Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 30 October 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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 16:46, 12 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.

Deftones

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Deftones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HrZ (talk · contribs)
• Trascendence (talk · contribs)
• Fezmar9 (talk · contribs)
• WesleyDodds (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Trascendence removed nu metal from the article claiming consensus without one existing. Discussions began on the talk page where myself, Fezmar9 and WesleyDodds agreed that it should be included due to the published sources already included in the article in support. Trascendence provided some sources, 7 against, while I found 22 sources in favour. When the discussion went stale (Trascendence hadn't edited the article in 17-18 days) I restored the genre. However, he has since reverted the changes and started another discussion, claiming they go against policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussions on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Helping to put to bed a topic that has been done to death. Consensus is clearly in favour with evidence provided. Trascendence has also been involved in a number of genre-only topics regarding Deftones.

Opening comments by Trascendence

This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved, it lasted two weeks, one week ago Hrz brought sources that aparently supported nu metal, but he stated that he haven't read all of them, and that when he did so, we will weight the sources to see who has the final word. However he didn't weighted the sources as himself said, neither discussed it further, he just came and added nu metal again, because i have many verifiable sources that refute the idea of the band playing that genre I removed it again. That's the reason of the actual discussion. Anyway, I already balanced the sources, with the result being against nu metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trascendence (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Fezmar9

I think we've been far too civil, lenient and patient with Trascendence. Genre debates with this user go as far back as April 2012 and continue today. We have plainly and clearly explained why his edits are against various policies for the last six months. His opinions about what Deftones' genre is boarders on a fringe theory—no mainstream publications or articles agree with his claims, only minor opinion pieces. While I personally hear a lot of other genres in their music, it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming and widely held belief that Deftones is a nu-metal band. There is a clear consensus among editors of Deftones who understand wiki policy and guidelines that it makes sense for nu-metal to be listed in the infobox. The real heart of the issue here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by WesleyDodds

I came into the talk page genre debates that have been occurring on Deftones kind of sideways. I have barely edited the article and have no vested interest in what the band is referred to as (also, in my opinion debating over what goes into the infobox is small fry, for the infobox is intended to be a summary of the article's contents anyway). In this debate and the previous one about post-metal, one of my main goals has be to try to guide everyone to means of finding suitable sources to back up their viewpoints. I have tried my best to deal with everyone in good faith, but I feel it's become more and more apparent that Transcendence is primarily focused on pushing and enforcing his point of view on the article, even if no one else agrees with him (which no one has). Furthermore, he has misrepresented sources he provides to back up his viewpoint (my most recent post on the talk page addresses this), he brushes aside our comments about the quality of those sources he provides and focuses instead on the overall number (which under scrutiny becomes a smaller number), wrongly invokes WP:CON in what appear to me to be attempts to game the system, and with the statement above where he says "This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved" he's either grossly misunderstanding what occurred or outright lying, as I never agreed with him, and in fact pointed that out to him on the talk page already. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Deftones discussion

Saluts and welcome to DRN. As far as I see, the main issue here is the addition/removal of the "nu metal" music genre from the Deftones article. Also, I see some civility comments over Trascendence. We will be solving the first issue here by now. From what I read above, seems like Trascendence understood (?) that he was uncorrectly adding the genre and now he removed it. I checked the article and this seems to be solved. Is this solved by now? Or there is any other action or issue to be analyzed? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I believe this is resolved, because no one of the editors involved have replied in the talk page or here. Althought something like this happened the last time: two weeks quiet and without any problem, but then the same issue pops up again, althought this one seems to be more definitive than the previous discussions. Trascendence (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved. The consensus and preponderance of evidence is in favor of including nu-metal in the infobox. Trascendence is under the opinion that it's widely believed that Deftones don't play nu-metal, and that because no one noticed that he previously removed nu-metal, that we were all clearly in favor of its removal. Neither of these statements are true. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• The references were weighted two days ago, the result favors the deletion of nu metal from ythe infobox , all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal and I even gave advise in the talk page, also, looks like you just forgot (again) what consensus is. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is still not resolved. Since the last reply on the article talk page, it has been shown that there are more sources in favour of the genre. Trascendence is prone to making assumptions as well about editors ("all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal," "i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved") when he has been told otherwise. It has also been pointed out to him that WP:SILENT is not a policy or guideline, yet he invokes it much the same. The only resolution he has spoke of is waiting for their new album to come out and, ergo, more sources (through reviews) but that doesn't comply with WP:CRYSTAL. HrZ (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• I already replied in the talk page. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear, I'm going to refrain from further discussion on the article talk page and instead comment here until this matter is settled, as I don't see us resolving the deadlock without the aid of a third party. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is probably the best way forward. HrZ (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've added more sources to support my statement in the talk page, however, very probably i won't be online tomorrow, (I'm saying this because i don't want my abscence to be confused with some kind of consensus). Trascendence (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have made such an assumption anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out to any dispute resolution volunteers who wade into this debate that I take issue with Trascendence's attempt to shut down discussion in his favor while this dispute resolution is ongoing. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

RT (TV network)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
• Festermunk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• User:Festermunk was blocked previously for edit warring on this article. After I and another editor cleaned up the article, removing or rewording much of the anti-RT material added recently by Festermunk, he reverted mostt we of it in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor.
• He now is attempting to discuss some of those issues at the talk page by a) reverting "positive" material because he is discussing it here, Julian Assange show, which at least should have been moved to another section] and here, short sample list of guests, all ref'd, including some added via WP:RS info.
• Three times has interrupted my bullited comments with his replies, despite my copying my original comment to the top of his comments and asking him not to do this again. He has argued his right to do this and demanded my proof he can't on his and my talk pages.
• Today I put an edit warring notice on his talk page, commenting also on the talk page entry interruptions, and he copied it whole to my talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See full discussion at Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Is_Festermunk_willing_to_do_dispute_resolution.3F as well as talk page references above. Since he later asked about Arbitration at my talk page, I decided to bring this here first just to assume good faith.

How do you think we can help?

I'm coming her rather than going to WP:Edit Warring noticeboard again, but if you think this is all behavioral and more appropriate there, do tell. Advice on whether Assange paragraph belongs in History or the (now deleted) guests section welcome; and how to list guests would be appreciated, but obviously can't discuss it in rational manner with the behavioral disruptions.

Opening comments by Festermunk

My opening comments will be a point by point rebuttal to CarolMooreDC's accusation

User:Festermunk was blocked previously for edit warring on this article. After I and another editor cleaned up the article, removing or rewording much of the anti-RT material added recently by Festermunk, he reverted most of it in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor.

The word 'Clean-up' is just cover for pro-RT POV edits that violate WP:UNDUE, since the length of the criticism section of RT under CarolMoore's edits was disproportionate to the large amount of existing criticism of RT. Indeed this is an argument a third-party editor made I should also point out that most of the recent reverts I've made on the RT wikipedia page have either have the consent of editors on the talk page or are in keeping with Misplaced Pages guidelines.

He now is attempting to discuss some of those issues at the talk page by a) reverting "positive" material because he is discussing it here, Julian Assange show, which at least should have been moved to another section] and here, short sample list of guests, all ref'd, including some added via WP:RS info.

As per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, I don't see why: (i) it's wrong to remove content that is disputed even if it is properly referrence and (ii) the obligation I have to move disputed material to another section. The point at issue is why Assange's RT program should be put under the history section of RT's Misplaced Pages page when in fact it should be put under the Program's section.

Three times has interrupted my bullited comments with his replies, despite my copying my original comment to the top of his comments and asking him not to do this again. He has argued his right to do this and demanded my proof he can't on his and my talk pages.

Pardon the language, but that is a really bizzare criticism to make. I can't find any reason (let alone Misplaced Pages editing guidelines) why inserting my replyings to the user's bullited comments is wrong, so perhaps a third-party editor can help address this issue.

:Today I put an edit warring notice on his talk page, commenting also on the talk page entry interruptions, and he copied it whole to my talk page.

Third-party observers would do well to note this edit by the user on my talk page first.

Festermunk (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

RT (TV network) discussion

Hi. I'm a DRN volunteer, and I'd be willing to help out. It looks like both parties have submitted opening comments, so let me do some research and we can get started. Feel free to continue updating your opening comments, or comment here. --Noleander (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Need specific content-based questions - Okay, I've read the summary of the dispute, and the Talk page. As is explained in the DRN synopsis above, DRN is limited to discussion content disputes, so any issues about behavior are off-limits here. So, let's focus on content issues. Can both parties please provide (here, in the Discussion section) a bulletized list of the key content issues with the article? For example "Should the article contain a list of guests?" or "Is fact ABC supported by reliable sources?" or "Into which section should Assange's program be mentioned?". After we get a list of the specific content issues, then we can go from there. From this point forward, please do not mention the behavior of other editors. Stick to content/sourcing issues only. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, both parties should read WP:CRITICISM since that may provide some ideas on how to deal with the Controversies section. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there are so many areas of dispute, I'll put them in an enumerated form for sake of clarity. Please note that this list only shows the major areas of disagreement between myself and user CarolMooreDC and is not meant to be a definitive one that shows all of our areas of disagreement:

1) As per this edit where the Assange section should go, in the 'History' or the 'Programs' section of the article?

2) As per this edit, whether the Ben Smith remarks should be included in the article.

3) As per this edit and the current version of RT's Misplaced Pages page whether the lead for the Controversy section is needed.

4) As per this edit, whether a section entitled RT Staff Controversies: a) can and b) should be included in the article.

5) As per this edit, whether the section of Margarita Simonyan: a)can and b) should be included in the article.

6) As per this edit, whether the criticisms section of the article should be structured according to what is shown in the edit and not according to the current version of the article.

7) As per this edit, a) whether the Marcin and NYT paragraph should be restored according to its formulation in edit as opposed to its current formulations; b) whether the Marcin and NYT paragraph belong in the criticism section of the article instead of the programming section of the article where it currently belongs.

8) As per this edit: a) how you decided which guests should be included in 'Notable Guests' section; b)which guests should be included in 'Notable Guests' section.

Festermunk (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a good list. Let's see if CarolMooreDC wants to add any more to it. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Noleander for helping out and for mentioning WP:Criticism which I've brought up on the talk page, along with concept of WP:undue criticsm. When I started editing the article seriously last month here after User:Festermunk had added a lot of critical material, it was a listing of outdated and repetitive factoids about stations and presenters, etc. and an absurdly large and even more repetitive criticism section. At least it has some substantive content now (except that deleted in last few days).

1) Assange: As I said to Festermunk, getting the Assange program brought more high profile media attention to RT really any of the other items in the history section. Since it didn't seem to be controversial, I didn't add any better references. He has not given a policy based explanation for his opposition. I also have a feeling he wants only a listing of the show, with none of the interesting commentary on it (unless of course it would be put in the criticism section), and no listing of guests. I haven't gotten around to rewriting the section to use some of the many high quality WP:RS that discussed it.

2) Ben Smith remarks: Ben Smith criticized an interview between Alex Jones and Russia Today discussing Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories and called Russia Today a "raw propaganda channel". I find it increcdibly POV that Festermunk has now deleted all mention of specific credible guests from the Guests section, but is hot to add yet more criticism of specific guests to the criticism section. He doesn't understand WP:Undue.

3) Lead for controversy section seems like a convenience, but not critical.

4 & 5) Staff controversies: all of the information was put in appropriate other parts of the article except all the WP:undue and repetitive criticisms of RT's producer editor-in-chief Margarit Simonyan on petty grounds. Festermunk just removed these sentences about her biases in the history section which I already said I did not see a problem with expanding somewhat. But he wants another big section under criticisms/controversies.

6) Going back to Festermunk's preferred structure: Unfortunately the other editor User:Ipsign, after he reverted Festermunks first mass reversion of the changes Ipsign, I and other editors did, has not opined on Festermunk's new efforts. Anyway, let me quote WP:NPOV:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

7) I tried to do that with the Marcin and NYT paragraph, which are critiques of their programming, but ones that seem to me to be done in a neutral way. Since there already are lots of similar criticisms in the criticism section, I would say just delete them entirely if they are to be moved. There's more than enough biased criticism in Festermunk's criticism section.

8) Again Festermunk has removed any mention of specific guests from the guest section, even those mentioned by WP:RS. Those definitely should be in there, including those notable guests on the Assange show. The question is, should we list (in sentence form) a sampling of the politicians, journalists, professors, etc. who have appeared to give people an idea of who is willing to appear on the show. Since each is ref'd by an RT video of the show, and I'm willing to discuss who belongs on the list, it doesn't seem to me a major stretch of WP:OR. I also wonder if there is a policy on this. I certainly have seen whole articles listing every guest on a tv program, so it can't be totally illegal.

I think this is especially necessary since biased and snarky - hardly impartial for the most part - western critics who hate the growing popularity of stations like RT and AlJazeera love to bring up some of the odd balls they've had on, mostly in RT's first couple years. For NPOV sakes we have to list at least a few of the more credible people whose appearances have not been covered by WP:RS. I included a longer list of recently guests, assuming it might be pared a bit, which was: British politicians Nigel Farage, Laurence Kaye (UK Pirate Party UK) and Jeremy Corbyn; French politician Marine Le Pen; Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki; Israeli politician Avraham Burg; former US government officials Henry Kissinger, Jesse Ventura, David Stockman, Richard Perle and Paul Craig Roberts; United States Representatives Ron Paul, Dana Rohrabacher, Walter B. Jones, Jr., Dennis Kucinich and former United States Senator Alan K. Simpson; Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolf, Danny Schechter and Glenn Greenwald; current and former professors Craig Calhoun (head of London School of Economics), Patrick Michaels , Jeff Cohen and Norman Finkelstein; and assorted guests like former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, investor Jim Rogers, trends forecaster Gerald Celente, Israeli military analyst Uzi Rubin and Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Wozniak.

So that's the story. CarolMooreDC 00:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Of course you won't find a policy based explanation for his opposition as it is based on common sense. The paragraph on Assange's (or more specifically, as per your words, "the Assange program") involvement with the channel is primarily programmatic and is perforce, by fact of common sense reasoning, most appropriate in the program section of the article. It has nothing to do with the history of RT (especially if one is to understand the words history as the historical background that led to the creation of RT) and the reason you provided to support the inclusion of the paragraph in the history section isn't compelling given, among other criticisms, the subjectivity of that criteria. You would have made a more compelling argument if you had instead said (and were able to prove) that but for the Assange program, RT's history would be drastically different but as that is your burden to prove I won't pursue this line of argument any further.

2) You need to talk about the Ben Smith issue, not this non-sequitur about what I did with the guest section. Does is stay in or no?

3) No it's an inconvenience because it is a tautology of is already known for any controversy section on any Misplaced Pages page: criticisms of the subject and response to those criticisms by defenders of the subject.

4& 5) Don't be ridiculous with the Simonyan edit, if you go through the paragraph, there's 13 citations documenting the various controversies of Simonyan's occupation (i.e. her dispute with McFaul) and occupational trajectory (her Kremlin ties) so of course it warrants something more than a one-liner, which would then actually be violation of WP:UNDUE

6) Fortunately, not everybody disagrees with my structuring format of the article. As for the NPOV quote, the key words are, 'based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself,' which is far from the case and in any case you'd have to prove how the information in the criticism section of RT violates NPOV. I should also point out that there's nothing in the quote that suggests creating subsections that are reasonably different in focus from each other can or should be prohibited.

7) If they are critiques of the programming (actually the criticisms are more specific, they are critiques of the pro-state bias of RT's programming), then it should be in the criticism section not the programming section. You're also in borderline violation of improper synthesis when you present the main points of their articles in a more "neutral way."

8) I've removed the entire list because we're disputing about who to even put on the list. Once we've reached a decision as to who we put on the list, then we (or I) will put the content in the appropriate section.

Festermunk (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussions of 8 issues

It's good to see that the eight issues are agreed upon. Glancing through them, I don't see any show-stoppers: I'm sure we can find a good resolution for each issue that is consistent with WP policies. I'll post my thoughts on the issues one at a time below. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Assange program - I can see how the two sections are both valid, because the Programming sections appears to be devoted to current programs, so it is unclear where programs that are historical should be located. There are two choices: (a) put all historical programming in the History section (perhaps in a new subsection); (b) create a new "Historical programming" subsection in the Programming section. Looking at the precedent set by BBC (also BBC Television and Timeline of the BBC) it appears that listing RT's historical programs is most conveniently put under the History section, perhaps with chronological subsections. The RT's programming section should, as it is already, continue to focus on current programming. Of course, if Assange's program is still on the air, the Programming section would make most sense. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: First, thanks Noleander for a policy based opinions that make sense, many of which I myself have made over and over again:1) Festermunk wrote: “ if one is to understand the words history as the historical background that led to the creation of RT” - OK, finally I understand the disagreement. History to me means anything significant and notable that has happened up to today influencing the development or reputation of an entity. It even could include the most notable specific incidents and controversies (like war coverage), instead of sticking them in criticisms. And it definitely should note the most notable show, Assange, and perhaps Alyona show which has been mentioned by number of WP:RS, even if nothing about it yet as been put in. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM reply 1) "Of course, if Assange's program is still on the air, the Programming section would make most sense." Since it's still on the air, I presume we have an agreement that the program should be in the programming section. CarolMoore, as for your reply that, even according to your definition of history (historical?) you've still yet to prove how the Assange program has had an influential impact on the development and reputation of RT, aside from appeal to Google hits which is borderline argumentum ad numerum.

Okay, since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section. --Noleander (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

CM: The show only is airing in re-runs on RT website. I just did research and there is a vast amount of opinion on the topic of Russia Today hosting the show including this explicit quote from The Independent: The first episode was broadcast yesterday afternoon and quickly made global headlines as it emerged that Mr Assange's first guest was Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shia militant network Hezbollah. Additionally, I forgot that there already is a whole article on the World Tomorrow so it's not necessary to have it in the programming section, just mention a couple of the other guests who also got a lot of media attention. Note that a large portion of the current references (minus the ones to RT shows and awards) have come since the Assange show was announced and/or refer to the show. Finally, if Assange show is not historical, obviously the two sentence paragraph on the denial of service attack in revenge for showing Assange also should go. Funny Festermunk didn't think of that. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think the location of this material is very significant. If there is an entire WP article already on it (World Tomorrow) then the RT article will only have a few sentences, maximum. Since the show is no longer in production, but only in reruns, it is a coin-toss as to whether the History or Programming section is best. I'd suggest that we just flip a coin on this one, and instead devote our time to finding additional non-US sources which could give the reader a more global perspective and hence address issues (3) and (5) below. --Noleander (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 1)CarolMooreDC, in addition to being unable to read, it turns out you're unable to reason either. The fact that the show was subject to a DoS attack doesn't imply anything about the importance (historicality?) of the Assange program to the history of RT; perhaps the show was attacked only because of the choice of Assange's guests on his TV program. Also, your sentence about the show making global headlines is not sufficient in proving that: a) the show is an integral part of the development of RT and b) even if it was an integral part of the development of RT, why it shouldn't belong in the programming section.

@Nole 1) "since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section." I concur with this

CM; assuming Verizon doesn't die out after first rain smatterings tonight, finishing up cleanup of World Tomorrow article which will provide further evidence of relevance to RT. Will report (______when done here ____). CarolMooreDC 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

2) The Ben Smith criticism appears to be valid, but WP generally does not permit accumulation of large amounts of primary source criticism without balance. In other words, if 400 persons have criticized, say, Hillary Clinton, the HC article does not have to list all 400 critics. The best approach for most articles where lots of criticism is available is two-fold: (a) limit the criticisms to those that are documented by secondary sources; and (b) balance the criticism with rebuttals or positive information. Applying that to the RT article: First, it appears that the Ben Smith criticism is primary source, that is, Ben Smith is the critic, and his own writings are the source. It is better to utilize secondary sources (independent media, journalists, academics) that are unbaised, and rely on them to document the criticisms of others. Primary sources can be used, but are discouraged when WP:UNDUE is a concern. Second, I presume that RT has supporters that endorse RT or its programs. RT broadcasts around the world, true? Is this article too US-centric? The US and Russia were at odds for many decades, so it is natural that US may be the source of much criticism. But the WP article should represent a global perspective. What about Russian sources? I think that the WP:UNDUE policy is on the verge of being violated here. Before adding more negative material, editors should spend some time getting materials that (i) are from outside the US; and (ii) mention RT positively. --Noleander (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: I agree with you on both points. Primary sources that are just biased criticism are especially problematic. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM reply 2) First, given that WP:UNDUE is a principle of relativity, it is entirely possible (and to the extent that WP:UNDUE is a Misplaced Pages guideline, appropriate) that an "accumulation of large amounts of primary source criticism without balance" could happen if nothing there are no (or few relative to the amount of criticism - as is the case of RT) significant viewpoints praising the Misplaced Pages subject. Also, there is nothing in WP:UNDUE which disapproves of using primary source when WP:UNDUE is a concern, so please clarify what you meant you write, "Primary sources can be used, but are discouraged when WP:UNDUE is a concern."

Second, turning to your objection to the reliability of using the Ben Smith blog article, see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:USERG.

It is far more encyclopedic to rely on secondary sources (objective, neutral commentators) that analyze or summarize the criticism. Relying on primary sources (the critics themselves) lends itself to cherry-picking and OR. Look at it this way: If the negative criticism of RT is so overwhelming, there should be tons of secondary (neutral analysts) that summarize the criticisms, true? Question for FM: Can you identify some secondary sources that summarize/analyze the criticisms of RT? --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM 2) But Ben Smith is an objective commentator, he doesn't work for RT nor is he part of some institution whose focus is exclusively anti-RT, and was commentating in his capacity as an independent blogger in regards to the Alex Jones segment on RT. Also, the Ben Smith citation is a secondary source because he is discussing information that was originally presented on RT.

CM: Cherry picking nasty quotes from pissed off opinion columns by minor journalists is just not very encyclopedic. That's one reason primary sources are to be used carefully. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM 2) Don't give me this ideological shit about cherry picking nasty quotes, last time I checked you managed to twist the main point of the article written by Marcin Maczka beyond recognition.

First, please refrain from commenting about the behavior of other editors within DRN, it is not permitted. Second, Ben Smith is a primary source: he is a critic: the Smith material is being presented to tell the reader about Smith's views. A secondary source is a neutral source that analyzes or discusses the criticisms made by critics. If numerous, significant secondary sources are identified, then that may justify a dedicated Controversies or Criticism section. Without such justification, those sections are strongly discouraged. The Criticism of the BBC article is a poor article that is not in compliance with WP POV policy; the PETA article is far superior and is the model to follow here. Again, I ask: Can you identify some neutral secondary sources that analyze and comment on the criticisms? If not, the section names should be changed to neutral phrases (the criticisms can still be retained in the body text, subject to UNDUE constraints). --Noleander (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 2) You obviously don't know the difference between a primary and secondary source, so let me break it down for you further. These (this, this, andthis) definitions of primary source all have a common central element - that it is authored by somebody who directly experienced the relevant event. In the context of the Ben Smith article, the primary source would've been the film clip showing the dumping of bin Laden's body off the Navy ship (which is why I said the 'information that was presented on RT' though to be absolutely clear, RT isn't the primary source only that it showed the primary source), while the Alex Jones and Ben Smith article are secondary sources because they are analyz(s)ing and evaluating the bin Laden body-dumping process. There's also nothing in the definition of secondary sources that says that the source (I think you meant content) must be neutral; indeed, that would be impossible given how secondary sources allow the evaluation of primary sources, implying bias in interpretation.

"Again, I ask: Can you identify some neutral secondary sources that analyze and comment on the criticisms?" I already told you where to look, but since you didn't do it, here are some of the sources you are looking for: , and .

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I"m not disputing that criticisms can be in the article. The question is whether the section title should be the negatively-titled "Criticisms/Controversies", or something more neutral like "Reception/Reviews". WP policies strongly discourage the former unless there is a body of secondary analyses of the criticisms. Having 1,000 critics does not justify a Criticism section. Having 20 academic articles analyzing the criticisms would justify such a section. Since we may be at an impasse here, I've posted a note on the DRN talk page asking for other editors to provide input. If that doesn't help us reach consensus, the next step may be an RfC on the article. --Noleander (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 2) Barring a relevant response from you, I presume we have an agreement about the appropriateness of using the Ben Smith article. As per the criticism and controversies section, I will discuss my opinions on that issue at the link you provided.

I also posted a note at NPOV noticeboard asking for input, since this is an issue that arises fairly regularly. --Noleander (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

3) "Criticism and Controversies" section - The emphasis and title of the "Criticism and Controversies" section is almost certainly a violation of the WP:POV policy. The preferred approach is to have a section titled "Reception" (or perhaps, "Issues over coverage") which contains neutrally titled subsections on the various important incidents (for example, the existing title "War coverage" is ideal). Sections titles like "Criticism" or "Controversies" are strongly discouraged. Within the Reception section, there should be both positive and negative information. There used to be an article Criticism of the New York Times, but it was considered POV and that material was folded into the New York Times article. There still is the article Criticism of the BBC, but that is the exception that proves the rule. Turning to the issue of an intro paragraph within the Reception/Issues section: It is best to omit it (for example, see New York Times#Issues over coverage) unless there is a significant amount of secondary sources which are devoted to compiling reception/controversies. From my assessment of the sources, I don't see that, so an intro paragraph probably should be omitted. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM Replies: :3) As I opined in talk, I do think generally reception is better than controversy or criticism because it allows positive comments as well as negative (and finding a place to put them has been a problem). I was thinking of putting in a separate section, until Festermunk returned, reverting everything. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 3) Your assertion that the "Criticism and Controversies" title is a violation of WP:POV policy is totally invalidated by Misplaced Pages:Criticism, especially the line in this section of the article, which says, " If the sources treat these topics independently, that may result in sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism.". Also, please see this section and this section for background information on this.

The starting point is always to use a neutral title, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. RT, being a media product, like a book or movie, receives both positive and negative assessments ... indeed, most are a mixture of the two. Readers are misled if the section titles suggest a negative tone before the reader even reads the text. Much better is to use a neutral title like "Reception", and within that list positive and negative assessments. A great example to follow is the PETA article ... a highly controversial organization. There is no section titled "Controversies" or "Criticisms". Instead, the section titles are "Positions", "Investigations", etc. Within each section, the text often describes controversies, but the section titles avoid negative connotations. The RT article can and should follow the same model. --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 3) For every PETA article there is a BBC controversies or Press TV controversies page, so it's far from clear that the practice of not having sections titled "Controversies" or "Criticisms" for highly controversial organiz(s)ations is as widely accepted as you are implying it to be. But the reason why the RT section should have the "Criticisms and Controversies" section is that there are a plethora of independent (both primary and secondary) sources exclusively critical of certain aspects of RT.

You assert that "there are a plethora of independent (both primary and secondary) sources exclusively critical of certain aspects of RT." You use that assertion to justify the existence of a Criticism section. But, as you know, editors are not allowed to use their own personal knowledge as a source. Do you have an unbiased reliable source for that assertion? Please reply above in #2 so we can consolidate these two similar threads. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 3) No but even if I didn't, my point would still stand. I don't need to prove whether there are a plethora or dearth of independent sources that are critical of RT, I only need to prove that sources have treated criticisms and controversies of RT independently in order to be justified in creating sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism of RT." Of course I need to prove that there is a reasonable amount of criticism (i.e. more than a stand-alone article) of RT, but not a plethora of criticism as if to imply that that threshold for creating "Criticisms and Controversies" sub-sections is capable of quanitification.

CM; I happened to notice last night through wikipedia search that a bunch of articles -- including couple media ones -- actually have "Criticism and Controversies" (or "Controversies and Criticism") sections. Might be a good project to go through them all and change the ones that are WP:Undue, or that are called controversy when it's just criticism by a couple people.

I agree it's best to have secondary source note numbers of criticism or note there's been a controversy, especially if the criticisms might be based in part on bias, like media jealousy or national partisanship.

In any case, I think a "Reception" section is necessary for the various positive or neutral comments I've found and still intend to put one in. CarolMooreDC 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

4) Section devoted to " RT Staff Controversies". The general rule is to avoid sections that are, by virtue of their title, focusing on negative issues. Better is to have a neutral section titled "Staffing" or "Personnel" and summarize the staff there, including both positive and negative material. The material should be be encyclopedic, which means balanced and informative. The only justification for a section on "RT Staff Controversies" would be if there are several neutral secondary sources that are devoted to summarizing multiple staff controversies. In the absence of such sources, a neutrally-titled "Staffing" section is best for the readers. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: Simonyan is the only notable staff (as opposed to reporter/commentator) member. Some info about how she got the job and Putin gave her flowers definitely could go into the history section. There’s some minor dust up over some tweets, but it’s really silly. We can parse that out separately if you like and see if any of it belongs in criticism. All other "staff issues" are about reporters and/or commentators and are already incorporated into other sections because reporters and/or commentators were acting on behalf of (or against policy of) RT editorial policy, as I remember it. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"?

Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position.

CM: FYI, Criticisms_and_controversies_of_RT_staff_members as he originally wrote it is pretty much all that Festermunk wants. Obviously as Noleander proposes, in addition to listing who the present (or past notable) reporters/commentators are, one can have a listing of notable events regarding them, negative and positive. Of course, if WP:RS show far more positive items, I'm sure we'll hear complaints about that. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

5) Section for chief editor Margarita Simonyan: The Staffing section should certainly contain a paragraph on the chief editor. An entire section? It depends on the sources. Again, the current content of Margarita Simonyan (and the RT article) is 99% devoted to negative material. Going on the presumption that there is some positive and neutral material out there on this editor: Why is that material not in the article? Are negative sources being sought out? Are non-US sources being avoided? Editors should look to Russian and Armenian sources to get more input. If language is a barrier, it may be better to de-emphasize the negative material until that barrier can be overcome, otherwise the section/article is violating the WP:POV and WP:UNDUE policies. The section cannot be 99% negative until compelling evidence is provided that no balancing (positive/neutral) material is available. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: See above on Simonyan. I agree on more global sources and have to look harder. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 5) Not an entire section, the Simonyan paragraph would be under the "RT Staff Issues" section

Okay, it sounds like the Simonyan material can be a paragraph or two within the Staffing/Personnel section. Is that good for everyone? --Noleander (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

CM: I think you need to mention in history how she got the job (which Festermunk has removed unnecessarily) and add her getting the flowers from Putin. If you read what Festermunk put in in the Criticisms_and_controversies_of_RT_staff_members section he wants back, it's really petty and redundant complaints, and an NPOV/WP:BLP problem. It's just more of Festermunk's POV piling on. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 5) Why the hell would it be under the history section? She's a presenter for the TV program!

6) See (3) above. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM; OK, I've never seen her present on the TV program. But obviously her job as editor in chief and chief spokesperson (she's almost always the main person quoted speaking out for RT) is far more important to the overall programming. Therefore it's important to mention her, her connections, how she got her job in the history. I also think we need an "Organization" section (with budget subsection) that will make clearer the relation of RT to RIA Novostri, if Simonyan is totally in charge of all editorial decisions, etc. Obviously, if she is in charge, any of the policy etc changes/problems that are quoted emanate from her.

I finally researched what the Alexey Navalny related tweets were all about and found a larger context, including an RT story which should be part of a section on RT coverage of the Russian 2012 elections and the protests that followed. Why have it as a two sentence criticism that just makes it look like she's a "liar"? This is part of larger more complicated issue for which RT may be criticized, with its response or other WP:RS commentary where it exists (and I think I've seen some). To me that's just POV attack against an individual, not something to educate readers. CarolMooreDC 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 6) Because it's a significant part of the discussion, especially as it is coming the opposing (and central) party in the dispute Simonyan is currently engaged in.

CM - My point meaning it needs context such as a section on the elections and protests, NOT just a couple sentences about some tweet that one must do ones own research in order to understand the import. This is an encyclopedia, not a guessing game. CarolMooreDC 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 6) What are you talking about with the elections and protests, the paragraph is about how she got her job and what she did/has done during the time she's been doing her job.

I don't see any disagreement here: the article should have a section/paragraph on Simonyan. The paragraph should be a neutral representation of her job & responsibilities. If a RS documents some allegations of incompetence/bias (e.g. the "liar" incident), those can be mentioned ... the same way that positive information about her should be included. But the material cannot be limited to negative information. --Noleander (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

7a) Marcin Ma;czka material: This person (a PhD student at the university of Jagiellonian University?) is a rather unimportant primary source critic and thus their opinion of RT doesn't bear mentioning in the article, unless I'm missing something. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM Replies: Marcin Ma;czka - I included him because he IS non-US/UK but not necessariy pro-Russian. Plus he is an academic published in an academic journal. So I don’t think he’s more primary than any other academic in an academic journal. I think he’s ok for factoids and some analysis, if not for major criticism. Plus he’s got a few factoids elsewhere no one else has, like on budget. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 7a) Shouldn't the criteria be WP:RS? Why does it matter if the person is a primary (it's actually secondary as his work is published in another magazine) Also, the focus of his article is RT and his criticism of it so I don't know what you are talking about.

Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one? --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

7b) NY Times article by S. Heyman: That is a good source ... much better than primary source critics. But the particular snippet used in the RT article appears to be cherry picked to focus on negative material. The article also has many positive things to say about RT: why aren't those included in the RT article? For example, mentioning that one of RT's goals is attempting to counter Western biases against Russia ( "some of the channel’s specials seek to expose and correct Western biases about Russia"). In summary, the NY Times article is a fine source, but we cannot utilize only negative information. As presented now, the NY Times material violates the WP:POV policy. --Noleander (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: I agree with you on adding more positive material from Heyman and other sources that have positive material. I certainly would like to put more but anything positive about the station is reverted ASAP by Festermunk as whitewash, WP:Undue, POV etc. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 7b) I take it when you say, "we cannot utilize only negative information" that you concede it is possible to use the negative information of RT in the NY Times article. It's fine if user's want to use the supportive parts of RT in the NY Times article, but as per WP:UNDUE, those supportive parts must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used. The bigger issue here (see #3 above) is: Are editors spending lots of time searching for negative information, and ignoring the positive information? It is a violation of WP policy to do so. Again, I don't doubt that many US sources are critical, but WP is supposed to represent a global perspective. I challenge all parties to spend a few days hunting for sources that are not from the US, or that present more objective/positive information of RT. For instance, contact the Russian WP and ask for their input . If the search turns up nothing, then so be it. But the search really needs to be done to fully resolve this DRN case. --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 7b) I don't understand your criticism what relevance does the fact of editors searching for negative information (which is legitimate, as per this and this) and ignoring positive information (which is also legitimate, as per this) have to do with whether the information can be used with the NY Times article?

CM: There is lots of positive information and opinion and I won't bother to quote the various excuses Festermunk uses for deleting it. And I don't think you have any great majority viewpoint that RT is somehow so much more corrupt and biased than western media. In fact, between today's and past research I've found at least 6 good sources pointing out that western media is absurdly hostile to RT, while ignoring its own biases. That opinion at this point could, and will, have its own section - and certainly a paragraph - in reception. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 7b) We're talking about whether what is written in the NY Times article can be included in the RT article; none of this soapboxing please.

CM additional note: Comment welcome on this exchange at this diff where Festermunk says: "there's no way somebody reading the Heyman article could come to the conclusion that it wasn't a criticism of RT, especially in the context of the paragraph in the article so unless you can provide convincing reasons as to how Heyman's paragraph (or article) supports RT..." He is inferring that if an article or paragraph has negative information, any neutral or positive information in that article or paragraph cannot be used. I would like to see him recognize that this is not true. CarolMooreDC 00:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

CM; Festermunk writes "We're talking about whether what is written in the NY Times article can be included in the RT article." Above in first 7b) note Noleander writes: The article also has many positive things to say about RT: why aren't those included in the RT article? I thought that was the topic. CarolMooreDC 23:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 7b) No it isn't and even if it was I just showed you why the positive things about RT are ommitted. Festermunk (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

CM - Are you referring to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Common questions#Balancing different views#Giving "equal validity which reads: Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views.) I don't think it means you can just delete any positive commentary about RT you don't like. And I'm sure most editors will agree. CarolMooreDC 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't delete positive commentaries about RT just because I don't like them I remove them because they violate Misplaced Pages editing guidelines. Festermunk (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to explain that one. In other words you want 10 negative items to one postive one or it violates guidelines?? CarolMooreDC 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

8) List of notable guests: Such a list is encyclopedic & informative for the readers. Ideally, the list would come from a secondary source, otherwise if editors search through YouTube and compile the list themselves, there is a possibility of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Yet, compiling a list of opinions is very prone to OR & SYNTH, but compiling a factual list of guests is not so dangerous. Are there any secondary sources for such a list? I've done a quick Google search, and I don't see much: the Jesse Zwick article lists 3 or 4 persons, so they should be included. If no additional secondary source is available, editors can compile it, as a last resort. The list should only include notable persons (with their own WP article). Arbitrarily deleting notable guests from the list, if there are less than 8 or 10 total, is not appropriate. On the other hand, if the list got unwieldy, say over 20 persons, then it could be trimmed. My gut feeling is a list of 8 to 16 representative, notable persons would be a good amount for readers to absorb. --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: Festermunk deleted the names mentioned by Zwick, thus my question does he want all positive material out. I did do a search of “Rt guest” and various other words and didn’t find anything besides Zwick. But just have to try more search terms. But that also is the reason I said I put in a draft list of guests, hoping that reasonable NPOV editors could decide on those that seemed more representative of a spectrum of guests, in part to counter all the criticisms about terrible guests. (And I think I previously deleted at least one of those as redundant.) CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 8) "8 to 16 representative, notable persons would be a good amount for readers to absorb." That's exactly what I had in mind, not the 20+ person list that CM wants.Festermunk (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like a good resolution on this one: let's shoot for 8 to 16 notable guests. --Noleander (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: Festermunk, I have said several times I threw up a bunch of names to see what people wanted to do about them. Please do not misrepresent my position. Start with ones mentioned in WP:RS (and not a repetition of those already criticized elsewhere in the article) then pick the most notable in those and other categories. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 8) My apologies as this edit shows you didn't put 20+ people in that list, you put 30+ people in that list.Festermunk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

But that response does not respond to my showing a willingness to cooperate on who should be in the list and makes me feel like you don't want any credible guests listed at all, even if mentioned by WP:RS. (And in my researches I've already found about five more such people.) Let's just drop that topic til I come up with a list of WP:RS mentioned people and then we can see who might fill out any dry spots. CarolMooreDC 23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 8) If you were serious about co-operation, then you would've presented the list on the talk page first before plastering it on the main page.

CM - Please read Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I repeatedly announced what I was going to do on talk, got no opposition and was bold and waited for discussion. CarolMooreDC 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't announce what you were going to do on talk before you made your changes on the RT page. Festermunk (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Under Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I don't have to. But read the page and you'll see I did, while you were out being blocked and to another editor, not to you. CarolMooreDC 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That concludes my initial thoughts on how WP policies apply to the issues raised. Perhaps it would be best to post any replies, indented, within the text above, so that we can have threaded discussions from this point forward? When posting replies that involve specific material, it is best to include quotes from sources (preferably secondary sources) that are utilized for the material. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like there is agreement here ... so let's focus on the Criticism section issues 2,3,4,5 above. --Noleander (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's only point #3 (maybe 2 as well) over which we are having disagreement.

Hurricane note': We lost power 3 days during last year's hurricane, so that might happen again, any time Sunday. So if I don't respond in next few days, that's why. CarolMooreDC 23:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We'll keep this DRN case open at a minimum for a few more days, just to be sure. --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In case it turns out to be 4 or 5 days, don't worry about it. At least Festermunk got to hear another opinion on policy on these issues. Once I get my greatly improved versions on these issues and he reverts them again, or if he does any of those same mass changes which have been reverted by a couple other editors without gaining the slightest big of consensus, I can go to the appropriate noticeboard and often other editors come by who help out til the article is good and NPOV. CarolMooreDC 05:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dang, I thought I'd get a nice rest from Misplaced Pages for a few days but the power stayed on!!!

Changes to the RT article

A note to all involved editors, I've started making changes according to the points on which we have an agreement. (1, 4, 5, 6, 7a and 7b, 8) Editors should also note that I've re-added sourced materials that were previously removed. Festermunk (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I only see one number where there was clear agreement, a couple where it was not clear if there was any, and several more where there wasn't any. A major question in a new section at the talk page also remained unanswered by Festermunk, even as he made relevant changes. But I will deal with problems with ensuing POV pushing edits on the talk page or by improving edits/structure of the article or at appropriate notice boards. CarolMooreDC 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"I only see one number where there was clear agreement" No kidding, since you can't read, but then again that wasn't a surprise.

4)"FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"? Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position."

4) Note that my suggestion has yet to be disputed.

5) 5) Not an entire section, the Simonyan paragraph would be under the "RT Staff Issues" section Okay, it sounds like the Simonyan material can be a paragraph or two within the Staffing/Personnel section. Is that good for everyone? --Noleander (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

5) Note the non-response from you.

6) I don't see any disagreement here: the article should have a section/paragraph on Simonyan. The paragraph should be a neutral representation of her job & responsibilities. If a RS documents some allegations of incompetence/bias (e.g. the "liar" incident), those can be mentioned ... the same way that positive information about her should be included. But the material cannot be limited to negative information. --Noleander (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

6) Note the non-response from you.

7a) FM Replies 7a) Shouldn't the criteria be WP:RS? Why does it matter if the person is a primary (it's actually secondary as his work is published in another magazine) Also, the focus of his article is RT and his criticism of it so I don't know what you are talking about.Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one? --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

7a) Note the non-response from you.

7b) "Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used."

7b) Note that you don't dispute this. ::Festermunk (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk quotes me and responds: "I only see one number where there was clear agreement" No kidding, since you can't read, but then again that wasn't a surprise. I have left an appropriate comment on his talk page about his comment.

Otherwise we have a list of Noleander quotes which may or may not be her last comment and which I may or may not have responded to in the order he seems to demand. To make it simple my views are:

4) RT Staff: the issue does it belong under Criticism/controversy or in other sections as relevant, including an organization or staff section, the latter being my clear position.

5) Simonyan: same as above

6) She is not saying that such a paragraph should be in Criticism/controversy nor is she excluding mentioning other info about her in other sections

7a) Marcin is the one where there was a clear agreement so no response necessary

7b) I don't dispute adding the negative info from NY Times, I dispute your removing any positive information from there or other WP:RS. Like this edit where Festermunk deleted neutral analysis info writing: (the entire paragraph is irrelevant soapboxing) Why are long sections full of negative criticism NOT soap boxing, but a short paragraph of neutral informative material from The New Republic and The Independent is?? This is the kind of POV that made it necessary to come here in the first place, but you don't seem to understand the point at all. CarolMooreDC 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Saxophone

Resolved. Editors have agreed to work together on a stand-alone list, List of concert works for saxophone. xanchester (t) 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Barefoot#Going barefoot

Conduct, not content, dispute. Feel free to relist if you wish to discuss particular content issues. If you wish to complain about another editor's conduct, use WP:ANI, or to generally request assistance with editing a page try Editor assistance or, since you're pretty new here, perhaps the Teahouse might even be better. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Crunkcore, Kesha

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Crunkcore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Crunkcore (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kesha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Kesha/Archive 4 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Kesha/Archive 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 3family6 (talk · contribs)
• 99.192.13.193 (talk · contribs)
• Raktoner (talk · contribs)
• krazycev13 (talk · contribs)
• Blackmetalbaz (talk · contribs)
• Floquenbeam (talk · contribs)
• 147.136.249.101 (talk · contribs)
• Syxxpackid420 (talk · contribs)
• Hadomaru (talk · contribs)
• Sabrebd (talk · contribs)
• 70.116.130.250 (talk · contribs)
• Lothar von Richthofen (talk · contribs)
• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
• Mabuska (talk · contribs)
• Chrisbkoolio (talk · contribs)
• Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)
• Jonjonjohny (talk · contribs)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)
• Eduemoni (talk · contribs)
• Nite-Sirk (talk · contribs)
• 147.136.249.20 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For over two years, there has been on and off debate as to whether Kesha should be listed as a crunkcore artist on the crunkcore article, and if so, how. It stems from a mention in a single source, an Allmusic review of Streets of Gold by 3OH!3. Author David Jeffries states "Either way, 'My First Kiss is the zenith with a hook that incorporates kissing noises along with some come-on’s from crunkcore queen/special guest Kesha." The first objection of Kesha being listed was by an IP editor in August 2010. Also discussed was whether Kesha should simply be listed, or whether a more detailed explanation is needed. In January 2011, User:Lothar von Richthofen closed the debate as a speedy keep with the entry being a simple list. The second phase of the debate opened the next month, when another IP editor claimed to have personally emailed Jeffries as to how serious his labeling of Kesha as "crunkcore queen" was meant to be. According to the transcript that this editor posted, Jeffries did not mean it to be a serious genre label at all. However, an RfC determined that this email is not a published source and could not be verified, so it was deemed unreliable. The third phase of the debate was opened up by User:Chrisbkoolio, who felt that while Kesha should be mentioned, she should not be simply listed but rather given a more detailed explanation. The discussion basically ended with a decision by me and User:Syxxpackid420 to have a simple listing. However, disruptive edits from IPs over Kesha convinced me to ask for RfC. The resulting RfC wording for the article was: "Also, David Jeffries of Allmusic referred to Kesha as the 'crunkcore queen' when noting her guest spot on the 3OH!3 album, Streets of Gold." Some editors, mainly Syxxpack, objected to this decision. I opened another RfC and Syxxpack supplied additional sources. These were unreliable. Discussion is now stagnant.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been three or four discussions including two RfC's and maybe a third opinion request, plus two small discussions on the Kesha page. Page protection has been tried numerous times.

How do you think we can help?

I have no idea. :) Good luck!

Opening comments by 99.192.13.193

Opening comments by Raktoner

Opening comments by krazycev13

Weird how this is the first thing that pops up when I come back to Misplaced Pages. Frankly, I just want this unnecessary debate to be over. In all honesty, Kesha is not a crunkcore artist under any stretch of the imagination. If people say don't keep her, then don't keep her. I don't think it's a necessary inclusion, personally, and it probably is inappropriate to cite an off-handed reference. I feel like this one can't be treated as black and white, sometimes a rule may need to take the backseat to logic. However, I won't argue if it's kept. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 15:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Blackmetalbaz

Opening comments by Floquenbeam

Opening comments by 147.136.249.101

Opening comments by Syxxpackid420

Why are we advertising David Jeffries, Wikpedia is not an advert. Why are we using so many weasel words, the paragraph does not state they are but that they can be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hadomaru

As there is only one source that refers to Ke$ha as such, and because it is only in an offhand manner, I feel we have no real reason to keep Ke$ha in any article about Crunkcore. Especially as this one small citation has caused so much controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadomaru (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by SabreBD

Opening comments by 70.116.130.250

Opening comments by Lothar von Richthofen

Opening comments by Tryptofish

I think I might have responded to a content RfC about this, a very long time ago, but I really have little memory of it, nor much current interest in the question. I came here because the bot notified me. I don't think I have much to offer the discussion, but if anyone would like me to come back and give it a closer look, please feel free to tell me that at my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mabuska

I only came across this issue when I volunteered via an RfC and my particpation has been quite limited. My view is still the same - if a source has stated Kesha is a crunkcore artist then it is sourced. IIRC the last time I was involved, one editor allegedly emailed the editor of that source as they disagreed with it however I objected as that is original research so is inadmissible as evidence that Kesha isn't a crunkcore artist. Personally I believe this issue boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE and is also one of the silliest disputes on Misplaced Pages - unless the whole dynamic at the root of it has changed, yet from the description above it doesn't appear so... I think. Mabuska 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Chrisbkoolio

Opening comments by Jack Sebastian

Opening comments by Jonjonjohny

Opening comments by Rich Farmbrough

Just a little note: While the email may not be a RS (or more accurately verifiable) for citing in the article, if we assume that it is genuine it would be foolish to continue to include the genre assignation, sans any other RS. Our policies are there to help us produce quality product, not to get in the way of it.

I can see no other assignation of the genre Musique-radio says A écouter gratuitement sur Musique-radio.com, « My First Kiss » signé 3OH!3 et Ke$ha est le single choisi pour annoncer l'opus « Streets Of Gold » du groupe crunkcore américain. and that seems to be about it.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

Opening comments by Eduemoni

The discussion itself was based solely upon a statement from a interviewer who described Pop and Electropop female artist Kesha as "crunkcore queen", however this source relies only upon one and one statement only, Kesha didn't label her work or herself as Crunkcore artist, in contrary, Kesha only participated in one track which is influenced by this style which is a song by 3HOH an yet another electropop american group, the song My First Kiss is the one that this interviewer used as reference, (IIRC) however like I stated in the discussion, this song is not crunkcore as well, which leaves this statement with a weak basis, to matter of comparison, Madonna is the queen of Pop, Michael Jackson is the king of pop, Elvis is the king of Rock and Roll and Aretha Franklin is the queen of soul, how comes a newcomer is the king of a genre or style?

Opening comments by Nite-Sirk

Opening comments by 147.136.249.20

Crunkcore, Kesha discussion

German battleship Bismarck

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• German battleship Bismarck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor, Wdford, has recently attempted to insert highly biased language into the above article, concerning the competing British and German claims as to what was the proximate cause of its sinking. The issure has been discussed for over 2 weeks now, and Wdford refuses to accept that his proposd changes are unacceptable per WP:NPOV (see for instance here). NPOV requires that we treat both sides with equal weight, as both are supported in numerous reliable sources, which I have provided on the article's talk page. Several other editors have commented in the discussion and none of them support Wdford's proposed changes.

It seems that Wdford has something against the British, as exemplefied by this comment, where he insinuated that the British left the majority of Bismarck's crew in the water to intentionally kill them. This type of commentary (without any kind of source to back it up) is unacceptable. This apparent bias is demonstrated in this edit, where he deliberately removed citations to material he did not like, presumably to provide the basis to later remove the lines entirely.

I have proposed several compromise options on other areas under dispute, but Wdford has either ignored them or finds them to be unacceptable to him. The article has been protected twice to prevent Wdford from attempting to edit-war his changes into the article, which is of course not an acceptable course of action. Misplaced Pages requires collaboration, but this is something Wdford does not appear to want to do. Several editors other and I have been working together on this article for many years without any incidents this disruptive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page over the past 2 weeks.

How do you think we can help?

Help convince Wdford that his proposed edits are contrary to policy and are therefore unacceptable.

Opening comments by Wdford

These accusations are baseless and misleading. I hold that the edit-warring has been on the part of Parsecboy, who has reverted reliably-sourced and relevant information.

I attempted to insert some extra details, all of it relevant to the article and all of it well supported by reliable sources. I also attempted to correct several cases of bias in the Introduction. Parsecboy has flatly rejected all of these edits, and has invested much effort in defending his POV.

Inter alia he attempts to maintain the impression that the differing British and German "claims" as to the cause of the sinking deserve equal weight. I have argued, with sources, that the eye-witness and archaeological evidence both weigh heavily in support of the German version, and that the conflicting British version is based only on supposition. I accept both claims must be mentioned, but maintain that representing these claims as equal constitutes WP:UNDUE. The “compromises” proposed by Parsecboy have largely been “go add that material into a different article”. This is not compromise at all.

At I merely stated (on the talk page) an undisputed fact, which is well supported by reliable sources, with no “insinuations” at all. At , I fact-tagged the citations because they do not actually support the quotes which are attributed to them.

In addition to repeatedly side-stepping my attempts at resolution, Parsecboy has made false accusations, has resorted to uncivil language, and has tried to chase me away from this article - see e.g. and Wdford (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

German battleship Bismarck discussion

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