Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 12 March 2012

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Ooty

Closing as stale. Further resolution on this topic can probably be obtained through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mole (MC/producer)

Closing as Wrong venue. The correct forum to request undeletion for articles is WP:DELREV (except proposed deletions and deleted articles with only the nominator participating).Curb Chain (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard F. Cebull

Closing as Insufficient discussion. If you want an opinion on content, you can use WP:30 or WP:RFC. You state that you have disucussed the issue but you have only requested Bbb23 (talk · contribs) not to " ... remove appropriate, well-sourced, informative, relevant information from Misplaced Pages articles as you did here".Curb Chain (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Saini

• Saini (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?

Saini (an Indian caste) article is going through "edit wars". Editors of Saini descent have made several unsubstantiated claims by either providing false references, cherry picking a few references & leaving most out, or by otherwise twisting what the referenced authors had actually said. In particular, I wish to dispute their claim to be Rajputs. I have expended significant effort on the talk page talking to the Saini editors and with neutral third-party editors (namely User: Sitush). Non-Saini editors seem to agree, but editors of Saini descent have continued to revert the changes. Other editors such as User: Sumitkachroo,User: Suryaudhay,User: MatthewVanitas have raised similar concerns from time to time. Here are some examples from the talk page:

1. They have completed ignored the works of published and renowned authors such as L. N. Dahiya, K.S. Singh, Sir Denzil Ibbetson, etc. that clearly dispute Saini editors claim to Rajput ancestry.

2. As an example of false reference, this book has listed Saini people as an agricultural tribe, but the article in its introduction says "As with other Rajput origin tribes of the then Punjab region, Sainis also took up farming during medieval period due to the Turko-Islamic political domination." This is pure fiction since the author does not equate Sainis with Rajputs.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rajput666 (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)
• Sumitkachroo (talk · contribs)
• Suryaudhay (talk · contribs)
• Garry_Singh_Girn (talk · contribs)
• 99.233.132.217 (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=Saini}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed it thoroughly on the talk page both with Saini people and other non-Saini editors.

• How do you think we can help?

I want a simple addition to the article stating that "A number of historians and academics do not give Sainis Rajput status." Moreover, I would like the non-existent references removed; an example of which I have provided above.

Rajput666 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Saini discussion

Here we go again. The usual bollocks about whether caste X is descended from a god, or instead descended from something a dog left behind. I think that the most appropriate response has got to be that for Misplaced Pages purposes, we don't care. This is the 21st century. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Then delete the page and I'll have absolutely no problem with that! And FYI, there is an entire reservation system built around this, so in the 21st century, it matters very much. --Rajput666 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That was not a particularly helpful response, AndyTheGrump :( If you adopt the "we don't care because it is the 21st century" logic then all historical content would be removed from this project.

The issue should be simple: various sources note that the community claims Rajput status and claims to be connected to an older community, known as the Shoorsaini (there are numerous spellings). Some people want to convert a claim into a undisputed truth but, of course, we should show all sides. I have been trying to dig around the sources a bit more but have a lot of irons in the fire. If people would be prepared to give me a few days then I will commit to it. Someone else can set the time scale, in order that it does not appear that I am filibustering or something. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Some examples:

• Mazumder clearly notes a Punjabi commissioner differentiating between Sainis and Rajputs, and in fn. 55 on the same page shows a class return (official publication) from 1925 that differentiates also. He further shows a class return from ::*1919 that also differentiated.

If you read it carefully, English source he quotes also mentions Janjua, Sial, Mahton, etc as different from Rajputs. You can check that in the class returns that you are mentioning. This reasoning could apply to many other Rajput tribes. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that English sources are confused about what constituted a Rajput category and lack consistency in the usage of the term for different tribes of Punjab.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Judge & Bal also make the distinction (note 9). They do so again in lists on pp. 65, 68 and 76.

• Mukherjee & Jayaswal
• Krishan. Also pp. 75, 78, 84.
• M. S. A. Rao. Also p. 70.
• Tamang

Some of the above are better than others, in the context of our article. M. S. A. Rao is particularly significant because of his primary academic focus. Nonetheless, there are clearly a lot of people out there making a distinction between Rajput and Saini. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mahajan. See also p. 16.
• Sarkar & Sarkar
• Chaudhuri
• 1927 Suket State Gazetteer
• Christophe Jaffrelot
• Yadav
• Singer & Cohn

I think that will do. When the likes of Jaffrelot, Singer/Cohn and the Sarkar/Sarkar pairing join in - all published by university presses etc - then I think it should be game over. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What good is any of this, if somebody is just going to revert the changes by claiming "Undoing changes by xxx. Reverting to back to yyy."? Once details are agreed on, this page needs to be locked down in some fashion. --Rajput666 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Once a consensus is obtained, be it here or elsewhere, then certainly for a reasonable length of time and probably until some convincing new information comes to light, we just point people to the consensus. There are general sanctions in place for articles such as this: if they wilfully ignore the consensus then they will likely find themselves in trouble pretty quickly. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You have ignored many references where the term Rajput has been used to positively identify Sainis. We need to be honest here (I am afraid you are not being so maybe due to hasty reading). Gahlot and Haryana ASI publication (based on the quotes I read on talk page) explicity identify them as a branch of Rajputs who became agricultural in Muslim era. You could argue that the claim part should also be given some weight a much as a positive identification but do not say that there are no uninvolved sources which positively identify them as a Rajput group. This is false and misrepresentation. If the sources are conflicted , then we need to judge them by their reliablity value and quote both, rather than trying sweep a claim that seems to have some validation, however strong or sparse, under the carpet. We may also need to take cognizance of the fact that different castes could be known by same name in different parts of the country and may not have anything in common despite having same name. In this reference it is important that they be split by geography in subsections or new articles should be started if the groups have little in common beyond name.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am just a drive by editor with only a passing interest in this topic. Please note HA Rose and Ibbetson have written patently racist , casteist and downright libelous stuff about a number of castes in their work. Additionally,their work is based on rudimentary census techniques on 19th century which are considered unscientific and based on out-moded race theories of English era which Engilish administrators tried unsuccessfully to superimpose on Indian caste order which was essentially different. Here are some snippet about the kind of comments that are found in Rose's work (copying from another editor's post on another article):

• "They are small of stature, of quite remarkable personal ugliness, and very quarrelsome and litigious", ( "ugly" Mahtons)

• " adds that they are wasteful in marriage expenditure, hospitable to travellers, thievish...." ( "thievish" Kharrals)

Reference: Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, p54 & p 496, H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan, Asian Educational Services

• "...smaller in physique and less intelligent than a Jat". ( "less intelligent" Kambohs)

• "They differ entirely in character from the idle, thievish and cowardly Gujars of the Southern Punjab" ( "thievish and cowardly" Gujars)

• "They are of inferior physisque , envious, secretive, cowardly, lying , great bigots, in offensive and capital cultivators" ( "cowardly and lying" Bannuchi Pathans)"

Reference: A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province: A.-K." H.A. Rose, p445,p36, p63 Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 1997

These examples are just a handful. Entire works of these "authorities" are littered with sweeping generalizations about castes that are blatantly racist and would not be accepted anywhere as genuine scholarship by today's standards. Not just a few individuals , entire castes and tribes are termed "criminal", "ugly", "theivish" etc.

By any manner you look at it Rose/Ibbeton and any work derived from their authority will go under what Misplaced Pages calls questionable source. Any secondary source which traces to this source also needs to be treated as questionable source only. Not all secondary sources on Indian ethnography are reliable even if they happen to be university publications. This has been a gray area which academics need to address. Meanwhile,[REDACTED] needs to have a policy which does not grant automatic legitimacy to a secondary source work (even published by a source otherwise considered credible) which traces to a British era literature whose accuracy and intent are both widely disputed. My two cents.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to consider the following comment by Kevin Hobson while citing any British era source on Indian ethnography:

" By establishing themselves as authorities on the caste system they could then tell the British what they believed the British wanted to hear and also what would most enhance their own position. The British would then take this information, received through the filter of the Brahmans, and interpret it based on their own experience and their own cultural concepts. Thus, information was filtered at least twice before publication. Therefore, it seems certain that the information that was finally published was filled with conceptions that would seem to be downright deceitful to those about whom the information was written. The flood of petitions protesting caste rankings following the 1901 census would appear to bear witness to this"

-The Indian Caste System and The British - Ethnographic Mapping and the Construction of the British Census in India , Kevin Hobson

This criticism would directly apply works such as Ibbetson's and Rose's and any secondary work quoting their authority. So these sources should not be considered kosher for wikipedia, given an overwhelming evidence of dispute regarding their accurarcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.187 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the major contributor to many of the biographies involving British Raj "ethnologists". From James Tod, through H.H. Risley and on to H. A. Rose etc. Not forgetting Edgar Thurston and William Crooke. With the possible exception of Risley, most of those articles still need some work and they will get some time from me if sideshows such as this did not pop up quite so often.

They are all pretty much next to useless for our purposes, per the current academic thinking. And, yes, many were imbued with or even primary proponents of the discredited concept of scientific racism. We can cite them for their opinion but not as fact. No-one is saying that the claim should not be mentioned. What is being said is that there is an alternate viewpoint and that there are some contributors who are not particularly willing to allow that viewpoint to be shown. Honestly, this is really a very simple situation: show both sides. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your solution sounds fine to me, but I would like one more change. As noted under "Dispute Overview", the article incorrectly claims by a citing a source that "As with other Rajput origin tribes of the then Punjab region ". This should be removed because there is no such mention in the source being cited.--Rajput666 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that proposed removal. Of the named parties to the dispute, only two have contributed recently. The IP did so last on 29 February and quite probably was editing while logged out (this is not an accusation: I've inadvertently done the same myself on the odd occasion, usually when the 30 day log-in suddenly times out). The other recent contributions are those of Garry Singh Girn, who has been told time and again about this discussion but seems to be ignoring it in favour of pushing the Saini Rajput claim into other articles. This being the case, I am wondering whether it would be possible for some non-involved person to summarise and close this thread. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin

Closing as abandoned. Requesting editor has not returned from 24-hr block, if they return they can drop a note on my talk page if they wish to reopen this listing. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When in Rome (band)

• 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

Template:Cue Can no you not

1. escalate the protection
2. escalate/block violators of WP:3RR
3. explain edit warriors the need of discussion by messaging them on their own talk pages?Curb Chain (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Cry Baby Lane

• Cry Baby Lane (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?

See this diff. Suddenly, someone considers Cry Baby Lane a lost film. 4chan is some website that illegitimately broadcasts copyrighted material without permission, and I removed it due to analysis of self-published source and lack of secondary sources to back that up. Nevertheless, some user reverted my edits because he thinks that entry deserves to be read.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• CyberGhostface (talk · contribs)
• 96.49.78.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 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=Cry Baby Lane}} --~~~~ 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 don't know how I tried to resolved this issue. I simply reverted that entry twice.

• How do you think we can help?

Teach someone about verifying entries.

George Ho (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

--George Ho (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)===Cry Baby Lane discussion===

Template:Cue I can't find anything about the film being lost in the two sources about its recovery. They both basically say that there were rumours that the film was banned, but that in actuality it was just gathering dust in Nickelodeon's vaults. Are there any sources that say anything specifically about the film being lost? If not then I agree with George Ho that including this claim would constitute original research. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 06:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, 4chan didn't discover it, it was a user on Reddit. I don't know why the anon IP is trying to claim otherwise.

Basically, as I understand it, the film (at the time) only aired once and was believed to be lost. When the user on Reddit found a copy, it got a lot of attention to the point where the director himself was interviewed. The mention that it was found on Reddit was cited to this article which gives a history of the film including the fact it was found by fans on the internet; "That is, until this past week, when members of the social news aggregator Reddit started a campaign to track down a copy of the lost movie. One was quickly found — a clip was uploaded to YouTube to prove its existence — and efforts are under way to convert the VHS recording to something easier for online consumption." They also interviewed the director himself, and his comments in that very same article are included in the Wiki entry as well.

The finding of the film has been discussed on other sites as well like CinemaBlend and DailyDot. I could probably find more. CinemaBlend even argues that the reason why it was officially re-aired on Halloween was because of the furor over the internet.

George Ho said the information violates copyrights, but I don't see how it does. We are not posting links to the video itself, just stating that the film was found and uploaded after a decade of it not being discovered.

As for it being banned, Nick.com itself (seen here) at the very least advertised it's reairing as it being banned. At the very least, there a number of secondary sources that report that the film was believed to have been banned.--CyberGhostface (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that broadcasting not authorized by Nickelodeon is not legitimate. Those sources are published at the time Cry Baby Lane was rebroadcast; ones that used one of Misplaced Pages revisions are not reliable because they used Misplaced Pages article as a derivative... or something like that. Unless sources say that the unauthorized broadcasting not by Nickelodeon is not legitimate, that entry should not be included. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I think I'm beginning to see the problem here. From reading the DailyDot source, it seems that a lot of the Reddit users thought that the film was lost, but I'm not seeing this claim repeated as fact by any reliable sources. According to our lost film article, a film doesn't count as lost if it's merely sitting in an archive somewhere - it actually has to have disappeared from existence altogether. Despite the fact that some films thought to be lost get discovered again, I don't see any evidence that this particular film was assumed to be lost by any reliable sources, or by any of the major players involved. The same goes for it being banned - all I'm seeing are rumours. (I can't access that trailer though, as it's not available where I am.) I would say that unless we can get more details about the supposed banning, e.g. banned by whom, for what audiences, etc., then it would be simpler to assume that Nick just pulled it themselves. As a compromise, how about we include the rumours about the supposed banning, and include the Reddit users' confusion thinking that the film was lost, but attribute those claims to their sources per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? As I see it, there is no reason we can't include them if we don't assert them as fact. I'm not quite sure what the discussion about copyright violation and unauthorized broadcasting above are getting at - CyberGhostFace, George Ho, could you give me some more details about what is going on here? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 09:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do my best: some user has possessed a low-quality copy of Cry Baby Lane, used it to transfer digitally in some way without permission from Nickelodeon, and uploaded it to Reddit, 4chan, YouTube, torrent stuff, and somewhere else without uploading or reporting unauthorized copy to Nickelodeon. Now someone has written an information about that as if... long story... --George Ho (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got it so far. I'm missing the part about how it is involved with the article though. Do you have any handy diffs you could link to? :) — Mr. Stradivarius 09:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The earliest: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cry_Baby_Lane&oldid=443504451. Other history logs contain that same info; should there be more diffs? --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I presume that you are talking about the Youtube link? It is basically an advert for the bittorrent download of the film, and I agree that the uploader is very unlikely to have copyright permission. You're right, we cannot include links like these in Misplaced Pages, even for references - if anyone else is curious about the guidelines on the matter, you can find them at WP:ELNEVER. I haven't checked all the other sites in that version for similar links, but the same would apply for them. More importantly, are there any links like this in any of the recent versions? We need to be strict in keeping these links out of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One of previous revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cry_Baby_Lane&oldid=480791878; some entry removed in the current version. To be honest, they may occur at early revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cry_Baby_Lane&oldid=444092890; could not find one in recent ones. --George Ho (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I couldn't find any bad links in either of those versions. Could you tell me which links you are talking about in particular? And could you use diffs rather than permalinks? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 10:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This diff, that diff. There were no external links that violate copyrights. --George Ho (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about copyright problems. If there aren't any copyright problems here, then I think I covered the issues already in my first two posts. Are there any other issues that you are concerned about? Best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from those two issues, I guess... would these entries be copyright problems? Either way, no other issues I'm concerned so far. Also, early revisions have Youtube links that I already showed you; later revisions may not. --George Ho (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there's nothing in those diffs that could be a copyright problem. It would only be a copyright problem for Misplaced Pages if the text itself was taken from an external site, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Seems to be more of an editorial issue than a copyright issue. So, to get back to the original point, would you be happy with attributing the rumours about the film being lost/banned to their sources per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? If you and CyberGhostFace can agree on this point, then it will just be down to a matter of how to word it. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's still a secondary source that analyzes primary sources. Secondary source is TheDaily.com; primary sources are illegitimate copies. Get it? Secondary source does not verify them as illegitimate copies. If that doesn't matter to you, then... is there no way to verify primary sources as illegitimate copies? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) List of rediscovered films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has the similar problem about this film. --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the problem is with those links. I mean, is it that the links refer to illegal activity of uploading a copyrighted film? Is there a policy on this? I would guess that simply stating that the film was discovered for the first time in over a decade via illegal means with news articles would be okay as long as we don't link to anything that infringes on the copyrights itself (like a torrent link).--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

...Good point, I think? Still, I wonder if these source verify them silently as illegal unauthorized broadcasting. As long as links to Nickelodeon.com are used instead of illegitimate external links of primary sources, then I'm still unsure about whether to add that back or not. Nevertheless, as long as sources verify illegitimate copies as "illegitimates", and entries will be added back as literally "illegitimate copies", then adding back would be fine. Here: WP:COPYVIO. --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem writing in the article that the copy found by Reddit was unauthorized/illegitimate if that's what you are asking? But the news articles that interviews the director and tells the history of the film and how it was found that's already used in the article would still be valid, right? I don't see how the articles are infringing on copyrights and the entry itself has no links to anything that would violate copyright. I can bring this to WP:FILM to get further clarification where these type of things stand if you want.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I may be fine with adding that back without problems only if reference of copy in Reddit is verified as illegitimate/unauthorized broadcasting and statement says that a copy is illegitimate. You can bring that to WP:FILM if you want. I don't mind at all. --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Oh, yes. Whatever director or Nickelodeon says, just verify it, and then include it with references. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have a compromise then - everyone seems to be happy with the option of attributing the sources, and clarifying that the copies that the Reddit users are putting out infringe Nickelodeon's copyright. There shouldn't be a problem with verification here, as the Daily Dot source says that the Reddit user's act of uploading the film was "a clear violation of copyright laws". Would you both be happy if the "unauthorized copy" claim is cited to this source? Best — Mr. Stradivarius 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it may be better to call it "unauthorized distribution". As I understand it, the original VHS copy is allowed under fair use, so we can't claim that particular copy is "unauthorized"; it is the act of copying and distributing it to others that breaks copyright law. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If saying that "unauthorized distribution" is fine for you, then it is fine for both of us. How is use of original VHS copy a "fair use"; how is the tape used; how much is it used? --George Ho (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain. Though my understanding of copyright law is a long way from being 100% accurate, I am pretty sure that taping a show onto VHS for your own private use counts as "fair use" in the US. So the original copy can't really be called "unauthorized", as this kind of copying is a routine matter. The owner of the original tape sending it to another Reddit user is more of a grey area, considering that they probably didn't know each other before, and the circumstances under which it was sent. And of course, the uploading of the film to torrent sites by the other user is a very clear copyright violation. So my point is that the copy is not "unauthorized" all the way back to the first time it was taped, and that we should be careful with our language to avoid implying this. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As for verifying Cry Baby Lane as lost film, does "unauthorized distribution" verify it as "rediscovered film"? I don't think it does; instead it puts the uploader into legal action initiated by Nickelodeon.

Jim Higgins (Irish politician)

Not yet ripe for this venue. No substantial conversation on article talk page, nor on any other talk page. Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Rhino tank

• Rhino tank (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 dispute relates to the “Rhino Tank” M-4 Sherman Tank variant. EyeSerene insists on reverting the text to read “Hedgerows” when these were, in fact, Brocage. This is no mere semantical difference; A hedgerow implies these were thin, spindly affairs that should have been breachable with mere machetes (or even bayonets), whereas a bocage is a wall of rocks and other rubble built up over hundreds of generations that served to clear the fields of said rubble and to hold water for irrigation. This is the difference between a rock wall (these are said to have inspired later HESCO Barriers) versus barbed wire; The rock walls (think about those words, “Rock Walls”) would stop bullets, men, and even vehicles. Attempts to penetrate these rock walls were generally unsuccessful (including using tanks to punch a small hole into the walls, into which “spent artillery shells” though who’s exactly wasn’t mentioned filled with high explosive were shoved), at the cost of an average of 2.3 sappers (demolitions guys) per wall; In each and every such wall addressed, at least one sapper died, and in many of them teams of two died as teams. The use of the word “hedgerow” thus denigrating those who faced these improvised fortresses. It has been pointed out that the rock walls were topped by hedgerows, but these were actually wild thickets. Personally, I’m inclined to let the particularities in this regard drop; As long as the nature of the defenses (high thick rock walls, not spindly ornamental bushes) is correctly addressed.
FWIW, I hope to close this matter quickly. I did try discussing this on the effective talk page, but EyeSerene has chosen to decide that I agreed that these were hedgerows, then waited a few weeks and reverted the page (in other words, as soon as I turned my back). Rather than just accept he was wrong, he seems to WANT me to bring it here. So here it is.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Andering J. REDDSON (talk · contribs)
• EyeSerene (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".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rhino tank}} --~~~~ 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?

Please see Rhino Tank Talk Page -

• How do you think we can help?

Explain in small words the difference between a “hedgerow” (thicket) and a brocage (a rock wall that may or may not be topped by a thicket) to EyeSerene. Explain to him that the stupidity of Americans really doesn’t change the facts- This was a deadly fortress, not a briar patch.

Trying To Make Misplaced Pages At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rhino tank discussion

• Bocage is French for wooded countryside, not an impenetrable hedgerow in Normandy. The latter was called hedgerow by American and British soldiers. The Rhino tank modification was made for pushing through extremely dense French hedgerows found in Normandy.

Your story about the price paid in sappers is an extraordinary claim backed up by nothing. Men were killed going through the bocage because it was very often covered by armed defenders on the other side, not because sappers were blowing themselves up. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hastings and Beevor, two authorities on Normandy both refer to bocage (not brocage) as the terrain and countryside. Beevor (p. 246) states (in reference to the US Army); "they had to cope with the marshaland and hedgerows of the bocage...". Another author, Major General Belchem (Head of Montogery's operations and planing staff from 43-45) gives a quite detailed description; "The hinterland, though mostly flat, is bocage country. The word is difficult to translate, but broadly it means mixed woodland and pasture terrain, with numerous winding side-roads and lanes bounded on both sides by high levees or banks, topped by tall thick hedgerows which greatly limit visibility" (p. 24). I have other references, but they all say much the same thing.

On another note, a glance at the discussions so far (on user talk pages as well) lead me to suggest that Andering starts assuming good faith a little bit more. The talk pages don't really back up his description of events. Ranger Steve 08:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mr Reddson has also made these claims on the main M4 Sherman page. If he provided a source to support his position this discussion would be worthwhile, otherwise I believe it is going to be very one sided since the historiography does not appear to support him (not to mention there is no need to slander Americans). Just taking a quick look through my collection, I can add the following to the above provided by Steve.

“…Normandy bocage – small, hedge-rowed fields in hilly, broken countryside.”

- Copp, Fields of Fire, p. 80

“…the bocage, with very high and steeply banked hedges, surrounding raised fields, often no more than 100 yards across. In addition the countryside was sprinkled with orchards, woods, and small but stout stone farmhouses and out-buildings, often nestling in rising and dipping valleys and ravines, cut by small but troublesome rivers.”

-Buckley, British armour in Normandy, p. 9

“..bocage was nearly80km in depth and lay to the west and south-west of Caen between the Orne and Vire rivers. … consisted of irregular small fields, usually little more than 100 square metres in size, separated by high earth banks, on top of which grew dense bushes and trees. Running along these banks were sunken tracks, often overgrown and some so narrow that once in them tanks could not turn or even traverse their guns.

Reynolds, Steel Inferno, pp. 50-51

Comparing Germany to Normandy, Stacey comments: “The Lincoln and Welland Regiment also had difficulty; apart from dealing with continual obstacles, they had trouble maintaining communications between tanks and infantry platoons because of "thick hedges, resembling those found in the bocage country of Normandy".”

Stacey, The Victory Campaign, p. 600

RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• (E/C with Enigma so posted as new comment) Forgot to add this; "Another soldier came up with the suggestion that steel prongs should be fitted to the front of the tank, then it could dig up the hedgerow... Culin went away and developed the idea... With a good driver, it took less than two and a half minutes to clear a hole through the bank and hedgerow." Beevor, p. 257. Hope it helps, Ranger Steve 08:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• (ec with Enigma and Ranger Steve) I think this is essentially a case of WP:IDHT. It has now been explained to Andering J. REDDSON a number of times by a number of editors that the situation is exactly as Binksternet and others describe above. "Bocage" (not Brocage, which means something to do with contract commissions) is the general name for the entire landscape. "Hedgerows" is the word the sources use to describe that part of the landscape that caused both sides such difficultly in Normandy in 1944.

  That Andering J. REDDSON apparently believes "hedgerows" to mean some kind of ornamental garden shrubbery is irrelevant, and that he then tries to impose his misunderstanding on an article is against content policy and introduces semantic errors. In an effort to compromise and clear up any misunderstandings I've rewritten the article a number of times, removing the contested term from the lead and adding sourced explanation so that readers don't make the same mistake Andering J. REDDSON has. I was under the impression we had sorted this out on the article talk page a while ago, but apparently not. See my latest attempt to reach a compromise; this thread on Talk:Rhino tank, and my latest rewrite to the article itself. As a final point I notice that Andering J. REDDSON has now enlarged the dispute to another article. EyeSerene 08:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Further to the above, the US Army Green books describe bocage as such: "...the Bocage (hilly wooded country extending south of the Bessin and Cotentin nearly to the base of the Brittany Peninsula)," (p. 180, Cross-Channel Attack) and "the bocage country, were earth dikes averaging about four feet in height and covered with tangled hedges, bushes, and even trees. Throughout the entire country they boxed in fields and orchards of varying sizes and shapes, few larger than football fields and many much smaller. Each hedgerow was a potential earthwork into which the defenders cut often-elaborate foxholes, trenches, and individual firing pits. The dense bushes atop the hedgerows provided ample concealment for rifle and machine gun positions, which could subject the attacker to devastating hidden fire from three sides." (p. 284, Cross-Channel Attack)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Breakout and Pursuit, also part of the Green Books official history of the US Army, describes the modified Sherman as “"Rhino Tank with Hedgerow Cutter" (p. XV). The book goes on to describe the development of the Rhino modifications: “Ordnance units converted ordinary Sherman tanks into dozers by mounting a blade on the front. Some hedgerows, however, were so thick that engineers using satchel charges had first to open a hole, which the dozers later cleared and widened.22 ... Ordnance units and tankers throughout the army had devoted a great deal of thought and experimentation to find a device that would get tanks through the hedges quickly without tilting the tanks upward ... As early as 5 July the 79th Division had developed a "hedgecutter," which Ordnance personnel began attaching to the front of tanks. Five days later the XIX Corps was demonstrating a "salad fork" arrangement, heavy frontal prongs originally intended to bore holes in hedgerow walls to facilitate placing engineer demolition charges but accidentally found able to lift a portion of the hedgerow like a fork and allow the tank to crash through the remaining part of the wall. Men in the V Corps invented a "brush cutter" and a "greendozer" as antihedgerow devices. The climax ... was achieved by ... Curtis G. Culin, Jr., who welded steel scrap from a destroyed enemy roadblock to a tank to perfect a hedgecutter with several tusklike prongs, teeth that pinned down the tank belly while the tank knocked a hole in the hedgerow wall by force." (pp. 205-206)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • All this additional information is excellent :) Does anyone mind if I steal the fruits of their labours here? If it leads to expansion and improvement of the Rhino tank article I think this DR process will have been quite successful. EyeSerene 09:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Feel free - I'm not at home now, so I don't have the full refs - but I imagine you have Beevor and Hastings, and Belcham's book has all the details here. Ranger Steve 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Likewise. The details for the Green Books can be found here. The entire collection is available and free to access. Furthermore am pretty sure Pursuit and Breakout contains the photo, used in the article, on page 206.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
        • From Enigma's post above - "bocage was nearly 80km in depth" - now that would be a pretty thick hedgerow if that's what bocage meant! Ranger Steve 10:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section at Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

• 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?

• How do you think we can help?

B——C_ritical 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section at Reactions to Occupy Wall Street discussions

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 . B——C_ritical 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Somedifferentstuff likes to edit war this paragraph out, then mostly ignore the discussion. I consider that disruptive. B——C_ritical 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:

• 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

1. Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman "By focusing on caricatures of pot-smoking, drumbeating hippies, instead of on the economic messages related to the "We are the 99 percent" meme, some in the media appear to be redirecting the national debate away from what unites us and toward what divides us...Replicating this decades-old culture-war paradigm, 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.""
2. Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011 "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" it."
3. Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says The New York Times October 21, 2011 By Kate Zernike "...conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968."
4. The roots of American disorder By Matthew Continetti, CBS news November 22, 2011 "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. They argue that the Democrats made a huge mistake embracing Occupy Wall Street as an expression of economic and social frustration."
5. Occupy Wall Street Heckles Obama, Descends on GOP By Melanie Jones in International Business Times, November 22, 2011 "Some conservatives however, view reactions like Obama's as encouraging the protesters to continue what they view as disrespectful and disruptive actions by lazy leftist who want to destroy capitalism. The Republicans include Bachmann's fellow candidates in the GOP primary, as well as prominent Republicans like Karl Rove."
6. Why Britain needs a written constitution By Linda Colley in The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2011 "A prime reason for this diffidence is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. 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"."
7. Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it By Douglas Rushkoff, Special to CNN October 5, 2011 "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."
8. Cite error: The named reference Rush Limbaugh Flips Out, 'The Next President Could Come From (Occupy Wall St)' was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference mediaite was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Gingrich Takes GOP Lead, Takes On 'Occupy' National Public Radio transcript November 21, 2011
11. Religion on display in Republican debate by Anna Fifield in the Financial Times, November 20, 2011
12. Gingrich to Occupy: ‘Take a Bath’ The Daily Beast November 21, 2011
13. Populist Movements Rooted in Same Soil The Wall Street Journal By GERALD F. SEIB, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 "You know how they have been pigeonholed: The tea-party movement is nothing but a collection of right-wing, under-educated rubes and radicals, while the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots."
14. Occupy Wall St. disrupts Okla. Santorum rally By Rebecca Kaplan CBS News March 4, 2012

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? B——C_ritical 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. B——C_ritical 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. B——C_ritical 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. B——C_ritical 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)

Template:Cue 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. B——C_ritical 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Ekal Vidyalaya

• 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

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

• 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,

1. Christian Today which describes itself as "trans-denominational Christian newspaper" (part of christiantoday.com more info , 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.).
2. The Milli Gazette which describes itself as "Indian Muslims' Leading English Newspaper" (more info , 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)

Thirugnana Sambandar

Article talk page discussion is a prerequisite for filing a request at this noticeboard. Please discuss the issue there first. Lord Roem (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Quantum_mind

• 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 as I pointed out to him on the talk page 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 . He has been asked repeatedly to get consensus () for his insertions but keeps inserting it. Warning I gave him: . His re-inserts: .

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 . As a response, the user added even more references which do not mention Bernroider: .

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

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 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: 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 , . 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)

Rinat Akhmetov

• Rinat Akhmetov (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'm asking for a third opinion in order to avoid edit warring. To my mind, Львівське has been outraging Wiki BLP policy via POV pushing in the mentioned article, namely flooding the article with rumours, POV statements and unproved allegations served as facts. He's been putting criminal accusations almost everywhere in the article, grounding mostly on external sources, disputing at he same time my contributions. --Orekhova (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Lvivske (talk · contribs)
• Orekhova (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".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rinat Akhmetov}} --~~~~ 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?

1) discussions at the article talkpage 2) I requested assistance at the BLP Noticeboard 3) I asked for page protection

• How do you think we can help?

I wish the article is checked for its neutrality.

Orekhova (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov discussion

Opening Comment by Sleddog116:

Okay, I'm going to weigh in here just to make a few preliminary remarks. First, it seems like you two are the primary editors of this article. I'm not saying that to construe any ownership, merely to point out the fact that most of the article's content (at least recently; I haven't looked terribly far back in the history) comes from you. Also, you two seem to be the main ones discussing things on the talk page. My point in all of this is that you two have been dealing with each other for some time, so I shouldn't need to say anything that you already know - I just want everyone to get along here. Orekhova, before we can really go any further with this, you need to inform Lvivske of this dispute (you can use the template listed above).

As far as the neutrality is concerned, I've taken a look at both the article and (especially) the talk page, and I think both of you misunderstand what WP:NPOV means. Neutral POV is not about adding a bunch of point-of-view statements and then balancing them with a bunch of equally point-of-view statements from the other side (I'm looking especially here and here). Neutral point of view is about using neutral language throughout the article and, if the language is not neutral, attributing the language to its original source using quotes. For instance, this is non-neutral:

John Doe has been called a thug because of his ties to organized crime.

This is neutral:

Joe Brown, (state significance of Joe Brown), categorized John Doe as a "thug," citing his connection to organized crime.

See the difference? Another important thing to remember in this kind of discussion is that (especially since we're dealing with BLP issues here) we cannot give undue weight to matters that have not been given significant, main-stream media coverage. In other words, anything added to this article that is likely to be contentious must be not only sourced but very well sourced.

Bearing all of that in mind, what exactly are the perceived lapses in neutrality? (By the way, guys, citing a few of the diffs in question would be fabulous. Thanks.) Sleddog116 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

There is not a dispute here, rather one editor's failure to accept consensus. The discussion on the article talk page has been closed and further rejection of this consensus should result in DeFacto (talk · contribs) being re-blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution