Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:46, 20 October 2008

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Hed PE
Status	Closed
Request date	21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Prophaniti (talk · contribs), Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)
Comment	Case closed due to disinterest in participation by one party.

]]

• Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

• Prophaniti (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
• Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

What's going on?

Prophaniti is attempting to insert a line into the "Styles" section of this band's page stating "The band has also been termed nu metal", sourced with their page on the site Musicmight. The author of musicmight is Garry Sharpe-Young, a well-known and published journalist on rock/metal music. The site content has also itself been published several times. As such, it is perfectly qualified as a reliable source and can be cited in said section. However, Ibaranoff24 refuses to accept this, repeatedly removing the information and reference. User:156.34.142.110 ("The Real Libs") has also commented, agreeing that the site is a reliable source.

What would you like to change about that?

I hope that with mediator intervention Ibaranoff24 can be made to see that he is incorrect about the source and thus that he should not continue to remove the sourced content from the article.

Mediator notes

Hi. I have opened this case. Below I have listed a few ground rules that should help us all reach an agreement quickly and productively. —   13:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A few ground rules:

• I will create sections for each party to comment in. Please address all your comments to me, and not to the other participants.
• Please keep your statements at 200 words or less, unless asked otherwise.
• Please keep all comments on facts, and not on the past, present, or future behaviour of any other users
• All participants are asked to refrain from any editing of the disputed article, the disputed article's talk page, or each other's talk pages until the case is concluded. Any vandalism to the article will be caught by vandalism patrollers, so don't worry about that either.
• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to:

1. Abide by the outcome of this case
2. Immediately move to the next phase of dispute resolution if you are unable to agree with the final outcome

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

• Ibaranoff24:
• Prophaniti: Prophaniti (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

Discussion

This case should be closed. There is no need for discussion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Personal attack comments redacted by me, as they do not contribute to a productive discussion. Accusations of sockpuppetry belong at Misplaced Pages: Suspected Sock Puppets.   20:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If Ibaranoff refuses to participate in informal mediation I'm perfectly happy to move on to the next step. Prophaniti (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Give it some time. I would like both of you to engage in this wholeheartedly. A MedCab case is much friendlier than more official forms of dispute resolution.   22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm happy to resolve it through this or any other means, just so long as something puts a stop to all this. Prophaniti (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have serious doubts as to whether Musicmight can be considered reliable. The FAQ of the site states "Soon you (the public and artists) will be able to add your data directly onto the database" This suggests quite clearly that the content of the site is self-published and therefore fails WP:V. I would avoid using this as a source in any article. Is there a reason why this didnt g ot the Reliable sources Noticeboard first? --neon white talk 00:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It states "Soon". Implying "not now". The biographies are written by Garry Sharpe-Young, who himself has been published and very much is a RS. This I know because I have his book, "Metal The Definitive Guide", and the biographies of the bands in there match up to the ones on the site. Given that the band pages have a "contributors" section, it would be reasonable to assume that if that is left blank, G S-Y is the sole contributor (as can be verified by comparison with the published book, of which he is the sole contributor).

The reason this didn't go to the reliable sources noticeboard is it has been there before and was deemed a RS. Prophaniti (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff of that?   10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to create diffs for archived material, but here are links directly to the sections: Here and again here . The second simply directed to the first, which is also tagged as resolved and provides other sources for assertions of the site's reliability. Prophaniti (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find anything on the site that says that, remember the burden of proof is on the source to prove it's verifiability, it that cannot be done it's best not to user it. --neon white talk 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs for archived material are the same as other diffs, but this will do fine, thank you.   11:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate, the site was not deemed to be a RS, it was suggested that the user read WP:SPS and use their own judgement on the matter. There was no definitive statement one way or the other.   11:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyway, that wasn't part of my argument for why it is reliable, only to show why I haven't taken it there. The site itself has been published, and comparison between it's material and that of Sharpe-Young's own published material shows that the band biographies are written by him. The only circumstances in which there would be any need for doubt on the matter would be if other contributors are listed. Prophaniti (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the site is copied from published material? --neon white talk 17:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kind of. Sharpe-Young is a music journalist. He set up Rockdetector (which changed it's name to Musicmight recently) in 2001, and books by him have been published since then. I don't think it would be accurate to say the books came first or the site, as the books began publication in the same year. More like side-by-side, with Sharpe-Young compiling the biographies and placing them on the site as well as putting together some for publication (such as one book focusing on death metal, for example). The Definitive Guide book was published last year, but isn't listed as a specifically Rockdetector-based book, but the biographies match up to the site. Prophaniti (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though he has a number of books to his name, i think it still needs to be establish that he is a notable expert on this subject. If the info can be sourced in one of his books this would be a better source. --neon white talk 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) Since it looks like this case won't be moving forward, I don't mind giving my opinion now without Ibaranoff here. My view is that while it might count as a reliable source now, the site explicitly intends to allow user contribs at some point in the near future, which will render some/most/all of the site absolutely not RS. If this writer is reflecting the majority view of genre classification, it should be trivial to find other writers who agree and who are published in fully reliable sources. If he is not reflecting the majority view, we should not be giving undue weight to his opinion in any case. Either way, I think that using the source is probably an unwise idea; find other reliable sources which say the same thing and use them instead.

I suggest that you continue to use WQA and other avenues of dispute resolution to handle civility issues.

If you are unable to agree with my opinion, I would politely request that you take this issue to WikiProject Music to get a wider and informed opinion on the use of the source. Otherwise, I suggest you file a request for comment, and invite interested editors to comment. That means editors on both sides of the debate, and be sure to post a notice at the talk page for WikiProject music as well.   18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the neutral opinion Roux, it's appreciated regardless of whether it agrees with mine or not.

All I'm pushing for currently is a line in the styles section saying "The band has also been termed nu metal" (or some such), which they have by a currently reliable source. That may change in the future, although right now we don't know how (it may, for example, outline specifically where others have contributed, or place certain limitations). For now though, what we have is something that was, in all liklihood, written by an established authority on rock/metal music, and all I'm suggesting is that that be acknowledged within the article.

As to the issue of writers reflecting majority view, this is something I'm asking about on the music wikiproject right now (i.e. how much that counts for). Prophaniti (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, if he's the only one saying it, it's probably not a reasonable term to be using and therefore would violate WP:UNDUE to be using it. If he's not the only one using it, you should therefore be able to find other sources to support the use. I really, really suggest you do that.   19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(On second thoughts, perhaps this would be better included here in case others wish to contribute)

That brings up a question: how is this situation any different to many other such cases all over wikipedia, where a band is given a genre based on a single individual, albeit a qualified one? Allmusic is the most common one. Bands will be given a genre based on allmusic's classification, but ultimately the allmusic classification is still just the opinion of a single music journalist. If the "nu metal" term cannot be included here because only Sharpe-Young uses it, then by that same logic any genre tags back up with only an allmusic reference and nothing else could also be removed, because what you're saying is only the commonly-attributed genres can be listed. Prophaniti (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed the "Closed" notice. Ignore that last post, I'll continue it elsewhere. Prophaniti (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)