance issue. As long as this discussion became stale, I ask parties to propose drafts of the "criticism" section for the article. Probably this will help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your efforts D. Czarkoff, given this is the 13th day of discussion about two RACIST terms of 1 misguided reporter, I (we) never had an opportunity to further discuss your several points since you stated: I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) let us know if you wish to renew those discussions on how two terms aren't WP:GFFENSE. And blackngold29 said: "I therefore will decline to comment. Thank you." --blackngold29 04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)", so why will we in your words "became stale" providing a slot for comment? Is there actual confusion about the Cizmar citation, where we are having a Day 1 Hour 1 question on the 13th day? Perhaps working out any remaining differences on the exact level of w.t. and h.b.'s WP:GFFENSE in a sports article may be more beneficial at this matured stage. I respectfully state this as we are now quoting this discussions comments from weeks ago, or do none of those comments mean anything? Marketdiamond (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Well, as you might notice, all the other volunteers vanished from this discussion, so this dispute may either be closed or addressed another way. I preferred the second. As I said above, I don't see connection between "whitetrash" and "hillbilly" words and WP:GFFENSE (Racist terms? Why?). Regarding consensus: here on Wikipedia consensus is judged on arguments, not on head count. To date arguments-wise the position against this source is too weak to stand any critics – you failed to advance it significantly beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Can you quote "head count" anywhere on this discussion page or the talk page of the article? You can't. Can you quote anything that states that IRWolfie- "vanished"? You can't. What you can quote (besides you stepping down then coming up with a Day 1 question after another volunteer opened it is the arguments you are so thirsty for were: "Here is the seeming Q.E.D. Appalachia=h.b.=w.t.=Steeler fans source material and the authors (I contend false as he says "anecdotal evidence") justification: [12] Thou a fallacy to have to prove a negative (that Pitt. is not the only team with or even the "team" for h.b and w.t.) Here is arguably anecdotal evidence of 11 other League defined team territories (fanbases) also existing in Appalachia: under "secondary markets" and [13] and [14], and radio [15], and book explanation of the concept [16] and the base maps explaining the "market" regions [17] and Appalachia [18][19]. Another article [20] where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here. Excerpts of h.b. and w.t. wiki articles on article talk as a "slur"/ "derogatory" both exposing the citation as being not reliable (so short of real factual conclusions that it resorts to racial slurs to make a point) and the absurdity of injecting racial identity/ethic slurs into sports fans article. Aside from the repeated "southern" and "slavery" origins/definitions of the terms." Marketdiamond (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)" all left 4 days ago Its troubling that there seems to be vast knowledge all about this request by volunteers elsewhere but not on here after evidence and facts and sources and links and opinions were delivered to you all days ago yet those posts are somehow not being read? It seems not even a reading of Whitetrash was conducted by at least you.Marketdiamond (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC) So there is no further confusion which seems the only thing that has been fostered by volunteers thus far (I say that regretfully and after days and days of patiently answering requests and waiting and advising other editors the same). Just please mark what I deferred at the time out of respect for volunteers and the quest not to have things confused: the moment where incivility wasn't only felt "cope" but prompted all kinds of chaos and misunderstandings (and even apologies from non-deleting parties), all from a party that self-admittedly was not involved, the potential spiraling from that moment is what I have attempted to redirect into a resolution. Clarity and empathy is the least one can demand on this NB from neutral parties.Marketdiamond (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC) For the record, this is the kind of jeremiad I've been contending with from the beginning. Maybe I'm just frustrated, but I don't know what I'm expected to do to move this toward consensus. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Bdb484, I empathize with your frustration but using jeremiad to describe my AGF contributions takes us further from consensus. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Draft by Bdb484 As there have been no developments since consensus was reached three years ago, I would recommend restoring the version that editors agreed to then. This would require including unflattering depictions of Steelers fans, but that's how reliable sources have depicted them. Leaving this out seems like an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. Like other large and vocal fan bases, Steeler Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams. They have occasionally been described in unflattering terms by sports journalists in other cities.For example, prior to Super Bowl XLIII, the Phoenix New Times warned readers that Steelers fans were the "grubbiest, loudest, and nastiest fan base in all of sports – as well as one of the largest" and that as the only NFL fanbase in Appalachia, they were "white trash" and "hillbillies." Steelers fans have also been singled out by newspapers in rival cities for inappropriate behavior during games – a common problem in the NFL. Anti–Steeler Nation sentiment has grown strong enough that in some cases, front offices for other teams have taken steps to keep Pittsburgh fans out of games in their cities. Instead of being permitted to buy tickets to a Chargers-Steelers game in San Diego, for instance, they were required to pay for tickets to two other games, as well. In other cases, teams refused to sell tickets to fans calling from Pittsburgh's 412 area code, and they encouraged fans who were selling their own tickets to do the same. Steelers President Art Rooney II complained to the NFL about the situation, but his grievance was not well received. Draft by blackngold29 Draft by GrapedApe Draft by Marketdiamond 7th time (on the 13th day) I have repeatedly mentioned only the (all for consensus but these positions should be clear by now): "Cizmar, Martin (2009-07-27). "Arizona Cardinals Fans, You'd Better Get Ferocious or Steeler Nation Will Eat You Alive". Phoenix New Times (Phoenix, Arizona). Retrieved 2009-02-04." aka "w.t. and h.b." for complete deletion. Please see another view HERE on author and publication WP:COMMONSENSE time after 13 days of providing several facts against 1 persons (Cizmar) RACISTWP:GFFENSE. --Marketdiamond (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Draft by 76.189.108.102 What is with all these Draft sections you posted, Marketdiamond that someone posted??? We were right on the verge of ending this whole matter. All we needed was one question answered and we would've been done. Why did you someone clutter up the whole discussion by doing this? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Not I, best I can figure out Dmitrij D. Czarkoff did, but he stepped down or didn't or . . . Marketdiamond (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Completely agree. Sorry, you're right. It was Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Two weeks of mostly irrelevant discussion. And now this, which will of course only perpetuate all the chaos. And Dmitrij removed himself five days ago: "Now, as I contributed to this discussion as much as my awareness of US matters allows, I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)" It's a huge disruption to a 13-day discussion, so I removed it. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) You don't get to do that. And edit-warring on a noticeboard? Are you… touched? —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC) If someone is disruptively editing they most certainly can be reverted. Kerfuffler, are you a sockpuppet? Your account was started just days ago and yet you seem to know an awful lot about editing. And per your talk page, I'm apparently not the only editor wondering about this; there are at least three others who are very suspicious of you. The third one said, "Came to this user talk page from an ANI discussion that he took part in - reviewing his earliest edits, I am also deeply suspicious and feel this one should be thoroughly investigated". Are you using mulitiple accounts to edit? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC) The only evidence of disruptive editing on this noticeboard is from you. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Interestingly, you didn't answer the question. And you just showed up in this discussion without any prior participation. Are you a sockpuppet? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) To be fair, we are patiently waiting for volunteer(s?) to assess some of these points after one stated our comments are going "stale", and all about slurs in a "source". Perhaps your expertise Kerfuffler can be used to further the resolution. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Market, I don't want his involvement because he won't even answer if he's using mulitiple accounts at the same time to edit. He just showed up here after two weeks, minutes after I removed the disruptive content. As several other editors have clearly told him, it's very suspicious. See his talk page --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not plugged into NFL stuff enough to really make sense of what's going on here, but it smells like the main players here all have a vested personal interest in this. Also, it's particularly hard to sort out with all the yelling. The only thing I can say is that the quote does seem a bit over the top—I don't think WP should be harboring extremist tripe. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC) This is now the second time that Kerfuffler has refused to answer if he/she is using multiple accounts to edit. He/she also refused to answer all the other editors who stated their strong suspicions. Therefore, his/her participation here would have no credibility at this point. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC) @76.189.97.59, already did but its moot [21] I agree that after 14 days we deserve tons more clarity and mature discussion (1 dedicated volunteer). @Kerfuffler, appreciate your thoughts. I don't feel the problem with this topic is editors not trying to do whats right after having to suffer through 14 days of repeat requests all while living with slurs on a Wiki article, after awhile of chaos WP:COMMONSENSE is sorely needed by those we brought this issue to. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC) "Already did" what?? Kerfuffler has yet to answer a simple question: Are you using multiple accounts to edit? He/she may very well be another editor in this discussion, using a different account. If he's a new editor, as the Kerfuffler account indicates, then he clearly does not have the experience to moderate this discussion. And if he's a sockpuppet, then the account should be permanently blocked from editing. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC) You requested: See his talk page --76.189.97.59 (talk), just letting you know already did but since it is just more of this sentiment [22] its moot. If this can co-exist I do appreciate Kerfuffler's statement on the merits (interruption is more chaos thou) and seeing that apparently the volunteers are letting this be a talk page again I agree with your actions 76.189.97.59 all things considered. Does it really take 14 days to resolve "cited" racial slurs on a Wikipedia "fanbase" article . . . seriously. 12 days to ask for the citation again?? Really?Marketdiamond (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're looking for. This board is not for making decisions; it's for getting more input from uninvolved people in order to improve consensus. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  00:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't have an issue with slurs per se, if they're properly sourced and relevant. But in this case, the original article is clearly polemic, and the way it's quoted makes it even more polemic. It seems inappropriate. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Market, of course you appreciate his comments; because they agree with ours. Haha. And who cares if the source is polemic (as if most editors will even know what that means without looking it up)? It's completely irrelevant. All that matters is if the content is worthy of inclusion. Here we go again... back in senseless circles. And from someone who won't even answer all the editors who have asked him if he's a sockpuppet. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 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.

Talk:Crimean Karaites

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kaz on 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Crimean Karaites (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kaz (talk · contribs) Toddy1 (talk · contribs) Nozdref (talk · contribs) Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I myself have tried to re-factor talk pages to improve flow. Perhaps my own re-factoring was naive, but at least I never deleted another person's comments. I would like to let those involved in and approving the re-factoring of the Talk Crimean Karaims talk page to understand that it is subjugative to delete or move my comments without my approval, and that it is deceptive to refactor my comments as Toddy1 did [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=512077557&oldid=512076891] then [23] tries to make it look like I am the one who is moving other peoples comments without approval when I undo such edits. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I was concerned that this was vandalism so I asked for help here, but it seems Toddy1 has the support to do whatever he likes to my comments and I have no way to complain about it. I took this to the Wiki Admin Noticeboard [24] but was told that it is not vandalism but simply re-factoring and basically it seems I was told to stop complaining. It does not seem right that I have no recourse to stop this. How do you think we can help? If really Toddy1 is entitled to do what he is doing to my comments while I have obeyed instruction not to do it again I want to know why. I also think a policy needs to be written concerning not letting someone accuse a user like me of doing something which in fact has been fabricated by the other users. It stacks the deck and makes Wikipedia look like a place where if you are not in a guild you are on your own and will be bullied out of it. Policy needs to be written to stop this. Opening comments by Toddy1 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Nozdref Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Beeblebrox Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Dennis Brown Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I've only been involved in this article in an administrative capacity, not as an editor. I'm not sure there is much I can offer to assist as I am ignorant of the subject matter and my actions have thus far been restricted to assisting others discuss the issues in a constructive manner, dealing with some incivility and a technical move per request of an editor, with no endorsement of content or views. As to the content itself, I would defer to the mediator(s) here to determine the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I think it would be best for the filing editor to remove mention of the administrator from this filing and "involved parties" at the risk of having the DR closed as malformed. We cannot begin this case while the filing includes uninvolved administrators as this is innappropriate and sets a very bad precedence. Since Dennis has commented the filing editor can simply strike out the name above where listed with parties involved with the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Now that I have actually read the complaint, I would suggest closing as improper venue, as this isn't about a content dispute at all, but about behavior. Since this has already been to ANI, this amounts to forum shopping, and likely a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Of course, that is only my opinion and I trust the judgement of those who regularly work this venue, as I assume they trust the previous outcome at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC) While Amadscientist's response to the first comment by Dennis is appropriate, and the first comment by Dennis made it look like he was stepping away from involvement in the dispute, the next comment by Dennis (comparing me with the Boy who cried wolf) shows that he is indeed interested in simply shutting me up or removing my voice. While there is an 8 year long dispute on Talk Crimean Karaites, that alone is not what brought me here. It was the fact that voices like mine are continually subjugated. I do feel that I am failing to communicate my concerns correctly which is why I have brought it here to find someone who will help me understand the hostility from others and help them understand why this hostility is unjust. Dennis for example wrote to me that he thinks I am just a troll, which is really not fair at all. Kaz 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Talk:Crimean Karaites discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. I say this will all respect to all the editors involved in the page, but stop refactoring each other's talk page statements. The recent history of the page is a disaster. I'd like to see the page's sections (From the "Ad-Hominem Talk" onward) fixed so the Table of Contents jumps to the right section. I'm going to recomend that the talk page be restored to some sort of working order before we move forward with this. Also, has there been consideration of starting Archiving on the page? Do we really need threads from 2004? HasteurMobile (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Dear HasteurMobile, If I am not mistaken, the unilateral re-factoring issue began with this edit [25]. I myself have not re-factored any other user's talk comments without seeking permission since [26] which in fact is a move Toddy1 himself has also requested [27] but since the initial move of these comments upset User:Nozdref, I am waiting for the permission of User:Imeriki al-Shimoni to mine and Toddy1's request before we move the "Dispute history" section to just before the "Redirect page" section. If User:Imeriki al-Shimoni accepts the request, then the entire 8 year long dispute on the correct topic of the article will be more or less in one place without interruption. Then an appropriately skilled Admin can to look into the very complex move request, which Dennis Brown says is too complicated for him to perform. After that, it seems to me that archiving is the natural step forward. Kaz 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. I think the reason the links at the bottom of the talk page does not work has something to do with the "collapse" function inserted by User:Toddy1 with whose permission it can be reverted. for the time being, I myself have been scarred out of making WP:BOLD edits without first seeking permission, so Toddy1, can we remove your collapse function please?Kaz 09:16, 14 September 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.

Yitzhak Kaduri

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Zad68 on 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Yitzhak Kaduri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zad68 (talk · contribs) Cpsoper (talk · contribs) Botsystem (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A rabbi wrote a note to be opened after his death. The note suggested, by acronym, the name "Yehoshua", and there are acceptable WP:RSs for this. One editor Botsystem (talk · contribs) has been adding a sentence like "This is also the Hebrew name of Jesus whom followers of Christianity and Messianic Judaism believe to be the Jewish Messiah." without a source. Myself and one other editor Cpsoper (talk · contribs) agree this edit fails WP:V (unsourced) and, even if it were well-sourced, WP:SYNTH. We have tried to engage Botsystem in discussion on this but so far he has not engaged at all. Discussion open here, invitations to discuss at User_talk:Botsystem, but no engagement as of yet. I am concerned because Botsystem has not yet edited the Talk page of this article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? open discussion on article talk page, invitations to talk in edit summaries and at User Talk:Botsystem (please see edit history, he has removed the invitations) How do you think we can help? Get Botsystem to address the Wikipedia policy-based concerns regarding the edit. Opening comments by Cpsoper Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Botsystem Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Yitzhak Kaduri discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello, I am Amadscientist. I am a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before we begin we await the opening statements of all parties involved. Before that happens I am requesting the filing editor, go over their opening remarks and remove all mention of outside parties not associated with the DR/N or add them to the "Users involved" section. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Done. Zad68 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Please remove all mention of the Administrator and their advice to come to DR/N. This information is irrelevent to the discussion and is not appropriate as it gives the impression of involvement with the case that does not appear to be accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC) OK, think I got it now. Zad68 19:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. We can begin once all parties have made opening statements.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Actually a question about that... the issue we've been having is that Botsystem doesn't engage in discussion. What happens if he simply ignores this DRN case? Zad68 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC) All parties must be involved in order to begin. If one editor refuses to join, then another route will need to be used, such as Request for Comment or just continue to discuss on talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Just a quick note to add to my last reply. In this particular case I would be inclined to suggest AN/I as the next logical course of action. Having the entire article locked down over edit warring is not a good sign that this will be resolved through DR as it does appear one user is refusing to collaborate in the spirit of Wikipedia. (Normally I would suggest a third opinion as the dispute is between only two editors however, it does not appear that would be a succesful route)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks, with the way things have been going, ANI does seem to be in the near future. I did narrow my eyes a bit at the suggestion of "just continue to discuss on talk page". Zad68 20:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I should be clear about one thing, the talkpage IS ALWAYS a good place to attempt to reach out to editors but one cannot force cooperation. When faced with an editor who refuses to engage in a civil discussion it sometimes becomes clear that disruption may be the main goal and the main outcome. There can be only so many attempts to assume good faith before we seek administrative action, but from all I am reading, this may indeed be the only route to take in order to keep information flowing freely. A locked page on Wikipedia is not a good thing to have.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Nobody came here to comment, and the editors are not very active on Wikipedia currently anyway. As soon as this dispute has a pretty straightforward policy based solution – remove the statement and re-introduce it once it can be reliably verified without improper synthesis – I close this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:15, 15 September 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.

Oren Wilkes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Robert Josepha on 20:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Oren Wilkes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Robert Josepha (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, I have been trying to resolve the issues with the article for the past few months. I've provided more than enough credible sources. The last vote about the article had more keeps then delete. Need help getting the issue fixed and have not been able to do so. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried editing the article but have not gotten any feedback, put together list of over 9 credible sources How do you think we can help? Remove the issue tags on the page. There are more than enough credible sources. Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Oren Wilkes discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Christian right

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Psalm84 on 21:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Christian right (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Psalm84 (talk · contribs) StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) Collect (talk · contribs) Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) Naapple (talk · contribs) Later added: ViriiK (talk · contribs) Little green rosetta (talk · contribs) Moxy (talk · contribs) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) Arzel (talk · contribs) Lionelt (talk · contribs) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The content dispute is happening on the Christian right talk page. The issue is that plainly stating a strong association between the Christian right and the Republican Party, which is well-known and accepted by scholars and the media (and shown in the article), is opposed by some editors. The connection is so established that it can actually be difficult to find sources that plainly say there's a link, although there are a great many that study it. For example, a book called " God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right." Two proposed changes on this ran into opposition because other editors dispute the CR link to the GOP. The first proposal, to add it to the lead, has been done on the basis of the article, which talks a lot about the CR and GOP. The second proposal has been undone, though. That was to change a list called "Parties of the CR" to "Parties associated with the CR" (since there are some Christian parties outside the U.S.) and then add the Republican Party. I did that and added some poll results on white evangelicals Protestants and the GOP. The poll itself links these religious voters to the GOP. I also added elsewhere in the article numbers from the poll on WEP who are Democrats, black Protestants who are mostly Democrats, and others. When adding the Republican Party to the list, however, a description actually isn't needed. It could be added to list alone, but the idea of adding it at all is opposed. User Collect wrote: "absurd silly season POV. The GOP also has atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, and so on. Your proposal is violative of every precept of the Five Pillars. Cheers." And while I understand that the Tea Party isn't a party, I also added it to the list under "Tea Party movement" because of a poll showing that much of its backing comes from conservative Christians. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posted extensively on the talk page, answering all arguments and adding several proposals. How do you think we can help? To focus on the content issues and how other WP guidelines apply here. Opening comments by StillStanding-247 I would also point out that I've dug up a bunch of potential sources for us to cite, in addition to the ones we cite now, so it's not as if we've run out of options. The only problem is that there seems to be strong opposition to listing the Republican party regardless of these sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Collect Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The issue is simple -- should the Republican Party be specifically categorised as a "Christian Right" organization. The secondary issue is whether the "Tea Party movement" should be specifically categorised as a "Christian Right" organisation. Alas for those who seek to so categorise the groups, the evidence is not there, although they keep adding irrrelevant cites for the claim they implicitly seek to make. In the past, it was decided by overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party movement was not "radical right wing" and that it is substantially libertarian in emphasis - which means ab initio that categorising it as "Christian Right" is unlikely to succeed. The Republican Party is described by those seeking to categorise it as "Christian Right" as consisting, according to the poll cited, of possibly 34% evangelical Christians, which is also insufficient to categorise the part as "Christian Right." That is the actual sum of the dispute, and until 34% is defined as the controlling group in a party, I doubt that those pushing this categorisation will be satisfied. Collect (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC) [28] is the latest version of the SYNTH claim being promoted - (white) evangelical Protestants ... "comprise about a third (34%) of all Republican or Republican-leaning voters. Which is insufficient to assert 1. That all of the 34% are "right wing" or should be categorised as "right wing" , or consider themselves as "Christian right" in the first place, and 2. that it is clear OR to then assert that this 34% (including "leaning" voters) runs the party. As this is the crux of the discussion and it is so clearly OR, SYNTH etc. this "dispute" clearly would require violating the Five Pillars to meet with what the "The Republican Party is a Christian Right party" as is being sought. Or even within a mile thereof. Collect (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC) And it is clear that if 1/3 are evangelical Christians (not necessarily even "right wing" then 2/3 is not in that category. I rather think 2/3 >> 1/3. Collect (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Toa Nidhiki05 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opinion sources are insufficient for statements of fact, and adding 'multiple polls' (none of which label the party as 'Christian right') does noting but add synthesis of sources to reach a conclusion none of them give. Further, the Republican Party is a big tent party which allows almost anyone from any religion or political ideology to join and run for a party nomination, so the label is inaccurate on the face of it. Toa Nidhiki05 22:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by The Four Deuces First, Still wanted to add the Republican Party to the list of Christian right (CR) parties in the article. When it was pointed out that all the other parties, all of which are minor parties, have clear Christian Right agendas, he suggested renaming the list to parties associated with the CR. While it is true that the CR is a major element within the Republican Party, the term "associated with" is vague and grouping the Republican Party with CR parties is misleading. I would point out that Still says he believes CR controls the Republican Party. But the sources he presents do not say that. The argument that the relationship is so obvious no one mentions it is disingenuous. There is certainly a lot of literature about the CR's political influence and if they had captured a major political party, someone would have mentioned it. I do not know why Collect has chosen to bring up an unrelated discussion. That discussion was not about whether or not the article on the radical right should call the Tea Party "radical right", but about whether or not we could mention scholarly opinion on whether it was in that tradition, based on a summary of the research in a scholarly paper.[29] Radical right is a term developed by Seymour Martin Lipset and adopted by scholars including Daniel Bell and others to refer to right-wing movements in the US, that typically combined libertarianism, anti-communism and conservatism, that operated outside the main two parties or challenged the party elites, and sometimes organized into third parties. So I see two sides - one trying to make the Republican Party and the Christian Right look bad and the other trying to make it look good, rather than just trying to make the article reflect what sources say. TFD (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Naapple The whole thing stinks of OR. Just because evangelicals are more likely to be in the Republican party doesn't mean the Republican Party is all evangelical. The Republican party doesn't discriminate against other members joining. No source provided by the opposition states otherwise. IMO this discussion need not even warrant an intervention by the DRN. It was discussed in the talk page, most persons are against it, and it was brought to this board way too quickly. Naapple (Talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening Comments by Arzel While it can probably be clearly stated that most that would consider themselves to be Christian Right would support the Republican party in national elections versus Democrats, the converse cannot be stated. Simply stated, All Sailboats have sails, but not all boats have sails and not all things with sails are boats. In general this appears to be an attempt to define the Republican party as a Christian Right party, which is clearly an attempt at Original Research within WP. Arzel (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Sphilbrick This dispute is timely, as it relates to something on my to-do list, which is not exactly this issue, but is on-point. Humans have a penchant for categorizing. This is a valuable and necessary function (these types of plants are edible, these types are not), but can be, like many things, over-done. Making a binary pronouncement (you are either on the list or not), of a fundamentally analog concept can be useful, but can lead to problems. As encyclopedists, we must be especially careful of doing it ourselves. (and by careful, I mean we generally should not). This is the fodder of opinion creators and even of respected academics, but while they can do it, we must absolutely avoid OR| compartmentalization, and even as summarizers of reliable sources, we must take care not to over-summarize. The relationship of the Republican party to religion in general and to the Christian Right specifically, is a subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. But it is a nuanced relationship—one that take paragraphs, maybe even pages to articulate accurately, and cannot be summarized as an entry on a list. The original title of the list "Political parties of the Christian Right" was problematic because it isn't that simple. The revised proposal "Political parties associated with the Christian Right" solves one problem while creating a bigger one—it is a mealy-mouthed, monstrosity. Would we countenance "Politicians associated with terrorist organizations" and include anyone with any involvement? I certainly hope we would bury that quickly. My To-Do item relates to the use of entries in infoboxes, but it is the same problem—many things cannot be summarized in a single word, or even a short phrase. We are good at summarizing complicated issues into a few, neutral paragraphs, but that doesn't make us able to summarize a complicated relationship down to a single word or phrase. By all means, it is appropriate to discuss the relationship between political parties and religion movements, over time, and across the globe, but let's not jump to the conclusion that we can summarize that nuanced treatment into membership on a list.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ViriiK Collect has already summed up everything when I was involved before. Another issue was why this was obviously brought up was the investment of a specific editor in order to attack one organization by being associated with the article in question. The basis for this was supposedly the source that he was promoting was based on a book which costs $75 and I asked for page numbers for his citation claims which was never given so I has to logically assume that he was basing his entire argument on a book's description rather than something within the book. Especially I don't appreciate the fact that he uses "we" trying to represent ALL editors while intentionally excluding editors who do not support his worldview. Now unfortunately due to real life commitment, I don't have the time nor the patience to play Wikipedia. ViriiK (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Little green rosetta I'm perhaps the least involved editor at this article with respect to this DRN, so I expect my role here minimal. My initial foray into this article (and subsequent watching) was due to a completely unsourced edit attempting to link the Christian Right to the GOP being added to the article. After this the TP degenerated into finding sources that backed one's position. Now that ISS247 has formally declined DRN, I suspect the majority of the disruption on the TP that lead to this DRN being filed in the first place will subside here. I wish everyone the best of luck.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  22:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Talk:Christian right discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. We will wait for the other parties before opening for discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Hello, I am Amadscientist, another volunteer here at DR/N. Before we begin this filing I have a question. Why is the list of involved editors so different from those participating at the discussion on the talk page?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC) There are three discussions that relate to this, 27 "Removal of the Republican Party," 28 "and you forget Jimmy Carter," and 29 "Proposed article changes (from the previous two discussions)." The first has been going on for awhile and it seems many of the editors who commented in that thread are no longer participating in it. And the question now mostly comes down to a dispute over adding the Republican Party to the "Parties associated with the Christian right" list and that involves the editors listed. Psalm84 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I see. The only problem with that explanation is that the actual dispute is covered over three discussions beginning with "Removal of the Republican Party," , dated 26 August 2012 which is only three weeks old. This is a very long and contentious discussion of a controverisal nature and many of the more active participants have not been included. Clearly there is sufficient discussion to bring this here, but I am concerned that by not including the major particpants, no firm resolution will be reached. What is to stop this from being brought up immediatly after a compromise or conclusion is made from those not included?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I joined the discussion on the 11th and many of the earlier participants were no longer involved by then. There was one editor that I exchanged some comments with at first but they haven't participated in days so I wasn't sure about including them. I wouldn't mind going back and either putting the tags for this on the pages of everyone who has posted in these threads or else putting a notice on the talk page about this discussion so anyone interested could comment here. I did think about mentioning this on the talk page but got sidetracked by the dispute itself. Psalm84 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I am going to suggest that you include ALL major participants regardless of whether or not you, yourself have interacted with them or this may be little more than an exercise in futility. Some of these editors have invested more time and effort in the discussion. I tell you what... I don't want to give the impression that DR/N is not going to accept this filing so perhaps it is best to just ask the "major participants" if they are inclined to participate as I would hate to set this up to fail for lack of all parties listed, participating...which is a bigger and bigger possiblity with a larger list.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Okay, I'll try to figure out everyone who's been a major participant and include that editor I mentioned. If you think I've left anyone out maybe you could let me know when I'm done with the notifications? I also put a link to this on the Talk page, which I'll leave. Other people might have opinions on this that they want to share. Psalm84 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I believe that's everyone now. I'll add all the names to the list. I also included one editor that just contributed a list of possible sources after someone asked them for one, but has also been having a dispute since then over including other information in the article. They may have an interest in this. Psalm84 (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Should I also create the sections for the other users to add their opening comments? Psalm84 (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Comment I was notified on my talk page by Psalm84 about this issue. Collect's opening statement accurately describes the dispute, and why the current consensus is against making a Christain Right/GOP connection. I won't speculate on Psalm84's rationale for wanting to establish this link, but in my view he is editing and discussing in good faith. Unfortuantely I cannot say the same about another editor in this discussion who IMO has been enganged in deliberate and sometimes tendentious POV editing across articles involving politics and social policy. Because of such, I fear this DRN is DOA.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Psalm84's good faith is not in question. He has worked very hard to get this right and include parties that have a vested interest. I understand what you are saying, but that is what we are here for at DR/N. Please consider taking part.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Psalm84's good faith is not in question; however, the good faith of another contributor is in question. I also don't yet have anything to add to Collect's opening statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Arthur beat me to it. I think you misunderstood LGR. No one is questioning Psalm, it's someone else... Naapple (Talk) 08:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Hello, another volunteer here. Will try to help out when I can.--SGCM (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks SGCM. We're gonna need a bigger boat. LOL! To Little green rosetta, Arthur Rubin and Naapple....I did not misunderstand...at all. Trust me. That is why I am here, because I am familiar with your concerns. I am not an administrator. I am just a volunteer, but I encourage...no, I IMPLORE all of you to participate. This is not a Board where your concerns are going to be blown off, ignored or tossed aside for an easier way of dealing with things. But, if you don't add all of your voices then someone else may well just get whatever it is they are after without any resolution at all. I am going to make a request of all volunteers here. I think this filing should go forward regardless of whether every single editor in the original filing joins. I wish to make a human exception and not automaticly close this dispute from a lack of all participants. I believe this is that moment when we must "ignore" one of the rules to improve the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC) My thoughts so far as someone who's only vaguely familiar with American politics: The Christian Right are one of the main constituencies of the Republican Party, but so are the neoconservatives, Republican libertarians, and Rockefeller Republicans, who do not affiliate with, and are often opposed to, the Christian Right. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are big tent parties, that appeal to a variety of constituencies, without focusing on a single one. The Democratic Party is equally as diverse, appealing to progressives, social democrats, Southern Democrats, the Christian left, etc. It seems to me that that the claim that the Christian Right is one of the main constituencies, among many, of the Republican party, is less controversial and a more prominent viewpoint in the reliable sources than the claim that the Republican Party is itself part of the Christian Right. The article should state just that.--SGCM (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I would say that there is some good wisdom in that. I believe the fact is that there is a consensus being ignored regardless of our own beliefs. As a Liberal myself and registered Democrat, I do know there are Christians that identify with the party. I myself am pagan, but my spouse is Christin as is most of my family and all conservative Republicans (Yes, my spouse is Republican. Election time can be very interesting in this household). I am familiar with American politics, but the issue here appears to be less about our own personal perceptions and almost entirely about collaborative editing on an article that many feel is an attempt to lable, pigeon hole or be force into a descriptor against both sources and consensus. This will most likely be determined by both sources and the willingness of editors to loosen the grip and accept what others feel is best for this article. We are not going to be changing the definition of the Republican party or the Christian right. Is it possible that some may not share this thought?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Hi, all. I'm another of the volunteers here, like Amadscientist above, but I am also someone whose objectivity might be questioned, so I'm just weighing in as myself here. The problem, so far as I can see, seems to at least in part be about whether the Christian right is Republican (which it, basically, seemingly is said to be according to Reliable sources), is more or less sufficient cause to say that the Republican Party is strongly Christsian right. That second statement does not, so far as I can see, necessarily have sufficient reliable sources to be made. While I agree that the Christian right does get a somewhat disproportionate amount of news attention in American politics relative to other groups within the Republican party, and that perhaps the Christian right may have been a bit more actively involved in Republican issues than others, the same could be said for African-American involvement in the Democratic Party, but I don't think many of us would think it would make sense to call the Democratic Party an African-American group. Hopefully getting my old math characters right here, although the Christian right<Republican party, that doesn't mean that Christian right=Republican party or Christian right>Republican party, any more than the equivalent statements about African Americans and the Democratic Party would be accurate. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Sphilbreak's comment is informative, and could lead to a solution. Would the parties object to abandoning the list and substituting it entirely with prose? Text will better convey the nuances of the subject.--SGCM (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I think that would be acceptable. The CR is supposed to be a US-only term, and yet the list is full of political parties from other countries. Once removed there would be little left to list, making prose the only alternative. However, I object to any language that states the Republican party associates with the CR, and instead that it is in fact the CR that may associate itself with the Republican party. The CR isn't a single, unified body. It is simply a term used to broadly describe individuals who identify as Christian conservatives. As individuals, they may or may not vote GOP or engage in other political activities or form political and private groups. The term describes individuals and thus making comparisons to groups like the Tea Party, which is an actual organization, is incorrect. I think this distinction is important to note, as the article looks to paint them as a unified political group. To extend the analogy above, it is as if we would paint all African Americans as members of the NAACP. Naapple (Talk) 18:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC) May I suggest we work on baby steps? If we can reach a consensus that a prose-approach is preferable to a list approach, we can then move on to debate the nature of the words in the prose. Naapple supports a prose approach. I trust it is obvious that I support a prose approach. What do others think?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I would agree using a prose approach, as opposed to a simple list approach, would be preferable as well. One of the major concerns we will have with any political group is that, unfortunately, the groups which associate with them can and do change over time, given the changes in the political situation in general, in some cases certain very prominent individual politicians of the party itself and other parties, and other issues. Basically, adding descriptive text would to my eyes be a way to both indicate the changes in issues of important in American and partisan politics over time, which is relevant to this article, as well as make it easier to indicate exactly when and how a given group was most closely associated with a given party, and, possibly, the major issues of the time which prompted that affiliation. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I think it is commendable that a compromise has been offered off the top, but...is it needed? I see only one actual editor involved in this DR/N who wants these claims even made at all. Only a couple of editors have shown interest in the compromise. It is a good compromise.....if it was actually needed. Is it? I don't think that I am overstaing when I say that all but one editor is arguing against inclusion of this interpretation and I am not at all sure they are able to demonstrate their position as being accurate. I am not rushing, but at the smae time I am reluctant to call for something like 8 seperate editors to forced into a compromise due to one editor not wanting to accept consensus as something they can live with or offer anything themselves that they would be happy with short of the full list and interpretation. Dispute Resolution is not a forum to force ones hand on others. I am sorry, I know that sounds harsh but right now I only see the original filing editor as being for this inclusion at all. We'll give it some more time and see where this goes.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Hiding off-subject comments by an editor who has decided not to participate; let's get back to the discussion padding I find it interesting that there are coded references to me in the comments above -- people stopping just short of mentioning me by name while agreeing to gang up on me. Unless one of the volunteers restores good faith, I'm going to refuse to participate further. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Do you think a well-written discussion of the interactions and connections between the Republican party and the Christian Right is inferior to an entry in a list claiming an association between the two? A list which doesn't define what "association" means, nor how much "association" is needed to make the list? How does that inform readers? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Just to be clear: "in my view he is editing and discussing in good faith. Unfortuantely I cannot say the same about another editor in this discussion who IMO has been enganged in deliberate and sometimes tendentious POV editing across articles involving politics and social policy. Because of such, I fear this DRN is DOA." "Psalm84's good faith is not in question; however, the good faith of another contributor is in question." "No one is questioning Psalm, it's someone else..." "I did not misunderstand...at all. Trust me. That is why I am here, because I am familiar with your concerns." "We are not going to be changing the definition of the Republican party or the Christian right. Is it possible that some may not share this thought?" And, with that, I'm done here. This is a cesspool, not a dispute resolution. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC) It is interesting you think those references were directed at you. Why do you think that is? I do not see any good reasons for failing to engage in dispute resolution. If you choose not to engage in a good faith effort to resolve a controversy, will you agree that you should not be editing the page in the future?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC) In all honesty I think the the first 3 (and mine being the 3rd) were directed at Still. The last 2 I don't think so at all. I don't get how that connection was made. Those first 3 are from people involved in the discussion, not the DRN volunteers. Naapple (Talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) FYI: Talk:Christian_right#Dispute_over_Christian_right_and_the_Republican_Party_.28threads_27.2C_28_and_29.29_at_Dispute_Resolution_Noticeboard--Naapple (Talk) 19:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I didn't think the last two were either. The first three, perhaps, but those mild comments hardly justify refusal to engage.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Prior cases where that "one editor" has "participated" at DRN in the manner noted at [30] and the closing comment from Ebe of Also, the filing party has been blocked for edit warring on the page and so it's clear we have not done anything to settle him down and he was just making it worse. We had (and still has) a consensus against him. I, as a DRN volunteer has suggested for him to get mentored, although that will not happen I think. and such comments at user talk pages as Unfortunately, when I edit the articles, I have to deal with edit-warring by the WikiProject Conservatism posse, which forces me to have lengthy, semi-productive policy debates on talk pages, which leads to dirty tricks to get me blocked [31] indicating a rather less than collegial attitude entirely. Interesting noticeboard attitude per [32] and quite to the point his taking a DRN volunteer to AN/I at [33] where he accused a DRN volunteer (Guy Macon) here of: he took it very, very personally and started what I can only describe as a silly vendetta against me In short if DRN is a cesspool, I can show everyone precisely why. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Note [34] StillStanding-247 has summarily decided that Dispute Resolution has failed. . I cease to have any good faith about his edits on any dispute resolution board or noticeboard at this point, and suggest the volunteers here seek appropriate action for a person sho essentially thumbs his nose at their efforts, as he did at the efforts of prior volunteers (whom he even brought to AN/I). . Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I've read over the comments made so far and I don't agree that prose should take the place of a list, or lists. An important part of this issue is that the Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point. Anyone familiar with American politics knows that it is an unquestioned basic fact. It is simply taken for granted where politics is concerned and it's not fair to people seeking information here to not reflect that. Here's an example from a source listed by Still of how the link is treated in the media, which constantly mentions it: "Republican Party and Religious Right Heading for a Split?" US News The article just assumes that most readers are already aware of the strong GOP and Christian right connection. And here is also one quote from one book which could also be added to the article: "One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition." (The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics) When you are talking about the goals of an encyclopedia, it's being informative and accurate in a clear way. If something is a plain fact it should be just as plain in the article too. That is why the association was added to the lead. It simply summarizes what the article says. On the list, there is some description that explains the association, and it could be improved if necessary. Some of it was there already and I added to it. And the quote above could also be added. This is a complicated topic and things have to be reported with care, but still some things are plain, and should be treated that way. The readers too should be trusted to understand the explanations, including on things like polls. If you explain the universally known association between the Christian right and GOP, that should be enough. Trying to remove mention of the link or make it less plain than it is doesn't help readers who come here for accurate information. And for the record, too, the Republican Party is already listed in a hidden box of wikilinks at the bottom of the page under "Political Parties." This page also has a lot of questionable material in it if you look at it closely that has gone unchallenged and uncorrected. One of the first things said is that the Christian right is 15% of the population and there's no reference for it. The first source several sentences later doesn't mention any statistics so it's clear that's unsourced. And there are other issues as well if you look at the article closely. So, just to point this out, the article really needs a lot of careful attention to all of it. Psalm84 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC) As a dispute resolution volunteer I am recusing myself from this dispute. I would like to say that the other dispute resolution volunteers here have my complete support and that they, as usual, are doing a great job. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Hiding off-subject comments. Blocking is not an option for DR/N “So I see two sides - one trying to make the Republican Party and the Christian Right look bad and the other trying to make it look good, rather than just trying to make the article reflect what sources say.” That is how all discussions on political articles go here. Most of the editors involved here spend the vast bulk of their time on Wikipedia engaged in these arguments. Since none of them seem capable of taking a break on their own, perhaps it should be enforced—it would prevent a substantial amount of incivility and tendentious editing. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  21:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Cher Kerfuffler -- the problem is that there are two editors on one side and eight on the other -- your "solution" goes against the principle of WP:CONSENSUS from the start. Nor does one side seek "to make the Christian Right and Republican Party look good" -- the issue is whether the Christian Right article should state that the Republican Party is "Christian Right" when only 1/3 of the party and "likely voters" falls into that category, and not whether something is "good" or "bad". My precis at the start is carefully and accurately worded. [35] moreover shows Kerfufflers "impartiality" well here: ( In case anyone wonders why those examples are all from interactions with User:StillStanding-247, it's because, as far as I can tell, User:Arthur Rubin spends the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia arguing with SS247) And his AN/I complaint against Arzel: [36], etc. In short - not an "outside voew" of the situation at all. Collect (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC) You're making no sense here. First, you quote numbers as if consensus means “vote”, when it's extremely well established that is not the case. Second, the quote you're nitpicking was me providing context, referring to someone else's comment. Third, your personal issue with me is irrelevant. The fact remains that many of these editors do almost nothing on WP other than argue over political articles. If they cannot take a break on their own, it is to the benefit of Wikipedia to force them to. That is a preventative measure. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Dear Kerfuffler - the fact is that eight experienced editors who are well-versed in Wikipedia policy are on one side on the issue - they are not simply "votes" they hold strong reasoned positions based on Wikipedia policy, and include some of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. Your position, however, is rather the reverse - thus I have the strange feeling that my count as to CONSENSUS is correct as to numbers and reasons. My watchlist is well over 2700 articles now - I assure you that political articles are a very small fraction of the total. This is also true of Arthur Rubin and some others as well. Lastly, when a clear majority using Wikipedia policies are on one side of an issue, it is usually wise to accept it - rather than say "block everyone IDONTLIKE" which really seems an eeensy bit petulant as a minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC) You raise some interesting points, many of which I agree with. This is a complicated topic Exactly ...things have to be reported with care... Exactly If you explain the universally known association between the Christian right and GOP, that should be enough. Exactly So I'm puzzled that you are opposed to explaining the complicated association with care, and instead, support a simple entry in a list. Do you understand why your position puzzles me?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC) The way you've characterized my statement is so utterly asinine, I'm appalled. The specific people I've suggested blocking in the past (Belchfire and Arzel) are ones with clear, easily verifiable, and long histories of abuse on WP. In this case, I have named nobody in particular. The evidence can speak for itself—e.g., the fact that over 90% of your recent edits are in politically sensitive articles. This has absolutely nothing to with WP:IDONTLIKE and everything to do with WP:BATTLEGROUND. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  00:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary break Psalm84, your link seems to be broken. And this brings up a point that I would like to bring up as a reminder. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or journalistic board. We actually don't "Report", we summarize secondary, reliable sources. In this situation and subject matter, relying on "News sources" can be problematic. Dead links are just one reason. The other is...America is in the middle of one of it's most contentious elections in years and news sources can and will contain a good deal of political bias. Many sources have bias of course, but using the media right now for this creates an immediate tug of war. With all political parties from the beginning of Democratic and Republican forms of government, there have been and will continue to be, seperate factions fighting for indentity. You state: "[S]ome things are plain, and should be treated that way". I would contend that, the subject matter we are discussing falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". And that WP:MNA: "Making necessary assumptions" is not a good idea here. Also (and down a bit from that) WP:RNPOV states: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., "fundamentalism" and "mythology". Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.". This is indeed a truly complicated topic. But we can get through this by using the tools we have, being patient with one another and, remebering that we should not be so set with our opinion that we can't consider an option that all can live with. Yes, this means that some or all will not get exactly what they desire for the article. But we have to work together on this and we have a really good start. So, Psalm84, I would ask if you could demonstrate with reliable secondary, mainstream sources, that (A) Show "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". These are, I believe your main points of contention. A good starting point. But I also ask that you begin thinking about what compromise you feel would be acceptable if these points cannot be demonstrated in a manner all can agree with. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I fixed the link and was going to reply then, too, but a few things came up and in between I wrote a reply and accidentally closed the window. So I'll try this again. On the link I posted, it wasn't meant to be a source for the article. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It was merely an example of the fact that in discussions of politics by the media and scholars, the association between the GOP and CR is universally acknowledged. Conservative Christians strongly back the GOP and that is a given in news coverage and discussion by pundits and scholars (like with the campaign where there have been questions about Romney's support from the base and a lot of talk about Santorum's candidacy, for just two examples). There is never any question at all in these discussions that a strong connection exists. The entire Wikipedia article also discusses and documents it using reliable sources, too. I wouldn't mind finding more sources but don't believe any more are really needed. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics is an authoritative source and it calls the Christian right "an essential component of the GOP coalition" without any hesitation. That statement is in line with conventional knowledge, the article itself, and its sources. They all completely support that this strong connection exists. On the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guideline, I don't really believe it applies here, since the GOP/CR link is a mainstream assumption. Because of all that support, too, I don't believe the WP:MNA concern, that something is being assumed that shouldn't be, applies either. But again, there are sources in support of the GOP/CR connection and many more available. The religious related concern also seems to me to do: more with articles on religious beliefs where there could be disagreements between Christian denominations, for example, on what a word means. There does need to be care here, too, but problems with terms doesn't seem to be an issue in this dispute. This is a very complicated topic in some ways, though, and the disputes here involve a lot of material from the article and from outside sources. And just to clear up something else, in the responses so far there seem to be two issues being mixed together. One is the question about the existence of the strong connection between the GOP and the CR, and the other is the question about the "Parties" list. There are a number of editors who are acknowledging the connection and a number who are not, and that should be mentioned. It's also not the case that the issue is about declaring the GOP a Christian party. This article is about the CR, not the GOP, and the GOP is closely tied to it, as all evidence shows (and there's been no evidence offered denying the link). It would be inaccurate to call the GOP a party OF the Christian right, but noting the association and briefly describing it (that the Christian right largely supports the GOP) should be acceptable. On the "Parties" list, this is what was used for description: Political parties associated with the Christian Right Though many conservative and centre-right parties have electoral support from the Christian Right, most of these parties do not explicitly define themselves as "Christian". Parties not defined as Christian but with significant Christian right backing include: The first sentence was actually already there and I added the second. And the first sentence already sounds like it is referring to the GOP. But the only parties in the section were put under this description: "Some minor political parties have formed as vehicles for Christian Right activists." Since so much of the article is about the Christian right's relationship with the GOP, it's hard to understand why the GOP appearing in a list section, even with careful explanation of the link, is opposed. One other thing too. Looking again at your comment, I will go to the article and other sources and will post more about them. Psalm84 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) No offense, but the above offered little but your opinion. At this point I would be inclined to say that the compromise suggested is not necessarily even something needed at this point. How may disagree with your interpretation? I have given you a great deal of latitude to demonstate your position. You have not even attempted to do so. If you are not going to attempt back up your opinion of (A) "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". then there seems to be almost no dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC) No offense taken. As I noted at the end of my last comment, I would take the time to find sources, and I have located some. One difficulty, as noted earlier, is that the connection between the GOP and CR is so well-established that it very very often isn't completely directly stated. For instance, the recent Values Voters summit was held, and there were many news articles (evidence that the media assumes the association) that called this the Republicans speaking to their base, and to religious and social conservatives. Most didn't even explain the connection further than that, so I left articles like that out, but had to go through many. This connection is so obvious and known that it takes a lot of leg work to pick out quotes that state the obvious because many of them don't since it's unneeded, just as the nightly news doesn't say, "Barack Obama, who's the President of the United States." I went through an entire introduction for "God Own's Party: The Making of the Christian Right" and didn't really find an explicit one even though the ENTIRE introduction (and the book too) is about the connection and describes at length things like the 1980 GOP Convention. I also want to state here, too, that numbers, as someone else brought up, too, don't represent consensus. For one thing, from working on pages with different amounts of traffic, I've noticed that many very well-trafficked and debated ones get a more well-rounded representation of editors and end up more NPOV. And the consensus page itself speaks of the importance of including all important points of view and concerns. The fact that a page which is significantly about the Christian right and GOP link (which is something I'm looking at more closely to give some idea here on how much that is) avoids stating that in some places is concerning to me. Before this dispute was brought here there was opposition just to including the GOP in the lead and that thinking has carried over here. I also believe that I didn't just provide opinions above, but arguments and specific responses about how I see these issues relating to guidelines of Wikipedia. My concern here is about the quality of the article. While this debate was going on an editor asked me if information should be included on the CR being largely rural and less educated, and said they had sources for it, and I said that it should, if it can be properly stated and sourced. That is a complicated issue and there's been debate on that. But I am for impartial, informative encyclopedia entries, and it's the same with this issue, too. So then, I'll post too some sources that I've found so far. Psalm84 (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 sources Sources (for now) to show "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". I would also ask if there are any reliable sources that deny this association, or claim it's a minor point, that they be added to this discussion too. For now, we are trying to see if the above can be demonstrated.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC) One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition. (The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics) (1) Oxford Handbook, page 218. (Bolded so you can find them easily). What changes? Is this a quote from the Oxford handbook? There is no link, no ISBN or page number. You must provide a way to verify this information or it must be dismissed. This is your opportunity, please understand if you provide no way to verify this, there is no choice but to dismiss it here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Just to be clear here in these responses, I'm going to request the assumption of good faith. There is so much research necessary here, going through dozens of pages of different books, just finding them as they're listed here, on the Talk Page, and then the coding, etc. This has taken me hours, just as it is. The books came from a list someone put on the talk page, they're at Google books. The pages I could easily find. What I'm also concentrating on too, here, is just strong statements about the connection which take reading dozens of pages just to find. And with Google books, you also must type out the quotes rather than cut and paste. This is so much work that I didn't include [s]titles[/s] authors, ISBN, etc. Psalm84 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) If you find this too dificult we need not rush this. But it is upon you to provide the information and not require others to do your research. There is no assumption of bad faith, please do not create reason to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Do you honestly have nothing better to do than argue? It took me <30 seconds to find that quote in the cited book on books.google.com. So: The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. Oxford University Press. 2009. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-19-532652-9.. Next time, try putting as much effort into your verification as into your abreaction. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  07:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The responsibility of the demonstrating verifiablity falls on the one who wants to include the information. This is Dispute resolution. If you wish to argue, you may do so on the article talk page, your own talk page or another venue. Not here. Thank you for providing the needed information.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Now, Google books does not provide the needed page to confirm this. I want to make something perfectly clear. This is not a talk page discussion. This is the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where you MUST provide ALL the information. NOT A BRICK WALL! If you CANNOT provide it, DO NOT USE IT! So, either you find the needed information or it will be dismissed as you have just admitted this isn't even your own source, just something someone gave you on your talk page. Are you serious? Is this how you intend to qualify your opinion here? I am amazed. Seriously amazed.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I was going to leave another comment, but then I saw this one. I'm not going to leave that, though, because this situation needs some cooling off, it seems to me. On this topic, Google Books does allow you access. I have no special access either. Most introductions are just available if you scroll down, but the easiest way to find some thing is to search on a word or a piece of text in quotes and it will take you there (there is usually a search box in a left frame, or under the book information). And on the part about the Talk page, this was a book I either found by myself or was posted in a list by another editor, Moxy, was asked by someone through email, Moxy said, for books on the topic. Moxy posted that list on the article talk page, and I went and looked in those books. My mention of it was just to say that one thing I'm doing is going all around to try to see where this was poll was mentioned on the talk page, and where that quote came from, and it's time consuming because there are also a number of books I found through Google myself. Psalm84 (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I have a very good understanding of Google books. Thank you. The point is...the page is NOT included in the preview. As such, if all you have is a google preview that does not include the page you are referring to, it is up to you to provide the quotes from the source. It is not up to me to find it. If you don't have have it, then you shouldn't be using it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Are you seriously arguing that everything cited needs to be available on the net for you to read for free? That is complete bollocks, and a complete failure to understand sourcing in WP. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  09:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Your failure to understand how the Dispute Resolution Noticboard works and you argumentative manner is not helping, but hurting this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The (1992) Convention illustrated the powerful role the Christian Right plays within the Republican Party and laid to rest rumors the movement was dead. (2) The Right and the Righteous page 1. Nothing provided to substantiate this claim at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC) CMT Keeping all this straight, formatting here, etc. also is time consuming too. But I apologize if it's not clear, this quote is from the book below, The Right and the Righteous. Psalm84 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC) In short, the Christian right will not go away...Neither will it leave the Republican Party. (3) The Right and the Righteous: The Christian Right Confronts the Republican Party, 1996, page 1. Thank you for the link. But you have provided no page number. Certainly you do not expect us to read this entire book to verify a single claim?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Now that the quotes have actually been typed out, I will google them all or just go back and find them. It will take a few minutes when I'm done looking through these comments. Psalm84 (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Because typing into the search bar is too much effort, apparently? —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  07:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC) "More recently, the Christian right has become politically active, successfully aiming for inclusion into the Republican Party in a now more competitive two-party system." (4) Party Movements in the United States And Canada: Strategies of Persistence, 2006, page 81. Again, no page number.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I found the first entry - and the quote is real from page 218 of the Oxford Handbooks Online. The ptroblem is that it elides the material preceding it -- which is that the Democratiic Party took polarizing positions on certain issues, aligning with "religious modernists", but does not support the claims made for it otherwise at all. Specifically it depicts the Democratic Party as essentially forcing the white evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics (who, by the way, are not evangelical Protestants) out of that party, which does not support the thesis being promoted here. Also in that introductory essay, comments about this being a "culture war" based on the increasing importance of social issues in American politics. Thus Jelen's words must be understood to say no more than the anteceding section supports. Which means it does not work in Psalm's favour here. The cecond entry is from page 81 of that source (looks like someone was Google-farming a bit), the salient elided introduction is: Evidence of takeover efforts is often complicated by the difficulty distinguishing between the intentions of the groups involved and the co-optive strategies of the parties themselves. Followed by a state-by-state listing of Larouche and the Democratic Party, etc. Ending with takeover is as much a tactic of movements on the left as on the right. Again - a source of no value to Psalm for the claims he desires to make. Collect (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Could you provide a link to that so we may all view it please? I have spent all night (I am not kidding) on this and I am going to bed now. I will return later today. If any other volunteer wishes to tag in. That would be great. If not, see you all in about 9 hours. (in case anyone is wondering, I believe this is the longest DR/N case we have had since the Occupy Wall Street cases. I could be wrong...but I doubt it. LOL! That is how I got involved here.)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I used the regular "search in book" system -- but Google seems to allow different folks different pages at times, I fear. My quotes are accurate, and show moreover that Psalm seeks to have them say what they do not, in fact, say. Ball is in his court to actually come up with real sources which support real claims at this point - which, so far, has not been done. Cheers. [37] [38] Collect (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The problem here is the same as Psalm. Just saying I read it in a book is not enough. If there can be no illustration of text from the source it simply becomes irrelevant to the disussion. Fighting back and forth over something intangible makes no sense and doesn't move the discussion along. Let me look at the links you provided but as far as the The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics, I am taking out of the discussion. I askes specific questions about the quote and the source and recieved nothing. If editors wish to bring it up, please be prepared to type out the text and explain its context.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I was just looking at this quote now and will type out the context of it. Psalm84 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC) This is the page link(forgot with all this that they can be given): Changes in the religious landscape have been critical in elevating social issues to the foregront of American politics. Prior to the 1970s, religiuos differences were mainly between Protestants and Catholics. These differences had political consequences, particularly outside the South, with Protestants aligned with the Republican Part, whereas Catholics and their Jewish allies identified with the Democrats. Increasingly, after 1970, conflict had taken place within religious groups, with battles over gay rights, abortion, and women's roles. Inevitably, these differences also had political consequences. Strategic elites in both parties found it advantageous to raise such issues, ensuring their prominence in the public agenda (Jelen 2000, Layman 2001; Jelen and Wilcox 2003; McTAgue and Layman, chapter 12, this volume). As Layman (2001) has argued, politicians and political parties saw new opportunities for these religious differences. Democrats aligned themselves with religious modernists in taking pro-choice positions on abortion and liberal stances on gay rights. In contrast, Republicans took the other side on both issues, joining religious traditionalists. The result was a "social issue evolution" (Adams 1997), similar to the racial evolution described by Carmines and Stimson (1990). One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition. Meanwhile, mainline Protestants, the former bulwark of the Republican Party, moved to the center based, in part, on social issues, as did Roman Catholics, the old champions of the Democrats. The GOP's social issue stance had special appeal to "traditionalist" religionists, particularly in the South, and helped transform the region from a Democratic Party bastion to a Republican stronghold by the end of the 20th century. Moreover, the increased visibility of issues such as abortion, gay rights, and school prayer occasioned the rise of the Christian Right during the late 1970s... (Oxford Handbook) Psalm84 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much for adding this. This helps a great deal. So, let me see if I understand you correctly. It is your belief from this source that "white evangelical Protestants", which this pubication refers to as "values voters" are what constitute both the core of that constituency as well as the core of the "Christian Right" for this definition? It seems that the passage does state that: "Strategic elites in both parties found it advantageous to raise such issues, ensuring their prominence in the public agenda". I would contend that this also states that "religious modernists" are aligned to the Democrats and "religious traditionalists" are aligned to the Republicans. This seems clearly stated and unambiguous. As I see it, the outcome is simply being illustrated in such a manner as to be clear that one portion of the Religious traditionalist have become "essential", meaning absolutely necessary (by this books definition) perhaps even indispensable, but absolutely speaking to only one set of the actual traditonalist...the white evangelical Protestants. The passage goes on to define the "mainline Protestants, the former bulwark of the Republican Party" as moving to the center...not to the right. This does not state that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". It is actually saying that the religious traditionalists split off with one section or group going to the Republicans and the "mainline" ( principal portion) of the Protestant "bulark" (strong support) going center. In other words..."Values Voters" are bing described as a small but needed portion of the traditionalists who have sided with the GOP, but the main faction did not.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Well, I see a different meaning in this selected text, and don't agree with your main point: It is actually saying that the religious traditionalists split off with one section or group going to the Republicans and the "mainline" ( principal portion) of the Protestant "bulark" (strong support) going center. The article says this: "In contrast, Republicans took the other side on both issues, joining religious traditionalists." "The GOP's social issue stance had special appeal to "traditionalist" religionists, particularly in the South, and helped transform the region from a Democratic Party bastion to a Republican stronghold by the end of the 20th century." Psalm84 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC) And although the article talks about the mainline Protestants and Catholics going to the center, it doesn't at that point attempt to say which party they went to. As the CR mentions, there are conservative Catholics, and the polls I've found show some mainline Protestant backing for the GOP too. Psalm84 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Wide sampling of how the GOP and CR connection is regarded as fact in media reporting and discussions Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said Friday that he’s given Mitt Romney some personal advice: talk more about yourself. I’m not the only one who has told Mitt that maybe he needs to talk more about himself and his life,” the Wisconsin congressman told an audience of social conservatives gathered for the yearly Values Voters Summit. “It wouldn’t hurt if voters knew more of those little things that reveal a man’s heart and his character.” Romney, who spoke to the gathering last year but took a pass this time, dispatched Ryan to appear on his behalf before this core part of the GOP base. Social conservatives and evangelical Christians never have fully warmed to the former Massachusetts governor, given his Mormon faith and past reversals on social issues they hold dear. But Ryan is one of their own: a Catholic with an unblemished anti-abortion voting record in Congress and a reputation as a crusader for fiscal conservatism. In his 30-minute speech, Ryan sought to energize these so-called values voters — a key portion of the GOP base that Romney’s campaign needs to help organize voters and turn out in droves for him in November. (Associated Press story on Values Voter Summit, 9/14/12) Meaningless. Of all that text that you posted, you are basing a connection regarded as fact from a sentence that ends with "...dispatched Ryan to appear on his behalf before this core part of the GOP base" (which is referring to the Values Voters, who are simply American social conservative activists and elected officials from across the United States) and another begins with "Social conservatives and evangelical Christians never have fully warmed to the former Massachusetts governor,". This simply does not support the claim. We regard this as elevating the information out of context. I personally call this pulling a rabbit out of a hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) CMT This is an Associated Press news story, which is a reliable WP source. News stories provide background information that isn't as changeable as the currents events in the story and is required to be accurate. The GOP/CR link is an example of background information. The Values Voters summit is organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, and the article brings together "social conservatives," "core part of the GOP base," "social conservatives and evangelical Christians," "social issues they hold dear," "so-called values voters," "Ryan is one of their own: a Catholic with an unblemished anti-abortion voting record," "so-called values voters — a key portion of the GOP base." This is all well and good except you are combining facts to produce another fact. Family Research Council organizing the summit does not equal the summit being a christian event. You are doing the very same thing with the information. IT DOES NOT make or support your claim of demonstrating a universally known association between the Christian right and GOP or that the Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point it is an unquestioned basic fact. As noted, the news media passages aren't be offered as article sources but only as proof that the CR/GOP connection is well-accepted by the media. To prove that as I'm being asked to, it takes a mosaic approach and the point of this story is the Romney campaign reaching out to important block of GOP voters, which it identifies as evangelicals and social conservatives. As I said, even the "God's Own Party," a scholarly book, in a long introduction didn't expressly say it though every page described it. Psalm84 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC) It simply does not prove that the CR/GOP connection is well-accepted by the media. It doesn't. Its a WP:Trick Hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Reed noted that in 2008, about 44 percent of self-described evangelicals — the core of the Christian right and the GOP base — turned out to vote in the GOP primaries; this year that number could approach 50 percent. (Washington Post article) There is a problem with that webpage. Ten attempts have all frozen and my browser simply closes.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I don't know why there would be a problem with you accessing it. I did access it right away from my link here. The article is called, by the way, "Santorum shows the Religious Right isn’t dead yet." I believe the problem was with the flash animation on the page and seems to be fixed. OK, Ralph Reed is the head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and the architect of the Christian Coalition in the 1980s and is not a reliable source in that he is extremly bias and cannot be seen as an expert in this interpetation...which is inaccurate and misleading. It isn't the media saying this...it is Reed himself. This is an opinion that simply cannot be referenced as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) First, let me just point out the title again. Santorum (GOP) and the Religious right. As the CR article discusses the two are often used as synonyms, but in the U.S. case the RR term automatically includes the CR. And the article does interview Christian leader Ralph Reed. His comment also isn't a direct quote, and it would be poor journalism for a journalist to repeat his claim without checking it since most readers would simply take it as fact. Interview subjects, even "partisan" ones, can present facts, but the journalist is responsible for how they're presented so that readers aren't misled. If the journalist disputed Reed's claim, they would have said so. They would have said Reed had his figures wrong, misinterpreted them, left out some information, counted something the wrong way, etc. The journalist, though, accepted Reed's poll numbers were fact and assumed responsibility for them, then inserted the description about the importance of the CR voting block. That would be why it's not a direct quote. Voters like Burkholder represent the Christian conservative base that was so lukewarm to Romney during the GOP primary season. The majority of the states with large evangelical populations are safely held Republican territory. (Mitt Romney and Evangelical Voters: An Arranged Marriage, PBS Newshour) TONY CAMPOLO, Eastern University: Well, his television programming impacted this nation from coast to coast. It was through television that he was able to mobilize Americans in the evangelical tradition to become Republicans...Up until Jerry Falwell, it was kind of an even split between Democrats and Republicans. He changed the political landscape. Historians will write about him and say, because of Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan became president. (Campolo on Jerry Falwell, PBS Newshour discussion, 2007) I also want to note that the Pew Poll that's been mentioned here (and cited in the article) says that the GOP has the support of 71% of white evangelical Protestants (and also has numbers for other groups such as Catholics). Another poll I cited on the Talk page which could be used in the article too says that "All in all, 47% of Republicans in the U.S. today can be classified as highly religious whites, compared with 24% of independents and 19% of Democrats." If I recall correctly, too, they came up with these numbers by asking about "church attendance." One other note, too. It is not at all easy being the only editor representing this side of the dispute and trying to answer everything other editors are saying while researching too, and even though I'm only one, that in itself should not be the only factor, I believe. Psalm84 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Note...same here as a volunteer, but I am trying to help you, not hurt you. But you must understand that I requested this not be closed because I wanted to give you a chance. It is niether of our faults that the other involved editor refuses to engage on this board.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Concerning the "Christian right" article itself: Before any changes from me, the article's history of the CR began with a section that reported on the CR turning to the GOP, concluding with: "In addition, as the Democratic Party became identified with a pro-choice position on abortion and with nontraditional societal values, social conservatives joined the Republican Party in increasing numbers." In the Timeline section, it talks about several Presidents, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, and some of their actions. It also talks about the CR influencing two House takeovers by Republicans, CR opposition to Obama, and the 2012 GOP primary, including Santorum's candidacy being supported by the CR. The article also frequently links the CR and GOP with statements like this: "Political activists worked within the Republican party locally and nationally to influence party platforms and nominations." Psalm84 (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) And it does not support the claims as you sought to make them. Gee whiz - the article is clear, and it does not agree with what you assert it supports! Collect (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The article portrays the Christian right as highly supportive of the GOP and closely tied to it. It talks about it a lot and putting the GOP on a "Parties associated with the CR" list with some explanation will only help to clarify things, I believe. For example, mention could be made there that there are other factions in the GOP, including the link to that article. Psalm84 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC) second break I got as far as this: "[T]he connection between the GOP and CR is so well-established that it very very often isn't completely directly stated" and as it is the second time you have stated this I am going to stop you right there and say that makes no sense. I have not read the full text but will get back to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC) You also state the following: "I also believe that I didn't just provide opinions above, but arguments and specific responses about how I see these issues relating to guidelines of Wikipedia." That is opinion and I really didn't see specific arguements using wikipedia guideline or policy but your stating that you didn't believe the guidelines I posted related. I am not at all impressed with that sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Another off the top remark "I would also ask if there are any reliable sources that deny this association, or claim it's a minor point, that they be added to this discussion too." I have to say that at this point that is irrelevant and is just saying "Prove it isn't". Not a good sign.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Well, you have no way of knowing this, but just for the record, I'm not a "sir," but a "ma'am." And I'd to add that I've worked very very hard on editing and discussions to base them on verifiable facts and to respectfully state things. This is also very difficult for me because of the nature of this. To put it bluntly and just asking you yourself, assuming you're familiar with American politics, but in the case of, for example, Rick Santorum appealing to the Republican base. Would you have needed to be told that he appealed to the base because they're conservative Christians, or did you already know that? Are you generally aware, in other words, that the Christian right is an important block of the GOP? As to why I posted something a second time, it was because you had quoted me on that and asked for specific sources on it. I copied it to show specifically what the sources were about and that I was answering your request. My reply, too, I believe, as I said, discussed "arguments and specific responses about how I see these issues relating to guidelines of Wikipedia." Looking back over it, I gave specific examples about how the media covered the link in the GOP campaign, offered a quote from the Oxford Encyclopedia, mentioned that this issue isn't about labeling the GOP Christian right since the connection can simply be explained, and gave the text that was included in the article to explain it. I've put a lot of time and energy into this, as I know some others have too, including you here, and as I've said, and it's a hard thing to argue since the connection is so well established. Psalm84 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC) It's not hard to find academic papers that link the two, either. For example, Guth talks extensively about how Obama swung part of the religious vote, but the right (evangelicals) “remained entrenched as the core of the reduced GOP”. Burkee and Walz say “In 2000 the "God Gap" favored the George W. Bush by twenty points: Six out of ten voting Americans who answered in exit polls that they go to church about every week voted for the Republican. That number grew slightly in 2004.” —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Hicks says “Today, the religious right enjoys its greatest access to the corridors of power, particularly because of its relationship with conservative members of the Republican Party.” And here are a few articles by Forbes (“Despite all of these factors, the national Republican Party remains closely tied to the Christian right and the narrowest issue positions it has represented.”), The Guardian (“Since 1992, the religious right mobilized by the sexual counterervolution has constituted the largest and most powerful bloc within the Republican Party.”), The Associated Press (“The Faith and Freedom Coalition's two-day conference proved that the religious right still plays a major role in the nominating process, even if it's less organized than during the Christian Coalition's heyday and economic issues are dominating the early campaign.”), and a somewhat older one by The Washington Post (“Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.”). Of course I could also paste endless quotes from Huffington Post and many other sources, but there's enough obnoxious belligerence being touted here that I'm sure they would be dismissed out of hand. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) As I said before. If you think you are helping this case...you are not.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Kerfuffler, It is the opinion of this volunteer that you have a direct conflict that you are attempting to continue into this dispute case with no real interest in anything but disruption. If you continue this case will be closed and refered to formal mediation as the next logic course of action. I am requesting that you refrain from further input. Failure to do so means that you simply wish the conflict to interfer with this volunteers work on this case in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Hiding off-subject comments padding I post numerous references, and the best you can do is threaten me with an MedCom case, claiming I'm “disruptive”? Bring it on. Meanwhile, try actually looking at the references I cited. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC) "First I apologise for my default "sir". But as far as your claim that you used Wikipedia guidelines or policy to argue your points...no, you didn't. You blew off my bringing up policy and guideline with: "On the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guideline, I don't really believe it applies here, since the GOP/CR link is a mainstream assumption. Because of all that support, too, I don't believe the WP:MNA concern, that something is being assumed that shouldn't be, applies either. But again, there are sources in support of the GOP/CR connection and many more available." I am getting seriously concerned with your obfuscation and walls of text that say little, provide nearly nothing to verify and then argue facts as presented to you in direct contradiction to what is being said. I don't understand what you think you are doing, but it isn't research and it isn't demonstrating your interpretation. You had a single editor defend your not having provided the needed information and if he hadn't simply followed me here from Talk:Innocence of Muslims just to be a pain, I might be inclined to see some support. I think it best to continue to have patience with you, as you are trying and there may yet be a way for you to rescue your supposed sources, but if you don't provide it here, I am not looking for it. This is your time Ma'am. I believe I have gone way out of my way to accommodate you here because you DO want to discuss this but please do not test my patience here. It has been taxed well enough and I am truly trying to help you, so help me.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I keep the guidelines in mind as I'm editing and research them when there seems to be any question about anything. In this case there is so much other research involved that specifically noting WP policies becomes more difficult, takes more time, and would add a lot of text. Most of the discussion has also been over sources and where WP policies have come I've tried to answer why I agree or don't. In those guidelines you brought up, I did start a more lengthier response but I believe it was lost and that what I answered was sufficient. But on WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I'll explain more fully. The gist of the entry talks about fringe theories, mentions conspiracies, and "surprising" claims that go against "mainstream assumptions." This definitely doesn't seem to be the case here since it is the working assumption in politics and the media. The reporting on the GOP hasn't been, "there's a GOP and CR alliance," but "can Romney 'win over' the base," "will Romney's Mormonism matter to the Christian base," and "Santorum appealed to the Christian right base." There were numerous specific stories to highlight it, like the Pastor who said at last year's Values Voters summit that Romney wasn't a Christian, and the attempts by prominent Christian leaders to get together and form support and raise money for Santorum. I also want to add that the CR article already describes this connection, as do other articles, such as Factions in the Republican Party (United States), where they're described under "Social conservatives." Here is the text from the Factions page: Social conservatives The term "religious right" is often used synonymously with Christian right because most of its members are Protestants, Evangelicals, traditionalist and conservative Catholics, although some are Orthodox Jews and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Both fundamentalists and moderates of said faiths appear in this faction, comprising a wide spectrum of beliefs that are typically united on stances as abortion or homosexual unions. The Religious Right has become a powerful force within the GOP. This faction is socially conservative. Its major legislative issues in recent years include efforts to criminalize abortion, opposition (but not criminalization) to legalized same-sex marriage, and discouraging taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. They have supported a greater role of religious organizations in delivering welfare programs.Psalm84 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Here is the full section: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. I actually do contend that you are putting forth a "fringe" theory as stated at Wikipedia:Fringe theories: Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. We balance the mainstream academic opinion, only when such opinion is of equal validity. WP:BALANCE: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. It simply is not the working assumption in politics and the media that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". In part you have proven one thing, and really it was never in question, that is simply that the Christian right generally votes Republican. But it is indeed a minor point and unquestioned basic fact that it is a minor point. If I were to be overly generous I might even go as far as saying that "Values Voters" see themselves as very important to the party, but they are clearly not the full force and arm of that right wing of the Christian base. They are simply not the all encompassing portion of the Christian Right. Your sources bear this out, and one (Oxford Handbook) interpretes the opposite, that the main portion of only the Protestant faction went center. "The Christian Right", by Grant Wacker of Duke University Divinity School states: At the end of the 1980s, it was commonly assumed that the Christian Right consisted entirely of evangelical Protestants. Polls from that period suggested that evangelical Protestants comprised the majority of adherents, but many members of the Christian Right were not evangelical Protestants, and many evangelical Protestants were not members of the Christian Right. More precisely, the Christian Right drew support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists. At the same time, many evangelical Protestants showed little interest in the Christian Right's political goals. Those believers, who might be called evangelical outsiders, included confessional Protestants (especially of Dutch and German extraction), Protestants from the generally apolitical peace churches like the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, fervently fundamentalist Protestants who were so conservative that they held no hope for America or any civil society, and black and Latino Protestants who tended to be politically liberal though theologically and culturally evangelical. Evangelical outsiders also included millions of born-again Protestants who were generally sympathetic to the political aims of the Christian Right but, as a practical matter, remained more interested in the devotional aims or charitable work of the church than in winning elections. It may be helpful, then, to think of the Christian Right as the large shaded area in the middle of two overlapping circles. He also states: How large was the Christian Right in recent elections? Hard figures are hard to come by, but polls and other indicators such as book sales indicate that the inner core—the shaded area—claimed no more than 200,000 adult Americans. On the other hand, fellow travelers, people who explicitly identify themselves as partisans of the religious right (a slightly broader category than Christian Right), ranged from ten to fifteen million. Sympathizers who might be mobilized over a specific issue such as abortion or gun control may have enlisted thirty-five million. Though the Christian Right's numerical strength leveled off in the early 1990s, its influence at the grass roots, in state and local elections, in setting school board policies, etc., has remained conspicuous. This author seperates the Christian Right from the Religious right and accurately so. He says the Christian Right at a grass roots level stands out and is attracting attention...not the offical wing of the GOP as a party--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC) First, I want to make a short post on the "fringe theory" thought. Originally (and it has been about) adding the GOP's name with an explanation of the association to a list. The GOP is already central to the CR article, and for a reason. I'm sorry I got drawn into looking for more sources as it wasn't necessary, but if there is no CR and GOP connection then the GOP mentions should be removed from the CR page. If you are reading a WP page and clearly the GOP is a "big player" on that page, then it makes sense when listing parties to find a way, for the convenience and understanding of the reader who's been reading about the party at length, to summarize what the reader has already read with a link. No idea I've proposed to add isn't already a part of the page. If that isn't the understanding here, then there's been misunderstanding. Psalm84 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I have no doubt that the GOP may well be a central part of that article. However, the DR/N filing you made was about the two proposals made that were either deleted or argued against. See below. As stated the fringe idea is "identifying the American Republican Party as being Christian right" .--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I went and looked at Grant Wacker's article, but from what I've read so far, he may describe the Christian right differently, saying it isn't made up of who people think it is, but he still treats the CR as a political force and both the GOP and Democratic Party are only mentioned in the article twice, so that political parties and the CR don't seem to be a question here. And when you say you "have no doubt that the GOP may well be a central part of that article," well THAT has been the only point I've wanted to make. There are sections of articles that explain and give sourced facts, and sections, like the lead, that summarize things. The only point I had in suggesting the GOP be included in a Parties list, with proper explanation, was the importance the GOP had in the article, and the explanation would merely summarize what the article said. That's it. I would never support saying the GOP was a Christian party. The proposal was only along the lines of "see also" thinking. That was also why I suggested to someone today that there could also be mention of the GOP factions, including "Factions in the Republican Party." I see that isn't in the article, but it would make sense to briefly explain how the CR fits into the GOP and provide the link to that page too. Psalm84 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC) As I said, you confused the CR with the RR and Wackers clears that up. Again, no one is saying the the CR is NOT a political force.......just that the GOP is NOT a Christian Right party. That said, to be honest your original opening was confusing so I asked for clarification, but the main points of the dispute from your filing and the discussion here as well as on the talk page of the article involved recent changes against consensus. All content on Wikipedia is a matter of consensus and collaborative editing. It appears you have many issues with the article and we only covered part of them. As such I have given a recommendation of other venues you can seek help and you should feel welcome to return to DR/N with other concerns you may have, however I do recommend allowing as much discussion as possible and when it should appear that the majority of editors are against something seek a compromise first before seeking outside help as it puts you in a far better position...and could well nip disputes in the bud. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Wacker's article is about the CR. He mentions the RR just once. His claims, too, about who makes up the CR he says come from "polls and book sales," but he doesn't give any more explanation. His methods and interpretations would obviously be up for debate. His claim is the sort of thing that should be in the CR article, but it would certainly be as his expert opinion, and as said, the basis of his conclusions isn't presented here. On the CR and RR difference, it is discussed in the CR article, and there is no Wikipedia article on the RR apparently because it is covered by this one. RR is just a disambiguation page. The CR page says that the RR includes others like conservative Jews and Muslims, but their numbers are far less than the CR. "Again, no one is saying the the CR is NOT a political force.......just that the GOP is NOT a Christian Right party." I haven't said that the GOP is a CR party either, and I've expressed the opposite view. What I haven't understood is why some see listing the GOP under "parties associated the Christian right" or something similar as saying that, especially if the connection is explained. To me it doesn't go any further than what the article already says, but helps summarize for the reader what the article was about, and if someone has read the article, which they probably would since the list comes last, they will understand the connection that much more. Someone who finishes the article, too, might want to go to some of these parties' articles, including the GOP, like they might want to go to the topics in "see also" that appear at the article's end, and the GOP link will be right there and they don't have to scroll back up to the beginning. That makes me wonder if adding the Republican Party to the "see also" section is part of this dispute. What about it appearing in "see also"? DR/N volunteer conclusions It is the opinion of this editor and volunteer for the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, that the case has not been adequately made for the proposed changes and list text identifying the American Republican Party as being Christian right. Therefore, I believe this revert/deletion was justified.[39]. Furthermore, it is the conclusion of this editor that the proposed changes [40] should not be made. While the editors involved clearly have proposed these changes in good faith, it is also clear that this is simply a point of view that could be viewed by many as fringe in some form and not main stream by academic experts, but has been formed from bits and peices of quotes that are attempting to stitch together these assumptions. This is not appropriate and none of the sources (with the exception of biased parties and/or partisan opinion) make these specific claims. There seems to be some use of expert opinion to source fact without attribution and could be seen as further reasoning to exclude this information. Many academics do make claims based on educated and qualified expertise, while others will form an opinion, make assumptions and state their point of view. When this is done attribution of the publication and author should be made and clarification of the stated opinion made in prose. It appears to be the rough consensus of this DR/N that these changes not be made as proposed. I won't be closing this filing immediatly to give editors time to respond with rebuttle and add any further comment to the consensus and/or propose any last compromises they feel may be justified, however if no further compromise is appropriate and all parties agree, I am inclined to close as "Resolved". Should an editor not agree with the resolution they have the oppurtunity to suggest what they can live with or request formal mediation as an option at this point but may not be the best choice.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Hiding off-subject comments padding Between your failure to look at any of the seven references I posted, and your outright hostile attitude, I strongly suggest that you step aside as a volunteer. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC) My concern then on this, is the whole article. Why is the GOP so much a part of it and what should be done about it now? As I said above, it's a main player in the article, so then should the GOP angle be removed from it, primarily in the history and timeline areas? Again, there is no "fringe theory" here because my only idea merely reflects what's in the article already, and that is all. It would be a different matter if the GOP tie wasn't in there, but the article itself already makes the only connection I ever sought to make. The "Parties" list functions almost like a "see also" here, so my thought was that it is good wikipedia practice, and seen on other articles, for links to provided that correspond with important parts of the text. I also want to add, too, that no matter the disagreements of opinion, I appreciate the time and energy that people who've participated here have put into this discussion.Psalm84 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I want to say that you have tried really hard to present, to the best of your ability, the sources as you saw them, and present your argument in the best manner you could as you believed. However, one problem I note is that you do seem to disagree with everything that counters what you present. This doesn't show an attempt to understand what others are explaining. That can be a great asset in some situations but can lead to some unfortunate situations on an encyclopedia edited in a collaborate effort. Your concern about the whole article can be taken to other venues as seen here:WP:SEEKHELP, but was never a part of the discussion as was presented or even as shown in the discussions. Just that these two points had become a "dispute". While your sources did not prove your assertions and in some cases were counter to what you believed, I appreciate your ability to keep going when others simply didn't bother. I commend you for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Well, I want to say that I thank you for all your time and energy spent on this. I'm sure DR is not an easy place, either. I do disagree with quite a few of your conclusions, though, but that's the way it goes. I do consider questions like this important, since I particpated here, but there are more important things too. On my disagreeing with things, well, that came from how the discussion developed. As I said, I only thought the lead and article "help" sections (my term here), which offer lists, links, etc. just reflect what's in the article. The discussion on sources did produce more information, sources that could be used, and discussion on article topics, so that's a good thing, but if I had to do it over I would only have pointed to what's in the article already in and presented my view that the supplemental section on Parties include the GOP because of its place in the article. And my concern is for the whole article, although I don't know about working on it now for me. On DRN, though, there was more than enough to cover with what was being discussed, and I didn't believe off-topic suggestions would be welcome to the discussion or even that they belonged here. On the two proposals I made, one was implemented, putting GOP in the lead due to its role in the article. I mentioned it as that issue had been a part of the larger dispute. I guess, then, I don't have anything else to say here, unless there are comments addressed to me that seek reply. Psalm84 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 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.