Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:11, 6 October 2012

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small 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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

24 Game

Filing editor refused to engage after case opening. Amadscientist (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Gangnam Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Curb Chain (talk · contribs)
• Castncoot (talk · contribs)
• A1candidate (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In this section of the talk page of Gangnam Style, I believe the quote should be removed.

Other editors (User:Castncoot and User:A1candidate) believe the quote should be restored

My arguments are policy based. Theirs are not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have used edit summaries when I removed the quote (which has been done in several versions).

How do you think we can help?

I need more editors to provide a consensus. Otherwise, I will file a RfC.

Opening comments by Castncoot

Please see the talk page of the article in question. User User:Curb Chain at this time appears to be the lone holdout carrying his or her viewpoint, while four others (including myself) have arrived at the conclusion that the quote should be restored. It is informative, constructive, and well-cited exactly as a quote which was indeed stated, if one views the citation properly; no more and no less. I believe that Curb Chain is misinterpreting a policy; otherwise, four others would not hold an opinion in opposition of him or her. Castncoot (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) My apologies, correction - two other editors, not four. I should mention, however, that this quote has held up for a matter of either many days or weeks now before this dispute - obviously many other editors were in agreement with it. Castncoot (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by A1candidate

Giving undue weight to an opinion only applies if that opinion is held by a small minority. In this case, ABC News isn't by far the only one who reports about "Gangnam Style" taking over/conquering/spreading over the entire world (I can quote from Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, any respectable newspaper you can think of)

Gangnam Style discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me begin by noting that one of the more interesting things about this dispute is that no one has noted that the quote is misstated. The quote comes from a point at 3:13 in the video and the reporter clearly says "intrawebs" (sic, both as to the term and its plural use), not "Internet". I disagree entirely with Curb Chain's analysis of the matter, which he asserts to be policy-based, which is set out in this edit. WP:SYN has no part in deciding whether or not sources are reliable; while undue weight could have some application here, I do not believe that it does; and, similarly, the fact that the quote is taken from a larger context could also have some application if the way in which it was extracted causes it to be misleading as to the entire content, it does not do that. Since the quote is set off in a box by itself, it serves the same function in the article as does an image, to illustrate the article. Since the section of the article to which this is attached is about the widespread popularity of the song and video and, in particular, the Internet meme and the flash mobs which have been inspired by it, I'm of the personal opinion that the quote would have been an acceptable illustration for the article as it is presently, incorrectly, stated with the word "Internet" included, instead of the correct word, "intrawebs". However, if it is corrected to say "intrawebs", rather than "Internet", as it must be, then I think that its use is potentially confusing and that, at best, the use of "intrawebs" is distracting and my personal opinion is that it ought to be removed from the article for those reasons. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" (in this particular context) appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs". All in all, it isn't a perfect quote, but adding it to the article would do more good than harm, in my opinion -A1candidate (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with A1. The quote seems to be doing just fine and is a valuable addition in its corrected form - I don't believe there's anything to be gained from removing it. This discussion really should be closed, I feel. Castncoot (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the matter that serious? It's just a nice quotation, it looks good there in the box. Could Curb Chain explain what exactly he or she doesn't like in the quotation? That "Gangnam Style" took over the world? (just guessing) By the way, I think that the article needs some criticism. It's strange that everyone likes the song. Why hasn't any publication received the song without enthusiasm? It's completely unrelated to the dispute, though. --Moscowconnection (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think that the quote had more than marginal utility, which was further diminished by the correction, I also think that this is one of those things where it's a close judgment call as to what's best for the encyclopedia. My objection to the quote is only slightly on the negative side of the issue and I certainly do not mean to pursue the point further. If Curb Chain wishes to do so, that's his call, but he probably needs to do so through an RFC since the weight of opinion here and at the article seems to be mostly the other way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

English Vinglish

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• English Vinglish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vivekdalmias (talk · contribs)
• Vivvt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

the dispute is for the promotion part, the self published legal owner websites, blogs, facebook and twitter which are normally only source to identify the issue is questioned against the newspaper or electronic media post who does not post, print news without the help of legal owner post in self published pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have tried to convince the user to understand that the post published in media is just after the post published by the legal owner on there self published pages, facebook profile and twitter accounts. so the self published source in this particular post is most reliable to refer for the actual date

How do you think we can help?

to let the user convince that the wikipedia verifiability policies does not blame in clear that self published post and youtube facebook or twitter account can be questioned for the reliability and authenticity specially when the post is about something whose details can be most reliably obtained by there self published post

Opening comments by Vivvt

Dispute?? That's interesting. I've been asking editor to use free references like newspapers than social media, then it becomes dispute!! Editor is consistently providing all the non-RS sources like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Is date of promotion disputable? Not for me. As long as you provide free references, any date should be OK. 14th or 15th June does not matter to me. What matters to me is the sources editor is providing. Use the newspaper sources and go ahead with the desired date. FB, Twitter, Youtube and social media is not considered as reliable source.

Again, I do not own any page for that matter, so any discussion need not "convince" me for anything. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

English Vinglish discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I suggest reading WP:RS. I think the two parties will be able to discuss a resolution here. We will not try to convince anyone at DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

hi. i have read the wp:rs also wp:sps and there its also said that when the context is related to the person or body or company for whom the article is all about then the self published sources along with the social media content can be used as source instead if they are published by the authentic publisher

also on newspaper source is concerened news agencies are always dependable on the same self published sources. here the date is not an issue rather its an issue of fact that why in the basis of context of article we can not use the social media if that source is most reliable for that particular context. its in same way ask the person directly for whom the article is all about. aditionaly i provided the additional non facebook twitter and youtube sources to other user for the same date issue.its not to convince him over page on date, it is the matter to use some wp:sps based on context and the dispute is about using wp:sps and wp:rsvkdlms (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Has nobody considered poking WP:RSN to see what they think about the article and the sources used to back up the claims? Hasteur (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Welner

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Michael Welner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Stewaj7 (talk · contribs)
• Jcally66 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My apologies as I was not logged in when I filed my earlier dispute - though I thought I was. Regarding Michael Welner page, this page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statement about peer review being controversial, without appropriate referencing was included. Jcally66 statments are unsupported by the source that she lists. When this was brought to Jcally66 attention, the editor noted their personal knowledge of events as a source and the court opinion which only vested parties have access to - non verifiable. In the middle of discussions about edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934 - disregarding discussions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette.

How do you think we can help?

1. protect the page until discussions have been concluded. (See closing statement above. Comment about user removed ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)) 2. another editors objective input would be helpful. My fear is the this will turn into another editing war if the page is left open to edits.

Opening comments by Jcally66

I made a 3 sentence addition to the BLP for Dr. Welner in the section "The Forensic Panel" where it states: "Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of its forensic consultation." The wiki BLP and subject's use of the term "peer review" flatly contradicts all accepted definitions of the term by scientific and medical professionals. I cited a recent, publicly-available, federal court ruling that threw out a "Panel" report that hinged on their conflation of terms 'peer review" with "co-authorship" or "consulting". I have only used Wiki references to define "peer review" and only used publicly-available sources to make statements of fact. I considered this necessary to add since the ruling was for a capital criminal sentencing and because this issue has been on-going focus of controversy since 2006 (the Andrea Yates trial, which I also referenced.) All accusations of vested interest or bad faith are unfounded.

Michael Welner discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I will help with this dispute. I will remove all comments about conduct and users. We can start when the other party responds. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Stewaj7 here. I have asked Jcally66 to chime in on their talk page, but have not heard back. We have been engaged in more discussion on the talk page. They were kind enough to remove their edits while discussions were ongoing.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jcally66 here. I'm not sure how this works - first edited 3 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcally66 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jcally66, please use the section title "Opening Comments by Jcally66" to state your reasoning on why you feel justified for your contributions, why you may feel the other editor is incorrect or any other comments in regards to this case you feel need to be addressed. Discuss the edits not the editor and remain civil. Thank you and happy editing! Once the case begins and talk is intitiated, use this section for the main dicsussion. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is this at DRN? Other than the filing editor, a WP:SPA, summarily reverting well-sourced text, coupled with invective and personal attacks against anyone who dares insert material to this BLP that provides anything other than a PR flackweasel's spin on a highly controversial subject, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the edits in dispute. Fladrif (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Fladrif's comment's on the article's talk pages. There was no serious discussion between the two editors before filing here. Removing well-sourced content while accusing other editors of bad faith and malicious activity is a bit inappropriate. If you have a specific BLP issue, I recommend taking it to WP: BLP/N. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, DRN only deals with content disputes, not conduct disputes. Conduct disputes should be taken to WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean conduct for your last sentence. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been and continues to be extensive discussion on this issues both prior to and during the initiation of this dispute (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Michael_Welner#Revisiting_New_Edits). However, the dispute resolution was initiated when Jcally subverted discussion to post content on the BPL. While initiating this resolution indirectly helped curb that behavior, the issues about the content still remains. I ask that you please take a close look at the most recent edits both by Fladrif reinstating Jcally66 misrepresentation of her sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Welner&diff=next&oldid=515706246.Stewaj7 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif raises a separate issue above that I agree should be addressed in a more appropriate forum. Those involved in resolution, please see additional edits by Fladrif under discussion . Fladrif, should this content matter be address separately as well? I am still figuring out proper forums.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, we at DRN will help you fix the NPOV and OR issues, but any allegation of another user's misconduct should go to WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to be free of original research and has an ample amount of citations. I tagged the page, as it uses bare URLs for citations, which are prone to link rot. This can be fixed by filling them in using {{Cite Web}} templates (using Reflinks), but this content disputes stems from OR and NPOV issues. The article is well-sourced, and I don't see original research in it. Perhaps you can link me to it? --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2, I am referring to 2 sections in particular. The first is "The Forensic Panel" under the Professional Career section can be found here. Jcally66 wrote, “Welner's theories and practice regarding The Forensic Panel's “peer-review” are controversial, and have been criticized as for Welner using employees rather than independent experts to conduct the review. The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” This paragraph is completely unsourced. Jcally66 goes on to write, "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers." . From the source itself the DA were asked about how they felt about the fees and they replied “If we were right, and Mrs. Yates was sane, how much should Welner's testimony cost, in nontax dollars per dead child? Especially when the media poisoned the well from which prospective jurors drank?” This is in contrary to prosecutors stating they were misled. The second source Jcally66 lists does not support the statement either. The issue is that any one can link a statement to an non-supporting article, because no one polices the reliability of the source. In this case, the references might as well be an add to an eye cream, because they do not contain anything about prosecutors claiming they were misled by Welner. These are just a few examples.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The lines "The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” and "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers.” were written by Fladrif, not me. Your dispute is with him.--Jcally66 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The second section is here. Fladrif wrote "Proceedings of the U.S. military against Omar Khadr by a Guantanamo military tribunal, in which Welner's testimony has highly controversial and largely discredited." When I brought to Fladrif's attention that he added a link to an article or site that is no longer available, he disregarded the input and subvertted the issue claiming that it was "my opinion" that the sources were wrong and making false allegations. But all one has to do is read the articles cite to see that they say nothing of the sort. When asked to remove the contentious unsupported content Fladrif, blew me of plain and simple. I am asking that you take a closer look at what is being done here. I know those governing this forum are savvy enough to see through these subtle violations of Misplaced Pages policy.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Men's Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CSDarrow (talk · contribs)
• Memotype (talk · contribs)
• Memills (talk · contribs)
• Perpetualization (talk · contribs)
• Cailil (talk · contribs)
• Slp1 (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An impasse has been reached at

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Allegations_of_Rape_2

as to whether the statement,(which atm is),

"Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime".

The argument is over whether this statement is reliably sourced and/or of undue weight.

The section being

http://en.wikipedia.org/Men%27s_rights_movement#Rape.

Discussion has been lengthy and has clearly reached an impasse. There is a need for some impartial eyes. If anyone could help it would be appreciated. This page is under probation and deals with a controversial topic.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from very lengthy debate, nothing else. This is the first appeal for help.

How do you think we can help?

Atm I feel an experienced neural editor could aid the discussion in reaching a consensus.

Opening comments by Memotype

Opening comments by Memills

Inclusion of the statement that men's right groups support marital rape is clearly WP:UNDUE.

By analogy it is as if statement by one feminist that "All men are rapists, and that is all that they are" should be included in the article on the feminist movement because it represents an important platform of the movement.

In both cases, these are outlier statements that fall under WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE Memills (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Perpetualization

In my mind the issue is simple. The statement is: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." WP:UNDUE gives us three scenarios:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

This viewpoint is not held in the majority. CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

"Some men's rights activists" is sentence that does not name adherents.

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The last option is does not belong in wikipedia.

WP:UNDUE therefore calls for us to remove the statement. If another editor wished to add the statement again, with specific "prominent adherents" named, as required by WP:UNDUE, I would not object to that. Without named adherents, the statement is certainly given undue weight.

Editing/Extending:

I will add that it appears that the statement may be true outside of the United States. Still, the use of the word "some" is necessarily prejudicial and the article is generally US focused (and reads as such). Perhaps naming countries where the viewpoint is mainstream, noting that it is not mainstream within the United States, and providing prominent adherents from the minority within the United States.

I also vigorously object to dated sources in the discussion. The Mens Rights movement in the United States is leaps and bounds from where it was 20-30 years ago. A history section noting view that were formerly mainstream would be a welcome addition to the article, but the article would be prejudicial to conflate current advocacy with advocacy of the late 80s and early 90s (as Cailil has done).

Lastly, I note that there are several variations on this viewpoint, not all of which are identical and which are easily misstated from sources:

• men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws
• men's rights groups feel that marital rape laws are often used for false claims as a weapon in divorce cases
• men's group opposes marital rape laws because they feel that accusations of marital rape are fundamentally irrefutable (as |Slp1 found a source for).

If the sources indicate that different men's rights groups hold varied opinions on marital rape, then we can state that, and provide a brief summary of the prominent adherents and their viewpoints. It seems slanderous to cover such a wide range of viewpoints for such different rationales with "some men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws"

Perpetualization (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Cailil

Very simply, sources state that there have been (and are) attempts by Men's Rights groups to campaign against Marital Rape legislation. I listed the academic peer-reviewed sources and the relevant text from them (with page numbers) on the talk page. Kaldari listed the material about current action by groups in India related to this.
The interpretation by CSDarrow & Perpetualization of NPOV makes no sense. The point about "adherents to a POV" in that policy refers to sources. The construction being placed upon it is that we should find individual Men's rights activists who hold these views to prove the sources correct - that's original research.
As it stands the point about marital rape is sourced, and accorded the weight of one sentence in an appropriate section in the article. It is not being given undue prominent in the article itself or relative to the sources. I'll also note that this area is under probation and edits removing sourced content as well as tendentious argument are sanctionable.
I've stated on the page, as has, to the best of my knowledge, Kevin that we agree with the removal of the "marriage contract" piece but the sentence about campaigns about marital rape law is appropriate WRT to this site's policies. I've already suggested alternative wording ("scholars contend") to resolve the "some" issue.--Cailil 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Slp1

CSDarrow and Perpetualization appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of various V, NPOV and RS policies. The same arguments keep getting repeated, and then the goalposts moved.

• First, WP's NPOV policy and Jimbo's cited comments do not support the deletion of this well-cited information. In fact WP:UNDUE says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." As has been pointed out over and over again, multiple highly reliable academic sources include this information, so it actually would be undue NOT to include it. Jimbo's (cherrypicked) requirements have actually been more than achieved as for this possibly minority opinion (at least in the West), it is actually very "easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".
• Nevertheless, when these editors asked for prominent adherents, other editors provided several examples of notable men's rights organizations and their officials who have made opposed marital rape (see Kaldari's comments).
• Attempts have been made to dispute what the reliable sources say by doing original research to prove them "wrong". The research was actually faulty since there are at least two of the websites listed that do oppose spousal rape laws (Kaldari mentions one, and here is another). And in any case, original research by editors to "disprove" reliable sources, is simply not how we write an encyclopedia article.
• But now the goalpost has changed...We now have arguments that the sources about the US are out of date (20-30 years is mentioned), when the reality is that the US-based sources were published in 2005, 2003 and 1994. Not one is even 20 years old, and most are quite recent.
• We also now have arguments that the statement may refer only outside of the US. However, the key point is that's not what the sources say; and once again examples of the website of current US-based men's rights activists have been provided to show that this is false.(See Kaldari's comments)
• And now we have claims that this material might be libellous and slanderous. Well, if that is the case you might want to warn the scholarly presses that published the material in the first place. Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Binksternet

I have not been arguing this point. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kaldari

First, I would like to respond to a misleading argument above by Perpetualization:

• "CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it."
  • This is simply false. At least one of the pages linked to from CSDarrow's list does actually list decriminalizing marital rape as an agenda item: "Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and pardon all men who have been arrested for "statutory rape," "date rape," "spousal rape," "pornography," "soliciting a prostitute," and other weasel worded versions thereof. A woman's hurt feelings do not turn a man into a criminal."
  • Secondly, CSDarrow's list doesn't include any Indian men's rights organizations, such as SIFF which successfully campaigned against criminalizing marital rape only 2 years ago.

The statement under contention has met every criteria that has been offered. First of all, there are numerous reliable 3rd party academic sources that back up the claim (can't include quotations due to 2000 char limit):

• Current Controversies on Family Violence
• American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia
• Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure

Despite this, some editors have insisted that WP:UNDUE requires that prominent adherents be named. Here are some prominent adherents (in their own words):

• Tom Williamson, founder of the National Coalition of Free Men: "First off, I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws."
• Virag Dhulia, Public Relations Officer of SIFF: "This means that the government wants police to enter bedrooms now, which is a sure shot way to break a marriage as no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."

I'm open to revising the wording to address concerns, but I don't think there's adequate reason to remove the statement entirely.

Opening comments by Kevin Gorman

I've been, unfortunately, too busy irl lately to involve myself in this article as much as I would like. I view this as a relatively minor issue compared to those the article as a whole suffers from. I have not studied this dispute in depth; I've reviewed the posted on-wiki sources and most of people's on-wiki posts, though. From what I've seen no one has made, so far, a convincing argument as to why this information shouldn't be included. Slp and Kaldari have found a pretty significant number of RS'es that contain this information. Some of them I would describe as high quality, some of them have recently been published, and most of them have been published recently enough that their age shouldn't cast doubt on their accuracy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights discussion 1

• Note: Please note Men's rights movement is under probation; please let me or another uninvolved admin know if there are any sanctionable actions which occur. KillerChihuahua 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Right now I am waiting for more of the comment sections above to be filled in. In the meantime, I would encourage everyone involved to read the "Guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am another DRN volunteer and will be assisting Guy Macon in resolving this dispute. The participants should also be aware of WP: BRD. After all of the users involved make opening statements, a DRN volunteer will open up this discussion. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

While we are waiting for the opening statements, I would like to point out that This article has been placed on article probation. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it, I actually pointed that out in this section above before you accepted this case so that anyone considering accepting it would be prepared, and so they would know to notify me or another uninvolved admin if sanctions were indicated. KillerChihuahua 20:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Read right past it without it registering. Sorry about that. (Note to self: Next time, edit Misplaced Pages after smoking crack...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Timing. It's all about the timing. KillerChihuahua 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist and will also be assisting where needed in this DR/N but to a lesser extent as the first two volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:INFLUENCE covers editing while in a altered state of consciousness. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding waiting for opening statements, Binksternet has been actively editing other pages but has not responded here, Memills last edited Misplaced Pages on 30 September, and Memotype last edited Misplaced Pages on 14 September. How long should we wait? I want everyone involved to weigh in, but i also don't want to frustrate people with undue delays. Opinions? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As both sides of dispute are here, the discussion may be opened IMO. The others may jump in later if they become active and/or willing to participate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. This thread is now open for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights discussion 2

Comment - I looked at the sources that are listed above to support inclusion of the material. They look satisfactory to me. The Segal source in particular, p 276, is conclusive (describing a campaign against laws which define marital rape). That source is published by the University of California. So, the essence of the sentence should be included. Can it be wordsmithed? Sure ... in situations like this it is always better if the specific advocates are named in the sentence. But WP:UNDUE does not exclude this sentence. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea of including specific advocates or groups so that it doesn't sound like a sweeping statement about the movement in general. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to discuss for a moment the citations for the current article's statement "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=515903480 in case it changes).

When examining something like this, I start with the question "does the source say what we say it says" and I look at the quality of the sources.

For Ref , the source supports the statement. It says that http://www.ejfi.org "demands .. to eliminate laws defining marital rape as a crime". I could not find evidence supporting that claim on the ejfi.org website. That's a typical problem when a source is more of an advocacy source that an academic source -- they don't say where to look on ejfi.org and they don't give the exact wording.

For Ref , Google books gave me this error: "Restricted Page: You have reached your viewing limit for this book." Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref , The section before it says "The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia" does not support the claim. The "free one day trial" asks for a credit card number. Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref , the source supports the statement. Again, an obvious advocacy publication, not academic research or unbiased reporting, and the source only says that some unnamed men's groups campaigned against the legal recognition of marital rape in 1994. That's 18 years ago.

For Ref , The source supports the statement. The mens group is named; it is the Save Indian Family Foundation ( http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ and a person is qouted: Virag Dhulia. Furthermore, it appears to be from a legitimate news source rather than an obvious advocacy book and is less than 5 years old If it were me, this is the only cite I would use for this statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Without commenting on the issue, some of the editors seems to not be aware of WP:PAYWALL. Unfortunately, not all sources are available for free. Indeed, many high-quality sources are only available either by buying a book or article, or using an academic library. Misplaced Pages explicitly endorses the use of such sources. If you have trouble getting them, WP:REX can often help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:PAYWALL. My philosophy is this: if you recently added a citation or you are vigorously defending a citation, then I can only assume that you have access, and it seems quite reasonable to ask you to look at the source that you can presumably access and give us an exact quote that supports the statement in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have access to all the sources and listed all the quotes on the talkpage of the article quite a while ago . So did Cailil here. I disagree with the contention that books published by highly reliable academic sources can or should be marginalized as "advocacy" books, and I don't know of any policy or guideline that would support this. On the contrary, they are precisely the books that have the highest reputation for fact-checking etc (e.g. published by University presses) that we are supposed to privilege per the verifiability policy and Identifying reliable sources Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Guy you've made some rather extreme comments above. You've inferred that nobody bothered to list sources and quotes when in fact, as Slp1 said, both she and I had done so - and I linked above to it above. You've dismissed a number of sources' reliability in a way that has no basis in policy.
In relation to your readings: Re ref 80 - try this link; regarding ref 74 are we looking at the same source Current Controversies on Family Violence written by 3 academics and published by Sage? Furthermore a search using google of EJFI site for "spousal rape" and "marital rape" does indeed generate a number of hits. It is this source's opinion that this site is advocating something. It's not our job to go outside policy and do original research to prove OR attempt to disprove a source.
Regarding ref84 you've claimed that Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure is NOT an academic piece. It may be a feminist text but last time I checked that doesn't disqualify a source's as academic, or make it advocacy. That is your opinion and NPOV does not requires that sources are neutral - merely that they are reliable. Your conflation of these core policy concepts and dismissal of these sources is frankly incredible and raises questions about the ability of this board to handle topics under probation (which need extreme care and precision) - I will ping KC about this--Cailil 23:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cailil, please refrain from making accusations against the volunteers here. I do not see Guy's comments as extreme or suggesting anything of the sort. Remember this is where you show your sources and the article talkpage is seperate. We will not be jumping back and forth so please be prepared to share all sources here. If there is a paywall and sources are unavailable someone will need to provide the text and we, of course, will trust the good faith of the editors. Please do the same with the volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist my above is not an attack on Guy - it's criticism. It's also quite fair. I'm taking the matter to the talk page. AFAIK there are no paywall issues - the relevant sources were listed and quoted from, albeit in a diff I presented in my statement - perhaps this was missed by you & guy--Cailil 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with Cailil that it is inappropriate both in policy and practice to seek marginalize sources based "I can't confirm it"-type statements, (most especially when we are talking about websites that may have changed a good deal), in the spirit of good faith, here is Charles Corry, the longtime president of Edfiin a 2007 ejfi article, mentioning the introduction of "the crime of marital rape in many localities" as one of the "false flags" "used to insure that any action by a man can be used against him.". It can't be the original source for the book because of the date, but it shows the way the wind blows in that organization. Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As a dispute resolution volunteer, I choose which cases to help with based upon the basic principle of having no opinion one way or the other about the topic of the dispute. And indeed, the actual question of what some men's group did or did not say bores me. I am just here to help you to resolve your dispute.

Attacking one of the volunteers who is working on your case accomplishes nothing (it doesn't hurt you either, BTW; we are all committed to be fair and impartial despite such behavior.) Please write about article content, not about user conduct. If you have s serious accusation concerning a volunteer's competence or impartiality, bring it up at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, not here in the middle of a dispute.

I have inferred nothing, and if anyone thinks that I have they need to go back and read the guide for participants at the top of this page again. All I am doing is confirming that the sources say what we say they say. I fully expect that they will, but I am still going to check. I have to start somewhere, but be assured that I will verify any claims made any party to this dispute. In the following, I may seem to be challenging one side of the dispute and not the other, but rest assured that this is just an artifact of my having to start somewhere. I will look at the claims of the other side of the dispute very soon. Also note that I have purposely avoided checking to see who wrote the text and added the citations I am examining. I don't want that to affect my evaluation.

I have not "dismissed" any sources' reliability. I have every intention of questioning every sources' reliability, which is not the same thing. In particular, in the above I am asking which of the following claims the citation to Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure supports:

"Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime."

or

"Lynne Segal, author of Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure, claims that 1n 1994 certain unnamed men's rights activists in Kansas City asserted that marital rape should not be considered a crime."

When I see a source that says

"Their agenda suggests that the origins of these middle-class men's fears in women's growing readiness to abandon marriages with men who make them miserable, once they have some means of economic independence. They may be miserable because of men's emotional illiteracy..."

I am reluctant to accept that source as being reliable on the topic of the positions of those same men's rights groups. If you want Misplaced Pages to report that this source made that claim, the source is reliable for that. If you want us to use Misplaced Pages's voice to present that claim as an established fact, you need a reliable source for that, and this simply isn't one.

I am also concerned by the overall nature of that string of citations. Normally, we want to find a reliable source and report what the source says. When I see citation to a book criticizing a 1994 event in Kansas City followed by a 2010 news report from India, it makes me suspect that the conclusion came first and then someone started looking for citations to support it.

Again, I have every intention of giving any claims made by the other parties in this dispute the same level of scrutiny. This is just where I happened to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you see my criticism above as an attack on you - it's not, it's a (very serious) note, not primarily about you Guy but, about this board. I will take that aspect of the issue to the talk page as you suggest, but for the record I do understand that you are acting in good faith and with very good intentions (but I'll remind you that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions")...
Guy perhaps you read past the part in my openning statements where I stated above that I already made a suggestion regarding the "some" issue and regarding the necessary attribution on the article's talk page. I agree sentence needs to read along the lines of:

Scholars argue/contend that men's rights groups have campaigned against "marital rape" legislation.

Scholars may need clarification etc, but that's fine, and your suggests are good - however I'm not sure that listing all the individual cases is wp:due, whereas the overall point that different actions at different times have criticized/campaigned against marital rape is definitely due. However as you see below the actual dispute is not about wording but inclusion - and as we have all outlined in our statements above this rests on CSDarrow's novel interpretations of policy--Cailil 16:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Comment - Firstly I would like to thank all those participating in this discussion, in particular the volunteers for the giving of their time. My arguments are based on WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY . Sorry if this is a bit long, I have tried to be succinct.

(1) Undue Weight

My argument that the statement

• Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.

is undue-weight is based Jimbo Wales' paraphrased statement from WP:UNDUE, I see nothing overriding this statement.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In essence if a minority hold the view than you should be able to easily name prominent adherents, and imo the spirit of the statement is that there is an expectation to do so. With the possible exception of someone in India, no one can find any adherents of this view let alone prominent adherents. Despite not being able to demonstrate a significant minority holds this view, Cailil & Spl1 make the argument that the first statement applies and as such the second statement is now mute, (I am trying not to Strawman here). They absolve themselves of considering the 'significant minority' case by saying it requires original research even though it is patently not satisfied. If a minority do not hold a view I fail to see how a majority can hold it. Their stance imo is not in the spirit of WP:UNDUE. The first rule of Misplaced Pages is that there are no rules, a statement designed precisely for this sort case and for common sense to prevail.

In short if a majority or even a significant minority supposedly hold this view and hardly anyone can be found with this view, then a common sense test has been failed.

Furthermore claiming a group or individual campaigns for the decriminalization of marital rape, ie. impunity from the law for raping one's spouse, is a significant claim. Before any group is impugned with this view on Misplaced Pages, the burden of proof that the claim satisfies wp:Undue, wp:Reliable and wp:Verifiability should also be significant. Misplaced Pages also has a moral and legal obligation not to libel any individual or group. Atm all we have supporting this statement is the unsupported opinions of some who think Men Right's groups hold this view. This is entirely inadequate.

(2) Reliability of the Sources.

The claim is made here that because a source is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' that its reliability is beyond reproach, even if it fails any common sense test. There are many media through which academics publish their work such as:-

• Rigorously peer reviewed journals involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations

• Reviewed conference publications which are generally checked for appropriateness of subject matter, glaring errors , format and suitable citations.

• Unreviewed conference publications, the work is generally only returned if it is patently absurd.

• Journals and essay collections serving an ideologically based community eg, Journal of Marxism.

• Collections of papers or essays published by an Academic press, sometimes with a degree of meaningful peer review and sometimes none at all..

• Books by a single 'scholarly' author published by an Academic press, which usually have no meaningful review at all.

There is nothing wrong with opinionated work and limited peer review. Diversity of opinions are essential to debate and the life blood of new ideas. With the exception of sometimes the hard sciences, academics are not automatons deterministically sifting through evidence and logically coming to conclusions like Data from Star Trek. They play with ideas; try and say seeming absurd things; sometimes have strong ideological bases and are sometimes deliberately provocactive. Fully rigorous peer review is very time consuming and requires a lot of resources, having other less rigorous outlets of publication allows work to enter the melting pot of ideas that is Academia, Ultimately it is from this melting pot that we get :-

• Rigorously peer reviewed work involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations.

Which in general can be accepted as reliable without reservation. Other forms of academic publication require more scrutiny. A glaring example of scholarship gone awry being the Sokol affair.

In short just because a work is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' does not necessarily make it a reliable source. This very point is addressed in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

• Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

The notion that if the adjectives 'Scholarly' or 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' can be attached to a piece of work then the source is reliable, is prevalent in certain parts of Misplaced Pages and is causing enormous damage imo. The notion is based on a lack of understanding of the way Academic publishing works. The sources cited here are not reliable and are the unsupported opinions of those the authors are at ideological odds with. Guy Macon has summarized my thoughts on these works succinctly.

Ultimately the reliability of these sources, or not, is largely an argument of opinion. If we can not reach consensus then I feel the matter should go to experts at RSN to adjudicate, the result of which I think will have a profound effect on Misplaced Pages. This is a serious precedent setting matter.

Thanks again CSDarrow (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"With any claims rigorously supported by citations" is not something I have ever encountered. It's an entirely unreasonable claim - the primary aim of scholarly publishing is to present new knowledge, or, in Misplaced Pages terms, "original research". New claims need to be supported, sure, but not only by citations, but in particular by data and argument. And claims that are widely accepted in a given community are often published without any citations - we know that ${\displaystyle |N|=\aleph _{0}}$. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is however an expectation to justify how that new knowledge was obtained with citations where appropriate. My list was a summary not an exhaustive description. CSDarrow (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Turkish Cypriots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ghuzz (talk · contribs)
• E4024 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In September 27th part of article deleted with argument "some infos not stated in source given". And after deleting that part only one user manipulated article and filled with unreliable and subjective informations. And today with adding new sources, i turned article back to old version again. But after few minutes E4024 user undo my edits with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". With current situation article is looking highly under Turkish nationalist ideology, subjective, weak sourced and far from reality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to ask whats his reason to undo my sourced edits on users talk page and i didnt get reply. Also I opened section in talk page of article again with giving reliable sources and try to explain situation. But only thing that user did was making fun.

How do you think we can help?

You can look at current situation of the article (objectivity, reliability of sources and info) and also look edit that i tried to do today (again objectivity, reliability of sources and info). Also in Talk Page of an article you can check last two title to understand situation and perspectives. And help to protect one Misplaced Pages article.

Opening comments by E4024

Turkish Cypriots discussion

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party editor and a regular volunteer on the noticeboard. I have a question: the September 27 edits were made between User:23x2 and User:Turco85. The editing between User:Ghuzz and User:E4024 occurred on October 4th. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are all four users involved in the same content dispute? If so, the first two users should be listed as involved users, and notified of the DRN.--SGCM (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, a reminder: DRN does not handle conduct disputes and cannot protect pages. For other volunteers interested in participating, the prior discussion seems to be located here. Although there was a prior discussion, it barely qualifies as extensive. And @Ghuzz, it's best to assume good faith and avoid labeling edits related to a content dispute as vandalism, even if you disagree with the edits. Misplaced Pages has a very strict definition of vandalism, and it does not include neutrality contraventions (see Misplaced Pages:VANDAL#NPOV contraventions). --SGCM (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply SGCM. Regarding User:23x2 and User:Turco85 - I think they are not directly involved in this situation. Turco85 had an argument (right or wrong) about source and deleted that infos. And yesterday I tried to back that info with more supporting source. The main problem here we have is User:E4024's behavior. About my first messages, I do accept that maybe I wasn't behaving right as well but because of it i created a new title to discuss situation with other users with nice way. And User:E4024 still continued his behavior. Also I saw that he had similar discussions with other users too User:TremoloKid. Basically there are some fact about one subject and as a Misplaced Pages user I'm trying to edit one article with include both perspectives which are real but some user come and first says like "old one was better" and then change ground and says "this sources are stupid". The sources that he claim to be stupid: One is European Union member and the legal owner of island Republic of Cyprus, and the other one is one intercultural training research project which funded by European Commission. Lets look both version of article again and all of these things and try to reasonable. How in Misplaced Pages when someone try to edit one page with this kind of sources other can have a luxury to say "thats humorous", "i didnt like it" etc. (Ghuzz (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Torah

No extensive discussion prior to filing DR/N. See guidelines above. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 4#Dispute on removal of objective evidence on Olympic bikes
• User talk:Sport and politics#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Users involved

• Andromedean (talk · contribs)
• Showmebeef (talk · contribs)
• Sport and politics (talk · contribs)
• 88.88.166.111 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A few months ago I wrote an article regarding the use of technology to improve sporting performance in the cycling at the London Olympics (Technology in track cycling). Since then there has been intense editing and attempts at removal of the article. There are three main views amongst editors.

One editor (Sport and politics) who wishes the article to be removed entirely.

another editor (88.88.166.111) who wishes the article to remain in some form, with the background of the controversy to be removed or/and the entire article removed out of the 'controversies section'. (Perhaps a better title would be 'GB team introduces new bikes at the London Olympics' so it is specific to the section?)

two editors (Andromedean, Showmebeef) who wish the content, background and location in the controversy section to remain, although there are several possible versions, the latest indicated in the location contains most of the points.

There have been other editors which have been briefly involved in the early stages of editing, although the article has changed since then.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a long and protracted discussion on the talk page, and it has also been subjected to a RfC without any additional outside comments to the best of my knowledge. I have attempted a dispute resolution before but this wasn't allowed during an RfC and was rejected. The Rfc has now finished so hopefully this process can be started. I have also briefly spoke above this on the teahouse page.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify if any significant breaches of Wiki protocol such as Synthesis or No original research was used, to justify the articles inclusion, modification or removal. Clarify if the background information from cycling regulations and the public survey mentioned in the IMechE technical paper help to clarify the context, and so if this should be included. Clarify if the issues mentioned are specific enough to the London Olympics for inclusion in this section.

Opening comments by Showmebeef

Opening comments by Sport and politics

This section, (not article) which was written by Andromedean was subject to an Rfc and there was outside input. The problem is it was mainly opposing what ‎Andromedean had put in and called for its removal. The Rfc though was not formally closed.

This section is nothing more than trying to make out GB cycling cheated and is based up taking snipets from losing athletes, unrelated cycling events where the events and participation rules are different, such as the World Championships where more than one competitor can be entered per event compared to the Olympics where only one can be entered per event. Claiming that extra funding was a form of cheating and that using technology itself was a form of "doping" by providing an "unfair advantage". None of these claims are substantiated and the main source used is a academic industry report, where the section on technology doping is referring to athletes in hyperbaric oxygen chambers and not bicycles in anyway.

This section violates Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on topic relevance, POV, undue weight, synthesis of sources, misrepresentation of sources, original research and what Misplaced Pages is not (not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal).

The section must be removed as it makes unsubstantiated claims based on cherry picking of information to suit the POV which Andromedean is trying to further. Further to this Andromodean has made claims of conflict of interest and that there is "an agenda of censorship" from those disagreeing with them, none of which are a demonstration of good faith editing from Andromodean.

Before the Wikkequette was closed a thread which can be found here was initiated laying out some more of the issues in this section.

This section should be removed forthwith due to the number of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies violated.

Sport and politics (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 88.88.166.111

Comments by (previously uninvolved) HiLo48

I'm confused. Did User:Andromedean write an article as he/she says, or simply a new section for the already existing article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics?

I regard articles like Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics as disaster areas. They inevitably attract lots of crap, largely comprising the personal whinges of editors with nothing better to do and no idea of WP:UNDUE. I have been waiting for the dust to settle and for most editors to forget about it, before I started to get rid of some of the real dross. This dispute, however, has delayed the arrival of that time.

As for this dispute, it does seem to be about a very narrow, technical issue related far more to a particular sport than to the Olympics. My opinion matches that of User:Sport and politics. It should go. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I realise now that the answer to my initial question is that User:Andromedean did not write an article, as he/she says, simply a new section for the already existing article. Having a major complaint made by someone who doesn't understand basic Misplaced Pages terminology somewhat confuses and weakens their case. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by DRN volunteer Hasteur

This again?!? Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics and Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 44#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics are previous attempts to get DRN to issue a ruling Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Andromedean

For the record it was Sport & Politics who suggested the DRN should be opened not myself. I thought RfC --Andromedean (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC) only lasted a month, and I assumed it was closed when the attempted removal of the article took place.

I'm unclear why you are raising these points Hasteur, when I already stated this in the opening, are you intending to be involved in this again? Please, remember my request.--Andromedean (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by DRN volunteer czarkoff (talk · contribs)

Two previous cases mentioned above were closed without hearing due to then-ongoing RfC. Since the RfC is now archived, and at least two sides of the dispute are represented, the case will be opened 08:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC) or after all parties make their comments (whatever happens first). Parties are welcomed to summarize uninvolved editors' input at RfC if applicable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics discussion

Supercouple

On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on the page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Misplaced Pages. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay-interest magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will be subjective in order to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. I am requesting help to resolve this dispute. Sancap (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See here, where this was already discussed. That link shows arguments that counter Sancap's. Sancap has consistently repeated the text above, despite arguments countering them. He has shown that he is not interested in hearing arguments against his view (such as the source being reliable for this information and that he should not take the term "supercouple" as seriously as he has been doing; no more than we take the term "supermodel" this seriously). He is only interested in asserting that he is right and getting this text removed. Why he is so focused on this couple out of all the others in the article who only have one reliable source supporting them as a supercouple is something that I can only assume is personal against this couple or either of its members. 118.172.96.119 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I see lots of irrelevant points here, including original research conclusions and assuming personal motives--I'm struck by the number of WP:SPA IP accounts involved in this discussion at several pages. On track: the issue is whether a single such designation by one published source is sufficient to consider its use acceptable for the encyclopedia. It's thin rationale. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lorena Bernal

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Lorena Bernal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kerfuffler (talk · contribs)
• 95.16.191.188 (talk · contribs)
• 66.186.69.50 (talk · contribs)
• 95.16.188.126 (talk · contribs)
• Marcoplo78 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been a slow edit war for more than a year over this person's age/birthdate, eye color, height, weight, etc. I attempted to create a discussion of the age issue on the talk page four weeks ago, but there were no responses at all, and the slow edit war continues.

Note that there are around 20 distinct users who have participated in this mess over the last year. I am only including the 5 who have participated in the last 3 months.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to initiate discussion on the talk page, and also added a comment in the actual page mentioning the talk page discussion. No response.

How do you think we can help?

Help identify reliable sources of this information or other ways of resolving the dispute.

Opening comments by 95.16.191.188

Opening comments by 66.186.69.50

Opening comments by 95.16.188.126

Opening comments by Marcoplo78

Hello, let me begin by saying, I do not understand the motive behind Kerrfuffler's editing of this person's stats. Is it merely to make the woman look bad? Is it a personal mission fueled by negativity towards her? It seems so. I have simply corrected misleading information in the stats of Lorena Bernal that what seems like many others have continuously reverted back to uncorrect untruths designed to make her look like a liar. The stats I inputted are the very same stats given by Ms.Lorena Bernal herself on her own personal website, as well as being stated upon many a reputable site, sites that are not as simply changed by people that dislike her. She is in fact 5'8" tall, Brunette with Blue-Green eyes, 90-76-96(although she had 2 babies recently, that may have changed since, as she has not restated her measurements, naturally) She was born May 12 of 1981, do the math, she was barely 18 in 1999 when she won Miss Spain. Look at all of her photos, her eye colour is the same in all, look at photos of her & her husband, he is slightly taller than her in all photos where she is not wearing heels as he stands at 5'9". MATH & SCIENCE DO NOT LIE. Please end your mission of hatred towards Lorena Bernal. Move on with your own life & make something positive of yourself. No matter how much you misinform & lie about her here it will not change who she really is & everyone can see that for themselves. Your choice of words & behaviour evoke thoughts of haters & trolls. Contact PePe London, Freixenet or Miss World/Miss Spain CO. Ask around, scour the net, you will see.

Lorena Bernal discussion

1. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daniel Elazar Papers Index, Israel: Religion and Society
2. Sanhedrin 11:1
3. Avigdor Miller, A Nation is Born, Page 87
4. Maimonides, Commentary on Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11:1, Article 8

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