Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 23

When in Rome (band)

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. When in Rome (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? This article suffers from a very very very long edit-war between multiple users with a COI who are apparently all unwilling to discuss anything with each other. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Musicwerks (talk · contribs) Catfishcat (talk · contribs) 92.25.181.99 (talk · contribs) 68.93.99.172 (talk · contribs) 89.242.214.157 (talk · contribs) (plus a lot of different IPs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=When in Rome (band)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? There is a discussion on the talk page that does not seem to have achieved anything. I also tried to force discussion with protecting the page but they just started again afterwards. How do you think we can help? I don't actually know. I couldn't find any way to deal with this page - which is why I hope someone watching this page might know a way to handle it. SoWhy 20:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC) When in Rome (band) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. (Comment from uninvolved editor) Can no you not escalate the protection escalate/block violators of WP:3RR explain edit warriors the need of discussion by messaging them on their own talk pages?Curb Chain (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) I agree with this, and also with Yngvadottir's comment on the talk page. The solution here looks like to include both the current lineups, and detail the history of the split as best we can with the sources available. The biggest problem with this appears to be that there aren't very many sources available. From my short review it seems that Salamurai (talk · contribs) has already done as a good a job as can reasonably be expected with the sources that there are. If more reliable sources can be found then we can use them, but if not then the removal of the US lineup and the coverage of the naming dispute are essentially conduct issues, and we should deal with them using Curb Chain's suggestions above. I recommend that this include a reasonably long period of semi-protection if the various IPs continue edit warring after the current page protection expires. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC) No argument there but as the history shows, both parties are unwilling to accept a version created by a neutral third-party, which is why I brought it here. One of them left a comment on my talk page, which I will quote here: Hello SoWhy. I believe you are one of the moderators that oversee the When In Rome (Band) page. My username on Wikipedia is musicwerks and I have been directed via MediaWiki Mail to the Dispute resolution board. I would like to offer some insight as to why the page is under an edit war but I'm afraid my knowledge of how to navigate Wikipedia is limited so I'd like to explain the circumstances behind the edit war here: When In Rome is a musical band originating in the UK and was formed by myself, Michael Floreale (Wiki ID - musicwerks, ip # 68.93.99.172) with Clive Farrington (Wiki ID - Catfishcat, ip ID's 89.242.220.146, 92.25.181.99, 89.242.214.157) in 1985. The band broke up in 1990 and I reformed the band in 2006 in the USA. Because the 2006 version established itself on the US touring circuit and finished work on a new album (we now have a record contract with Spectra Records USA), and in order to protect the bands interests it successfully obtained a US trademark on the name in 2010. In 2011 the band trademarked the name in the UK as well. In 2009 Clive Farrington reformed When In Rome in the UK. At the time of writing his version has not released any new material, has never performed in the UK and performed 6 shows in the USA in 2011 where (under the terms of our trademark) his version appeared as Clive Farrington and Andrew Mann formerly of When In Rome. The Wikipedia band page has been used by Clive Farrington to dilute the above facts in order to present his band in a better light. Most of the edits I have made are to correct his many unverified statements. If you note through the view history page most of my edits are reversions to the moderators last edit ( 02:24, 17 February 2012‎ DumbBOT (talk | contribs)‎ which I believe is an acceptable version of the bands history. I can verify the trademarks and all of the information I have given to you by web links but I don't know how to do this on the Wikipedia site. The reason that I revert the Clive Farrington edits back to the latest moderated version is because we are a professional, working band based in the USA and Wikipedia is a reference used by persons wishing to book the band. I'm afraid that Clive Farrington refuses to recognize our trademark so we cannot settle the dispute with him so I don't know what the solution can be unless the moderators version can be frozen. I do note that you have a policy that states any content that violates any copyrights will be deleted and Clive Farringtons edits do come under that category. I would be grateful for your comments or possible solutions to this matter. March 03rd, 2012 Musicwerks (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Regards SoWhy 08:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Clive Farrington - Andrew Mann - When In Rome - /* When in Rome (band) discussion */ Michael Nuttall says he is the founder and we can only swear and can verify that the truth is in fact that he is not. He trademarked the band name without discussions with original members & has threatened promoters & club owners with legal action. The original line up of Clive Farrington and Andrew Mann toured the US very successfully in 2011 and will return this year. Mr Nuttall has contacted a company that we use to obtain our visas in order to try to stop us from touring. The truth is, Mr Nuttall sold shows and duped people by pretending to be the original band. Original writer/founder/vocalist members are: Clive Farrington & Andrew Mann. The Wiki site mentions that we have past members? The only past member that we have is Mr Nuttall with whom we parted company in 1993 prior to a very successful tour of Brazil. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the true side of this never ending farce and keep up the great work that you continue to do. Clive Farrington _ Andrew Mann - When In Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.182.135 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC) The real band are performing here on the first and last leg of their forthcoming tour… Appearing at Lost 80's Live Fri 08/10/12 Sacramento, CA Crest Theatre Sat 08/11/12 Redding, CA Cascade Theatre Appearing with A Flock Of Seagulls Fri 09/07/12 Oahu, HI Private Function Sat 09/08/12 Maui, HI Private Function @SoWhy: I see no reason not to extend the page protection seeing as they refuse to discuss the matter.Curb Chain (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Page protection can stop the IPs from edit-warring but that still allows those registered accounts to do it and that does not fix the article. It probably needs someone with far superior editing and article-writing skills than me to rewrite that mess into something that actually meets our policies and guidelines... Regards SoWhy 11:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Then you can escalate the protection to full protection. The edit warring is severe and uncompromising on both sides nor does anyone want to discuss (anything it seems).Curb Chain (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Just passing through, but I have a suggestion.Do I understand correctly that the two warring factions are actually both at one time part of the band described in the article in question? If so, why not use WP:COI? No need to protect the entire article, just keep the actual bandmembers from being able to edit directly. If they want to add information, they can do so on the talk page. Because of the conflict of interest, I don't think it's necessary that they actually agree to use a neutral third party, as it's required by policy as I understand it. — trlkly 05:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC) SoWhy, thanks for bringing this mess to our attention. Really, thanks! ;) Trklkly, blocking these editors from this article isn't really an option, since there's IPs at play too, and blocking on account of a COI is not something that's done easily. I propose the following, since I've made some edits to the article for the sake of clarity, and introduced a few "citation needed" tags. Whatever is added to the article (law suits, records, etc.) needs to be accompanied by references to reliable sources, properly cited. Anything else gets reverted. More complicated matters need to be explained on the talk page. If disruption continues in the next week or so, I will fully protect the article, for as long as it takes, and any other edits will have to go through the talk page and the usual edit request. SoWhy, what do you say? I am really proposing the iron first. Band members past and present, beware: you may not continue your disputes here. You had a hit, you still need to make some money, that's great--but leave us out of it. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 12 March 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.

Ekal Vidyalaya

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. Ekal Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There have recently been repeated attempts to remove any content criticizing Ekal Vidyalaya from this article, or to push it to the back of the article Not just that, to complete the picture, there have been repeated attempts in recent past by Aymatth2 (talk · contribs) to bias the article in the opposite direction by giving undue weight to criticism, by indulging in synthesis and original research, by removing content from response to criticism, by adding irrelevant content that show responders to criticism in poor light, et cetera. This despite repeated requests on the talk page to maintain neutrality. I am surprised Aymatth2 (talk · contribs) is reporting a crime they are themselves guilty of, albeit to a lesser degree. Refer the article history and section in the talk page for more details. Nmisra (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Aymatth2 (talk · contribs) B.vikram.b (talk · contribs) Nmisra (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ekal Vidyalaya}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussed on the article talk page. Written notes to the other editors. How do you think we can help? Reinforce policy in notes to editors, watch the article and revert further attempts to sanitize it, perhaps impose some sort of block on the article or on the editors involved Aymatth2 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Ekal Vidyalaya discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. As someone who has recently done a few edits on the article, I would like to add that the article has some sources that could be considered as biased and unreliable. For example, Christian Today which describes itself as "trans-denominational Christian newspaper" (part of christiantoday.com more info [reference], has lines such as ""Christian Today upholds the dictum found in Matthew 5:37, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'". In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ."" and more.). The Milli Gazette which describes itself as "Indian Muslims' Leading English Newspaper" (more info [here], has lines such as ""We will, insha Allah, add more pages as we progress to a weekly, in due course of time, speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community which is a very important member of the world Muslim community. We already have a national and international network of writers, correspondents and contributors."" and more.) The criticism section should have better sources that these. The substance should be backed by reliable sources and according to me these are not at all reliable. I would suggest it is better to rewrite the criticism section after erasing such sources. It, per me, is pertinent to act on this first.ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती Humour Thisthat2011 19:00, 11 March 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.

Quantum_mind

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. Quantum mind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The WP:SPA Persephone19 inserted text about the theories of individuals in the article Quantum_mind who don't have due weight to be mentioned. His text he has added several times had the phrase These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available. which is the definition of undue weight to include them [1] as I pointed out to him on the talk page [2] some time ago. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Persephone19 (talk · contribs) Salimfadhley (talk · contribs) IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) The SPA User:Persephone19 is re-inserting text where in a discussion a third party and myself have commented against the insertion as being fringe and undue. A discussion was held on the talk page where a third party agreed with the removal [3]. He has been asked repeatedly to get consensus ([4][5][6]) for his insertions but keeps inserting it. Warning I gave him: [7]. His re-inserts: [8] [9] [10]. The user also appears to have a misunderstanding of what verification means. He has inserted references that do not verify the text. For example, he inserted the text: In this paper, Bernroider and Roy draw on the work of the MacKinnon group relative to the potassium (K+) channel with a reference to a paper that does not even mention Bernroider or Roy. I marked this text back in February 2012 [11]. As a response, the user added even more references which do not mention Bernroider: [12]. Permit me to chime-in here. The editor appears to have a strong personal interest in this topic and has made it his mission to include a great deal of content which seems to have only tenuous relevance to the subject at hand. A recent edit included a number of references which did not appear to have any direct relevance to the article... perhaps if you were an expect in neural biophysics you might possible see a connection, but I confess it has eluded me. On the other hand he could just be adding random references to give the impression that the article has sufficient citations. My main gripe however is that he makes excessivly bold edits and completely disregards the sentiment of other editors in the talk page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Quantum_mind}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I started a discussion on the talk page, Talk:Quantum_mind#Henry_Stapp,Talk:Quantum_mind#Bad_Style and then started an RFC. He rejected the arguments against it (noone was in favour) and re-inserted the text. How do you think we can help? By ensuring the article meets policy with regard to WP:DUE, WP:PRIMARY and the guidelines WP:FRINGE which warn about primary sourcing of content. By establishing whether the aforementioned text has due weight for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC) IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Quantum_mind discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk Note: This seems, if your description is accurate, like a user conduct dispute. Have you considered bringing this to ANI? Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC) ANI suggested coming here [13] as they thought that DRN can deal with content and user disagreements on it: . The user just re-inserted the sections once again without discussion: [14] IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC) It seems like you are critiquing a disruptive pattern of a user's conduct. If the editor does this without discussion, when attempts are made to reach the person, that incident likely is needed at ANI. Have you contacted the editor with notice of this DRN post? Lord Roem (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Yep [15], [16]. He did not respond at either location. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Let's wait at least another day or two. If he continues to edit without responding, an ANI post may be the next step, as it would be a conduct dispute. Lord Roem (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Still re adding stuff, no response on talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Then it is clearly a user conduct dispute. Its no longer about content if the editor in question persists in warring over a page despite reasonable requests to stop and discuss. Please describe this matter under that lens, so the people at ANI can be more helpful. I'll be closing this thread shortly. Lord Roem (talk) 23:56, 12 March 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.

The Slim Shady LP, The Marshall Mathers LP

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. The Slim Shady LP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The Marshall Mathers LP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There is a dispute over the opening sentence in both articles, as well as other Eminem album articles. The dispute is over whether SSLP is the debut studio album or second studio album, and whether MMLP is the second or third. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Green-Halcyon (talk · contribs) aka Aunty-S Banan14kab (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Slim Shady LP, The Marshall Mathers LP}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The dispute has been attempted to be resolved on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums How do you think we can help? Have a look at the edits made to both articles, take into consideration the sources provided for each users contribution. Hence, help decide which revision of the articles are correct. ALso consider the accuracy of the sources and the articles before the dispute. Banan14kab (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Aunty-S (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC) The Slim Shady LP, The Marshall Mathers LP discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. A few of Eminem's album pages have recently come under dispute over whether the record Infinite should be listed as the rappers debut studio album. Many sources agree that the debut studio album is the Slim Shady LP, with some acknowledging that Infinite as an Independent album and being his first full length solo project (having initially only released around 1,000 copies). However some editors believe that Infinite is in fact the first studio album. As you can imagine, this has caused quite of bit of disruption, with both sides claiming that they are correct. The opening line of every album article that succeeds Infinite is being changed back and forth constantly, namely The Slim Shady LP and The Marshall Mathers LP. Content changes are like this: "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's second studio album", to "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's third studio album". I have provided a considerable amount sources to back up my contributions, while the opposition has provided none. Aunty-S (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC) (Green-Halcyon) I wikilinked the WikiProject Albums discussion Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Might I add that the opposition has also not been entirely civil over the matter. Aunty-S (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC) The actual edits have been more like "The Slim Shady LP is the second studio album by American rapper, Eminem." to "The Slim Shady LP is the debut studio album by American rapper, Eminem.". Also I have repeatedly explained how the sources may be inaccurate themselves given that they may be unaware of Infinite as it was not well-known. I have not provided sources because I feel my arguments and reasoning are obvious. The articles were all fine and accurate prior to this dispute. He keeps bringing up the source argument when in fact I have used his sources in my favor. One of his sources has a quote from Eminem himself acknowledging Infinite as his first album. Even in his auto-bio The Way I Am he states this. What is more credible than word from the artist himself? Also I even pointed out that a New York Times article he referenced stated that Recovery was Eminem's "sixth studio album released on a major label." He merely dismissed this as the article being mistaken much as I have done with his other sources. He also does not make sense in his arguments since he first acknowledges Infinite as Eminem's first album, and then discounts it from the Eminem discography page altogether. He is basically saying "it's his first, but doesn't count as a studio album", when it was recorded in a studio. Also if you go to the forum where we were discussing the matter you will see that the user, Fayenatic responded to my language (I used profanity ONCE) and reminded me to be civil. I admit I lost my temper a little, but that was the only thing I did that was rash. I made no insults or derogatory remarks to him. Green-Halcyon is probably finding any excuse to win sympathy to put the matter in his favor. Banan14kab (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) Typically, Wikipedia wouldn't rely on published autobiographies, but I'm assuming that Eminem knows his own albums. Banan14kab, can you provide some sources through hyperlinks so that it'll be easier to review the reliability of the sources and the content of the sources? Aunty-S, would an independent album not be a "debut studio album"? To all parties, in the future please do not edit war as this will inevitably lead to blocks for disrupting Wikipedia, for that reason, during the progress of this discussion, I ask that all parties to refrain from making edits to the affected pages. As a reminder once again, please assume good faith and be civil. I thank the parties for bringing the dispute to the proper forums (i.e. the associated WikiProject and the dispute resolution noticeboard). I look forward to your replies. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Closing note: Subject to change in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Eminem_Albums, I am closing this as moot. There can no longer be any dispute in light of the fact that there is a clear consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Eminem_Albums in favor of the position that Infinite was the first studio album. Consensus can, of course, change or additional opinions can come into that discussion. If so, and the dispute reignites, this can be reopened or relisted, but until then the matter appears to be determined. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:58, 14 March 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.

Cry Baby Lane

Closed discussion

Circumcision

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. Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I don't know how any of this works. Please see User:Healthnet11/dispute for why Circumcision is so horrible. Conflict of interest should be policed! Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Jayjg (talk · contribs) Avraham (talk · contribs) Jakew (talk · contribs) Jmh649 (talk · contribs) Healthnet11 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Circumcision}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Tried to post a paper listing problems in the Teahouse talk. How do you think we can help? It may be hopeless. Healthnet11 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Circumcision discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Please read User:Healthnet11/disputeHealthnet11 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) I'm a little confused. Looking at your contribution history, I can't find any edits to the Circumcision article. Are you saying that you are in a content dispute on an article that you have never edited? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Note the first sentence "There's a guy handing out this paper at UCLA.…" That is almost certainly User:Joe Circus, a well-known indef-blocked user with tens of sockpuppets, canvassing off-line to violate a slew of wikipedia policies. Per Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure I can confirm that User:Joe Circus has used the California State University Network (via proxies) for editing, as that ISP is large enough to affirm that there is not "very likely to identify a specific person." -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Related to these socks here at all? [[19]] These are the ones this person seems to be referring to with respect to the colonoscopy article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I would disregard this issue. We've had a problem with suspected socks and agent provocateur related to this article.Gsonnenf (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC) It's User:TipPt (aka User:Zinbarg as Doc James pointed out); evading blocks again. Compare the "dispute" description with this edit, for example. If we take the "guy handing out papers at UCLA" story at face value, recruiting Healthnet11 violates WP:MEAT. But frankly it's a stretch to believe that someone would take the trouble to take a paper, create an account, and type in the long rant all while exhibiting the exact same behavioural characteristics and writing style as the original editor. This seems to be fairly blatant sockpuppetry to me. Jakew (talk) 09:26, 16 March 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.

Pacific Union College

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. Pacific Union College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Editors apparently from the college are deleting descriptions of this rather controversial issue Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Apease (talk · contribs) 24.104.139.179 (talk · contribs) BelloWello appears to have been banned, fortunately Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Pacific Union College}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I've posted an intent to restore deleted content on the talk page. I updated and restored content, only to have it deleted again with the terse comment of "unnecessary" by an anonymous user. I again posted a talk page comment stating that summary removal of content is not the province of any one user. How do you think we can help? Lock the page to other than signed users? Post a notice on the page saying that unilateral deletions are not allowed? Prohibit deletions on the page for a while? Apease (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Pacific Union College discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk note: A whois search shows that the IP address 24.104.139.179 belongs to Pacific Union College, raising the prospect of a conflict of interest. I will leave a note about this on the IP's talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Also, I have informed the IP about the existence of this thread, and I have removed User:BelloWello as they have been banned for over nine months. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Clerk comment @Apease: Seeing your initial post here on this noticeboard, you indicated User:BelloWello was an involved editor and when I checked the page's history, he had a string of consecutive edits going back to over 3/4 year. Is this file even legitimate? Your only request is to lock down the article. I encourage any editor to be bold and close this request.Curb Chain (talk) 14:08, 16 March 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.

Criticism section at Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

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. Reactions to Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A very long-running dispute over a paragraph which I wrote. It is very well sourced, and consists mainly of quotations from notable people. It keeps being removed, apparently on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. Wikilawyering and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have also been used, including an unwillingness to even read the supporting quotations which are included in the references. I need help in getting through this wall of POV. Removed paragraph is here Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Becritical (talk · contribs) Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:Becritical, User:Somedifferentstuff}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? [20] [21] How do you think we can help? Be——Critical 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Criticism section at Reactions to Occupy Wall Street discussions Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. There are actually no changes necessary to the paragraph to make it NPOV. It accurately represents the sources. If we have a criticism section, then the paragraph belongs. Any criticisms of the paragraph should be couched as positive suggestions, not as criticisms which do not take account of the sources. Please do not make criticisms which show you have not read the sources, or even the quotes included in the references [22]. Be——Critical 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Also, Somedifferentstuff likes to edit war this paragraph out, then mostly ignore the discussion. I consider that disruptive. Be——Critical 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC) If this is truly between two editors maybe you should seek a third opinion first. If this is simply a content dispute, have you attempted a talk page discussion and layed out your explanation as to why it is needed in the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Clerk's note: There's no limit on the number of users who can come to DRN, nor any requirement that some other form of DR be tried first. When there are only two involved, the choice of whether to go to 3O or DRN first is entirely up to the first editor who files a request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC) That's nice, but it isn't what I said. I didn't say Becritical shouldn't have come here because of any point or issue. I merely stated the facts that you have confirmed. So...what of the actual issue being raised here?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Also, while Becritical certainly has the right to Dispute Resolution, I mentioned the above simply because I don't think this has risen to the point of any DR process yet. One editor added information and another took it out. There has been no attempt that I see to resolve this on the talk page of the article or with the editor. This isn't a DR case yet as I see it. That is all. That is my main point, and it isn't meant to put either editor down.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Are you contending that this is a new issue which hasn't been already been discussed at extreme length in the two places linked at "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already," above? If it is a new issue which has not been discussed, it doesn't make any sense to suggest that it go to 3O because 3O also requires talk page discussion first. If this was the first time this had come here, I would agree and say that the prior discussions were stale and that more talk page discussion was needed before coming back to DRN or 3O, but in light of the fact that they were invited back by my colleague Mr. Stradivarius when he closed the prior listing here, then it may be right for it to be here. I'll let Mr. Stradivarius take a look and make that call. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC) This is what he's trying to add: Extended content *Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work. Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream.On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs. References I guess we need to go thru this piece by piece. Here is a link to reference #1, Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War?. Let's be clear about this source. It is NOT an academic journal. From their website, "The Chronicle of Higher Education is the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators." So using this one somewhat non-mainstream source, it starts, "Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work." This violates WP:Weight by making this blanket statement and attributing it to this single source. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Okay, let's first be clear that while it is not a "scientific peer reviewed journal,' it is an excellent source. Second, it is WP:MAINSTREAM, that is, a more scholarly source than, say, a mainstream news outlet. Third, while as you know the word "ingrates" is negotiable, the gist of the sentence is supported by many sources. Thus I disagree with you that this source which gives us a generalization, is used in an UNDUE way, because all the other sources back it up and there is no source giving any counterclaim, and it is in accord with common sense/knowledge and the quotations. It's easy to find such sources, for instance this [http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-11/news/30287730_1_tea-partiers-protesters-tea-party-patriots "The Wall Street protesters "when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger, more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills," said Meckler and Martin." Anyway, that's just one part of it. It could be rephrased thus: Conservatives and Tea Party activists have said that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are a shiftless mob... From ""The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" " ...of drug-addled indolent, anti-Semitic From: "They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic," ...scraggly hippies. From: The conservative reaction has been similar. A great many conservatives stress the conditions among the tents. They crow that Americans will never fall in line behind a bunch of scraggly hippies. They dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals. T "class warfare" Or some such. The above suggestion uses more sources. How would you accurately portray the sources? Be——Critical 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Slow down. We're just dealing with the first sentence now. We'll get to the second sentence in due time. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not dealing with the second sentence. Be——Critical 02:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC) And may I suggest that the way you edit as here seems to be an attempt to minimize criticism? That change was eliminating an obvious truth which did not need a source per WP:BLUE. Be——Critical 03:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC) I simply see this all as "fringe". It is not the mainstream of accepted journalistic, academic or puplished opinion. I see no reason to mention any of it in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC) You can hardly call Conservatism fringe. Many would like to believe that Rush, for example is "fringe," but in fact he's not. Nor are the Presidential candidates. And as to whether it's fringe relative to our sources, you can read the ones I've used and see that it is not a fringe issue. Per WEIGHT, we have to include it. Be——Critical 23:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Oh sure, you can call conservatism fringe, the same way you can call liberaliam extreme or vice versa. It's a point of view and one's opinion. Opinion is not encyclopedic in this case. It's all just opinion and "fringe" in theory. It is not the accepted academic, peer reviewed, published sort of opinion that is encyclopedic in value. It's nothing more than name calling in some instances and polictical drama in others. It's critisism and it should be used only when it has direct context to the subject and in the proper place and manner as to not give undue weight to opinion of any kind. We don't really need the opinions, quotes, and statements in this manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) For what it's worth, my advice hasn't changed since I made this comment back in December. The problem here is that the tone of the paragraph is unencyclopaedic: we are taking sources who are writing in a journalistic style, and copying their precise wording into our article. In journalism a certain degree of artistic license is allowed, and journalists are free to use loaded words like "ingrates" and "unemployed left-wing zealots" when describing other people's views. In an encyclopaedia, we are obliged to write in a more formal style. In my opinion, we should avoid these kinds of loaded words as much as possible in Wikipedia, by attributing points of view to their sources, and by replacing more of the direct mentions with quotations. So rather than just say "Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich", we could say "Andrew Hartman, writing for The Chronicle Review, says that 'many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility'." Or we could simply drop the loaded terms, and write something like this: "Many conservatives have a negative view of the Wall Street protesters; a common allegation is that the protesters are lobbying for government handouts rather than real societal change." As it is, the paragraph seems to go against the "impartial tone" section in our neutral point of view policy, which says "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, we can do that. My only objection to your paraphrase style is that to accurately represent the sources, we would then have to add something like "The tone of the allegations against Occupy Wall Street has been X Y and Z." That would be impossible to source, because the sources convey this information by way of the words they choose. Thus, your paraphrase, while it maintains an encyclopedic tone, sacrifices accuracy. Quotations, however, would be acceptable to me. However as a general rule WP editors ought to be able to paraphrase sources and do it accurately, so this seems like a kludge to me. I would accept it though. Be——Critical 01:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I agree that we want to make it fully clear to our readers how vitriolic some of the criticism has been - I just think that we shouldn't be using that kind of language ourselves. Also, my examples above were aimed at showing you the sort of things you could do, not at getting you to specifically to include that wording in the article. How about experimenting with different ways of combining the two writing styles I mentioned above, and posting your results on the talk page for people to comment on? If you do it well, you can include all the buzzwords like "ingrates", etc., while still keeping impartiality in the parts written in Wikipedia's voice. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC) To my way of thinking Mr. Stradivarius has an excellent understanding of the situation and I believe that his suggestions are excellent as well. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Okay, here is the text as you suggested: Extended content Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills."" Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream." Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for this diffidence is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy... Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"." Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs. References I would prefer not to use "Andrew Hartman wrote..." since there is no article on Andrew Hartman and no reader will know who that is. Ditto for "Brian Montopoli, writing for...". If you find yourself constructing this sort of sentence, then you are not reporting the consensus, but just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. Speciate (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Let's use Mr. Strativarius' language, "Many conservatives have a negative view of the Wall Street protesters; a common allegation is that the protesters are lobbying for government handouts rather than real societal change." as the starting point. Speciate (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your efforts in drafting this, Becritical! It's looking a lot more neutral now, which is a solid step on our way to drafting the final version. One thing I think we need to work on as a priority is the size of the paragraph - I think it is a little harder to read now that it has become so much bigger. I think we have two options in dealing with this. The first is to make the paragraph a lot smaller, by decreasing the length of the quotations and summarizing more of it in Wikipedia's voice. The second, which I prefer, is to split up the material among the sections that already exist in the article, such as the "2012 presidential candidates" section, the "other politicians" section, and the "media" section. This will probably also require a little rewriting to get the material to fit in with the flow of those sections, and to do it properly we would need to move all the rest of the material in the "criticism" section as well; however, I think by doing this we will end up with a more balanced article overall. The decision is completely up to you and the other involved editors, though. Let's see what all the editors involved with the page think before doing any further drafting. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Agree 100% on speciate's language of "Many conservatives have a negative view of the Wall Street protesters; a common allegation is that the protesters are lobbying for government handouts rather than real societal change."완젬스 (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC) As I mentioned above, in the context of the article, it would be a whitewash to remove the vitriol from the criticisms. The paragraph is large because editors do not want to allow paraphrase, as with my original- and it's not fair to first reject an accurate paraphrase and suggest quotes, then reject the quotes because they are too long. I also think that per WEIGHT, these sources deserve the space. I agree that paraphrase is better- but not at the cost of whitewashing the conservative rhetoric merely because we don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs to report the reality. I'm quite surprised that 완젬스 would want to whitewash. If you want to agree on a characterization of the rhetoric such as "insulting, reactionary and divorced from reality" or whatever, I might agree, but it would be per IAR as such a thing would be original research. I fully admit we have a problem here: conveying this information accurately will not sound encyclopedic. Making it sound encyclopedic, as with Mr. Stradivarius' version, censors a large part of the information. Let's remember that what we're conveying here is an answer to the question "How have conservatives reacted to OWS?" Let's be accurate. Be——Critical 06:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC) To clarify, which side of the "ingrates" inclusion/exclusion debate were you on? I'm scratching my head here as well! (I would look it up myself, but don't want to ruin my non-headache right now, LOL)완젬스 (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I have had a go at writing a draft, so that everyone can better understand what I was intending in my comments above. I haven't included references, but it was based entirely on Becritical's paragraph, so it should be easy to insert them if necessary. I am sure that this wording can be vastly improved, but hopefully you will all agree that it is not a whitewash! Here it is: Many conservatives have been critical of the movement, and commentary from conservative politicians and media sources has often been vitriolic. Accusations have ranged from characterizing protesters as having a mob mentality, being out of touch with the reality of politics, to its members being morally corrupt. For example, House majority leader Eric Cantor called the protesters a "growing mob", and The Tea Party Express called them “shiftless”; in addition, writers for CBS have said that conservatives portray the protesters as “far outside the political mainstream” and a “fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals”. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has also said that the protesters are engaging in “class warfare”, and that they are “anti-American”. The most common allegation, however, is that the protesters are simply lazy and do not want to work. A statement distributed by one Tea Party group said that protesters want “a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills”. Rush Limbaugh used even stronger language, telling his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich also called for the protesters to get jobs; Gingrich said that “you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath.” I'll be very interested to hear your comments/thoughts about how a paragraph like this could work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) That does cut about 200 words off the paragraph. I think it goes beyond the sources in some ways as in "the most common allegation." I don't object to it, or something like it. But I think others will object. I think they will see words such as "vitriolic" as original research. I think they will want you to define "media sources." But let's see if anyone else has a comment about it. Be——Critical 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations 완젬스 (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC) After trying not to re-read old discussions and become involved with this discussion beyond "lightly reading" what's happening, I obsessively read the relevant archive and read this whole massively long debate, and hopefully balanced any perceived admonition of BeCritical below with this light-hearted personal conclusion I have on this matter, on his talk page here. With the standard, boiler-plated civility out of the way, I'd like to perform my analysis of BeCritical's draft, taken from his user subpage, rather than to rely on anyone's mischaracterization of his scathing remarks, which are outlined below: "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility" "government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills" "it is a growing mob" "anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots" "shiftless protesters engaged in class warfare" "movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals" "anti-American" "the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos" "this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." "They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you." "how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country" "go get a job right after you take a bath" Yeah, so what if he "references them" and tries to add words like "said, reported, stated" those are just filler-words to dilute the audacity of what he's trying to do unilaterally, in stark contrast to the rest of us who are not willing to agree with him by force or by repeatedly discussing it ad nauseum. (mind you, this is not a new attempt, just a whiny refusal to accept the last outcome) Amadscientist said it best when he wrote: Oh sure, you can call conservatism fringe, the same way you can call liberaliam extreme or vice versa. It's a point of view and one's opinion. Opinion is not encyclopedic in this case. It's all just opinion and "fringe" in theory. It is not the accepted academic, peer reviewed, published sort of opinion that is encyclopedic in value. It's nothing more than name calling in some instances and polictical drama in others. It's critisism and it should be used only when it has direct context to the subject and in the proper place and manner as to not give undue weight to opinion of any kind. We don't really need the opinions, quotes, and statements in this manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I'm sure his argument is better this time around, and he has learned how to avoid rebuke by studying the last discussion and the time before last but he's still trying to do the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results. It's the same person with the same motivation, but just trying to sound more effective and more reasonable. To treat all 3 attempts like we're dealing with a reasonable person is profoundly unreasonable. I can't think of a good reason not to close this discussion early and stick to the exhaustive discussions and previous outcomes, which lasted 12 days spanning Dec 26th - Jan 6th. I'm fully thorough and complete in this summary & recommendation to disallow BeCritical's equivocation into the article which has excluded his proposal from consensus back then and for good reason. His efforts were deemed highly un-encyclopedic. 완젬스 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC) In my opinion Wikipedia is not supposed to censor highly reliable sources. I didn't have the energy to pursue it back then, but I keep bringing it up because the sources are there. I stand on that: they are good sources. Let's continue to discuss not whether they should be used, but how we should use them and portray what they say accurately without whitewashing. Be——Critical 09:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I agree with you on principle. I find myself battling against the idea of how much the article completely changes to become so negative, depressing, and doomy-gloomy. You say they are good sources, but did you cherrypick them? (i.e. here) 완젬스 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I really didn't cherry pick them. I chose them through a series of google searches. I chose sources which would satisfy WP:RS, and also answer the question "how have conservatives criticised occupy wall street?" So I did a lot of search terms along those lines, and this is what I found. It was always written specifically to answer that question. That's not cherry picking, just answering a question relevant to the article. Also, that's your perspective that it's gloomy. The way I look at it, you know a man by his enemies and a movement by its critics, so it's very useful information. Be——Critical 09:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Also, the point of the video is to show you how if you pick and choose which reliable sources to use, then you can selectively omit to create a bias, even though all your information is reliably sourced. Did you watch the video? 완젬스 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Keep in mind that the "facts" that are being sourced are essentially "What are the prominent critics saying?" not "what is the Occupy Movement?". Many discussions have implied that the source/speaker needs to prove itself as being reliable/authoritative on the latter when actually it (only) needs to be reliable / authoritative on the former. North8000 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC) That argument has been twice discussed before. I'm saying it's better to avoid a scathing quotefest. Here is Mr. Stradivarius's advice repeated twice, and ignored twice: The problem here is that the tone of the paragraph is unencyclopaedic: we are taking sources who are writing in a journalistic style, and copying their precise wording into our article. In journalism a certain degree of artistic license is allowed, and journalists are free to use loaded words like "ingrates" and "unemployed left-wing zealots" when describing other people's views. In an encyclopaedia, we are obliged to write in a more formal style. Why is there an entrenched effort to refuse impartial advice, which already supports then-current consensus? Why is anything different now than last two times we argued this stuff ad nauseum? 완젬스 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I have a new way of approaching this. How about we do it like this book does it, with a thoughtful analysis of the conservative media's reaction to OWS, complete with a select choice of scathing quotes, followed by a description of the other journalistic viewpoints? I think if we can portray each point of view within a reasonable distance of the others, then we will have gone a long way towards making our coverage more palatable. This is also connected with my idea above of restructuring the article. I've already asked this once, but I'll ask it again to be sure - what are people's thoughts on getting rid of the criticism section entirely, and distributing the information throughout the article? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I'm for it, because it eliminates a clusterbomb of negativity. I like handling articles in an encyclopedic fashion which best serves our readers. The criticism section has been hijacked if one editor succeeds on a 3rd attempt after being rejected twice. I'd gladly trade away this headache if both sides can agree to doing away with the criticism section and letting the discussion be debated on the talk page on a case by case basis (and not here, where BeCritical has "home field advantage" effectively). 완젬스 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC) First I want to say that I have not found that BeCritical has attempted to hijack the article nor has he been whiny. It has been my experience that he has been attempting to include criticisms of the movement in an encyclopedic manner and has been willing to listen and react appropriately to the suggestions of others. I have been with this article almost from day one and I've read hundreds of articles by now - many of them more than once. It has been my impression that reporting of critcism has been very difficult because while favorable comments have sounded intelligent and measured, many of the criticisms (take a bath, get a job, etc.) have come from individuals well-known for their outlandish statements - Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, and such. But I have strongly agreed all along with BeCritical's statement, "As I mentioned above, in the context of the article, it would be a whitewash to remove the vitriol from the criticisms." Regarding BeCritical's rewrite, I too feel it is much too long and detailed. I think that the Mr. Strativarius suggestion is better. Re his suggestion that it would be better to integrate the criticisms into the article, I do know that Wikipedia prefers that and that at least one editor has been quite strongly against a separate section as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Reporting of criticism has been very difficult? Not sure what to say other than, lol. The suggestion by impartial users was practically spoon-fed last time in December, but it proved unpalatable to whiny editors. This DRN is a 3rd attempt of the same thing, and should be treated as so. WP:NOTHERE & WP:Game & WP:Battle 완젬스 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC) On getting rid of the criticism section entirely: The article is in too much flux. I can barely keep track of it, and distributing criticism throughout the article would make it unmanageable and impossible to maintain NPOV because WEIGHT will be too hard to determine. As to being "rejected twice," the paragraph was rejected against Wikipedia policy. Such sourcing should not be rejected through wikilawyering and through IDONTLIKEIT arguments like that it is a negativity cluster bomb or that every word needs sourcing etc. Anyway 완젬스, it is a paragraph which is helpful to the movement if you want to see it that way, because to everyone but their base the Rush-like comments look horrible as Gandydancer said. Strad, not sure which part of the book you were linking to, the link doesn't work for me that way. I need you guy's help in rewriting, and thanks for the help already given. I think this is a worthy cause to put the criticism into the article. The article will never be complete without a description of the conservative/republican reaction and rhetoric. Be——Critical 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC) If you can clarify how the proposal is helpful to the movement, you would have won my support from the beginning! But to me, it creates this phony picture that Wikipedia is sympathetic to the movement, and that takes away the legitimacy of us as an encyclopedia. Once a stigma is attached to a movement, it is damn near impossible to shake off. I don't think Wikipedia should parrot the soundbytes played by Fox News or be a mouthpiece of right wing talk radio. You've basically given the most cherry-picked insults for each person that is available and compiled them into a densely packed poison pill that will get swallowed all at once. Doesn't the loss of Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice get lost when we sacrifice it for the sake of blatantly making all republicans look villified? If you want to make it "thinly veiled" or "subtle" then you retain the encyclopedic impartiality while implicitly guiding the reader to make their own conclusions thinking they made their own conclusions. If you package it all into a poison pill, they are going to see what we're doing. (heck, it might make them curious enough to click the talk page or view history) which isn't what we want. There's more than plenty enough fodder to tilt the article towards fitting a particular narrative, but when you come across as vulgar, scathing, or vitriolic, then how will a reader not be affected negatively towards the movement? I think your intentions are good, but I'm failing to understand how you can explain this statement: "it is a paragraph which is helpful to the movement if you want to see it that way, because to everyone but their base the Rush-like comments look horrible as Gandydancer said" 완젬스 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Okay, not that I condone your advocacy, but let me try to convince you just so you'll be happy about the information: it's not a poison pill. Think of who might be reading this: you're either talking to the conservative "base," IOW Rush's audience, or you're talking to the rest of America. If you're talking to Rush's base, then you aren't going to convince them of anything, they are a lost cause. If you're talking to the rest of America, then the "poison pill" is going to make them choke, and be more likely to support OWS. Now, as to your subtlety point: that's a reason to give the quotes. I agree that it makes them look bad, but who could possibly say that WP is making them look bad when it's the words from their own mouths? I agree that if WP were to be making them look bad, that would make people sympathetic but it isn't WP. You say " If you package it all into a poison pill, they are going to see what we're doing," but a) that's not what we're doing, we're only accurately representing the sources, and b) it wouldn't work that way anyway because we're not coming across as vulgar, scathing, or vitriolic, we're using their own words without bias, words that no doubt they would stand by if asked. So if there is anything scathing or vitriolic or poisonous, it is them, and the reader knows that. I just think you are wrong that accurately quoting the movement's adversaries is harmful to the movement. But whether it is or not we have to do it per WEIGHT and NPOV. Be——Critical 21:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) (I moved my edit up because I had not yet read the edit below) 완젬스|완젬스 said:"You've basically given the most cherry-picked insults for each person that is available and compiled them into a densely packed poison pill that will get swallowed all at once. Doesn't the loss of Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice get lost when we sacrifice it for the sake of blatantly making all republicans look villified?" The thing is, these are not cherry picked statements at all and they were not offhand statements which the speaker instantly wishes they had not said. These speakers were saying what they believe to be true and they would stand by their statements. On the other hand, I believe that there is a lot of merit to your suggestion that so many statements that may appear to have been cherry picked squeezed into one paragraph back-to-back may make it appear that the article is attempting to slant our coverage against those who have a negative view of the movement. Perhaps a good reason to attempt to place criticism throughout the article rather than group it? (Though I'm not sure that it's possible and it makes me cringe just thinking about how difficult it might be...) Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I appreciate your explanation. I'll compare this draft with your explanation and email a couple fellow "starbucks liberals" and get their opinions. I think that if you can somehow edit your draft to fully protect "wikipedia's voice" from the quoted voices, then I might consider being supportive of it. But haven't you ever watched a MM documentary like Sicko or Capitalism and thought to yourself that it's almost too easy to pick apart the narrative which the film director is trying to convey subtly? Also, what's with your elitist tone that "not that I condone your advocacy, but let me try to convince you just so you'll be happy" because if I'm right on this issue, then you'll be eating humble pie. ;-) I still believe strongly that your quote clusterbomb is unencyclopedic and that you have ignored impartial advice last time around, and that you're only raising the issue here because the atmosphere is different (here, the admins & facilitators try to get both sides to agree with each other and strike a compromise) which in this case is a risk-free gamble where you might win, and if you lose, you simply try again in two months, only aiming to portray yourself as more effective and more reasonable than previous attempts. I have common ground with you. I think we each believe the other person is trying to listen and understand, but I still think your editorial judgment is lacking, your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATitis is tenacious, and your inability to accept the fact we wouldn't be discussing this if you got your way at the first DRN or if you garnered the necessary consensus at any prior juncture in your multiple attempts to pass this unpopular proposal. You've failed every time, but every time you failed, you don't realize why it's unfair to keep bringing this discussion up repeatedly. It's like you're a revolving appellant who has infinite appeals, wasting the time of the judge and jury. I have never opened a single rfc, drn, ani, 3o, or any other type of process, nor would I attempt doing so especially on a matter which clearly failed both times at the two places which have already been discussed at extreme length linked at "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already," above. 완젬스 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Quick note: sorry about the elitist tone, I have to cover my NPOV ass. More later. Be——Critical 01:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC) The tone comment was a matter of friendly jesting--I'm just trying to mix things up a little bit, kind of like this song lol. 완젬스 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Re the rest of your comment, it's not my fault people don't like what the sources say. I agree with Gandydancer that it would be quite a nightmare to try and disperse the criticism throughout the article. And here's an observation: it seems that people variously think that the quotations slant things against OWS versus against the critics of OWS. What does that mean? Is it all in our perceptions and our own POV? Be——Critical 02:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I'm on record militating against tailoring our material to the supposed reception. I believe we should just relay the sources. Be——Critical 02:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Random break Here's another version which considerably cuts down the verbiage. Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." A Tea Party group said the protesters want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain)." Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." Mitt Romney claimed the protesters are "waging "class warfare," and Herman Cain said they were "anti-American"." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs. References Be——Critical 04:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Regarding the criticism section as a whole, I think it adds something and belongs in the article. In terms of Becritical's suggestion, I disagree. This is my suggestion. Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." The quote here violates WP:Weight. It comes from one, not so mainstream source. I support it's removal entirely. I would just use: "Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic.." Next I would put this: On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Everything about Hermain Cain, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, etc. should be removed because they are already discussed in the article. See the sections Congress and 2012 Presidential candidates here Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street#Congress. Rick Santorum is not mentioned there so the material about him should be added to that section. Next I would put: A Tea Party group said the protesters want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." Lastly: Matthew Continetti, writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." This issue has gone on for too long. At the end of the day it comes down to this: Becritical needs to gain some form of consensus to add this material or it cannot be added, period. I think the time has come for him to either accept a highly edited version, as I've suggested above, or drop the stick (WP:DEADHORSE) and walk away. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure about any particular addition, but "need a consensus to add any material" is basically a way to block any addition of material. Also an approach where a plurality of editors basically decides which way to POV an article rather than balancing it. This article appears to be heavily slanted towards the pro-"Occupy movement" POV. A movement where I'd say in real life the reaction has been 50/50 positive / negative yet the article content is like 90/10 positive/negative. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Hmm, it looks like there is a lot left to be debated about this article and this section, and I don't think we have become completely stuck here just yet. Also, this kind of detailed discussion about the article content really belongs on the talk page, and not at DRN. How about we take this back to the talk page? We can try and work out a compromise there, and if that still doesn't work, I suggest taking it to an RfC. How does this sound to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC) My opinion is that it should stay here. Have a look at this: Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_22#Removal_at_the_Criticism_section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I believe that it should stay here as well. I have about zero hope that it can be settled on the talk page but I have high hopes that it may be settled here. @ North8000, speaking as one who has been involved with this article from the start, there has been every effort to present a balanced article. If you have any suggestions to make the article more balanced, by all means please join the talk page discussion with referenced suggestions. Or even edit the article if it seems appropriate to you. Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) This dispute has been long running and taking quite a lot of space on this noticeboard. I would suggest bringing this to informal mediation and see what happens from there. I haven't looked at this dispute fully and informal mediation may or may not be necessary. Strad, I could be the mediator for this case since you're already busy with the Verifiability mediation. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I likewise could mediate this. I don't think I've met my quota for being active in DR lately. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Somedifferentstuff: there is no WEIGHT violation. The source is very WP:MAINSTREAM, being a better source than your average news organization because it is more academic. I have provided good sources for the paragraph, and they must be included per WEIGHT, or we have to ignore Wikipedia policy. Hermain Cain, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, etc. need to be included, because they have made notable criticisms. So long as we have a criticism section, that material belongs per WEIGHT. North8000 is right in that the article currently ignores conservative/Republican criticism, and this is an NPOV issue. All attempts to put this material in meets with the problem that the criticisms have not been in a tone which an encyclopedia would wish to convey, but that is not our fault and we have to be accurate (it's not our part to shill for Republicanism by refusing to convey accurately what they said because they sound rabid). However, the Conservative criticisms don't deserve as much WEIGHT as they have in the overall public debate, because they fail to get in RS most of the time (again per [[WP:MAINSTREAM])]. I want to keep this discussion here because it needs the light of day. I'm open to mediation. Be——Critical 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC) If all the parties are open to mediation, I'll be happy to open a case and have Steven & I mediate the case for you. Having the discussion kept here isn't that advantageous as this thread will likely only be visited by a small collection of regular volunteers other than the disputants, rather than exposing it to "the light of day". I'm hoping that mediation will lead to more progress with this dispute and we can work towards a solution rather than just back-and-forthing between the two points of view. To get more users to weigh in their opinion, we can work to find ways of doing so through mediation such as drafting a request for comments. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Sounds good. Be——Critical 23:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Sounds good. And Becritical, have you even looked at the article regarding Hermain Cain, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, etc ??????? I'll post it below. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Looks like they added a bunch of stuff since I read it. I am not basically opposed to distributing the criticism throughout the article if it's done right. Is that something you'd consider doing as a solution without vitiating the text? Others may be opposed to that, but it's a possibility. Be——Critical 02:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Extended content Congress House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va), at the Values Voter Summit House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi said she supports the growing nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement. Pelosi said she includes herself in the group of Americans dissatisfied with Congress and stated, "I support the message to the establishment, whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen. We cannot continue in a way (that) is not relevant to their lives." Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democratic Party, appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and supported the protests saying, "We desperately need a coming together of working people to stand up to Wall Street. We need to rebuild the middle-class in this country and you guys can't have it all." House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va), in a speech to a Values Voter Summit, characterized the movement as "growing mobs" and said that Obama's "failed policies" and rhetoric "condon[ing] the pitting of Americans against Americans" were to blame. In response, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused Cantor of "unbound" hypocrisy, given the Majority Leader's support of the Tea Party protests, adding, "I don't understand why one man's mob is another man's democracy." Carney characterized both movements as examples of American democratic traditions. The Democratic co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representatives Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison, announced their solidarity with the movement on October 4. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is asking for 100,000 names on its website which will subsequently be added to 100,000 letters to Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, expressing support for the Occupy Wall Street protesters, the middle class, and opposition to tax loopholes for millionaires and big oil. 2012 Presidential candidates U.S. Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) stated, "If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed—I would say, 'good!'" In a GOP debate, mentioning the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protesters, he stated that crony capitalists are those “that benefit from contract from government, benefit from the Federal Reserve, benefit from all the bailouts. They don’t deserve compassion. They deserve taxation or they deserve to have all their benefits removed." When protesters conducted a 'mic check,' at one of Ron Paul's rallies, he replied, "If you listen carefully, I'm very much involved with the 99. I've been condemning that 1% because they've been ripping us off. The people on Wall Street got the bailouts and you guys got stuck with the bills and that's where I see the problem is." Former 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain accused the movement of being "anti-capitalist" and argued "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!" In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Cain also expressed his belief that Occupy Wall Street was "planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration," but admitted that he "[didn't] have facts" to back up his accusation. Former Speaker of the House of Representatives and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was quoted as saying at the 2012 Bloomberg/Washington Post Debate, "Let me draw a distinction. Virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually [every] American has a reason to be worried. I think the people who are protesting in Wall Street break into two groups: one is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other is sincere middle-class people who frankly are very close to the Tea Party people who care. And actually... you can tell which are which. The people who are decent, responsible citizens pick up after themselves. The people who are just out there as activists trash the place and walk off and are proud of having trashed it, so let’s draw that distinction." On November 21, Gingrich was quoted as saying to the protesters that they should "Go get a job right after you take a bath." 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that while there were "bad actors" that needed to be "found and plucked out", he believes that to aim at one industry or region of America is a mistake and views encouraging the Occupy Wall Street protests as "dangerous" and inciting "class warfare". Romney later expressed sympathy for the movement, saying, "I look at what's happening on Wall Street and my view is, boy, I understand how those people feel." 2012 Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer expressed support for the movement, saying, "We have almost permanent unemployment. They say it’s nine percent, but the real unemployment rate is more like 16 percent. These are people there are no jobs for, or they have to work part time to try to make ends meet. It’s disturbing. The Wall Street protest is unshaped, unfocused, but there’s a lot of power in it." On October 18, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson visited with the protesters in New York, expressing his support for the movement, stating, "I just have to express my solidarity with everyone there that expresses the notion that we have a country that doles it out unfairly. Corporatism is alive and well in this country." Jill Stein, a 2012 Green Party (GPUS) presidential candidate, has strongly and consistently voiced support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. On October 9, prior to announcing her candidacy, she visited occupied Dewey Square in Boston, where she thanked the protesters for "breaking through the sound barrier," established by the "conglomerate media" which, according to her, have silenced those who have tried to speak out against injustice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Random break II If BeCritical can put the comments into the article satisfactorily (so it's no longer a "poison pill") then maybe we can all agree on that, and therefore can skip mediation and wrap this DRN up quickly? 완젬스 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I can try that hopefully tomorrow when I have time if it's a possible solution. Be——Critical 05:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Let's quickly agree to this if you're ready to shake hands and grab a beer afterward. The thought of a long, drawn-out mediation procedure is not my cup of tea. When I work, I like to get stuff done--not sit around in committee meetings all day, going in circles. 완젬스 (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC) You basically took out the Rush and Glenn Beck quotes. Not sure why, but if others here are willing to agree, then it's fine with me. I reserve the possibility of adding mention of Rush and Beck at other places in the article though, if I find a good spot. Be——Critical 06:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I think the whole point is me not wanting them within 50 feet of any occupy article, lol. They already appear on my msnbc television set for Sandra Fluke and I can't stand them. They make my blood boil. Maybe you're white, but being a minority, it feels like Beck & Limbaugh threaten my rights. Just read Japanese Americans 1942 for more information. They both preach white supremacy (i.e. opposing affirmative action) and they are oppressive to minorities (by tax policies). Can't our movement have no mention of 3 simple things? Limbaugh, Beck, and antisemitism! But on a serious note, can't I compromise on 9 of your quotes, and you cede on 2 without putting my neck under the guillotine? As a bonus, I'll bind user:somedifferentstuff to this compromise because I have no idea how he and I got on the same side of this issue. I don't think I've ever been in an edit war without the usual "sides" that I customarily find myself on. How about we work out a compromise (you give me a counter-compromise) because I really just want to avoid mediation at all costs. I don't know why the rest of you are so eager to escalate things so flippantly--I for one wish that Wikipedia was more simple & nobody knew how to "take thing to xyz noticeboard or zyx special escalation page" because it's unfamiliar to new editors who prefer simply an article page & a talk page. Can we at least hold off on mediation until giving the talk page another chance? 완젬스 (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Alternative compromises (part a) The first compromise to be considered by both sides of this debate are BeCritical's offer to work the criticism into the article itself at various locations. Let's not rule out this possibility yet, especially since I want to see what he is offering. 완젬스 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Some more comments Wow, that's a lot of info. Just for better viewing, I put in an extended content section. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Before moving this to mediation, I'd like to clarify who the involved parties would be (since Somedifferentstuff and Becritical are named the parties but there seems to be more involved since the opening of this thread). Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I just made a few comments trying to bring a little balance. I'm not really involved in the dispute. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 완젬스, Gandydancer, Amadscientist, The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I just want to say that I think mediation is a great idea as well, and that there's no need for it to be "long" or "drawn-out". Maybe the prospective mediators could give a ballpark figure for how long it might take? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC) If it's fine with everybody else, then let's give it a shot. 완젬스 (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I'll start drafting the mediation case. I'm thinking about a month of mediation should do: discuss whether there should be an RfC, discuss the content being taken out of sources and a review of policies, if necessary. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:52, 16 March 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.