Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 6 July 2012 (Quick note.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 01:46, 26 December 2024 (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.

BP

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I am noticing bias on the BP article. There is only one other editor active on the page and we do not see things the same way. He sees my edits as POV pushing and continues to undo them. I see his editing as POV pushing and obviously pro-BP. He is having a hard time refraining from sharing his displeasure with me, which makes discussion a dead-end venture.

Here is the discussion: ] Here is the edit in question: ]

I took the problem to and received only one reply, which was in complete agreement with my stance. But this did nothing to help the situation.

There is an edit war going on as he has reverted my edit 3 times, and I have done the same (not in a 24 hour period though).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rangoon11 (talk · contribs)
• Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BP}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion and POV noticeboard

• How do you think we can help?

Please give suggestions for where to go from here. We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing, and perhaps to ban them from editing the page, to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Misplaced Pages article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.

petrarchan47c 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BP discussion

Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me and . petrarchan47c 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective.Coaster92 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We aren't administrators here. We are dispute resolution volunteers. The goal here is to reach agreement. Right now I am waiting until both parties have posted their arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Following Petrarchan47's comment above in which they state that 'to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Misplaced Pages article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.', and in view of their repeated attempts to impose changes to the lead of this article, despite having been reverted for very good reasons and a discussion being ongoing on the article talk page, I am unwilling to enter into any further discussion with them.

I have made over 130 edits to the BP article. Anyone is free to compare the state of the article when I started working on it and the position today. My edits speak for themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't have the time to follow links to various discussions, I thought I would give a summary. Reading the intro to the BP article, the third paragraph stopped me in my tracks. It was one sentence mentioning that BP has had some environmental and political problems. That is well known, and flushed out in the body of the article. But in the same paragraph was a diatribe about BP's green energy investments. To me the structure of this paragraph seems to be a statement that is not favorable to BP followed by a rebuttal. I cannot see any other reason for these two ideas to be bunched together. To remedy what I saw as POV, I separated the 2 ideas, and added the most recent petrol investments I could find at the end to give a more rounded picture. From the body of the article: "BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget, but they have since closed their alternative energy headquarters in London. As such they invest more than other oil companies..." to give some idea of just how out of balance is the 3rd paragraph of the intro.

This edit has been undone 4 times now, and I have been told to "go get a blog" based on this edit. As you can see from the discussion, I was labeled a POV pusher based on my editing after this and my earlier edits, which consisted of updating the "Solar" section. BP ended its Solar programme at the beginning of the year and posted their reasoning on their website, saying it was no longer profitable. I updated the article with this information, making statements past-tense. The article still had a section about Solar in the present tense, with a picture of Solar panels. Rangoon11 immediately deleted BP's stated reason for ending it's Solar programme but did not explain why he did so. I added it back. I also removed the image of solar panels as it gave a false impression. This edit was not disputed.

Based on these edits, Rangoon had this to say: " Your edits to this article to date are very concerning as they all appear to be motivated by a desire to push a certain POV rather than to actually develop the article. Breaking out the sentence 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' into a one line paragraph is about as classic an example of POV pushing as I can imagine, designed purely to emphasise a negative aspect of the company.

...I also find it interesting that you think that that sentence and the remainder of the paragraph are so unrelated that they should not even be in the same paragraph, but then wish yourself to make a highly POV linkage between the amount that BP invests in renewables and in oil and gas through the use of the words 'By comparison'. I fully expect that you will fail to see the hypocrisy of this but I personally find it offensive.''"

In my opinion, to not break out the sentence (and yes, it should be flushed out a bit, i imagine it used to be a fuller argument but has been whittled down over time) is to hide the sentence, and to mute the facts. To follow it with BP's 4% investments in Green Energy is pure POV and more specifically "greenwashing".

Rangoon11 rebuttal above is alarming as well. The number of edits one has made to an article does not in any way give that editor ownership or privilege. But this editor does appear to have an attitude of ownership over this article. He is also working somewhat closely with a BP employee who is giving editing advice - I add this for your information but I am not claiming that this is a problem. I don't see it as such yet, but it is interesting how friendly Rangoon11 is with the BP employee compared with his attitude towards me.

"My edits speak for themselves" "I have made over 130 edits to the page" This gives me pause based on certain edits. One of the most noteworthy facts about the BP oil spill is that is was the largest in US history, and the largest accidental marine oil spill ever. This is a well known and easily verified fact. Yet Rangoon11 saw fit to erase this statement from the BP oil spill section of the article. I brought this up on the talk page asking why. His response was to insinuate he was unaware of any sources verifying this, and asked me for proof. My understanding of Misplaced Pages is that the editor, before removal of statements, should do their own research to find verification. I cannot believe Rangoon11 is being honest about his motives being NPOV, and that he saw fit to remove this bit from the oil spill section because, if I am reading his statement correctly, he hadn't been able to find supporting refs. I gave him 3 refs and he did not respond.

Another edit in question was the removal of a large section detailing the aftermath of the oil spill as it relates to BP's stock, etc. This was a big part of the history of the spill. I have been told that before removing sections from a Misplaced Pages article, editors are to bring the section to the talk page to discuss. His reasoning for the removal included it being "out of date" - but he told me "this article is about BP throughout its history and not merely the present day" when we were discussing me edits to the now defunct solar programme.

I hope someone can tell me how Misplaced Pages deals with companies that might be trying to edit Misplaced Pages articles to better their image. I have a hard time believing it's left up to individual editors who notice POV to deal with it on their own - as you can see it is not easy or effective. The snarky attacks are not fun either.petrarchan47c 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the above violates the request to 'keep it brief'. Let me know if it's better to move this to my talk page, with a link. Thanks. petrarchan47c 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, can I ask why you have actually come to this noticeboard at all when you are in parallel simply attempting to force your proposed change to the lead of this article (which is long standing and has been stable for a long period of time, and was the result of discussion)?

Rangoon, I have already stated my reasons for bringing this dispute to this noticeboard. The length of time that the paragraph has been in place is irrelevant. The paragraph either is or is not POV. Outside help is needed as you and I see things quite differently. petrarchan47c 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is highly relevant. The existing lead is long standing and therefore has the weight of accumulated consensus. It was also the work of multiple editors in discussion. You are attempting to make a non standard and bizarre change, which would create a one line, in fact considerably less than a line on my screen, paragraph, right in the middle of the lead, which is designed purely to give heightened emphasis to negative aspects of the company's history. You have admitted as much yourself, when you say that you feel that the text is currently hidden.

Whilst discussion is underway on this proposed change which has been reverted by an established editor for very good reasons please refrain from your efforts to impose the change through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never come across this type of grief or 'longstanding' (ie, "carved in stone") argument when making changes to the lead of any other article on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages articles are always a work in progress. I am not alone in seeing the paragraph and your attitude as problematic. You think your reasons for reverting my edits are good ones. I do not. Changes to articles are not based on whether the editors are or editors like me. That's what I love about Misplaced Pages. It is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people" and edits are to be based on their NPOV - not on who did the edits or on how long the edits have gone unchallenged. I can see why no one would want to challenge edits on this article based on my experience thus far.petrarchan47c 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have to date have around 140 article edits on WP, I have substantially over 100 times more. I have worked on the leads of I would guess hundreds of company articles and you appear to date to have worked on only that of BP. I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks. However I do ask that you stand back and ask yourself, "why is Rangoon so anti this particular edit, and yet has not reverted 90% of my edits to the BP article?". My genuine, sincere goal is to make the BP article as good as possible and to make WP as good as possible. A half a line paragraph right in the middle of the lead would draw huge attention to that text, in much the same way as if the text were in bold or italics. Why make that sentence into a single paragraph rather than any of the other sentences? Why not adhere to the usual WP approach of having no more than four paragraphs in the lead? I can't see a good reason for it.

And I don't in any way believe that the current lead is perfect. For example it should in my view have more detail about BP's history. It currently has essentially none. However this particular change would not in my firm view be a step in the right direction.

I would like to add that I do recognise that you have an expertise on Deepwater which I personally lack, and is no doubt rare, and in that regard your recent edits to that section of the article are most welcome. The section was much in need of work. aRangoon11 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine the lead is important to you as it is the most-read part of any article by far. As for the single sentence, I stated above that I believe it was probably a larger section that was scrubbed down. And I believe it should be flushed out a bit as it's quite awkward right now, even as it stands with your reversion of my edit. Perhaps you would agree that it needs to be expanded before the change is made. I have no problem with that. I have seen many a lede on Misplaced Pages where a single sentence stood alone in the intro. Over time these things get worked out. The 4 paragraph intro is not a rule, but a recommendation. From In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. The stand-alone sentence does violate this suggestion but that's easily remedied. The sentence should be expanded to reflect it's importance within the body of the article. The Green Energy part should be whittled down for the same reason. Take a look at the sections within the article to see what I mean.

I am glad you are willing to join the discussion. But, I cannot believe that your sincere goal is to improve the BP article if you would remove important information about the oil spill without doing an ounce of research. You can highlight the sentence and do a Google search in 1 second. Though I have 1/100th of your experience, I would never think to remove a statement from a Misplaced Pages article unless I had a good reason and had done some research first to back up my moves. You never answered me as to why you removed the oil spill information. I assume based on your statements it was to improve the article and Misplaced Pages? Obvious POV is obvious - one needs zero editing experience to recognize it.petrarchan47c 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that specific edit, I can see how it might have put that thought into your head. Please note however that the text 'and caused the biggest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry' was removed from the "Safety record", where I felt it had no relevance, and was purely duplicative of the very long section on Deepwater in the Environmental record section earlier in the article, which deals with the size of the spill. My edit summary of 'dealt with at length higher up' was perhaps unclear on the point, and I should have explained it on the Talk page when you queried it. However I was annoyed by what I felt to be your confrontational attitude in terms of repeatedly making your desired change to the lead despite having been reverted for good reason, and so instead was terse.

I do stand by that specific edit though, that wording is not needed in the safety record section.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way it reads now, the Deepwater Explosion caused (only) the deaths of 11 people. That's it, no other consequences you can think of? It also caused the oil spill, which is hinted at with the redirect to the oil spill article. But that is whitewashing if you ask me, and not fair to those who come to seek information. The Deepwater explosion caused a pretty big oil spill and that fact should be added. As it stands now, this is a single sentence section. How can you defend that after all the grief over a single sentence in the lead? Further, I have seen a few examples in your edits of late that scrub data about the financial after effects of the oil spill. This is history and very relevant to this article. It was daily news for about 6 solid months. There is no reason to delete the info altogether. Unless we aren't here to build encyclopedic knowledge but rather to - for whatever reason - mold this Misplaced Pages article into something favorable for BP's image.

The spill is dealt with at length in the (excessively long) Deepwater section in the Environmental record section just a little higher up in the article. Repeating that information again in the Safety record section would be pure duplication. Some of the financial impact of the spill on BP should probably go in the History section. We need to be careful to avoid duplication and overlap however, and be aware that the amount of content on Deepwater in the article is already excessive and undue.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section:

• The section is 1 of 26 sections in the BP article
• The section consists of 3 small paragraphs, the 3rd and largest one discusses BP's Solar programme which is no longer in operation
• Renewable energy is
• 5 sentences in the body of the article are dedicated to current renewable energy projects

Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: " also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power."

3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." < ie, 4% >

The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here.

The intro is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines for . This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss.petrarchan47c 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead is there to provide an overview of the topic. That does not mean that the length of sentences in the lead or number of sentences should try to exactly mirror that of the article.

For me the lead most requires improvement through the addition of a brief summary of the company's history. We need to avoid the lead becoming too long however, it is already about right in terms of length.

The first and second paragraphs of the lead provide a good overview of the company's operations and the company's place within its industry. The third paragraph is where I would propose adding in some more historical info. As part of this I would be prepared to lose all of 'In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period'. Key points which in my view should really be in the lead are: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Iran connection, nationalisation and privatisation, and the acquisition of Amoco and ARCO.

This needs a bit of thought and work however.

The BP lead is by the standards of company articles in WP already pretty good though, and certainly better than peers such as Total S.A., or Chevron Corporation.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To begin addressing some of the above issues, I made the following edits:

• Added citation needed tag on the "major" renewables claim in the first paragraph of the intro. I don't expect a 4% investment can be described as major, but I could be missing something. When using a descriptive term like "most people", Misplaced Pages guidelines say that a supporting ref must accompany the statement.
• Flushed out the "Deepwater Explosion" section, which recently was scrubbed by Rangoon11 of all but one sentence: "Killed 11 people". I took a few sentences directly from the intro to the main Deepwater Horizon explosion article so that it now reads: The explosion killed 11 workers and injured 16 others; another 99 people survived without serious physical injury. It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl. I assume this information has passed the test of POV and reliability since it comes from an established article.

Luckily there are to help us get the intro balanced out.petrarchan47c 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11 removed the word "major" from the renewables claim, along with the citation tag. Seems like a good move to me.

Rangoon11 also removed the last sentence from my addition to "Deepwater Horizon explosion" section, giving the reason that it was duplicated elsewhere in the article.

This is the sentence that was removed: "this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl". This claim is NOT made anywhere else in this article. That is a lame excuse and was not even applied uniformly - that the explosion caused the oil spill is also a duplicate. To me this edit is POV pushing/cleansing/whitewashing with no valid argument to support it.petrarchan47c 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Intro, from Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style/Lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article....In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body."petrarchan47c 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is getting exceptionally tedious that, whilst this discussion is ongoing, you are going to the article and making edits which you know are disputed. What is even worse is that, once reverted, you are simply making the edits again. And again.

Secondly, the Safety record section is about SAFETY. We have an Environmental record section in the article, which has a *very* long (excessively, unduly, long) section on Deepwater. That is the place for discussion about the spill and its environmental impact. It is questionable whether Deepwater should be repeated in the Safety section at all, but if it is, this should be very brief and concern only the explosion and the related fatalities.

You have unhelpfully completely ignored most of the points which I just made above about the lead. Perhaps you could now reply to them.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I ignored your suggestions, when actually you and I were writing at the same time, and when I hit "enter", I received and "edit conflict" notice as you had just entered your bit. I was not responding to you because I had not seen your contribution - look at the time stamps. You and I are both editing during this dispute, shall we both put all edits on hold and discuss them here first? That sounds good to me.

Secondly, I have not seen any mention of the single sentence and it's need to be expanded with references. What do you suggest for fixing the problem of undue weight?:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence" without any refs (violating Wiki rules). This sentence is roughly 1/13th of the intro yet the subject matter is roughly 1/3rd of the article.petrarchan47c 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your suggestion for the lead, it is not becoming too large given the size of the article. As for the body, I can cut some of the 'fluff' from the oil spill section. As for addition of history and acquisitions to the intro, as long as it follows the guidelines for "undue weight", I am fine with whatever you choose to do. As you know, my issue with the intro is bias. I agree the statements about green energy could be removed from the intro, but not deleted. They should be moved into the body of the article. In general, for an encyclopedia, the more information offered, the better. I have concerns with the deletion of material for no good reason. petrarchan47c 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to not make any edits to the article whilst this discussion is ongoing. I may do so if edits are made by others which I feel need to be either reverted or corrected, but otherwise will not go to the article to make any changes myself.

Although the lead is at the moment not too long, and could get a bit longer, if the history content which I have suggested above were added to the current lead then I feel that it would become too long. However if those two sentences which I have identified above were simultaneously removed (and yes am happy for them to be moved elsewhere in the article), I think the length would probably be OK. I think that the removal of those sentences and addition of the history content would go a long way towards addressing any possible concerns about the lead having an excessive amount of content on renewable activities, and would provide a much better summary of the article and overview of the topic.

On the point of a citation for the sentence "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence", in my view this is more than adequately supported by the citations within the body of the article.

On the point of weight, a lead does not need to contain a direct proportion of content relative to the size of sections. This is generally impossible and impractical given the small size of the article lead and to attempt to do so would merely create a low quality overview. The lead is there to both provide an overview of the topic (since many people will only read the lead) and a summary of the article. We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length. In terms of significance to the topic, which is a company, that company's own operations and the most significant details of its corporate history are of much greater relevance than important but secondary issues such as environmental record, safety record, sponsorships and the like.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Environmental Record IS BP History, perhaps keep that in mind. The sentence mentioning BP's environmental and political controversies violates Do not hint at startling facts without describing them....the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. ....(and for our perusal:) In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources....The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

"We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length." That's certainly debatable, but not surprising these are your views. petrarchan47c 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47c 02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47c 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate with interest and do not really have strong views on the subject. That said I think the third paragraph of the lead is very well crafted:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."

It makes the point that BP has been found wanting but then shows balance by going on to say what BP is doing about it. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Balance is the goal, but we aren't here to defend a company - only to present facts without bias. It's a matter of scale. First of all, know that the statements about green energy above are going to be moved to the body of the article, as agreed to in this discussion further up. The statement about BP having been found wanting is in violation of WP:Lead for the reasons I outlined above. The paragraph and general tone of the intro was heavily biased. The second reason for this dispute resolution was to show that the editor who initially defended this paragraph as being perfect and beyond reproach is pushing POV on the page and should be banned from the topic, imo. To show the bias, I offer the following:

"BP had 518 safety violations over the last two decades, compared with 240 for Chevron and even fewer for its other competitors. Since those statistics were compiled, in 2009, OSHA has announced 745 more violations at two BP refineries, one near Toledo, Ohio, and the other in Texas City, Texas, where 15 people were killed and 170 injured in a 2005 explosion. In the last decade, OSHA records show that BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company." Per OSHA ]

"Analysis found that their green campaign overemphasizes their investments in alternative forms of energy, when those investments are just a blip on their history of huge investments in and profits from fossil fuel energy. In the first quarter of 2010, they made $73 billion in revenue, $72.3 billion of that came from the exploration, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas. Only $700 million came from solar and wind energy.]

Another assumption that, albeit well structured, paragraph forces upon us is that these investments in green energy (which peaked at 4% of BP's budget - and that was before BP Solar was shut down) do help and were meant to help 'fix' BP's troubles or the environment. BP pulled out of Solar Energy because it was not profitable ~ showing BP is involved in green energy for the same reasons it's involved with petrol; the positive environmental effect is irrelevant to BP if profits aren't there. Further, it has not been established that their green energy efforts have improved anything, so it wouldn't be right to give the impression that they have.

A tiny list to give an idea of the negative impacts BP is having, to help with scale - these are new stories from just the past month or so:

petrarchan47c 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

petrarchan47c 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dormskirk, it looks like you changed the third paragraph. I was responding as if you had quoted the version I'm used to, the one that includes "BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." That is how it reads now.petrarchan47c 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time a few days ago and since I was familiar with BP from my work on the Gulf spill article, I was extremely surprised, to put it mildly, to read the following in the lede:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.

I put a note on the talk page to say that I planned to edit the lede and was directed to this discussion. If the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of the article for the reader, this information regarding BP's environmental record is laughable - I don't know how else to say it. I really can not imagine that anyone could read the environmental sections and references and still say that one vague line in the lede is adequate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst Dormskirk and I edit on a very wide range of company articles, and on all aspects of their activities, it is fair to say that the other two editors in this thread are primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities. And primarily with increasing the emphasis on environmental impact in the article. There is zero interest being shown in the operations, corporate affairs and general history sections. That's fine, but this is an article on a company not on an environmental topic. The core of the article is about the company's own operations, corporate affairs and corporate history. Many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all. Personally I don't take that approach, but do recognise that this is secondary information, just as information about sponsorships would be.

Dormskirk and I have also made by far the greatest contributions to the BP article in terms of number of edits. Yes that should count for something in a discussion like this.

There are also plenty of criticisms of the article being made, but few constructive suggestions. I made what I felt to be a pretty reasonable suggestion above as to how to move the lead forward. It would be good if either we could get a consensus for that suggestion, or hear some other suggestions. Otherwise we are just going round in circles. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have run across many editors that believe that "many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all" because you have done so much work on company articles which, not surprisingly, would prefer to skip criticism sections. I would assume that most editors do believe that a corporation's environmental record is an important part of its article, not something to be left out or treated as of less importance. Regarding your suggestion that the editors with the most edits should be given special standing, in all of my years of editing I've never seen that suggestion on any talk page. I would have thought that it is obvious that Misplaced Pages does not work that way. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you either (a) support the proposal made above for moving the lead forward; or (b) have any other constructive suggestions?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:

In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident. In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.

In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a company with a 100 year plus history and with global activities. A paragraph in the lead on Deepwater would be grotesquely undue in the context of the overall history of the company and its whole scope of activities. It would be both highly recentist and highly slanted towards the U.S. It would also place a subjectively large emphasis on the environment. For example, more people died in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster and the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion. Neither of those belong in the lead in my opinion, but I am puzzled why you think Deepwater deserving of an entire paragraph and show no interest at all in those events. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of America is far longer, and in BP's short history it has managed to create the largest oil spill ever for the US, and what most sources call America's largest environmental disaster ever, while others say it was second only to the Dust Bowl (a fact which you think had no place in the article) as well as ranking number one largest accidental marine oil spill in the entire world. These facts are undisputed. Your reasoning above in not in accordance with WP:Lead "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" I am frankly sick and tired of trying to reason with someone who clearly does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by Misplaced Pages. No editors should have to deal with this if they are simply trying to update an article or fix obvious bias in the article - whether it happens to be that of a large company or otherwise. You were fine with mentioning environmental impact in the lede when it made BP look good. Now when confronted with facts, you declare that companies should not have to even mention environment. There are many updates to be made as the aftermath of the oil spill and the various court cases hit the media, as they doing now. I do not want to have to deal with this nonsense in order to update the article. The POV on your part is clear, and given your behaviour including bullying and lying as well as your self-appointed position as owner of this article, this will likely need to be taken to the Admin board sooner rather than later.petrarchan47c 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer Rangoon's question about changes for the lede:

I don't think the DWH spill should require it's own paragraph. It should be mentioned in the lede as the single sentence mentioning BP's 'troubles' gets flushed out in accordance with WP:Lead. BP's troubles should merit a single paragraph and should not be followed immediately by a rebuttal.

Rangoon suggested removal of BP's green/climate claims from the lede and we agreed on that.

Rangoon suggested to replace the green claims with more about BP's history particularly it's acquisitions. He also said the single sentence about BP's troubles is fine the way it is. I disagree with both points. I would need to be shown why more about BP's history and acquisitions merit space in the lede. These arguments only seem valid from the POV of BP or someone hired by them to make sure BP looked good on the internet. But maybe I'm missing something?petrarchan47c 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amusing that despite your taking such great offence at being called a POV-pusher, and insisting that I desist from this, you have since made a plethora of personal attacks in this thread, including saying that I am working for BP and that I am a liar. I have made an effort to engage you in a constructive discussion, despite my views on your very narrow agenda regarding this article and complete lack of interest in the great majority of its content, but it is proving fruitless and very time wasting. Now you are threatening to take me to the Admin board, but simultaneously accusing me of bullying.

There are a number of highly significant aspects of BP's history which are not currently in the lead and which should e.g. mention of its foundation, nationalisation, privatisation, the acquisitions of Amoco, ARCO and Burmah Castrol, and the TNK joint venture. I propose adding in this information, and removing the sentences about BP being the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and its investments in renewables. This is a more than reasonable proposal, and yet since it was made all that has followed is unconstructive comments, absurd suggestions such as putting an entire paragraph on Deepwater in the lead, and multiple personal attacks.

I will now make a further proposal, that, in addition to my proposed changes described above, a mention of Deepwater be made in the following way:

'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is from the intro to the Resolution Dispute: "We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing". I am not bullying or threatening you by saying this should go to the administrators, I am simply repeating a claim I made originally. As for saying you worked for BP, I am questioning it. My claim in the intro to this DR was "it looks to me like he is working on behalf of BP" but I have not said that you do.

As for the narrow focus with regards to this article, I have also stated that right now I am focusing, to the exclusion of all else, on the bias in the Intro and on remedying that. There is absolutely no clause anywhere in Misplaced Pages supporting your grief about my narrow focus. I would prefer if you were to use arguments that could be supported by Misplaced Pages guidelines, it makes things simpler and much faster.

Here is where you indeed told an untruth. When I pointed out that it was not located anywhere else in the article, you switched your reasoning for the edit with "not relevant to section - which is about SAFETY" and proceeded to let me know you weren't pleased I was still editing whilst in discussion. If your edits are valid you would not have to dance around looking for a valid sounding excuse for them. If you had no bias, you would not have a problem with leaving that statement in the Deepwater explosion section, as the section is very short, the information is important and well-sourced. The Deepwater explosion happens to be in the SAFETY section, but that is not justification for your removal of the sentence. Secondly, your argument makes no sense as you left other remarks in that would also need to be removed if your reasoning was valid. It does feel like you are wasting editors time by not being honest.

Keeping in mind "due weight" I stand by my recommendations for the third paragraph re environmental and safety incidents and disagree it should remain one single sentence. You don't like single sentences, anyway.petrarchan47c 06:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that since your proposal to add BP history no one has commented. I said that as long as it abides by guidelines for weight, add anything you like. I also asked you to support the claim that BP's acquisitions and history deserved more space in the lede. Those facts might be important to you, but why are they important to Misplaced Pages? The reason this is all so hard is that your additions all seem geared toward minimizing BP's negative side and bolstering it's positive and neutral aspects in the article. I would like to work with editors who want to update the page with plain ole facts regardless of how it makes BP look. In fact, I did want to keep the mention of BP's recognition of climate change. Since they are the first oil company to do so, it is notable in my opinion.petrarchan47c 06:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy to keep the reference to BP being the first major oil company to recognise climate change if there is space in the updated third paragraph.

It would be good to hear the views of the other participants in this thread so that we can implement the proposed changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This should help. Perhaps take a quick glance at BP, note the sections, their content, and weight (space) in the article.

From WP: Writing better articles] If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

Based on this and other Misplaced Pages guidelines, let's make a very rough draft for an unbiased Lede, starting with 'the third paragraph'. petrarchan47c 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, what are your problems with the essay? It seems reasonable to me and I think that a draft proposal would be a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Essays are not policy or guideline and it is really rather tedious to have chunks of them copied and pasted in here, replete with bold text. The same thing has happened on the BP talk page. Just another example of what a tedious, timewasting exercise this discussion has been.

The question is, do we have a consensus on what should be included in the revised third paragraph. I am particularly keen to hear the views of Dormskirk, who has great experience in company articles and previously said that they thought the lead perfectly fine as is.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, company articles have no different guidelines at Misplaced Pages than do other types of articles. It's easiest to refer to the Wiki guidelines when going forward, which is why I continue to quote them here. Otherwise we're arguing "I'm right, you're wrong and my friend agrees!" which could take forever.petrarchan47c 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I am sorry to hear that you consider this discussion tedious and a waste of time. Though you have no interest, I'd still like to try to work for a reasonable lede. Petrarchan, could you go ahead and present a rough draft as you have suggested? Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Before we go any further, where are the official guidelines/policies for Leads? We need get on the same page. Also, is there a different policy for writing an article about companies? (Seems I've been referring to essays rather than official policies.) petrarchan47c 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, here is an idea of the facts I am considering when trying to create a balanced Lede. (Or, just scroll up to my June 13 entry/response.)petrarchan47c 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please reread Dormskirk's comment, you have misquoted them. They referred solely to the third paragraph and changed it slightly before saying it looked fine.petrarchan47c 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47c 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead.

As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning.

As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power.

Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I only have experience with one other corporation, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. Note that the lede contains an entire paragraph regarding controversy, and the largest paragraph at that. I believe that it must be repeated: BP was found almost totally responsible for the largest accidental marine oil spill in history and one of the worst environmental disasters in the U.S. To suggest that it doesn't even need its own sentence is preposterous. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The company has more than 100 years history and there is a number of things being the first, largest etc, which even not mentioned in the lead, not talking about their own paragraph. Deepwater Horizon has its own section and right now it is mentioned in the lead. By my understanding this is present in the balanced way. Beagel (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am content that the latest drafting shows some good balance:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."

I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think when seeking balance, context is required. "BP has been involved in a number of accidents" --> "In the last decade, BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company"]; BP's "culture of recklessness" was found to be the reason for this, and this understanding should be mentioned in some form. I agree with Gandy that the DWH disaster does deserve it's own sentence(s) with context - "it was the biggest...". What I find truly helpful is to imagine we are writing for a printed Encyclopedia. I grew up with those. They were pure facts and I never saw evidence of bias in them. This is how I judge my contributions to Misplaced Pages and to this discussion. More, not less, information - especially if it provides context - is encyclopedic.

The "company wide target to reduce greenhouse gasses" - if that is mentioned, it should be more than a 'plan' - what were the results? Remember, BP also promised to put up a $20 billion escrow after the DWH disaster, but now is trying to settle for $15B. I would disagree that a plan (target) is worth mentioning in the Lede, unless it was implemented and reliable sources show that the results were a big deal. Otherwise it might be better placed within the body of the article, rather the Lede.

I still see the placement of these 2 ideas within the same paragraph as biased, as that is bordering on greenwashing. I don't see how they relate except in terms of a rebuttal, which violates NPOV.

Again, would someone point me to the Misplaced Pages guidelines for Lede? Also if there are different guidelines for articles about companies we need those as well. We all seem to have have slightly differing ideas regarding these guildelines and it would help to begin by getting on the same page. Thanks. petrarchan47c 04:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to mention of BP investments in alternative energy, it was agreed to earlier in the discussion to scrap those sentences. If we did mention it, I would rather it be in the form of a percentage (context), as 1 Billion sounds like a lot, but actually even before BP quit Solar, their investments were never more than 4% of annual budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed sentence about renewable energy investments. So, having mentioning Deepwater Horizon and removing renewable energy investments, it seems a decent compromise between different POVs. As for Deepwater Horizon – for the context we have a long section, not taking about the series of Deepwater Horizon articles. Beagel (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Beagel is sidestepping the real issue here when he suggests that a decent compromise has been reached with one sentence regarding environmental issues (now with a mention of the spill) and the following sentence praising BP's good work for the environment. BP's extremely long list of negative environmental practices and events, as listed in the lengthy sections of the article, need a separate paragraph in the lede rather than be combined with mention of their efforts to combat greenhouse gases, which has very little copy in the article. One could make an argument if BP had a long history of environmentally friendly activities with many references to back it up, but that is not the case at all and to give equal copy in the lede, in the same paragraph, and immediately following their poor environmental record, is very misleading. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion and, although I defer to the experienced editors here on the issue of balance in the article's introduction, I thought I might be able to help with some of the figures that are getting confused. Before I get into that, Petrarchan, here is the link to the Misplaced Pages article guidelines for companies, and a couple about writing introductions:

• Misplaced Pages:Companies, corporations and economic information
• Misplaced Pages:Lead section
• Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles#Lead section

Regarding the figures quoted by Petrarchan for Deepwater Horizon: BP has spent almost $23 billion on the response and claims, including $8.5 billion on claims, advances and other payments so far, not counting the $7.8 billion additional claims that have been estimated as part of a legal settlement. The escrow amount that BP committed to put aside was $20 billion. The $15 billion figure that has been in the news is just speculation — as you can tell from the wording of news articles that mention things like "an unnamed source familiar with discussions" — and is not related to BP's announcement of the $20 billion set aside right after the spill.

In response specifically to what Petrarchan was saying, that it shouldn't just be a plan for reducing greenhouse gas that's mentioned in the lead, I think the following release provides the information he's seeking here:

• BP Beats Greenhouse Gas Target By Eight Years And Aims To Stabilise Net Future Emissions, 11 March 2002

I hope that this information is helpful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Arturo, your help is greatly appreciated. As for the greenhouse emissions, the article from BP may not be enough to warrant inclusion in the Lede, I believe we would need a reliable secondary source. As for the $20B Escrow, Feinberg was planning to spend $6B and return the remaining $14B to BP, so it gets confusing.

Thank you also for the 3 links. The Company article guidelines show that there is no different set of guidelines when writing an article about a company. The essay about Ledes is good, but Rangoon has suggested essays aren't really relevant as they aren't official guidelines, so it is of no use to us here. The article about Ledes is what I have been referring to. Here is the section which shows our one single sentence mentioning environmental issues and the spill is not sufficient: the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The 'explaining' part is why I suggested adding context to the accidents.

Beagle, I do agree we will have to compromise at some point. But the article is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 dedicated (rightly so) to environmental and political issues. The intro is supposed to let folks know what they'll be reading in the article. This is why to dedicate a paragraph to these issues in the Lede seems appropriate.petrarchan47c 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To newer editors to this discussion, note this is focused on the Intro, but I also brought up the fact that content was being removed from the article, and that the POV problem does not end with the Intro. Please see my first comment in this discussion... petrarchan47c 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, the guidelines for the introduction refer to a standard for an ideal form of article. The BP article as it stands is not in perfect shape and much information is missing about its operations, leading to an imbalance of information about environment and politics. Would it not be better to generally improve the article first, then return to the introduction later once the other issues in the article have been addressed?

Meanwhile, here are some secondary sources for the reduction in greenhouse emissions:

• Energy Policy Journal, 2006
• Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2005 (footnote 10)
• The Climate Group, 2005 (page 4-5)

There were also some news articles, but these tended to report meeting the target as "the company announced" or "Lord Browne announced". Hopefully the above sources work well enough. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually peer reviewed sources are favored, so if a reliable source published an article about BP's reduction in greenhouse gasses, that would help. Then we would need to prove it belonged in the Lede. This discussion is focusing on getting the obvious bias out of the Lede. Other improvements can be done in time, but it's best to keep focused for now as this is dragging on longer than anyone wanted.petrarchan47c 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial. Thank you to Petrachan47 for bringing the issue to DR. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps before coming to a discussion such as this purely in order to make personal attacks you should actually familiarise yourself with the article. And I didn't even write the paragraph in question. All I have had in this disussion is repeated personal attacks, hence why I decided I could not be bothered to continue my involvment in it. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, not user conduct. If you wish to complain about another user, don't do it here. Take it to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the issue, take it to WP:RFC/U, but please wait until the DRN case is closed. It often happens that solving the content dispute solves the user conduct issues as well.

It looks to me like we have pretty much done everything we can do here. Unless someone has an objection, I am going to close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We're almost finished, but not quite. Give me until Monday as I am researching over the weekend and will present an idea for the third paragraph as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. 174.74.66.179 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. We only want to close cases where everybody has given up or where they resolved the issue and didn't bother telling us. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That is good to hear. To be honest, I will probably need another week. petrarchan47c 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Rangoon11 statement to Binksternet, Rangoon is the editor who wrote the problematic portion of the 3rd paragraph beginning here. He is also the editor who added a false statement to the first para " also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power." I can find the diff if requested. petrarchan47c 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Here is where Rangoon11 added the second portion of the greenwashing. If editors are blatantly spinning articles and telling untruths in the DR, what (speedy) course of action is recommended? petrarchan47c 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So once again you accuse me of lying. What I meant to say was that I didn't write that part of the lead alone, Ocaasi was involved and we reached a settled position together, hence why it was so stable for months despite the BP article being a magnet for anti-BP POV pushers. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

After exhaustive research, my opinion is the following suggestion for the controversy bit in the BP Intro best reflects the references available on this topic and is equal in weight to the other paragraphs in the intro as far as their detail and length. I did not cover the "political influence" aspect, anyone who cares to research that bit is more than welcome. petrarchan47c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47c 01:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation, and greenwashing. In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history. During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanorand was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance. petrarchan47c 01:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47c 01:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but this suggestion is unbalanced and POV (one may say even WP:COAT). The third paragraph as of this version is more balanced and more neutral. Beagel (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Grotesquely recentist, unbalanced, POV laden and U.S.-centric. And wholly out of step with company articles in WP. It is interesting to look at the leads of BP peers ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Total S.A. and Royal Dutch Shell, which do not even refer to issues like this at all in the lead.

The lead is there in part to provide a summary of the article, but not to provide a summary in exact proportion to the length of applicable sections in the article. A lead is by necessity highly restricted in length, and there is also a certain fairly set format which further resticts space. The primary task of a company article lead is to address the core elements of what the company is, its place within its sector, and its history.

The BP article was ruined during Deepwater, when large numbers of (I assume) American editors filled up the article with any "controversy" which BP had ever been involved with (again, generally in a highly recentist and US-centric manner - no interest in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster because afterall it was in the 1960s and happened in the UK, so who cares?), whilst showing zero interest in developing the article as a whole, and leaving large sections ruined. Some of that has now been rolled back, but the article remains a recentist attack piece on BP. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Should also add, it was very clear from the above very long discussion that there was absolutely no consensus for a whole paragraph on "controversies" in the lead, and in fact a number of editors stated they were fine with the lead as was. I am therefore distinctly puzzled at this drafting proposal, and how it is any way an attempt to resolve a dispute. Since this discussion began a contentious (but long standing and stable) sentence and piece of wording has been removed from the lead, and a specific reference to Deepwater added, even though the consensus in this discussion did not demand the changes. Even so, the response has simply been to push for ever more emphasis on "controversies". Meanwhile petrarchan47 has been busy adding even more "controversies" to the main body of the BP article too, whilst attacking others for POV-pushing and declaring their aim of getting me topic banned for the same.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

With BP's "dismal safety record" in the news, how can you prevent a paragraph of criticism in the lead section? The company is supremely unsafe; ABC news wrote that "OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 'egregious, willful' safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation." With a ratio of BP's 760 to 11 of all the others, you can plainly see that there are grounds for prominent criticism. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I added 'more' controversies because they have been deleted from the article, and the Lockerbie release was never added. I made a note that I would be adding Lockerbie weeks ago. If anyone questions whether my suggestion for the Intro is POV, first please read the Intro now, it reads like it's meant more for folks looking to buy BP stock. Also please do a quick search "BP, safety" - that is all I did. In every single article, all three accidents were mentioned. Even though Alaska and Texas were dwarfed by the Gulf spill, they are considered in the literature to be extreme cases. My Intro suggestion is simply a reflection of what's out there. You will have to do your own search to see what I mean. This is actually a watered down version of the information on this topic. BP has had far more accidents than any other oil company whilst pumping less oil, and there is a reason: after multiple investigations and internal BP reports - that BP took more risks and cost-cut in pursuit of profits. This information was not available until recently, so it makes no sense to call any past version of the Intro perfect - you had limited information at that time. Why should this new understanding regarding the accidents not be included? Would a normal encyclopedia have this info? If it was a good one, it would. Here is how the Intro looked before Rangoon's arrival. At this time there were many editors at the page, working peacefully together, and the Intro seemed NPOV except that undue weight was given to the DWH spill. Now it's more like a dictator is controlling the page, and it's been scrubbed of vital information and a sense of balance.petrarchan47c 19:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I also used the search terms "BP, accidents". I highly recommend doing a quick search like this to help with this DRN. petrarchan47c 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Also, there is no reason to continue to compare this to other "company articles" unless we are talking about guidelines for company articles. Arturo from BP left a link earlier in this discussion for company articles - there are NO separate rules for company articles. The suggestions in the link from Arturo aren't even being followed at the BP article. It says to put stock information in a section of the article, not clog the lede with it. Also please don't compare this article to Exxon and the like, they are not following Misplaced Pages guidelines if they do have controversies (like Exxon Valdez) and do not mention them in the Intro. We're not using other articles to help with the Intro, we are only using the Misplaced Pages guidelines for WP:Lede. petrarchan47c 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC) {od}

I wrote a long point by point reply to Rangoon but I'm not going to post it. Looking back at all the work that Petrarchan has done and to see Rangoon simply call it, "Grotesquely recentist, unbalanced, POV laden and U.S.-centric", what could I possibly say that would do much good here? If the Task Force means what they say when they state that it is their goal to see that NPOV is maintained, perhaps they can help and I have contacted one of the members to ask for advise. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion might seem US-centric because BP itself is; the 2cd paragraph of the Intro states "Its largest division is BP America, which is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the United States." Also, please stop suggesting a single sentence is sufficient, as it violates WP:Lede.petrarchan47c 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer note: Normally we close discussions after a few days with no discussion, but I am temporarily collapsing this one and giving it more time; See the discussion for details. If 10 days go by without activity I will close this. This discussion is still open: anyone who wishes may add comments, and anyone who wishes is free to uncollapse the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we add new content here? For now I am adding it above. petrarchan47c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the discussion going away. I have taken out the "collapse" template to make visible the recent suggestions by Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the proposed paragraph again, to keep it with its references:

BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation, and greenwashing. In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history. During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanorand was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.

References

1. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/5/group_bp_has_one_of_the
2. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/03/back_to_petroleum?page=0,0
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill
4. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100923142438.htm
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/opinion/a-stain-that-wont-wash-away.html?pagewanted=all
6. http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/business/energy-environment/13bprisk.html?pagewanted=all
8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/07/AR2010060704826_2.html?sid=ST2010060704777
9. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43041768/bps-history-of-oil-spills-and-accidents-same-strategy-different-day/
10. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/5/group_bp_has_one_of_the
11. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/03/back_to_petroleum?page=0,0
12. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill
13. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100923142438.htm
14. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/opinion/a-stain-that-wont-wash-away.html?pagewanted=all
15. http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present
16. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/business/energy-environment/13bprisk.html?pagewanted=all
17. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/07/AR2010060704826_2.html?sid=ST2010060704777
18. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43041768/bps-history-of-oil-spills-and-accidents-same-strategy-different-day/

The Beatles

• The Beatles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Sorry to bother busy clerks, however I need some outside input. I may well be wrong, overreacting or both, however I am having an issue with User:DocKino at The Beatles. I believe said user is inappropriately "rolling-back" sections of the article to one of their preferred versions, perhaps here, from 2009 or here, from 2011, or some version in between. DocKino has made these edits without any prior discussion at the talk page or regard for the numerous hours of work that had been put into the material by several editors since the last incarnation they endorsed. Disclosure: During my extensive copyedit of the article (approximately November 2011-April 2012), I did in fact make several undiscussed deletions for the sake of brevity and accuracy, however, to my knowledge no one ever reverted any of them of any substance, objected to or even discussed anything in that regard with me while I was devoting numerous hours copyediting the article. Indeed, I have over 11,000 edits to my credit including over 1,000 at the Beatles article and in 2.5 years on wikipedia only 47 of my edits have been deleted. I would have been more than willing to discuss any of my edits, as they were occuring, however I do not think rolling them back two months later, without any discussion is appropriate. Are these "restorations" of content or the use of sub rosa "rollbacks" in a content dispute? Clarification: I am well aware that DocKino does not actually have rollbacker rights, nor do these edits in the strickest sense constitute technical rollbacks, however, my point here is that DocKino's edits are de facto rollbacks, achieved manually via copy-paste from previous versions. In other words, one can rollback paragraphs, sections, or entire articles, in one edit, or in several, piece by piece, without ever actually using a rollback in the technical sense.

Examples:

• a sub rosa "rollback"
• another rollback, with a possibly deceptive edit summary
• rollback
• edit summary says restore, but seems more like a rollback to me
• a rollback with no edit summary
• rollback
• rollback
• rollback

I've omitted several examples that if taken alone, look like perfectly good content work, however, if you study the edits carefully, in their totality, you'll notice that 80-90% or more of the restored material is included nearly verbatim in either the FA version from nearly three years ago or this version from November 2011.

I've made numerous attempts to resolve issues with them at Talk:The Beatles, as well as at DocKino's talk page, to which I received no reply. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• DocKino (talk · contribs)
• GabeMc (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Beatles}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have made attempts on the user and article talk pages.

• How do you think we can help?

By determining if this type of restoration/reversion/rollback was used appropriately.

— GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles discussion

You may see some delays in getting to this issue. Please be patient. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, no hurries, thanks for the update. — GabeMc (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: Hello. I am a volunteer/clerk here at DRN. This is not meant to imply that I have any sort of authority or enforcement rights; I'm just an editor (with some experience resolving disputes) who is working here to help establish consensus. First, a couple "rules of order": this appears to be a rather complex issue, so patience will be important from everyone involved - just remember that we're not in a hurry. Also, try to keep your comments short and sweet - long responses are going to cause the discussion to string out.

Okay, GabeMc - I see you've also filed a thread about this issue at WP:WQA. That is, of course, up to you (and DRN is for addressing content, not conduct), but after looking at all of the talk pages involved, and I have to wonder if a WQA is really necessary. I don't see signs of incivility or "bullying" (as you put it). Yes, you have the option of carrying out the WQA, and I wouldn't try to stop you if you really think it's necessary; the only reason I'm bringing it up is because I think this will be easier for everyone if we keep all of this discussion in one place. Now, on to the matter at hand. You contend that DocKino is performing de facto "rollbacks". What is the contentious content that is being "rolled back"? I need both sides here - first, DocKino, since you are the one performing the reverts, the onus is on you to explain why. What part of GabeMc's additions/changes to the article do you object to, and why? Sleddog116 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Just dropping in to say I'm aware of this thread and intend to respond to the request for information you've posed, Sleddog. This is a very busy week for me in the real world, so I just want to hold off until I can focus and respond in the appropriate spirit--probably Friday or Saturday. Thanks, DocKino (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - we'll leave the thread open then. WP's not going anywhere. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC club dead or not

Needs to move back to talk page or on to a merger discussion or a request for comments, no progress here and no volunteer willing to step in. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States

• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The dispute is over whether certain polls should be described as polls regarding single-payer (diff). To me they clearly are, the sources identify them as single-payer polls and while wording affects the outcome of the polls, the content of the polls, comparing a healthcare plan to Medicare (US) and Canada etc. is clearly single-payer since those are single-payer systems and are identified as such in other wiki articles.

The argument against that seems to be either that (a) Americans don't know what single-payer is or (b) those aren't single-payer systems so it doesn't work on polls, none of which is supported anywhere.

As far as I can tell, the sources all say that they are polls regarding single-payer so there's no reason not to say so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
• LWG (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Public opinion on health care reform in the United States}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed it on the page.

• How do you think we can help?

Deciding whether or not those are polls regarding single-payer.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States discussion

This ultimately seems premature. Discussion is happening at the talk page, and I'm relatively confident we can come to some sort of conclusion. If anyone feels the need to input, the polls are described by media organizations differently than the questions that were asked. Thus, the questions reflect an opinion from the populace that is different than what CartoonDiablo wants to include in the article. I thought we reached a good compromise, apparently s/he disagrees. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed the pov-check tag that prompted this dispute, but I am otherwise unfamiliar with the past history of the editors and articles involved. I placed the tag after noticing that the polls CartoonDiabolo added were sourced from an explicitly partisan and non-neutral web site. I would like a clearer idea of where this data is from, what it is intended to add to the article, and whether there might be other data that was selectively omitted from the source web site (as I noted that even that website qualified their list as "polls showing support for a single payer system", suggesting that there might be other polls not on the list which had different results). All that said, I am not on any particular side of this dispute and would prefer that someone more familiar with the issues in question take a look at it. -- LWG 22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It seemed at a deadlock but I suppose there can be a way to reconcile it. From what I can tell, there are 3 polls which can be argued not to be about single-payer and thus can be removed (although I think they are effectively the same thing) but everything relating to Medicare, Canada's/England's system and single-payer are explicitly single-payer polls since Medicare (US) and Canada/England had at the time the questions were asked and continue to have single-payer systems.

While the organizations that cite the polls are political they cite the original questions which, since the polls are comparing the US system to single-payer systems, are clearly single-payer polls. I would ask the other editors how such polls by virtue of using Canada's system and Medicare are anything but; there is no evidence or sources that suggest Americans don't consider those systems to be single-payer, that Americans don't know what single-payer is or that those are not single-payer systems so how are the polls not asking about single-payer? CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is really a discussion that should be had at the talk page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My concern has nothing to do with whether the polls are about a single payer system or whether Americans know what a single payer system is (or the much more relevant question "whether Americans know that Medicare is a single-payer system"). What I want to know is two things:

• What purpose are these polls intended to serve in the overall context of the article? What useful information are they meant to communicate to the reader?
• What assurance do we have that the analysis of the polls provides by an explicitly partisan advocacy group does not introduce pov problems to the article?

These are the concerns which led to my placing the pov-check tag, regardless of whatever existing questions about the polls may be going on at the other article. -- LWG 02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to the article talk page. Please discuss it further there. -- LWG 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This will mark a final attempt at resolution in the talk page, I'll update the page here on whether or not it worked. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to solve the definition problem failed, moving the discussion back here. Thargor has said that:

you're assuming that "like Medicare" means "single payer" to poll respondents with no evidence to support it other than your understanding of Medicare as a single-payer system.

Does this mean that (a) poll respondents don't know what single-payer is or (b) Medicare and Canada/England's systems are not single payer? And if so what evidence is there of this? It would seem absurd that poll questions asking respondents whether or not they would prefer a single-payer system are not single-payer polls even when multiple sources cite them as such. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is still premature. One question at talk does not constitute an attempt to solve much of anything, unfortunately. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

See my reply on the article talk page. Also, if any uninvolved editors are reading this, please consider looking at the material CartoonDiabolo and Thargor Orlando are arguing over and helping us work out what needs to be done. -- LWG 04:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Both editors seem to claim that most Americans don't know what single-payer is leading to problems with calling them single-payer polls. This is problematic because (a) there's no evidence whatsoever for this and (b) even if it can be proven that most Americans don't know what it is, by virtue of telling polls they would want to implement single-payer systems they are therefore unknowingly preferring single-payer which confirms the polls as single-payer polls.

Thargor has claimed that there is evidence for this by virtue of wide variation in polls. The problem is there is no such variation, almost ever poll is 60%+ in favor with the only poll that's not being a Rasmussen poll which is often alleged for conservative bias. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I will be continuing this discussion at the talk page, not here. If CartoonDiablo is serious about actually trying to fix the problem, he will join us there and do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Can an outside editor please clarify whether or not someone party to the dispute can unilaterally just leave? The dispute is unsolvable in the discussion page which is why it is here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thargor is under no obligation to discuss anything anywhere, and it is understandable if they do not wish to put up with someone who they feel is being unnecessarily difficult. However, I hope that both of you will be willing to show some patience and work this out satisfactorily. If for some reason you are unable to discuss the issue on the talk page, I am willing to continue to discuss it here, and copy the discussion to the talk page afterwards, although unless some uninvolved editors decide to join in here this venue is not going to be any different from the talk page. -- LWG 22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope so too, on my part I suggested that we remove 3 polls which can be construed as non-single-payer polls and am awaiting for an outside editor to give his opinion over whether they are such. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the dispute and the sources involved, I think I have a better idea of what is going on. There seems to be several intertwined issues here. Would both of you agree with the following summary?

• Feeling that the existing wording in the Single-payer health care article, which stated that many polls showed support among Americans for "a system like medicare", was unfair, CartoonDiabolo changed the wording to say that the polls showed support for "single-payer".
• Thargor Orlando reverted this change.
• CartoonDiabolo and Thargor Orlando engaged in an extended discussion on the talk page as to whether to use the "like medicare" wording or the "single-payer" wording. Thargor Orlando claims that the actual polls used "like medicare", while CartoonDiabolo claims that since medicare is a single-payer system, if respondents said they wanted a system "like medicare" then they actually wanted a single-payer system. Furthermore, he claimed that the usage of "like medicare" was not as widespread as Thargor Orlando claimed it was.
• As the argument continued, CartoonDiabolo found a source for polling on single-payer healthcare, and added it to the article as a new section. He then added a similar section to Public opinion on health care reform in the United States.
• At this point I became involved, because for some reason that page was on my watchlist. I noticed that the source of the new content was a website called "Physicians for a National Healthcare Program", which raised red flags as a potential source of pov issues. I therefore tagged the article and requested that the content be scrutinized. This brought Thargor Orlando and CartoonDiabolo to the article, where they continued their existing debate.

Whew, this is too much text for one posting. I will post my understanding of the facts and questions facing us shortly, but in the meantime do you both agree that this summary fairly reflects what has happened so far? -- LWG 23:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's fair and thanks for the effort to post all that. My thinking is that whether or not those can be called single-payer polls is the most crucial question both for this article and beyond and is what will allow the other questions to be answered. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is deceptively simple (not purposefully on your part), but I'm not interested in fighting this in two venues. The proper place is the talk page of the article, not to rush to DR simply because the discussion is not going your way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd rather see a resolution in an unnecessarily inconvenient manner than no resolution at all, and CartoonDIabolo seems to feel like he has to do it here. -- LWG 02:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to, there is nothing wrong with collectively deciding that you want to close this, go back and try to resolve this on the article talk page. You can always open a new DRN case if that doesn't work. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll just say that I offered as a solution both here and the talk page, to call the polls single-payer polls and remove the ambiguous ones (which is more or less the defacto structure of the article now). Other issues like what kinds of reforms to include as noteworthy etc. stem from that; we need to agree on basic facts before looking at article structure in my opinion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands

• Macclesfield Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• South China Sea Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The Macclesfield Bank is notable for being a disputed territory. The dispute in the article seemingly started when I added references in a particular statement about the claimant countries in order to make the content in the article verifiable (because there weren't any citations there before that edit). In the succeeding edits, Namayan removed the referenced Philippines claim as he is not convinced that such claim exists. He argues that a primary source is needed and that according to his research on documents from the UN website, the supposed citations for the purported Philippine claim misrepresents Philippine government position on the issue.

The following are current sources used for the Philippine claim:

• US State Dept., published in 2005
• Inquirer article, published June 25, 2012
• ABS-CBNnews.com article, published June 21, 2012
• Want China Times article, published June 22, 2012

The dispute is centered on the issue on whether the above mentioned independent sources were inaccurate or not in publishing such information.

These sources, being recognized news agencies or in the US State Dept source's case, an official body of another sovereign state, are highly unlikely, in my belief, to post information of such magnitude if these weren't well researched or are downright false. I believe looking over at documents at the UN website and drawing conclusions from it without authoritative supporting sources constitute original research, more so by assuming that the information posted by the US State Dept, et al are not accurate nor true until proven otherwise.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Namayan (talk · contribs)
• Xeltran (talk · contribs)

I believe Namayan erred in making presumptions that just because he didn't find any mention of the territory in what he believes is the best source for the subject (the UN website, among others), means that such claim by the Philippines is non-existent. At least 3 of the references above have been published recently. His assertions that the Philippines as the country does not claim the territory, citations are contrary to Philippine territorial laws and submissions to the United Nations is original research as it is not supported by any other source that disputes the accuracy of the information published from the 4 sources. He has also yet to disprove that the sources posted false or inaccurate information, their credibility were questionable, or the information is contrary at all to what the official Philippine government position is. He is insisting that the information posted from all the references are inaccurate because he did not find any mention of the territory in any of the laws/treatises/etc. he researched on. The South China Sea Islands article is also being listed since Namayan has already been reverting edits there under the same assertion. If the claim of the Philippines is non-existent at all, the Phil. government would have already issued a notice to all these agencies that they posted wrong information or the US State Dept, et al would have already withdrawn such information through an erratum. Any of the two scenarios did not happen. For an issue of such magnitude, I find it unlikely that the Phil. government is not aware of the content of such references (1 is a paper from the US, 2 are nationally recognized newspapers, and 1 is a news publication from another country).

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I started a topic at his talk page in order to clarify my addition of my sources and to have his actions clarified. A long discussion has ensued. Seeing no consensus on the issue, I suggested that the matter be elevated to the Philippines topics noticeboard where yet another long discussion followed. I restored my references to the M. Bank article with a {{better source}} tag in order to reach an impasse with the understanding that my edit will be construed that such claim by the Philippines is backed up with reliable and verifiable sources but better sources are being desired. Namayan still removed the Philippines as a claimant country even when references were clearly supplied with his understanding that such information is not supported by official government documents.

• How do you think we can help?

Third opinion from other parties is earnestly needed in order to identify whether the given sources pass the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. If the sources qualify as such, the claim can be included in the article. Third opinion is also desired in determining the validity of the information of the articles. Four different sources were already cited in order to support that such a claim by the Philippines exists. I believe that: to regard their content as inaccurate, or their credibility questionable in the absence of or non-access to a primary source; and to interpret the primary sources (UN documents, laws, treatises, etc.) available without evidence of being an expert or being an authority of the subject constitute original research. Thus, third opinion is also being sought in order to determine whether such is true.

Xeltran (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands discussion

Being an editor of Misplaced Pages for over 6 years, who has also done extensive gathering of references for Philippine content to be provided in Misplaced Pages, I am very well aware of the requirements needed for an article.

This disputed information stemmed from the citing of news articles and a U.S. State Department publication in absence of an any official information from the Philippine government, which is the most reliable source on territorial claims of the country. On the other hand, I have cited and listed laws that define Philippine territory, which are likewise deposited with the United Nations , yet it is not being recognized by the other editor, saying that as a non-expert on the issue, I should not be interpreting these laws. These laws are explicit in determining the extent of Philippine territory and identifies the extreme points (land features) of the nations borders/baselines being an archipelago. It has also identified areas outside of the defined baseline as regime of islands in compliance with UNCLOS, in this case Kalayaan Group of Islands (Philippine claimed portion of the Spratlys) and Scarborough Shoal. It is illustrated by this map.

The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this "purported" territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication. Unfortunately, the other editor has not presented any though. The other editor also insists that I provide information, that refutes the articles that he/she has presented. Why would a government bother to publish something it doesn't have a stake on?

It should not take an "expert" on the matter (a cartographer) to pin point the geographic features on a map, if one will just look at the map of South China Sea one can already see, that Macclesfield (close to Paracel Islands, off Hainan, China) is not being identified as a territory claimed by the Philippines, as in the map I have cited above.

During the deliberations in Congress of the Philippine Baseline Law (in time to meet the U.N. deadline as per UNCLOS), there were various discussions that were published in reference to this, let me cite this one. This by GMA News Network (one of the two largest broadcasting companies in the country) also illustrates the definition of the country's territory.

In a case brought before, and decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which contested the constitutionality of the Philippine Baselines Law (Republic Act No. 9522), the petitioners argue, that the law which declared Kalayaan Group of Islands (Philippine claimed portion of the Spratlys) and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands instead of enclosing them in the Philippine baselines, has weakened the claim of the Philippines over these territories. The non-mention of Macclesfield Bank, could be construed that it is not a territory that the Philippines claims. This is not rocket science. Why would these petitioners against the Baseline Law, who are concerned about territorial diminution of the Philippines, not voice their concern about the non-inclusion of Macclesfield Bank, if it were indeed a territory the Philippines claims? Plain logic and common sense do not constitute original research.

A thesis in the University of Wollongong by a Filipino expert on the matter, studied this issue, and no where would he indicate that Macclesfield is claimed/should be claimed by the Philippines by properly enclosing and defining it in its territory.

It is hard to conceive that the non-mention of Macclesfield Bank as a territory claimed by the Philippines, should not be construed that the government of the Philippines does not lay claim to this land feature. I'd also like to pose questions to guide those who will comment on the matter:

• Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim?
• Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself?
• Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim?

Also, if one has to go by official maps, though trivial it is used by governments as a propaganda arm to illustrate its territory and the areas they claim, one can just go to the National Mapping Agency of the Philippine government and download the "Philippine Administrative Map with the Kalayaan Group of Islands" located at the bottom right side of the site. One will find that Macclesfield is not even identified as a feature in the map. -- Namayan (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is immaterial in this dispute to put forward the number of years an editor has been in Misplaced Pages. The sources presented pass WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:V. Nothing in those policies warrant the need of a primary source if reliable, verifiable secondary sources are available to prove the same. In fact, according to WP:SECONDARY, Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

The argument that just because an editor has not found the material cited in the secondary sources in his perceived primary source is flawed as well. All this time, he might looking for something that cannot be found there at all. Are we to ignore the content of four reliable secondary sources because we cannot seem to find such information in our perceived primary source? If we are to entertain the idea that such claim does not exist at all, WP:V stil says, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.

According to WP:OR, includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. All four sources presented generally support the idea of the existence of such claim. Nothing was presented that would support the contrary, other than the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist at all since he cannot find it at his perceived primary source.

Laws are not meant to be interpreted by the ordinary Misplaced Pages editor. As non-experts on law (unless strongly supported by reliable sources), editors must be careful not to tread the path of original research (e.g. reading these by themselves and drawing conclusions upon them without the support of reliable secondary sources to support such assertion). Laws, afterall, can be interpreted in many ways by many parties unless the state that enacts it publishes its implementing guidelines. Laymen are not qualified to assert that these laws are explicit unless supported by authoritative references. The Baseline Law, which the other editor insists is clear enough to distinguish which territories are being claimed or not, is just one law and is therefore does not constitute the whole system of evidence that will be used for arbitration in an international body.

I requested for any material at all to support the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist and that ALL four sources presented inaccurate information. He has yet to prove that the four sources did. It's wrong to assume that all of them erred in publishing such unless one can prove that their credibility is questionable or they have been posting circular information. In this case, the editor who asserts that these sources have published wrong/false/inaccurate information has the burden of proof.

Moreover, reliable sources should have their published information taken as true until proven eventually to be false. If these sources published wrongly about the claim in the first place, the Philippine government would have already issued a correction on the matter or these agencies would have not published such information if they haven't researched it thoroughly, unless they're willing to gamble their credibility. None of those scenarios happened. There has yet to have a mea culpa on the part of the US State Dept., etc that they published wrong information. There was no comment from the Philippine government about such claim. No comment is not to be construed as not true.

The question, therefore, is whether the other editor is qualified to draw conclusions upon himself after he read the material he brought forward. Taking into account WP:OR and WP:RS, are individual editors more reliable than four independent reliable sources (which we will assume would have done extensive research before publication)?

The other editor has posed questions for commentary. I'll answer and throw back a few of my own:

• Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim? Acting as an independent secondary source that is not party to the claim, it is wrong to assume that a high-level department of another sovereign state would publish information in an inaccurate manner without extensive research. An editor who insists on the contrary should provide proof that the information contained in their reports is questionable.

• Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself? A newspaper need not be an official agency of the government to publish government positions on a number of issues. In fact, if such agency is under the stewardship of the government, its reliability is questionable for suspected bias (see WP:IRS). As all four sources were independent and their reliability as a secondary source has not been determined as questionable, we take their published information as verifiable (even if other editors express concern if they're true or not; see WP:V).

• Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim? It depends upon the State. As non-experts to the issue, editors should refrain from drawing conclusions upon themselves after examining primary sources. As editors are generally not persons of authorities on the subject that they edit, what we include in Misplaced Pages should be preferably lifted from secondary sources who provide critical commentary on a number of issues and whose published information are verifiable and reliable (see WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:IRS.

My questions:

• How qualified is an individual WP editor in determining a State's interpretation of its laws upon inspection of them?
• Is the information published in the supplied sources verifiable or not? Are the sources reliable or not?
• Should information lifted from several secondary sources be immediately construed as inaccurate/false in the absence of or non-access to a primary source that supports such information?

Xeltran (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the other editor presented his/her case, so I have to present mine. If it's arbitration the other editor wanted then let other judge the merits of the cited sources.

As far as I know, I have presented maps drawn to represent the demarcations of Philippine territory, and it doesn't take a lawyer/cartographer to understand base points presented in the law (which identified the land features) and drawn in a map like this one, which is similar to other maps I have presented above. A reading of the Supreme Court decision on the case also clearly presents what were the points being presented by the petitioners against the New Baseline Law the Philippine Congress passed, and it doesn't take a lawyer to understand that. The laws pertaining to the demarcations of Philippine territory and the Supreme Court decision was pretty straight forward, but still thankfully there are maps to represent the Philippine territorial laws, which would not take a lawyer or an expert on the subject to interpret, as these can be plotted by anyone with a good mapping tool. I believe it doesn't take a literature major to understand a literary work. I think the other editor must also recognize that other good articles in Misplaced Pages have not actually been written by experts on the subject. -- Namayan (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. While I stand to be corrected, I am unfamiliar with any Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines which supports Namayan's claim that, "The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication." He/she may believe that is the way that Misplaced Pages should work, but the way in which to achieve that is to propose that standard as a policy or guideline using the procedure set out in WP:POLICY. Until then, reliable secondary sources are sufficient to include an assertion in Misplaced Pages and at least some of the sources offered by Xeltran appear to be reliable (but not including the US State Department source, which as a self-published source cannot be used as a reliable source for claims about a third party). In light of that understanding, whether or not Namayan's sources require original research is a moot point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, TransporterMan. While I do believe that articles of such nature are highly desired to have primary sources that validate their secondary citations, I haven't found any current Misplaced Pages policy that supports or warrants such "requirement". I believe the current version is sufficient enough to satisfy the following conditions which I see is an amenable common ground for all parties in this dispute: Place the Philippine claim in the article with the corresponding secondary sources and place a {{better source}} tag. I hope that it will be understood by any reader who stumbles upon that page that such a claim by the Philippines was mentioned in a reliable source, although a better source is being sought after if only to satisfy the need for a primary one. Xeltran (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail? -- Namayan (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no proof that the secondary sources contradict your preferred primary source. Your view that the articles contradict the maps you've read have not been affirmed by an independent, authoritative reference. While you may believe that Misplaced Pages needs to work in a way that you advocate it to be, current WP policy affirms the inclusion of a Philippine claim based on the sources I've presented. Xeltran (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Such maps would qualify as secondary sources too much like the references that you had cited. Why would there have to be double standards? Such maps were made by a reputable news agency too, as well the study about Philippine territory of an expert on the subject. -- Namayan (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Maps have to be examined by qualified persons of authority and have their findings self-published then picked up by an independent source for analysis. So no, not anyone could just read a map and take it as face value. If a map points to a body of water as East Sea, and one ordinary reader believes it to be called so, is he then absolutely correct in asserting such, when there is a dispute going on about whatever that body of water's name is? A map then, by itself, I believe, does not constitute as a secondary source. The study of the PH territory of an expert of a subject is a self-published source, just like what TransporterMan pointed out about the US State Dept. report. Even if we take away the US report on the list of references, I still have 3 others to support the inclusion of a Philippine claim in the article.

A source (believed to reliable, yet to be proven the opposite) publishes the claim. No WP policy blocks such inclusion. No current WP policy requires that in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication. Why then should it not be included unless it was clearly proven to be wrong through a contrary claim by another secondary source? WP is not the place to assert which is right or wrong. A related WP essay (not a policy, mind you) entitled Truth, not verifiability affirms WP:V by saying "verifiability, not truth" - whether material can be verified by reliable sources, not whether individual editors believe is true. It goes on by saying that WP reflects the information published by reliable sources, not an editor's thoughts. That's why policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS in place to ensure that every information is neutral and verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Xeltran (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless because the answer to Namayan's question, "Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail?" is that under Misplaced Pages policy, the secondary sources clearly prevail unless you can produce a primary government source which expressly says that they make no claim to these places. (And even then, even if there was a government document which expressly says that they make no claim to the area, since other reliable secondary sources say that they do, that would not prevent an assertion being made in the article that they make the claim. Instead, it would merely require that both the assertion that they make such a claim and the assertion that they do not make the claim being reported in the article. Misplaced Pages does not weigh or attempt to reconcile conflicting sources, it merely reports both claims.} The fact that there are some government documents which do not include or mention it requires interpretation of the purpose and scope of those documents and such interpretation is forbidden by the WP:PRIMARY policy. The fact that some documents or laws say what territories the government claims for certain purposes does not necessarily mean that the included places are all the places claimed by that government for other purposes and, further, does not mean that new claims have not arisen since that document or law was written. (I'm not saying that is what has happened here, but only saying that the mere possibility of such eventualities prevents the use of proof-by-silence. However, the mere existence of this discussion User_talk:Namayan#Sources_for_Phil._territorial_waters_map on your talk page over the meaning of the baseline law illustrates that the scope and purpose of the baseline law are a matter which are less than apparent on its face. For a primary source to be usable under WP:PRIMARY, the assertion for which it is being used must be absolutely apparent on the face of the source. Indeed, in this edit, you tell another editor, "It will help you if you would read documents about UNCLOS, and why countries have to docket their territorial limits and submit it before the UN deadline of May 13, 2009." If it is necessary for a person to do such reading in order to understand the scope and import of a document, then that document cannot be used as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages under the WP:PRIMARY policy for anything which arises out of that scope or import.) I see absolutely no support in Misplaced Pages policy for Namayan's position in this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

File:OUTtv logo.png

• File:OUTtv logo.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

the user, User:Fry1989 is continuously reverting the image that I uploaded, which I've clearly explained to him or her as the correct image for the article, the logo for the television channel OUTtv. I've outlined my points and provided proof of my explanation in the user's talk page and in the edit summary of the article. The user continues to act inappropriately and in my opinion is vandalizing the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Fry1989 (talk · contribs)
• Musimax (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=File:OUTtv logo.png}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have tried speaking to the user directly on the talk page and in the article summary, which has lead to no resolution. The user has acted inappropriately from the very start which has led both of us on a downward spiral ever since.

• How do you think we can help?

Come to a decision on which image is the correct one. Block Fry1989 (talk · contribs) for vandalism.

musimax. (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

File:OUTtv logo.png discussion

Well, let me start by pointing out that I am actually the original uploader of the image in question, I did it several weeks ago (May 26th 2012) when OUTtv gave a press release on their upcoming change in identity. I got the file from that press release. Musimax only recently came along (last week or so) and uploaded over with a cropped version, and my initial upload was deleted as a non-free historical version, in common practice here when a on-free file is updated. I reverted that because the cropped version that Musimax over-wrote with was inferior in quality to the one I uploaded, and I explained that in my summary saying it was missing the shadows and gradients from the press release version. He has since uploaded over a different crop with the addition of transparency and a bit better in quality than the first, but it's still not as good as my upload. I've asked him to leave it alone, I've told him to leave it alone, and he simply will not stop edit warring on my upload.

As for the claim that I'm "vandalizing" the article. that's a VERY big stretch of a claim to make, since the only edit I've made to it in recent months was to add the new logo when I originally uploaded it the first time shortly after the press release. I'd hardly consider maintaining a higher-quality image "vandalism". This is ridiculous bullying by Musimax who just wants his own way without concern for quality. It should also be noted that I am the user who first contacted Musimax on his talk page, not the other way around as he insinuates. I got a nasty reply telling me I'm "playing childish games", a personal attack.

Musimax claims I'm acting inapropriately. However, it is he that has uploaded an inferior quality image over another person's upload. It is he who kept edit warring on the file after multiple explanations why it wasn't acceptable by the original uploader. It's he who gave me a very nasty reply on my talk page telling me to stop "playing childish games", and now it's he who is making false claims of vandalism to an article I haven't edited in two months. Hyperbole of this situation abounds, and it's offensive. Fry1989 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've explained in my edit summaries and on the user's talk page, the logo I uploaded is of better quality and is a more accurate representation of the channel's logo. The logo I uploaded is taken directly from the channel's website, it is also used on their Facebook and Twitter account pages. The gradient and shadows in the logo itself is the correct ones as evident by it taken directly from the channel's website and also used on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. It is also used on other cable company websites to promote OUTtv. No where does the logo ever show a shadow at the bottom of the main image (logo). Also, all other places show the same gradient as my logo shows. This is clear evidence that the image I uploaded is the correct and most accurate image of the channel's log and should be used in the article. In addition, the image I uploaded has a transparent background, which I believe is something that is or should be encouraged for quality purposes on Misplaced Pages. In response to personal attacks, the user in question began by making condescending personal remarks such as "Are you able to read?" in the edit summaries. I also did not insinuate that I contacted the user in question first on his/her talk page as the user in question says that i did, I simply said I did contact them, I never said I made the first connection. musimax. (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You know why I asked "are you able to read"? Because you kept saying the file has no shadow below it, and I then explained that I wasn't reverting because of the shadow below, but because of the quality of the shadows and gradients in the logo itself. You then reverted me again and in your next summary you continued to complain about the shadow below the logo, saying "...and the logo should be removed just by the simple fact that the shadow at the bottom". My question, whether you consider it polite or not, was a serious matter because you directly overlooked my concern about the quality of the image, and kept going on about the shadow below, like that was my issue when it wasn't at all. I furthur explained that to you when I contacted you on your talk page, telling you that you were nitpicking about a minute detail and the expense of the image's quality. Fry1989 23:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A poor explanation of incivility which was started by yourself. Likely made up because you were called out on it. musimax. (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the insinuations, I believe you have. In your first summary, you said that I have kept reverting the image that you' uploaded, which can easily be read to suggest you're the original uploader. Then in the question asking if you have contacted the user you are in dispute with an an attempt to resolve the matter, you said you did, but that's far from true. What really happened was that I contacted you first, and asked you to stop edit warring on my upload with an inferior quality image. You then gave me one nasty reply saying why you think your version is better and why I should just accept it, and when I didn't, you came here. One nasty reply does NOT make a valid attempt at dispute resolution with a user you are in disagreement with. Fry1989 23:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my wording, I did not insinuate anything. It is not my fault if people read into something different from what I originally said. I made my points clear. And if I did insinuate anything, it would have been pointless because others can just go back to see that I didn't contact you first or upload the first image. musimax. (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the original posting by the user in question, all the points are moot simply by the fact that the image I uploaded in better quality and the correct one. What else can I say other than what I've already said? The correct logo does not have a shadow at the bottom, the correct logo has the same gradients and shadowing inside the logo itself as mine does, the logo I uploaded has a transparent background. It is up to another impartial user(s) to decide as the user in question can not or does not want to see the truth and accept facts.musimax. (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

But it's NOT better quality! Just because it has transparency for the negative space (something I prefer myself anyways), and that you grabbed it from a different source than me (you their website, me their press release), doesn't make it better! If you put them side-by-side, your upload is of a lesser quality, many of the gradients are faded, and that's what I've said from the beginning. You could have worked this out with me very easily, but instead you kept edit warring on my upload, telling me you're better without looking at the validity of my concerns, and then coming here after one measly contact on my page which was little more than a continuation of your posturing on why mine is bad and yours is better, and then ask a good user to be blocked just cause you disagree (nitpick) about an extremely minute detail like the shadow below the logo itself. You started this, you exacerbated it, and now you're completely over-reacting. You continue to use insulting language like "the user does not want to see the truth and accept facts", you continue to overlook any concern I raise just because you think you have it better and it's your way or no way, which has been your attitude from the beginning.

To those who are viewing this: It would be a shame to block me because of Musimax's arrogance. I've been very clear why I don't like his crop and why I reverted it. I've attempted to be calm and concise in my concerns, and in my attempts to get Musimax to stop edit warring, and all I get in response is accusations of vandalism, and unhelpful comments such as "the user in question can not or does not want to see the truth and accept facts" Fry1989 23:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected for a week. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 is under a 1 revert per week restriction, and so he should not have broken the conditions of his unblock. Neither party should have been uncivil. I have listened to the complaints of both sides and uploaded a new version File:OUTtv 2012 logo.png that should satisfy both parties. The old file and all its versions can now been deleted as an unused non-free file. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked that was for articles, not my own personal contributions to this project. Now should I have came here and reported Musimax after he broke 3RR on the file? Yes. But let's not over-react here and block someone for a simple mistake such as that, or mis-interpret edit restrictions because we have a past history of disagreements with a user, DrKiernan. Also, you should know better than to upload a separate version, all that will cause is moving the dispute from an edit war on the version of a single file to which file of two should be used on an article. Considering Musimax's absolute insistence that his version is better just because he's taken it from the website as opposed to the press release, completely overlooking any concerns another user has raised about it, how do you possibly think that having two separate files is a magical fix to this? Fry1989 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought it was helpful. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to this case being closed as resolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Fry objects. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't help. My question is a serious one: How does that solve the problem, rather than simply move it from a revision war on a single file, to a "which one should be used on the article?" battle? The answer is that it doesn't, nor does it answer my very pertinent concerns about the quality of the image. If I were to put my upload back on the article, do you really think Musimax would sit by? Ofcourse he wouldn't, he thinks he's right for the most silly reasons, and refuses to look at valid concerns instead choosing to use unhelpful language like "I refuse to see the 'truth'!". Fry1989 19:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic. What is wrong with the new file? DrKiernan (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, nothing. But I could just as easily ask the question, what was wrong with my file? There was nothing wrong with it, only the useless nitpicking of a bully who thinks that just because he got his version from one source as opposed to another (but both from OUTtv), that somehow makes his inherently superior. My entire problem was that his crop degraded the logo, which could easily be seen when put side-by-side. I don't appreciate nonsense like that, and that is why I'm still posting here. Fry1989 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is very plainly a conduct dispute. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is the file I uploaded lesser quality? Because the colour at the bottom of the logo is not as deep purple as Fry's? The shading is a little different? What is this user even complaining about? And this guy thinks I'm nitpicking? HAHA! The actual logo part of the image is almost exactly the same in both images, except the image I uploaded has the slightest and tiniest bit of lighter shading at the top and bottom. If that isn't nitpicking, I don't know what is. What Fry1989 seems to not understand is that the shading and supposed "lesser quality" is due to the fact that, that is how the logo is intended to be. It isn't lesser quality, it's the way the logo was designed. It's not a hard concept to understand. Every single place I've seen the new logo on the net, it has used my version of the logo, the one with the lighter shading and the absence of the shadow at the bottom. Plain and simply, this is the correct logo. It is even used on the channel's own website.musimax. (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the arrogance of Musimax's posturing (there's no such thing as a "correct logo", they're BOTH from OUTtv, they're BOTH correct), I really have nothing more to say. If you people aren't willing to deal with his bullying through his way, then go ahead and close this as "resolved". But don't count on my putting up with his repeated thinly-veiled attacks. Fry1989 21:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment can be perceived as patronizing, so I'm saying this ahead of time: I really don't mean it that way.

There is kind of an economy to a dispute, particularly conduct ones that end up at ANI or RfC/U or as far as ArbCom. You can think of this as a sort of internal "karma meter", and you lose a point for every ugly comment, regardless of the circumstances around it. Nobody really takes the energy to see who started an argument, and of course "he started it" has never been a good excuse anyway. Generally speaking, the kinder voice holds the cards in these kinds of disputes, even if they're totally wrong from a content perspective.

Here's the patronizing part, and I apologize: You're about even in score. If this dispute continues, the next logical step is a block. I won't be the one to do it, nor will I be the one keeping track so that I can tell admin to block. Any administrator looking over this dispute will say "well, protection didn't work, so what now?"

This could be solved here if someone took the high road. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

• Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The question is whether to include a passage describing a paper published by Boehmer-Christiansen (editor of the journal Energy and Environment): JournalScholar has repeatedly deleted a passage asserting that, as noted by Gavin Schmidt (a member of RealClimate), the paper claims that the sun is made of iron. That passage is supported by The Guardian (quote: "Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron"). JournalScholar's argument is that the source is wrong. If one digs into some of the sources used by The Guardian, I think it's clear the source is not wrong -- certainly not in conveying the perception that other scholars have about that paper's author.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• JournalScholar (talk · contribs)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)

It's worth noting, I think, that although JS first edited on Misplaced Pages several years ago he/she became active at a normal level only last month and seems unfamiliar with some core policies, including WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V. The edit history of the article shows at least one instance of editing beyond WP:3RR, and the article is now protected. JS has also now been warned under WP:ARBCC.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

extensive talk-page discussion

• How do you think we can help?

help editors to understand the relevance of core Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines, and help judge the use of the relevant sources

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen discussion

Amazing, he cannot even present my argument properly despite it being repeatedly stated to him.

1. The attribution of this line to Schmidt violates WP:V. While the Guardian article does include the line - Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron - it is not in quotes, so it cannot be verified that Schmidt characterized that the paper, claimed that the Sun is made of iron. This is an editorialization by the author of the Guardian article and the line is also a hyperlink that cites a blog. The author then includes a direct quote from Schmidt that does not include that characterization. It is very important when reading news articles to separate direct quotes from any author injected editorializations.

2. This line is not a NPOV representation of the paper (Manuel 2009) in question titled, Earth's Heat Source - The Sun - http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/v3600623g8txh577/ - The author's theory is not this disparaging characterization by the Guardian author. Dr. Manuel's theory proposes that hydrogen fusion creates some of the sun's heat, as hydrogen and can be found on the sun's surface. But most of the heat comes from the core of an exploded supernova that continues to generate energy within the iron-rich interior of the sun, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iron-02a.html - This is a vastly different context than the characterization in the Guardian. My NPOV edit was to remove the line, "that claimed that the Sun is made of iron" and have added the actual title of the paper. Nomoskedasticity has not even attempted to argue that his line is a NPOV representation of the paper or the author's theory and simply wants it included because the Guardian used the line and IMO to disparage the BLP.

Note, WP:3RR and WP:Consensus do not necessarily apply on a BLP.

Note, Regarding - "If one digs into some of the sources used by The Guardian, I think it's clear the source is not wrong -- certainly not in conveying the perception that other scholars have about that paper's author." - The "source" is a blog. --JournalScholar (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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. We need more volunteers; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details.

I would like to focus for a moment on this edit.

At issue is the statement "Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the sun is made of iron." specifically, the part that says "...claiming that the sun is made of iron". That statement was added here.

The source cited is The Guardian and the URL is .

So, does the cited source say that Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper claiming that the sun is made of iron.? Before I answer that, note that the article does not claim that the paper actually says that the sun is made of iron. What we are looking for is Gavin Schmidt's assertion. Here is a direct quote from the article:

"As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. 'The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and published it anyway,' he says."

JournalScholar, could you please explain, in detail, why you deleted the above with the edit comment "No such quote is found on source of Gavin stating any such thing"? Were you under the impression that we can't include a statement like "John Smith asserted that unicorns exist" if unicorns don't actually exist? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, I did not initially add this passage. It was added in February 2011 (diff). I got involved when someone deleted it as unsourced (I found a source for it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats really the specific problem with the desired edit - you shouldn't use an opinionated six word partisan summary from Gavin Schmidt to reflect a whole paper and then use that so brief partisan summary to reflect negatively on the subject of this BLP and the website that she is involved in.Youreallycan 18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see a really good case for removing the whole paragraph -- these "Third-party views" sections always make me question why those particular third-party views are given more weight than others, but I cannot agree that "the sun is made of iron" is a partisan description of a paper that contains the words "The Link of Earth’s Climate with the Iron Sun". See http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf section 2.6. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also see -- the "Press Reviews" section of Oliver K. Manuel's web site. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Three quick points: The 'third-party views' section was so-named by user JournalScholar. (diff) It struck me as an odd choice at the time. 2. This post on RealClimate, of which Gavin Schmidt is an active member, includes a direct link to Shanta Barley's piece in The Guardian (see 'update' at the bottom). It appears that Schmidt was aware of, and happy with, Barley's characterisation. 3. User JournalScholar nevertheless disapproves of the "disparaging" description provided by The Guardian, furnishing instead an article on Space Daily which, get this, says precisely the same thing! "Sun Is Made Of Iron, Not Hydrogen, Professor Says". If Oliver Manuel says the sun's most abundant element is iron (not hydrogen) then it's entirely fair to summarise his paper in the manner described by multiple sources. — ThePowerofX 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Each dispute resolution volunteer approaches a dispute is a slightly different way (and I will be happy to recuse myself if anyone had a serious problem with my methods). My approach is to focus in on one edit and get everyone to agree that it was or was not according to Misplaced Pages policies. Then I typically look for a problematic edit by someone on the other side of the dispute and repeat. Yes, I can easily show that Oliver K. Manuel says that the core of the sun is rigid and iron, but that is irrelevant to the question I asked. I want to focus on one thing: does the cited source say that Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper claiming that the sun is made of iron? If it does (hint: the answer is "yes"), why was it removed? Once I get everyone involved to understand Misplaced Pages policy on this, I will move on to the next issue. So please, stop piling on and give JournalScholar a chance to talk it over with me, OK? Our goal here is to resolve the dispute, not to "win". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is that odd? It is certainly not her views on these issues. The RC blog post says exactly, "The Guardian reports on the story". The link from Space Daily is not referring to the E&E paper. That was simply to show what his 'sun is composed mostly of iron theory' was in detail. The E&E paper is about the Sun's influence on the Earth's climate.--JournalScholar (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a completely inaccurate description of the paper. Your selection of words is cherry picked out of a section of the paper. The paper is, Earth's Heat Source-The Sun not Manuel's theory that the Sun is composed mostly of iron, that is a completely different paper. The paper The Guardian article is referring to is discussing the sun's influence on the Earth's climate. A NPOV would simply refer to the paper by it's title.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I already explained it. The Guardian's author wrote, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. It was not a quote from Schmidt. There is no way to verify that it can be attributed to what Schmidt actually said. The Guardian's author can easily be responsible for the characterization of the paper, that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. For example in the interview, Schmidt could have simply stated "look at this link" to go along with his quote and the Guardian author added in his characterization of the paper. It thus violates WP:V. Schmidt is very careful about what he actually says.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Very similar thing occured recently when a boxer's reputation was trashed by a reported adding commentary into a story that appeared to be the boxer's comments rather than the reporter's commentary. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/mall-source-explains-pacquiaos-ban-over-gay-comments.html

The Grove shopping mall's decision to ban Manny Pacquiao was based what on turned out to be erroneous information that the boxing legend had said gay men should die, according to a source in the Grove organization.

The writer of the original story also backed up Pacquiao's account. But some media outlets attributed the quote to the boxer.

This is a perfect example of how our Reliable Source policy *must be* read in full. Just because a publisher usually gets things right, doesn't mean they always get them right. Publisher, Author, Article, and context all matter. -- Avanu (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Alas, someone reading our Reliable Source policy in full would have -- rightly -- concluded that what turned out later to be erroneous information should be in Misplaced Pages, and anyone who challenged it would have had to come up with a reliable source that contradicts the (erroneous) reliable source that was cited. Then, when the retraction came out, that becomes a new reliable source that justifies taking the erroneous information out. We don't get to decide whether information is erroneous. We must report what the sources say. Once we do that, anyone challenging it must provide a source that establishes the error before reverting. That did not happen here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if someone challenges a source, it is up to us to verify it. We do not blindly accept that a source is 'reliable'. We are required by policy to show that it is. -- Avanu (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly true. Is anybody seriously claiming that the Los Angeles Times and the Guardian are not reliable sources? I mean other than "I don't like what they published so they must be unreliable". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone actually read the Reliable Sources policy? I mean really, I've explained this about 4 times now. A reliable source has 3 components. Publisher, Author, and Article. In addition, context matters. The LA Times and The Guardian are Publishers. That is only 1/3 of the test. Go back and read the reliable source policy. -- Avanu (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree on this point by Avanu.--JournalScholar (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Still that is not my argument. Which is it cannot be ruled out that is was the Guardian author who added, - that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. This specific argument is the attribution of that characterization to Schmidt.--JournalScholar (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I am quite familiar with WP:RS. It would be helpful if you were to stop quoting basic Misplaced Pages policy at me while implying that I somehow wrote something that contradicts policy. Also, I am trying to help the editors of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen to resolve a dispute. Perhaps you can pick a more appropriate venue to argue about interpreting Misplaced Pages policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

JournalScholar, You may think that you already explained it, but your explanation appears to be in conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong, and I hope that you are as well. Could you tell me the exact wording of the part of WP:V that you believe it violates? The Guardian meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for being a reliable source. It sounds like you are arguing that material that is in reliable sources must be verified elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that The Guardian is a reliable source shows that you don't have a firm grasp of the WP:RS policy, but as JournalScholar says, this isn't about that, it is about proper attribution of a phrase. First, verify who the phrase "claimed that the Sun is made of iron" should be attributed to. Other arguments aren't really relevant. And incidentally, a lot of the debate here has revolved around a misunderstanding of how policy applies to the addition of this material. -- Avanu (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable" - It is not verifiable that the characterization, claimed that the Sun is made of iron can be attributed to Schmidt since it is not in quotes. Thus it cannot be ruled out that it was inserted by the article's author. Thus attribution of this phrase cannot be verified to come from Schmidt.--JournalScholar (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why DRN is trying to resolve a reliable sources issue, when this issue hasn't come in front of WP:RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought it here because I didn't perceive it as a RS issue (that's Avanu's agenda). As for Avanu's attribution question: the phrase "that claimed that the Sun is made of Iron" should be attributed to Schmidt (per the Guardian article) -- as indeed it was.

JS believes that it needs to be in quotes to satisfy V -- but V simply doesn't require that. The heart of it seems to be JS's assertion that "it's a completely inaccurate description of the paper". (That's puzzling, in light of other things JS says here about Manuel's work -- but never mind.) As I said in my opening statement here, JS believes that the source (the Guardian) is wrong. But there's no difficulty whatsoever with V here. As several people have now seen, it is widely perceived that Manuel claims the sun is made of iron -- because Manuel does in fact write in his academic work that the sun is made of iron (something JS does seem to recognize). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My 'agenda' isn't anything but seeing that this guy gets a fair hearing of whatever his point is. Guy Macon has the idea that something is a reliable source without anyone having any possibility of scrutinizing it. That relates to its verifiability, and this seems to be the entire stupid debate here and the dispute that needs to be resolved. Now instead of debating the WP:RS policy, can we actually focus on whatever the freaking point actually is, instead of people getting off track? -- Avanu (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting WP:RS is not something that DRN can or should address, but WP:RS says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It clearly says that if something has a reliable publication process OR an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject it is a reliable source. OR. Not AND. If you think about it, AND makes no sense at all. The New York Times publishes many articles every day with no byline, but we don't need to verify that the author is a RS, because the NYT editorial process has already vetted the article. Likewise, if a person who is a reliable source on a particular topic says something, he is a RS even if his words are published on a blog or some other unreliable source. (we do need to rule out the possibility that it is fake and he never said it or that it might have been edited). I invite Avanu to discuss this on the reliable sources noticeboard, but I will not discuss it any farther here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness that you've agreed that this isn't the place for side discussions on a policy that you need to further understand. -- Avanu (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is very interesting because I tried to do this to provide a NPOV by using the same blog source The Guardian used to quote Boehmer-Christiansen, "Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint." - Boehmer-Christiansen, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html - but it was reverted. This is a very important distinction as peer-reviewed papers carry legitimate scientific weight as opposed to opinion pieces. It also completely changes the context of the charge as she did not disregard reviewers to publish a paper as having the legitimacy of passing peer-review. This goes to her credibility as an editor of a journal for upholding those standards. Opinion pieces have no scientific weight. A reader of this page should know the whole truth for a NPOV, especially considering this is a BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, can it be ruled out that the author of the Guardian article did not add in the characterization, that claimed that the Sun is made of Iron? It is unknown from The Guardian source how he characterized it because he is not quoted on this issue. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anything relating to "Dr. Manuel claiming the sun is mostly composed of iron" is not a NPOV representation of his paper titled, Earth's Heat Source - The Sun that is discussing climate change on Earth. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When you look at the diff that Nomoskedasticity references as the disputed one here, and then look at the source:

As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and published it anyway," he says.

The phrasing is just poor in the diff. This could have been resolved easily by rewording it.

FROM: Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the sun is made of iron.

TO: The Guardian reported that a formal paper claimed that the Sun is made of iron, which Gavin Schmidt says was published in Energy & Environment by Boehmer-Christiansen, against the recommendations of a reviewer.

End of dispute and still conveys the same information. This also relates to what I said from WP:RS. Context matters. You might have a perfectly reliable source for one purpose, but not ALL. -- Avanu (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not an improvement -- rather the opposite. There's no need to attribute to Schmidt the claim that the paper was published in E&E. What needs attribution is his characterization of it (that it claims that the sun is made of iron).

Again, the obstacle for JS is the notion that V requires a direct quote. It just doesn't -- all the more because there's no dispute about the nature of Manuel's work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Without a direct quote, you can't tell whether it is The Guardian interpreting the wording of Schmidt, making its own assessment of the paper, or the actual words of Schmidt. We can assume by logic that it isn't a direct quote of Schmidt because The Guardian probably would have just included that quote.

TO: The Guardian reported that a formal paper in Energy & Environment claimed that the Sun is made of iron, which Gavin Schmidt says was published by Boehmer-Christiansen, against the recommendations of a reviewer.

Ok, reworded again... now The Guardian is reporting it as being published by E&E, not Schmidt. Easy. Done yet? -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear the Guardian is attributing the characterization to Schmidt; if those aren't his exact words, then whatever they were they were close enough to warrant the characterization. I can live with attributing it to the Guardian, however. But in that case, we don't need any attribution to Schmidt at all. Boehmer-Christiansen is the journal editor; it can't be a matter of dispute that she decided to publish it, so we don't need to say that Schmidt asserted she did.

In which case: The Guardian reported that a paper claiming that the Sun is made of iron was published by Boehmer-Christiansen in Energy & Environment, against the recommendations of a reviewer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I, like Guy Macon, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I disagree that any of the formulations which has the Guardian saying anything about Manuel's paper is proper. The only thing being asserted by the Guardian, and the only thing that the Guardian's fact-checkers would have checked, is that Schmidt said something. That is clearly indicated by both the context in which the paragraph in question appears in the Guardian article and the terms, "Schmidt points to ... he says." The Guardian article, at least not the paragraph in question (I express no opinion about the rest of that article), is not a reliable source for any direct assertion about Boehmer-Christiansen or the journal she edits but, instead, only about what Schmidt said about them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, as I hope my post immediately above makes clear (despite saying I could live with Avanu's suggested direction). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above 100%. The article should report what Gavin Schmidt asserted. It should not put Gavin Schmidt's assertion in the Gaurdian's voice. On the other hand, the assertion should not have been deleted, as it was in the specific edit I have been trying to discuss. --Guy Macon (talk)

Saying "The Guardian reported" does not put something into The Guardian's voice. The Guardian didn't put an exact quote on that portion that is in contention, so its not completely right to attribute that to Gavin Schmidt, however, since they did, in fact, report it, it is perfectly fine to say that very thing. -- Avanu (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, what would you think about the following: The Guardian reported that Gavin Schmidt noted that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper -- against the recommendation of a reviewer -- that claimed the Sun is made of iron. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of saying The Guardian said anything, say "Shanta Barley reporting for the Guardian said," but Avanu's suggestions, "The Guardian reported" would work. I also suggest removing the word "formal". I am glad that Avanu actually understands my argument which I falsely assumed was blatantly obvious. No one has been able to answer my question, can it be ruled out that the author Shanta Barley did not add in this characterization? - claimed that the Sun is made of iron. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Closure

Looking at this page and at User talk:JournalScholar, I have come to the conclusion that this is not the right place for this to be resolved. In my opinion, the issues with JournalScholar's behavior should be taken to WP:RFC/U and Avanu's disagreement about the proper interpretation of WP:RS should be taken to WP:RSN. (Note: I am not implying that Avanu is wrong, just that DRN is not the place for debates about policy.) If, after those issues are resolved and the page comes out of full protection, another attempt should be made to resolve any remaining disagreements about content on the article talk page, and a new case can be opened here at DRN if you are unable to resolve them on the article talk page.

Does anyone have any objections to this proposed plan of action? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - I do - a RFC user for such a new user without any need or reason for a one month investigation - its a content dispute - it you feel unable to resolve it then allow another user to jump in - Full protection should remain and be extended until there is resolution via discussion. - Youreallycan 20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I object also, because I'm not arguing whether this article from The Guardian is a reliable source. It seems clear that it is reliable for what it says. However, the assertion that the source speaks with Schmidt's voice on "the sun is made of iron" is in contention. It doesn't say it as if it is paraphrasing, nor is it in quotes, so the only fair statement we can make is that the Guardian reported it. Not sure how this is debatable, but I suppose anything is. I agree with Youreallycan that this is a content dispute, specifically the 'interpretation' of a source, not whether it is reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent, To Catch a Predator

• Age of consent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• To Catch a Predator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Flyer22 believes that I am incompetent in editing the age of consent/age of majority articles and should possibly be topic banned, although she hesitated later on and said she may not try topic ban me

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• RJR3333 (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet. I am not allowed to post on Flyer22's talk page so I cannot.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Age of consent, To Catch a Predator}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, I have tried talking to various editors about it and they have all ignored me. I have tried talking to Flyer22 about it and she has accused me of stalking her. I have improved my editing in terms of it all being sourced except for very well known facts, which was her previous main criticism, but she has other criticisms, such as the belief that the vast majority of my edits are sloppy. She also has suggested that I'm biased.

• How do you think we can help?

By determining whether or not my edits in the articles related to age of consent and age of majority, are bad enough to warrant a topic ban in that sector. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RJR3333 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent, To Catch a Predator discussion

A simple question. What are you asking us to do? If someone believes that you should be topic banned from a subject (if this is indeed the case - you have provided no evidence), so what? We can't prevent people believing things, self-evidently. Flyer22 is in no position to unilaterally topic ban you anyway - he/she isn't even an admin - and topic bans are brought about under specific processes, rather than at the whim of individuals: see Misplaced Pages:Topic ban#Decision to ban. Unless and until a topic ban is proposed, there is nothing to decide, and no dispute to resolve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See the Age of consent discussion at the To Catch a Predator talk page, then here (which shows one of several instances where RJR3333 has repeatedly violated WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK), then here and here (for how RJR3333 is constantly and inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages, while also misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I or others have stated; for example, there was no "later hesitation"; I initially stated that I was very close to requesting a topic ban on him, but also used the words "whether or not I request a topic ban," which of course indicates uncertainty of doing so). The editor has inappropriately discussed me on so many different pages now over the last few days, obviously including this one, that I am tempted to call this harassment. What he has considered harassment in terms of my interaction with him has been me correcting his edits and advising him to defer to Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, such as WP:LEAD, WP:TALK, and WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus regarding the lead of the To Catch a Predator article, as stated in the Reasons not to archive ALL of this talk page discussion (where RJR3333 absurdly asserted that I acted inappropriately by archiving old and settled discussions), has been that there is no false impression given by using "age of consent" or including the show's age range without any qualifiers, as recently as Zadignose's comment on the matter. RJR3333 didn't listen to him either, and Zadignose obviously considers RJR3333 just as hard-headed and disruptive as I do. RJR3333 had a compromise that made explicitly clear that we are speaking of the age ranges for the show only, when the wording was "on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15," but he threw that away to stubbornly add his desired wording. I am not sure what to do about this editor, but he doesn't grasp policies and guidelines as well as he should and keeps beating a dead horse regarding this To Catch a Predator debate. There isn't even a debate anymore; it was settled last year -- that no elaboration of any kind is needed for the age range in the lead -- and there have been editors who have come across RJR3333's editorial comment/note in the lead this year and have removed it (again, refer to Zadignose's post). Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing that RJR3333 be topic banned from these or any other articles? If you are, this isn't an appropriate place to do it, and if you aren't there is no dispute to be dealt with here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I started the thread, not her. My suggestion is that it be decided whether or not to topic ban me here. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. WP:Editor review is what you need. Or ask to be adopted. Good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, AndyTheGrump. Per above, I stated that I was close to proposing a topic ban on him. As a long term-editor who understands Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, I know the appropriate place to request one. And, Itsmejudith, referring him to WP:Editor review is not a good idea, considering that he is just going to misrepresent my criticism of his edits in a grand-rant fashion...as he has done across various talk pages now. I am tired of having to weigh in on these matters just to correct his spin on what has transpired between us. I've suggested that he get a mentor or ask to be adopted. He did, and no one has taken the time to mentor him properly. Even if they did, like I stated, he never seems to grasp Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

While we are on the subject Flyer22, why don't you just propose an article ban on me instead of a topic ban. Because the only areas I have been disruptive, for the most part, are the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles. In the regular age of consent and age of majority articles I have been pretty ok as far as avoiding conflict. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to you: In addition to other things, what you state on your talk page about Legitimus being an administrator and having ignored me when I spoke of you is false. He's not an administrator, although he should be, and he commented on the Talk:Chris Hansen#"Age of consent." debate when I asked him to. Not to mention, people do discuss Misplaced Pages matters off Misplaced Pages. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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