Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Cus D'Amato
Both the complained-about edit and the requested edit were clearly inappropriate and have been deleted. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Rebel Legion
No active dispute; page has been deleted since 2009. This is also an inappropriate forum, disputes over deletion should go to Deletion review — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Fiona Graham
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There is quite a lot of edit warring. In particular, there seems to be a strong bias in favour a negative information being left in the article whilst positive information is left out. The result is an article that does not conform to the standards of neutrality which Wikipedia requires.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- DAJF (talk · contribs)
- Your Lord and Master (talk · contribs) (Used to be Simon-in-sagamihara)
- 118.22.196.216 (talk · contribs)
Simon-in-sagamihara (talk · contribs)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion on the talk page, page blocks, inclusion on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard
- How do you think we can help?
Some form of objective overview, or perhaps blocking certain users from editing the page
Mrceep (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Fiona Graham discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Hi, I'm Your Lord and Master (formerly Simon-in-sagamihara), one of your defendants for the evening. I'll try to keep this as brief and as on-track as possible. If I mention something that seems off the point, please ask about it -- everything I'm about to write is relevant, so I probably just forgot to attach the reason!
- I'll address the editor who listed this dispute as Mrceep (talk · contribs), but in doing so I also include the editors FiG8 (talk · contribs), K1nchTKB (talk · contribs), and the IP editors 118.22.196.216 (talk · contribs), 114.177.71.157 (talk · contribs), 114.162.236.246 (talk · contribs), 69.181.212.119 (talk · contribs), 180.11.87.75 (talk · contribs), 91.152.178.98 (talk · contribs), 180.11.179.149 (talk · contribs), 180.22.75.199 (talk · contribs), 180.1.56.196 (talk · contribs), 180.0.251.42 (talk · contribs), 180.31.99.27 (talk · contribs), 180.22.90.82 (talk · contribs), 203.167.138.30 (talk · contribs),203.173.182.135 (talk · contribs), 203.118.178.29 (talk · contribs), 110.32.102.27 (talk · contribs), 114.78.186.192 (talk · contribs), 116.231.237.204 (talk · contribs), 116.231.230.133 (talk · contribs), 180.11.146.65 (talk · contribs), and 118.22.196.216 (talk · contribs).
- The reason I specifically list these editors is that I strongly believe they are all operated by the same person, and that that person is likely Fiona Graham herself. (The editor who originally created the Sayuki page in 2009, which was speedily deleted for being a cut and paste from Graham's Sayuki web site, was FiG8 (talk · contribs). Please note the initials.) I do understand that there is no rule against IP editing nor maintaining more than one account. However, Mrceep is attempting to paint DAJF (talk · contribs) and myself as opposing the opinions of "several people". These "several people" all happen to edit only the Graham article, the Liza Dalby article or related pages; share the same writing and emphasis and STRONG EMPHASIS style; and have the same beef with the same information (discussed below). In addition, if these accounts are all operated by Ms Graham -- which this diff implies, then she is not adhering to WP:COI. Statements implying they are different are made in the edit summaries of this diff, this diff and this diff.
- Mrceep appears to have four problems with the article:
- She is adamant that Graham, and not Liza Dalby, is the "first Western geisha"
- She does not want Graham's birth year listed in the article
- She disagrees with sources describing Graham's disaffiliation from the Tokyo Asakusa Association and prefers to accuse the association of racism
- She believes that the article does not paint Graham in a flattering enough light.
- I'll address each of these one by one.
- The references listed in Liza Dalby -- particularly this one, but also this page from Dalby's own book -- indicate that Liza Dalby trained and formally debuted in the 1970s, well before Graham did. Mrceep addressed this by creatively interpreting the verbs train and debut to be synonymous with "work", and then introduces WP:OR to explain why Dalby wasn't really a geisha because she didn't "work" as a geisha, while Graham is because she "works" as a geisha. No reference was ever provided to back up this claim. Mrceep has spent time and effort making this change to both this article and Liza Dalby.
There is no dispute that Graham "worked"/"works" as a geisha. The article reflects multiple editors' consensus that Liza Dalby trained and debuted as a geisha decades before Graham did and thus Graham is not "the world's first Western geisha". - Mrceep has edited the article several times removing Graham's birth year. She does not dispute the accuracy of the year, but claims that it is in violation of WP:BLP since "geisha do not reveal their age". Mrceep is to be commended for her dedication to protecting the privacy rights of Graham, especially since Graham herself has revealed her age in the references provided! The main reason she gives, that Graham will "suffer" or "have harm inflicted on her geisha career" if her birth year is listed in the English Wikipedia, unfortunately, fail WP:NOTCENSORED, which state Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of some organizations forbid that information to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.
- Although reliable English- and Japanese-language sources both verify the statement that Graham was asked to leave the association due to friction between her, the association and her fellow geishas, Mrceep continues to remove any and all references to same and replacing it with the unsourced, POV claim that the racist Tokyo Asakusa Association booted her out simply because she was a foreigner. See here and here for examples. Graham, in an interview in The Australian, did put forth her views as such, and that is reflected in the current version of the article, alongside the Association's views (which must be considered more objective than Graham's).
- Mrceep's multiple listings of this article at the BLP noticeboard, and finally this dispute lodgement, also claim that the version of the article currently under consensus by multiple editors is "negative", "attacking" Graham and "disrupting her career". Her most recent edits added language (since removed by another editor) promoting Graham's media appearances and charity works with weasel words. From time to time, she has dropped in on the talk page to lambast editors for adding "wrong" and "harmful" information and demanding that we conform to her views on the subject. There is clear consensus among all other participating editors that the article as it stands is neutral, factual, verifiable, objective and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on BLP as well as reliable sources.
- With all due respect, I suggest that Mrceep spend some time reading WP:PROUD and less time fighting to remove cited sources and factual information that she feels is detrimental to or otherwise hurts Graham's feelings. With slightly less respect, I suggest that she look up the dictionary definition of "neutrality" and ponder on whether her actions reflect the neutrality she so badly craves. I also note that she implies that one of her attempted resolutions was "page blocking", while in actual fact it was another editor who requested the block to stop the IP editor(s)! Finally, given that her suggested solution to this dispute is "blocking certain users from editing the page", I would propose that the protection against IP editing is reinstated permanently and that Mrceep and her socks are topic-banned from the article.
- Thank you for your time! It's late at night and I got progressively more tired as I went on so please don't hesitate to let me know if I missed a citation or two. I look forward to hearing your views on the matter. Your Lord and Master (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your responses to the issue. Please note that this is not a trial and you're not a defendant. Merely a party to the dispute.
- Operating multiple accounts in a abusive manner is prohibited by Wikipedia (WP:SOCK). If you think that Mrceep/FiG8 is using both accounts simultaneously without declaring one as the alternate of the other and keeping them editing different topics, you may open a Sock Puppet Investigation (which I would be suprised if it didn't come back as anything less than Probable/Confirmed). Hasteur (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Hasteur. (I should be in bed already.) I think at this point the DR filing should run its course -- iff necessary, the SPI can happen afterwards. No need to go nuclear at this stage, everything's civil :) Your Lord and Master (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sockpuppetry is not something to be taken lightly, and opening an investigation is not going "nuclear". It is also structurally independent of the issues related to the Graham article. I have therefore opened a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am un-archiving this as I think that having a new set of eyes on the dispute (beyond the BLPN) couldn't hurt the issue and very likeley would encourage the reporter to understand the consensus here. Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, and I hope we can get this sorted out. I'll try and replying to each of the points, although first I'd like to state that I'm not Fiona Graham. I don't know how I can prove this, especially without breaking my anonymity, but if there is some verification process that's available I'd be happy to go through with it. This makes it quite hard to reply to some of your points directly, as they seem to be aimed at Fiona herself, but I can address some of the issues you've raised.
1. I do personally believe that Fiona Graham is the first Western geisha. However, I'm quite aware that what it means to be a geisha, and so what it means to be the 'first' is a contentious issue. That's why I've posted this here, to try and get a completely objective viewpoint on this all, and so to get a neutral article. I haven't changed the Liza Dalby page at any point. It's my opinion that to be a geisha, you need to work as a geisha, and I'm submitting that to the opinions and evaluation of a different audience to see what they think. The reference for Liza Dalby not working as a geisha is hard to obtain, because it's something she didn't do. From her works that I've read, I've not come across an instance of her working as a geisha, and so that's where this claim comes from.
2. I've not edited this myself, because I see it as quite a grey area. I've been trying to find other articles on wikipedia that have subjects in similar circumstances (preferably those who are also currently working geisha), but have yet to find any. My opinion was that this article should follow the precedent of as similar an article as possible. Any help with this would be much appreciated, if you agree of course.
3. I haven't removed anything about the association booting her out, because it's a sourced piece of news. I thought it was, however, a tad biased, so I decided to include the other side of the story. I worded it badly, and was corrected quite quickly, and was happy with the correction, as the talk page shows.
4. I've lodged this once, particularly hoping for an outsider to step in and give a neutral view. My evaluation of this is that most of those involved seem to have their views, and be quite adamant not to move from them. Because we seem to have very few people actively editing the article, this has led to a situation in which it's very difficult to achieve middle-ground between those involved simply through debate. I think, however, the article is much better now than when I first posted this dispute. In my opinion, when I first entered this section, the article was a bit biased. The addition of information about charity work and media appearances seemed quite appropriate, they were relatively big or important events.
I'm not too fussed about hurt feelings, just having the grey areas cleared up. I don't think blocking IPs is a good idea, I don't think it works all that well, which is why I didn't have it as the first option, but if it's what other people think is the best solution, then I'd agree with that action being taken. I hope this helps people understand my position, and I hope we get a solution. If in any future replies, users could refer to me as separate from Fiona Graham, that would make replying a lot easier, and make for easier debate. I'm happy for a sock puppet investigation to take place in order to clear any misunderstandings about this. Finally, sorry the reply took so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrceep (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think most of the issues have already been clearly addressed by "Your Lord and Master" above. Regarding point 4 about Mrceep's continued desire for "neutrality", while "Your Lord and Master" and myself appear to be the main active editors watching this article, I personally have no vested interest in the article subject other than to ensure that everything in it is properly sourced and does not degenerate into a promotional piece by and about Fiona Graham/Sayuki. As mentioned above, Mrceep and her past reincarnations have posted several requests to the BLP noticeboard which prompted other disinterested editors to check over the article and agree that there were no serious problems with it. It also prompted temporary page blocks to prevent repeated unilateral removal of "unflattering" details such as the sourced birth year by single-purpose IP accounts. --DAJF (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- In the interests of civility, Mrceep, I'll address you as Mrceep but I do not withdraw my concerns. Let me respond to your first point, as I think it's the most important one.
- You've expressed your feelings and strong beliefs, but that is WP:OR -- we don't list subjective speculation, we need objective and verifiable facts. Now, I'll allow that there are a number of articles that trumpet "Japan's first Western geisha" but you'll notice that the majority of them are fluff pieces which spend their time quoting Graham rather than actually researching (or, heavens forbid, fact-checking) the things she's saying. Why don't we quote these articles to support "Graham is Japan's first western geisha" then? Because other reliable sources disprove that. It's like Weekly World News and those tabloid mags -- just because they say aliens landed on Earth, it doesn't mean it's true, even if it's a published source.
- One more thing, could you explain this edit? You said "as I've pointed out earlier", yet that was your first contribution to the talk page, and virtually all of the previous IP-added comments appear to be from Graham. Is there a particular comment on that page that you are saying is yours? Cheers Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't want the article to include both subjective sides of a debate, just objective and verifiable facts. I'll admit, I'm quite new to wikipedia (editing at least), so I've made some mistakes when sourcing and whatnot, but I've attempted to follow rules, and if I've been told about a mistake I've made, I've left the correction. In fact, I've left any corrections to avoid starting edit wars, and taken any qualms to talk pages or noticeboards instead. As for the comments about the sources used, we could take the sources used to source the line "In February 2011, Graham was disaffiliated from the Asakusa Geisha Association after repeated disputes with other geishas, who claimed she failed to follow customs and show proper deference to more experienced practitioners, spending too much time on self promotion." I can't read the Japanese article, but both English articles refer to Graham at least once on their pages as the 'first foreign geisha' or 'first western geisha' (without using the word 'claimed'). I believe these are reliable sources (the telegraph and the Wall Street Journal), and the fact that they're used in the article to source this information seems to imply that there is consensus that these are reliable sources. Therefore there are reliable sources that state that Graham was the first western/foreign geisha, and it isn't some 'tabloid magazine' that says it. Finally, "as I've pointed out earlier" refers to 'earlier in the paragraph'. I probably should have said "as I just pointed out" or something that implied that I was referring to that same paragraph, but at the time I didn't think I'd be thought to be Graham, so I thought it'd be quite obvious that I could only be referring to my own single edit. Mrceep (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Fiona Graham resolution
Ralph Nader
Improper forum for dispute by listing editor, per WP:LEGAL once legal threats have been made "it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." Report of legal threats has also been made at ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Rutabaga
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The language found in the version of the article under the heading "Halloween" is under discussion by myself and Gandydancer (talk · contribs). We have tried to discuss this on the talk page (here), but things seem to be going nowhere. We previously discussed nearly identical language back in 2009 (here) and even got a WP:3O with User:GB fan stepping in to agree the section, as written by Gandydancer, was excessive in its detail of the description of the holiday. I contend the current description, favored by Gandydancer, provides too much detail on irrelevancies unrelated to rutabagas, such as a description of the progression of the holiday and what children who dressed up were called (and the derivation of the name). I proposed a pared-down version on the talk page that stuck to points immediately related to the use of rutabagas in the holiday festivities, but was shot down. Gandydancer will not accept any alternative other than his/her preferred language. Our reverts are getting out of hand and inching closer to WP:3RR. Assistance beyond a WP:3O would be appreciated. Rkitko (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussed on the talk page in 2009, again now (which seems to be going nowhere), and received a WP:3O during the 2009 discussion.
- How do you think we can help?
Assist in the next step of discussion after a third opinion; review the current Halloween section and provide your own opinions.
Rkitko (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Rutabaga discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
You forgot to notify the other user. I have remedied this. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but he did let me know on the talk page. Feeling that he did present our conflict fairly, I thought that someone from this board would read the talk page involved. But perhaps I am expected to make a reply here? If that is the case, I will write up my position. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- We just want to make sure that both parties are aware (direct message to the party is preferred). I'll try reading through the debate later today to make suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'd appreciate it if you'd first read the Rutabaga article to see my information placement on the page with the lantern photo. Also, note that I have removed the reference to "guisers" that was objected to. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- We just want to make sure that both parties are aware (direct message to the party is preferred). I'll try reading through the debate later today to make suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- This seems to be going nowhere so perhaps it will help if I write a short summary here from my POV:
Reading the article for the first time two years ago I was fascinated to learn that rutabagas (or turnips as they are usually called outside of the U.S.) were the first jack-o-lanterns. I did some research and added the information that I have now added but it was argued then, as now, that it was excessive. It was pared down to only " Rutabagas commonly carved into decorative lanterns called jack-o'-lanterns for the Halloween season, remain popular throughout Britain and Ireland.[16]" and remained like that for about a year when another editor added, "Since inaugural Halloween festivals in Ireland and Scotland, turnips (rutabaga) have been carved out and used as candle lanterns.[15] At Samhain, candle lanterns carved from turnips — Samhnag — were part of the traditional Celtic festival. Large turnips were hollowed out, carved with faces and placed in windows, used to ward off harmful spirits.[15]" Rkitko then removed the second sentence saying that the reference did not include that information, even though the reference does include the information.
Rkitko has repeatedly suggested that I am not using good faith, however it seems to me that the only good faith I have not been using is faith that his interests in what is worthwhile to include in the article are more correct than mine. He has pointed out Wikipedia guidelines that he claims cover our disagreement, however they seem to me to actually cover how to decide if an article is worthy, not specific information in the article. When I have pointed out that the articles bat, apple, and pomegranate contain a great deal of mythological information he refuses my logic with "other stuff exists" guidelines, which I do not feel apply in this case.
At the time of our first long exchange from two years ago when I first attempted to include this information I asked for help. At that time I expected the "help" to be in the form of help in finding Wikipedia guidelines that showed I was wrong, not an opinion from another editor on whether or not they "liked" my addition. I am a hard-working and dedicated editor and strongly support the need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate Rkitko's dedicated and expert help as well, but I do not believe that he should be the judge and jury of information that I find appropriate, educational, and enjoyable for Wikipedia. I have pared my halloween information down to the bare minimum of what I feel I need to explain how turnips came to be the first jack-o-lanterns, and I feel that it should be included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair, I have never suggested you weren't acting out of good faith. I have asked you for a show of good faith in reverting your additions as we discuss. The two are not the same. As for my earlier removal of the sentence you talk about, I could find no mention of the word "Samhnag," and the other phrases were copied word-for-word (WP:COPYVIO).
- And to be clear, I am not against including mythological information in articles as long as it is well-sourced and directly related to the subject of the article. What I object to is the extensive discussion of other topics only tangentially connected to the subject. Mentioning other articles is irrelevant, as they may need to be cleaned up, too, which is why an "other stuff exists" argument is not usually a good one to make. Rkitko (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- As usual, we are in complete disagreement. Rkitko did repeatedly ask me to show good faith, but to show good faith by reverting my addition was never in question since he reverted my edits as I attempted to justify them. Then a year later when another editor attempted to include similar information he deleted it saying the ref did not include the information. Actually the information was in the ref except for the Scottish word for halloween. Then when the editor tried to fix his edit he came back with: "revert: reference is not a reliable scholarly publication, and it's not clear it refers specifically to rutabagas instead of turnips". This Dept. of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee site is used at the Halloween, the turnip, the Samhain sites, and others and seems to be acceptable there. And to again, after a previous lengthy discussion with me and many other editors regarding the fact that rutabaga is an American word and of course would not be used in the discussion of the history of rutabagas/turnips, to continue to dispute this reality causes me a great deal of frustration in my attempts to deal with Rkitko and assures me that he has a strong bias against information that is not related to his area of knowledge/belief system. As an aside, I note that that editor did not again attempt to edit our encyclopedia. I can't read his/her mind, but I can understand why some new editors may become frustrated. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Back in our 2009 discussion, you had been making statements on my motivation, and saying that I was using WP:RS as a weapon. Because of this, I did feel it prudent to remind you to assume good faith and keep the discussion on our content dispute. Since then, I have not asked you assume good faith. Looking back at the reference in question, it could be a reliable source, I admit, but it mentions "turnips" only once. What I wouldn't give for one of these sources to use the taxon name! Please do not misunderstand my point on this - I am not an advocate for any particular common name of this plant, and I fully understand that many other people call this plant a swede or a turnip. However, without clarification, how do we know the source is discussing Brassica napobrassica (the rutabaga) and not Brassica rapa var. rapa (the turnip). (By the way, what do people in the UK call B. rapa var. rapa? Is it also a turnip?) I am not confused on this, I just think that without clarification in the sources, we don't know which taxon it's discussing! It's complicated by the fact that they share a common name and that they're so closely related. Perhaps an answer to the following question might help us here: Do you know when the rutabaga was being widely used in this manner? Prior to the late 1700s, it wasn't known in Scotland or England, except for maybe in the royal gardens. Perhaps finding out you can then edit the imprecise "Since early times" that starts off the section. Rkitko (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have to admit, a discussion about the use of rutabagas as Jack-O-Lanterns intrigues me, and I have a decent amount of experience as a mediator so I'd be willing to step in and try to work out a compromise. I'd be happy to do so on the talk page of the article. I'll leave a message on the talk pages of both editors to see if they are interested. -- Atama頭 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Back in our 2009 discussion, you had been making statements on my motivation, and saying that I was using WP:RS as a weapon. Because of this, I did feel it prudent to remind you to assume good faith and keep the discussion on our content dispute. Since then, I have not asked you assume good faith. Looking back at the reference in question, it could be a reliable source, I admit, but it mentions "turnips" only once. What I wouldn't give for one of these sources to use the taxon name! Please do not misunderstand my point on this - I am not an advocate for any particular common name of this plant, and I fully understand that many other people call this plant a swede or a turnip. However, without clarification, how do we know the source is discussing Brassica napobrassica (the rutabaga) and not Brassica rapa var. rapa (the turnip). (By the way, what do people in the UK call B. rapa var. rapa? Is it also a turnip?) I am not confused on this, I just think that without clarification in the sources, we don't know which taxon it's discussing! It's complicated by the fact that they share a common name and that they're so closely related. Perhaps an answer to the following question might help us here: Do you know when the rutabaga was being widely used in this manner? Prior to the late 1700s, it wasn't known in Scotland or England, except for maybe in the royal gardens. Perhaps finding out you can then edit the imprecise "Since early times" that starts off the section. Rkitko (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Rutabaga resolution
Optical Express Page
Requesting editor indefinitely blocked. May reopen if block is lifted. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
America Invents Act Cont.
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
This report can be seen as a continuation of the issues raised in the previous discussion. Note that the previous thread was archived before a resolution could be reached.
The two threads are similar in the sense that issues regarding WP:QUOTEFARM continue to be a major point of dispute. I view the addition of lengthy quotes as a violation of WP:QUOTEFARM. User:LadyArguer disputes this, arguing that it is 'valuable information on Section 18 and interest groups (which were also included in the articles on the PRA of 2009 & 2007' [1]. The second issue relates to the 'for/against' section which lists a series of organizations that hold some interest in the debate. I would dispute the relevance of this list, and believe that the information may be better suited to be integrated into the body of the article, or removed altogether. User:LadyArguer disputes this, stating that it is 'valuable for interested people and Congress to know that there is lots of opposition to this' [2]. With this rationale, I would argue that the intent of this section may border the line of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Note that the addition of the quotes may also violate WP:UNDUE.
User:VivekVish, User:Ravensfire have also participated in the debate. -Cntras (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Cntras (talk · contribs)
- LadyArguer (talk · contribs)
- VivekVish (talk · contribs)
- Ravensfire (talk · contribs)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
The issue has been discussed on the article talk page and on user talk pages. It has been largely unproductive.
- How do you think we can help?
Discuss a compromise
America Invents Act discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The section in dispute has been brought up on the talk page, but there has been precious little participation from LadyArguer. After a single post on the talk page, they have just reverted their changes back in without discussion. The changes are two new sections. The first section is mostly a single massive quote with some additional unreliable sources thrown in for good measure. (this blog post for example) The quote itself is from an advocacy site (http://www.noonhr1249.org/ main site here) which does not meet the criteria for a RS. This is something that belongs on a blog, not an encyclopedia.
The other section is a for/against list that is severely biased towards LadyArguer's POV and needs better sourcing. As I commented on the talk page, this section would be much better off as a description of the types of groups that are for and against the bill and highlighting specific groups that gain notability for going against the trend. Partial lists like this are silly, generally unhelpful and easily balloon as more and more entries are added. As it's written, I don't see how this section provides any benefit to a WP article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition to Ravensfire's point above, I would also like to point to the massive amount of text about advocacy in America_Invents_Act#Advocacy_for_and_against compared to the relative dearth of information about what exactly the provisions of the bill are. In addition to breaking NPOV, the advocacy really stretches the Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weight guideline. I'd even argue for removing the entire advocacy section and focus the information on what precisely the bill's provisions are. VivekVish (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with that. There is a fair amount of duplication between "Proposed changes" and "Advocacy for and against" which needs to be removed. Discussion about each change should be in the proposed change section. The Advocacy section could be better used to describe any organized campaigns, summarize the groups on various sides, etc. I think that would improve the overall readability of the article by giving the reader information about the change then the pro/con arguements about that change. That's beyond this dispute though, and something I'll bring up on the talk page after this is done. Ravensfire (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
America Invents Act resolution
Yadav
After reading over the discussion for several hours, I think I am ready to close this one. Discussion here is split, and very lengthy, but I have read it all. The content in the article at present is sourced, the references meet the requirements for WP:RS. Additionally, it is not synthesis to combine four different references if they all state the same thing, or concur on the same point. Reviewing the sources, this does appear to be the case. While we need to be sensitive to historical viewpoints, modern viewpoints trump these as per policy. Straight out removal is not appropriate in this situation, the content is verifiable, and is backed up by reliable sources. Lead sections of articles in practice reflect modern viewpoints. These viewpoints are represented in secondary reliable sources. It may be appropriate to add details of the historical context somewhere in the lead section, but care needs to be taken not to give too much weight to historical viewpoints. The details should be discussed on the talk page. Keep discussion civilised and concise. If you are unable to do so, walk away, as bad faith assumptions or incivility on the part of editors may lead to sanctions down the road. Edit warring as I have seen is unacceptable, and must stop. I have watch listed the article and article talk. Try working together on it. Use this format that I have created User:Steven Zhang/Proposals. This discussion is closed. Steven Zhang |
Closed discussion |
---|
Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration
- Tetration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Super-logarithm (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 mathematician named Arthur Rubin started a discusion at 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC) at Talk:Tetration#Inverse function articles proposing the mathmatics based articles Super-root and Super-logarithm to be merged with Tetration arguing that 'There's less than one paragraph that can be said about each.' Fixman, a programer, was the first to respond with 'Speed Keep.', stating that they are used differently to Tetration. Arthur Rubin Claimed this to be 'nonsense' and said they can not be expanded more, but afterwards a mathematician named Euclidthegreek argued, against the merge, that both article are expanding such as Pentation has done and Arthur just needs to give them time to expand, but Euclidthegreek argued this point using a sock puppet account named Professor Fiendish.
Arthur Rubin carried on to argue his point suggesting that expansion should instead be used on the inverse function section of Tetration and the mathematician sligocki joined in the discusion stating that although super-logarithm seemed to have an acceptable amount of content and references to warrent it's own article super-root did not stating 'It seems to me that there is not much to say about this function [super-root] right now and we should have it as a section and only expand it out if enough content and sources are added' and so merged it with tetration, but then I, Robo37 then reverted the edit as there was no clear consensus for the merge and then argued against the merge of both articles stating links between the functions and the complex plane and e.
After much arguing and many counter edits with sligocki stating he thought super-root 'it is still a stub with no indication of it's notability' Joule36e5 entered the conversation at 11:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC) and expressed support towards the merge stating again that 'The inverses don't seem notable enough at present', but not soon before a programer named Druseltal2005 argued against it, stating 'I recall that I found articles concerning the function x^x and its inverse independently of the tetration context. The authors discussed this for formulae in ballistics and some characteristics of driving (google for "wexzal", also I can provide a downloaded copy of that treatize). Also I recall vaguely a study which refer to x^x as function needed for computation of flight of airplanes.' User:Cliff joined the discusion at 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC) and argued for the merge for simular reasons mentioned above, and there has sinse be more arguing and reverts of edits which resaulted in Super-root being merged but not Super-logarithm as a compromise, but I am not happy with super-root not having an article of it's own and Cliff is not happy with Super-logarithm having a article of it's own.
So to summarize, Arthur Rubin, Cliff and Joule36e5 argued points for the merge with the main point being that the functions have very little notability and practically no references, Fixman Robo37 Druseltal2005 and Euclidthegreek argued points against the merge with the main reasons being that the functions are important to mathematics and are used for practical appliances such as in ballistics and airplane flight and thereby might be notable, and sligocki argued simular points for the merge of Super-root and points against the merge of Super-logarithm, and arguments and small edit wars have been going on over the subject for over two years now.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
Professor Fiendish is a sock puppet of Euclidthegreek.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
We've discussed the issue and have came to a compromise, though the compromise is not agreed to be the right resolution.
- How do you think we can help?
There needs to be more users showing their thoughts on the matter so a clear consensus can be gained and/or help from third party experts of the subject.
Robo37 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I have been trying to resolve this problem for some time. I have no strong opinions either way, and am simply trying to remove a merge backlog. Robo37 indicates that there was a compromise but I am unaware what that might be. I am surprised to see this posted to DRN. Cliff (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I still think that there's not much, if anything, which is or should be in Super-logarithm which should not be somewhere in Tetration. (Super-root has already been merged.) The only exceptions that I can see would be a general discussion of Abel functions of the exponential, which isn't actually in Super-logarithm, and the graph theory example. Specifics (as to the current version of Super-logarithm):
- The first part of the "Definitions" section is already included in Tetration#Super-logarithm
- The "Approaches" in the Definitions section should be in Tetration, as they are also approaches to the real version of tetration.
- The "Approximations" section is trivial rewriting of Tetration#Polynomial approximations
- The first two "Properties" are in the inverse function section of Tetration#Super-logarithm.
- "slog as inverse of Tetration" is a trivial rewriting of Tetration#Extension to complex heights, although the figure might also be included there.
- The first part of the "Definitions" section is already included in Tetration#Super-logarithm
- I agree that there is not yet a WP:CONSENSUS for the merge, but I think it should be done.
- I don't recall a specific compromise, either. Perhaps Robo37 could comment here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to change my view of the matter that it makes currently and in all foreseeable timeline no sense to keep something like "superroot" or "superlog" distinct. There seems to be no research *under this specific header*. I agree widely with that comment of Arthur Rubin that the only reason for a different page from "tetration" were if we had something more general like Abel-function/Schroeder-function in the context of iteration of functions. Gotti 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 (talk • contribs)
I also feel that there's no reason to keep the articles distinct, though I have not been involved in the dispute up to this point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration resolution
Coconut oil
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A {{POV}} tag is being repeatedly added by a single editor after discussion on the talk page indicated there was no support for the tag. Tag was first removed August 2nd, replaced on the 3rd, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, and removed again. Only one editor thinks the tag is warranted while four believe it is not (based on edits to remove it). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Lambanog (talk · contribs)
- WLU (talk · contribs)
- Yobol (talk · contribs)
- Ronz (talk · contribs)
- Ocaasi (talk · contribs)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion occurred in April and there was no support for the tag. Discussion at the NPOV noticeboard found no support for the tag or dispute, and it was recently raised a second time again with no support. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- How do you think we can help?
I'm looking for ideas actually, perhaps further input regarding the process would be sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Coconut oil discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- There is something distinctly wrong with the way Lambanog has behaved during this dispute; the number of reverts to re-place the NPOV banner, against 4 other editors, outnumbers the number of comments to the talk page. No specific recommendations for improving the content beyond vague generalizations have been made, and they are the only editor to voice approval of this banner. It seems very suggestive that this editor is using the banner as a badge of shame. [Unsigned comment by Yobol 03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)]
- If there is something distinctly wrong, it is the perfunctory way with which the editors I am in dispute with push their POV by systematically obstructing development of the article and removing perfectly valid sources that were brought up and found relevant at RSN by independent parties. Removal of sources should be done sparingly, with care, and as a last resort; haphazard removal can be considered vandalism. But apparently the obstructing editors have found the subject of the article not to their liking and whether by accident or design are tag-teaming and suppressing relevant information on the subject. Good form in a POV dispute is to come up with better sources to contradict POV bias, but those opposing me maintain their POV by removing good sources. They should also have informed me of this DR discussion and not engaged in canvassing. It should come as no surprise that if one inspects the records of those opposing my improvements to the article that they have little record building articles but are well-versed at removing information from them. A look at the article's history will show that my edits have generally increased the article size and the edits of the others have reduced them. If there have been any improvements to the article lately it's only because I embarrassed WLU into grudgingly adding stuff from sources I had brought up and my better article version. But the article remains woefully biased in comparison to write-ups on the subject one finds in newspapers or other sources. Lambanog (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I've read through the article, the noticeboard threads, and the talkpage. Lambanog, will you accept me as an independent 3rd party and not label me as a PoV pusher? Those on the removal side, will you accept me as independent? I'm laying the groundwork for being neutral between the parties. But at quick glance I see issues with
- Bold, Revert, Discuss
- Abusive Edit Sumaries
- Borderline Incivility.
I'll stand by and see what the disputants think, but I'm willing to help mediate this out. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have no issue with Hasteur acting as a mediator. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd actually prefer as many eyes and opinions as possible so that the issue can be addressed conclusively and can be said to be truly the will of a group representative of all Wikipedians, but I certainly have no issue with you giving your take of the situation and your recommendations. Forgive me also if I cannot respond much further; it is late in my neck of the woods. Lambanog (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Lambanog, The idea is to not have to query every single editor, but to take a uninvolved neutral 3rd party. Your statement appears to suggest that if you do not like the recommendations you'll ask for even broader commentary in an attempt to canvas your viewpoint into a majority. Please confirm that you will accept a policy based reading on the viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hasteur I think your implication of canvassing unfair and ask that you withdraw it. Canvassing suggests selecting or calling upon an audience predisposed to ones own line of thinking. This complaint was brought here by WLU not me. As this is a noticeboard, I was under the impression that it operates like other noticeboards in the manner I expressed preference for. I do not see why preference for standard operating procedure should bring to mind canvassing. WP:Dispute Resolution states the acceptable process. Seeking opinions on noticeboards or a RfC is not canvassing. Lambanog (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will not withdraw the implication of canvasing because you've accused 3 other editors on this page of forming a cabal against you, objected to previous noticeboard readings of the situation (RSN, NPOVN) and now you're challenging a 3rd party reading here. Frankly it may not be explicit canvasing, but rather WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Will you accept my reading of the situation and consensus or should this thread be closed for a proper RfC (which probably won't get any participation outside of the people arlready involved)? Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are you insisting that I still accept you as a mediator? Lambanog (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will not withdraw the implication of canvasing because you've accused 3 other editors on this page of forming a cabal against you, objected to previous noticeboard readings of the situation (RSN, NPOVN) and now you're challenging a 3rd party reading here. Frankly it may not be explicit canvasing, but rather WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Will you accept my reading of the situation and consensus or should this thread be closed for a proper RfC (which probably won't get any participation outside of the people arlready involved)? Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hasteur I think your implication of canvassing unfair and ask that you withdraw it. Canvassing suggests selecting or calling upon an audience predisposed to ones own line of thinking. This complaint was brought here by WLU not me. As this is a noticeboard, I was under the impression that it operates like other noticeboards in the manner I expressed preference for. I do not see why preference for standard operating procedure should bring to mind canvassing. WP:Dispute Resolution states the acceptable process. Seeking opinions on noticeboards or a RfC is not canvassing. Lambanog (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Lambanog, The idea is to not have to query every single editor, but to take a uninvolved neutral 3rd party. Your statement appears to suggest that if you do not like the recommendations you'll ask for even broader commentary in an attempt to canvas your viewpoint into a majority. Please confirm that you will accept a policy based reading on the viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd actually prefer as many eyes and opinions as possible so that the issue can be addressed conclusively and can be said to be truly the will of a group representative of all Wikipedians, but I certainly have no issue with you giving your take of the situation and your recommendations. Forgive me also if I cannot respond much further; it is late in my neck of the woods. Lambanog (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have no issue with Hasteur acting as a mediator. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also have no problem with Hasteur acting as mediator, and welcome independent eyes and evaluation in this case. Yobol (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Coconut oil resolution
Rick Perry
This noticeboard is not for editing requests, but only for disputes which have been thoroughly discussed on an article's talk page. If you feel that the article is biased, please feel free to tag it as such or, better, edit it yourself to correct the defect. If you do not wish to do so, then start a section on the article's talk page asking for someone else to do so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C.
Closed as stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Northwestern University School of Law
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
As being discussed on Alanscottwalker's discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alanscottwalker#Northwestern_Law_logo), the issue concerns which seal/logo should be used in the infobox for Northwestern University School of Law. Here are the three options: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWLawSeal.png (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwestern_University_Seal.svg (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NorthwesternLaw.svg
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have started a discussion on the Alanscottwalker's talk page.
- How do you think we can help?
(1) Please provide a general opinion about what logos/seals should be used in the school infoboxes. (2) Provide a general opinion about whether a seal, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWLawSeal.png, is authoritative if it is nowhere mentioned on a school's website or in its marketing materials. (3) Provide a specific opinion about what seal/logo should be placed in the infobox for Northwestern University School of Law, after at least considering the following webpages: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/library/research/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/communications/brand/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jilb/ http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/
IvyLaw (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Northwestern University School of Law discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Starting a discussion on a user's talkpage is not the normal process to obtain WP:CONSENSUS - those discussions belong on the article's talkpage so that all editors on the article have the opportunity to discuss. An WP:RFC can also be opened to obtain wider input. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have now started a discussion here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwestern_University_School_of_Law IvyLaw (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have replied on the Talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am a neutral in this dispute. According to Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Article_structure the best practice is to use both the institution's seal and its wordmark in university-related articles. The fact that the law school's seal does not appear on the school's website does not necessarily mean that that the law school has wholly abandoned the use of the seal even if it is no longer using it in its public face or for promotional purposes. The school could still be using it on official documents such as diplomas or could even be retaining it as its official seal even if it does not use it on a day to day basis. Without at least some direct evidence (e.g. a press release or copy of a resolution saying that they were abandoning the use of the seal altogether) to the contrary, then it should be presumed that the law school still has the seal even if it is not in everyday use. Not only has no such evidence been brought forward, but the article cited in this edit at least weakly implies that the seal is still the official seal of the law school, and this page clearly states that "An official transcript bears the Northwestern University School of Law Seal". In light of those references, established best practices would suggest (but not require) that NWLawSeal.png ought to be the seal used in the infobox. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I would also note that the image preferred by the complainant is already in the infobox at the bottom. It serves no purpose to have it in the article twice, and not have the school seal, at all. Indeed, doing so makes the article less encyclopedic, which requires that we make the article as informative as possible by the seals inclusion, in keeping with best practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this seal NWLawSeal.png is the current, official seal. I do agree that it was the official seal as of 1925. IvyLaw (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- "An official transcript bears the Northwestern University School of Law Seal." As a Wikipedia Ambassador to Regions 5 and 1, I asked a Northwestern Law student to provide a redacted transcript. This is an image of the transcript: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6044461858_0ed817d1b3_z.jpg Here is the correct seal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_University I think this dispute should be resolved and the Northwestern University seal placed on the Northwestern Law article infobox. The old seal could be shown somewhere else in the article. IvyLaw (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this seal NWLawSeal.png is the current, official seal. I do agree that it was the official seal as of 1925. IvyLaw (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I would also note that the image preferred by the complainant is already in the infobox at the bottom. It serves no purpose to have it in the article twice, and not have the school seal, at all. Indeed, doing so makes the article less encyclopedic, which requires that we make the article as informative as possible by the seals inclusion, in keeping with best practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am a neutral in this dispute. According to Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Article_structure the best practice is to use both the institution's seal and its wordmark in university-related articles. The fact that the law school's seal does not appear on the school's website does not necessarily mean that that the law school has wholly abandoned the use of the seal even if it is no longer using it in its public face or for promotional purposes. The school could still be using it on official documents such as diplomas or could even be retaining it as its official seal even if it does not use it on a day to day basis. Without at least some direct evidence (e.g. a press release or copy of a resolution saying that they were abandoning the use of the seal altogether) to the contrary, then it should be presumed that the law school still has the seal even if it is not in everyday use. Not only has no such evidence been brought forward, but the article cited in this edit at least weakly implies that the seal is still the official seal of the law school, and this page clearly states that "An official transcript bears the Northwestern University School of Law Seal". In light of those references, established best practices would suggest (but not require) that NWLawSeal.png ought to be the seal used in the infobox. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have replied on the Talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that this has to be decided on WikiPrinciples at this point. You are improperly synthesizing the statement on the website, the actual seal on a transcript, and the absence of the seal on the law school's website and publications to imply that the law school has abandoned its school seal and adopted the university seal. (An alternative analysis, admittedly equally improper synthesis, could be that the statement on the website and the actual practice are simply out of sync; that the law school still has a seal, but no longer uses it on transcripts.) Alanscottwalker, on the other hand, has submitted NWLawSeal.png without any evidence that this particular design is now or, indeed, was ever the actual law school seal (and I also have some question about the adequacy of the fair use justification for that image, now I've taken a look at it). At this point, I think that no seal or image should be used at the top of the infobox until one seal or the other can be established through a reliable source. I, frankly, do not care much for this answer, but I think that it is the correct one for the time being. I am going to ask a WikiAcquaintance who is a guru on fair use and logo issues to take a look at the fair use justification for the image (I'm most concerned with the source of the image being simply identified as "Internet". That may be perfectly fine, but I'm a bit concerned.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can we obtain an official correspondence from the school on this issue? IvyLaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC).
- I disagree with TransporterMan that the seal's design is not adequately described in the reference I provided. Be that as it may, as the reference shows the seal was adopted by the School, a private letter that is not verifiable by others would not suffice, but a publication from the School that it has dis-adopted "its seal" should satisfy WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have also updated the image summary at NWLawSeal.png , to indicate where I found the seal on the internet to upload: "Patent Docs" http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/02/index.html (entry for Febuary 18, 2011) Any user may also search Google images to find this.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am no longer particularly concerned about the fair use question, having obtained some clarification from another source. There's no indication of how the seal came to be on the Patent Docs site, so I don't consider that particularly good evidence of it still being the official seal today. But this image fairly clearly indicates that it was still in use in 2009, but its absence on the transcript (what, I wonder, is on the Spring, 2011, diplomas, though that wouldn't definitively solve the issue, either) and at this site (which admittedly isn't any more certain than the Patent Docs site) tends to cut both ways. I still think that there should be no image until this matter can be determined through reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. The WP:V evidence shows the seal was adopted. You have provided further evidence from a 2009 publication of what it looks like, which is the same as what's used on Wikipedia, and the 2011 Patent Docs site. As for the other documents produced, not one says the seal is dis-adopted. Traditionally, seals are not printed in ink on an official paper, they are impressed, i.e. the stamp raises the seal's design in 3D on the paper, with no ink. Regardless, no document disputes that the seal is "adopted," and all the evidence shows that NWLawSeal.png is that seal.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am no longer particularly concerned about the fair use question, having obtained some clarification from another source. There's no indication of how the seal came to be on the Patent Docs site, so I don't consider that particularly good evidence of it still being the official seal today. But this image fairly clearly indicates that it was still in use in 2009, but its absence on the transcript (what, I wonder, is on the Spring, 2011, diplomas, though that wouldn't definitively solve the issue, either) and at this site (which admittedly isn't any more certain than the Patent Docs site) tends to cut both ways. I still think that there should be no image until this matter can be determined through reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Northwestern University School of Law resolution
Animal Farm in popular culture
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 disagreement regarding appropriate content for the article, especially regarding whether reliable secondary sources are required for items listed in the article to establish their eligibility for inclusion.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have been heavily involved in a discussion on the article's Talk page. Additionally I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture soliciting other editors' opinions, with no apparent result.
- How do you think we can help?
I believe other editors' feedback would be very helpful in resolving this dispute, particularly in regards to the appropriateness of including items on a standalone list article that are not reliably sourced. There may be other issues with the article as well, especially with regards to WP:LSC.
Doniago (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Animal Farm in popular culture discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
User Doniago is complaining that a specific song which is used as a primary source for its own description in the article concerned does not have the material contained in it which is included in that article. As proof, he has given the fact that he "read the Wikipedia article" on the song, and didn't see the material there. I explained that the source is the song itself. (Everyone knows that wikipedia articles are sources for nothing?) I explained that his complaint might be entirely true, and suggested that he check the primary source--song lyrics themselves--and get back to the talk page if he didn't find the song's description supported by the song. Filing this complaint was his response to my request that he verify the primary source. Please simply advise the user to check the source and report on his findings on the article's talk page. I have already told him there I will listen to what he has to say when he checks the source itself. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Disregarding the fact that you are focusing on one of the several concerns that I brought up, what you are asking me to do would be original research. Even if I were to listen to the song, unless it specifically and unambiguously referenced Animal House it would be inappropriate for me to take a presumed reference to the novel and use that as a basis for inclusion. Additionally, per WP:BURDEN it is not my job to prove that a list item is inappropriate for inclusion, it is incumbent on editors who wish for material to be included to provide reliable sourcing. And finally, on the article's Talk page I asked you repeatedly to provide information regarding the article's selection criteria, a requirement per WP:LSC, and you either could not or would not do so. You similarly failed to satisfactorily provide any policy links supporting your allegation that a primary source is sufficient to establish eligibility for inclusion on a list. Doniago (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think Animal House and Animal Farm are rather different. I've looked over the list, and there do seem to be some more than dubious inclusions. Dylan's Mr. Jones? I'm sure it has been suggested that this is an AF reference - it may well be - but that's a theory not a fact, and it's not even mentioned in the article on the song. It really should be attributed. Every use of the phrase "animal farm" in song lyrics is not necessarily a reference to the novel. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that was a typo on my part. Apologies for any confusion! Doniago (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think Animal House and Animal Farm are rather different. I've looked over the list, and there do seem to be some more than dubious inclusions. Dylan's Mr. Jones? I'm sure it has been suggested that this is an AF reference - it may well be - but that's a theory not a fact, and it's not even mentioned in the article on the song. It really should be attributed. Every use of the phrase "animal farm" in song lyrics is not necessarily a reference to the novel. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Has it occurred to anyone that Gnarphism in popular culture-type articles invariably end up as repositories for trivia, and are not especially encyclopedic in the first place? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, yes it has, which is why I attempted to remove any entries that did not include reliable sourcing, especially given that the article has been tagged since January 2009. And now we're here. Doniago (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do think there is some legitimacy to both positions here. After all, any source can only be interpreted by what it actually says. Even an academic source can only be known to be referring to Orwell's novel if the context makes that clear. A song lyric or other reference may be unambiguously referring to Orwell's novel. In that case if the content of the text is reliably sourced and there is no reasonable dispute that the novel is being referenced, I don't see why it should not be included if it is sufficiently notable. Paul B (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Doniago seems to have a rather mechanical understanding of what a source is, and to be working under the false impression that only secondary sources count as proper sources, and cannot apparently distinguish between having a what appears to be a source in an article and an editor's responsibility in verifying the content of a given source if he doubts it. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources primary sources are absolutely reliable for their own mere self-description. The entries with which Doniago takes exception are ones in which the works themselves are identified and described by what we must assume are good faith observers. Doniago's original objection was to the contents of a Dylan song. (I refuse to address multiple complaints by him at one time when every indication is he fails to understand the relevant policies and procedures.) That song is explicitly identified in the text. The song is the source. He is free to check its contents himself, just as, if he doubted that a secondary reference said what it was reported to have said, he could and should also check that secondary reference. This is not OR. It is exactly what editors do, they check sources to verify that they reflect the claim being made. That is what verify means. The presence of a supposed secondary source as a ref in an article is not magic. It doesn't mean that we as editors don't also have to check it to see whether it says what it is supposed to say. There are a dozen different tags indicating that an editor has checked the source, primary or secondary, and doubts that it supports the claim for which it is adduced. See Template:Failed verification. What exactly do those tags mean other than someone has checked the source and disputes it?
- If you check the article history, you will see that in addition to deleting works whose notability was not demonstrated by the presence of an article on the subject, I myself tagged all the claims that referred to primary works as their own sources without specifying a verifiable name or episode as in need of specification. I then deleted them (they are on the talk page) when they had not been specified. I have invited Doniago to address his concerns one-by-one after he himself has checked the attributed sources. I am happy to consider his findings--his complaints may have merit--if they are reflected in the given sources. Instead, his response was first, rather to check the primary sources themselves, to check the WP articles on them as if the WP article were itself a source (!)--an epic fail in understanding what a source is--and then immediately to raise the complaint on this board. he simply needs to check the primary sources and then comment on the talk page. I will AGF as to his findings. I see no further action necessary here on my part. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The very fact that the only people claiming the list items reference Animal Farm are the editors adding the list items, as no secondary sources are being provided, would seem to me to unequivocally establish that said list items have not been satisfactorily verified. I fail to see how me reviewing any of the primary sources to confirm that they are referencing Animal Farm would satisfy anything, as I am not a reliable source. Additionally, you have still failed to provide any information regarding my concerns vis a vis WP:LSC and lack of clear selection criteria. Doniago (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- You repeat yourself. Once a "reliable" source has been given, you can't challenge the claim as lacking a reliable source--you can only challenge the source as not verified upon inspection. You are asking for magic, or worse, slavery: that others verify things for you because you refuse to bother to do so. You have to check the sources and confirm or deny that they contain what other editors have in WP:AGF asserted. If you yourself are not willing to check whether the sources say what it is asserted they say, you must WP:AGF and deal with it. If you do check out the sources, which have been added in good faith by many different people (not one of whom in this article is me) and which, as an editor, you MUST do if you challenge them, you may tag them with any of the appropriate tags that I have helpfully linked you to above. You are, for the last time, invited to check the sources and report your findings on the article's talk page, and I will listen to you and treat you with good faith. But I am done here to the point of wishing to utter obscenities. I am unwatching this report. If any admins want to get in touch with me they have my talk page address. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The very fact that the only people claiming the list items reference Animal Farm are the editors adding the list items, as no secondary sources are being provided, would seem to me to unequivocally establish that said list items have not been satisfactorily verified. I fail to see how me reviewing any of the primary sources to confirm that they are referencing Animal Farm would satisfy anything, as I am not a reliable source. Additionally, you have still failed to provide any information regarding my concerns vis a vis WP:LSC and lack of clear selection criteria. Doniago (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you check the article history, you will see that in addition to deleting works whose notability was not demonstrated by the presence of an article on the subject, I myself tagged all the claims that referred to primary works as their own sources without specifying a verifiable name or episode as in need of specification. I then deleted them (they are on the talk page) when they had not been specified. I have invited Doniago to address his concerns one-by-one after he himself has checked the attributed sources. I am happy to consider his findings--his complaints may have merit--if they are reflected in the given sources. Instead, his response was first, rather to check the primary sources themselves, to check the WP articles on them as if the WP article were itself a source (!)--an epic fail in understanding what a source is--and then immediately to raise the complaint on this board. he simply needs to check the primary sources and then comment on the talk page. I will AGF as to his findings. I see no further action necessary here on my part. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I was vacationing when this began, so I am starting a somewhat new thread rather than jump in the middle of these discussions. After overlooking the arguments already made, one important factor remains to be discussed. Namely, what is the purpose of this article in the first place? It serves as a resource to those reading about Animal Farm and almost everyone who comes across this page has done so via already reading the main article about the novella and the reader clicks on this link because he or she is curious about its place in popular culture. The reader is the target audience. Having a full list of self evident works of art that make use of Animal Farm and/or its themes (primary sources, not academic articles or reviews) is what the reader is looking for on this page. Not a sparse set of three or four items, but a full range of songs, other works of fiction, television episodes and references from film. That should be kept in mind when reviewing content that may not have a strict source when it is self-evident and primary (and no, I don't think listening to/reading lyrics is original research - interpreting them, yes, but listening to them, no.), if it is still indisputably an instance of Animal Farm in popular culture, it is then a resource for further inquiry or curiosity satisfaction for the reader. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Animal Farm in popular culture resolution
Koboz, Cobza
No discussion and, indeed, no dispute. Appears to be seeking general editorial help, I will reply on his talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
2011–12 FC Barcelona season
Discussion stalled. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|