Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 47
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Saint Seiya
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | The character names are to represent multiple writing formats, techniques should be reasonable, discussion (and responses) should proceed radical changes. So entered. Hasteur (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I (Ryulong) have attempted to modify the pages to be in line with the current style guides (MOS:ANIME, MOS:JP) as well as remove material that does not fit in with Wikipedia's current policies (WP:OR, WP:OWN). However, Onikiri (talk · contribs) (who also edits while logged out as 186.32.118.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) refuses to accept any of the proposed changes, which includes removing literal translations of character names (the WP:OR issue) and adding the Japanese phonetic readings for character names that in no way match the usual readings of the Japanese writing systems provided (e.g., kanji normally read as "Tenmaza" are intended to be read as "Pegasasu", and I have added the katakana that are read as the latter). Onikiri basically refuses to discuss the changes I've proposed and has explicitly stated that he will revert things he disagrees with because he is the only one working on the pages. Consensus, while small, is against him in the discussion he started and it does not appear that he will be construcively working towards a conclusion at all; several "minor edits" of his have been reverts of my content. I do not know how to continue working with him at this rate because he is dismissive of everything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? How do you think we can help? I believe a wider audience will help keep the conversation from going in a vicious cycle, and hopefully reach Onikiri where my dozen messages to him over the past 24 hours could not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by OnikiriPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I have answered his messages. He sends like 20 messages to say the same thing. He insists in adding the katakana readings for character names that are already in kanji. The addition of katakana readings is redundant, superfluous and also clutters the text making it difficult to read. Some time ago, the katakana readings were included, but were removed by general consensus among the users, as I said, they were redundant, and removing it helped trim the size of the article. As I have told him, any change that actually contributes to the improvement of the articles, is very much welcome, but redundant text only helps to make the articles harder to read and to increase its size. About a year ago or maybe a little more, I undertook the task of trimming down the lists sizes, a task that needed the removal of superfluous text and the creation of separate lists to better organize the characters and make the lists much easier to read and smaller in bytes. The users back then agreed with the changes to the lists, and no major changes have been necessary since then. This user Ryulong only seeks to force in the lists what he thinks is necessary, but it is only superfluous text that only contribute to make the articles harder to read, it is superfluous because the info is already there in kanji, and additionally, the kanji forms are the most widely used forms of the names, in merchandise, in the comics, media, etc. Katakana forms are mostly an aid for children, for those not familiar with the western readings of the constellations and such, etc. He insists in adding superfluous elements, and that is the reason of the constant reverting and editing. As I tell him, any useful addition is very much welcome, but superfluous text is far from being useful. Onikiri (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Saint Seiya discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I'd just like to apologize to Hasteur and SGCM for the turn of events here. I believe we have made your jobs a little more difficult with this more public bickering.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC) So, what's the resolution then, I still think the katakana is superfluous and must be removed and only kept where necesaary. Onikiri (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like both of you are now talking together and working to a consensus. Any objections to closing? Hasteur (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Dissociative identity disorder
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Tylas has decided to withdraw from the article. WP:MEDRS and associated policies will prevail on the page Hasteur (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Since early 2012 the DID has been edited and revised extensively. As part of this revision, extensive, essentially unreasonably long discussions have occurred on the talk page. The discussions have become repetitive and nobody is changing their minds based on them. Tylas, who has self-disclosed a diagnosis of DID, has repeatedly stated her belief that the traumagenic position regarding DID is the majority position, and that discussion of the other position be, at best, relegated to a single “Controversy” section or even a single paragraph. Myself and Mathew have repeatedly stated that this is inappropriate, and that dissenting opinions published in reliable sources (of which there are many) should be documented and discussed throughout the article per WP:STRUCTURE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? There are extensive and repetitive discussions on the current DID talk page and in the archives, numbering dozens of sections and thousands of characters illustrating an effort to address this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) How do you think we can help? An appropriate outcome in line with the WP:P&G would be one in which Tylas understands how a valid, source-based POV dispute is handled on Wikipedia. I do not want or expect Tylas to change her personal opinions about DID, but I would like to see the tendentious repetition that the traumagenic position is the dominant, mainstream position to stop. Essentially I would like the input of the larger community on the question of whether there are enough recent, reliable sources discussing the controversy over DID such that it should be a substantial portion of the page rather than relegating it to a single section or paragraph. Though Tylas now rarely edits the dissociative identity disorder page, the posting on talk pages is exhausting, lengthy and pointless. Neither side has convinced the other that their position is valid, it's just more repetition of the same thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by WLUBecause the bot or auto-fill page didn't seem to be working, I had to fill all the sections in by hand - User:WLU This may not be the appropriate venue, so please refer if that is the case. The DID article is not currently very active, but any effort to edit will be met with the lengthy, repetitive talk page postings that I would like to see stopped. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by TylasI cannot battle people like WLU and Mathew alone. I think my time will be best served in places other than WP. Those 2 will just keep hounding me until I go. It's not worth the time and heartbreak to do this. Even if they leave, without proper guidelines in place to protect against the fringe organizations like the FMS, another editor with their fringe POV will always crop up to take their place. It's a shame that when someone knows a subject as well as I know DID, or Tom Cloyd did, we are ran off so that, at least in the case of the DID page, people that support the False Memory Society can push their agenda. http://www.fmsfonline.org/about.htmlWho runs the FMS Foundation? The Executive Director, Pamela Freyd, oversees the Foundation's programs and the fiscal and day-to-day operations of the Foundation. Just so you all understand a bit better, P. Freyds daughter is the editor of the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation that WLU and Matthew attack. It is her parents that set up the FMS to defend child abusers as well as parents that were falsely accused. The problem is they are quite fanatical about it, as are many of their supporters. It kills me to give up and let them continue to take over the DID page on WP, but I just cannot fight the fight here when they have so many people backing them up and know how to use the rules so well to work in their favor. Case closed. WLU and Mathew have won. Opening comments by MathewTownsendAgree with WLU's comments. If talk page guidelines are followed, it would reduce the massive and repetitious posts. The article should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. One organization with a specific POV shouldn't be declared the "experts" in the field and their sole guidelines referenced repeatedly as fact and used to refute material in peer reviewed journal review articles. Dissociative identity disorder discussion
|
Steeler Nation#Criticism
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Obviously DRN process failed to help here – the parties hold their positions and are unwilling to step towards consensus or listen to others. Feel free to start WP:RFC or file a WP:MEDCOM request. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Main point is the derogatory nature of "white trash" and "hillbillies", and with this offensive material the relevance (necessary to understanding an NFL fanbase?), notability of the source (a free weekly located more than 1,000 miles from the region), and its many factual inaccuracies given the Federally defined region and league defined team territories. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Multiple discussion on the talk page, with links to wiki definitions of the terms. How do you think we can help? Allow the article to revert to its encyclopedic nature (sans the Phoenix New Times quotes and conclusions) by removing false, irrelevant (to a sports fanbase) and not notably sourced offensive material. Opening comments by Bdb484Hi, everyone. If you've already read through the entire talk page arguments, forgive the following quick recap. I added material about four years ago to balance out the page, which until then had been a pretty crazy mess of uncited, pro-Steeler drivel, which is about normal for a lot of these types of pages. I made a quick run-through to add new material for balance -- including the paragraph in question now -- and remove uncited material that sounded sketchy. This of course bothered a small number of editors, who had gotten the impression that anything negative about the team did not belong on the page, and who felt that the wording of my edits was over the top or otherwise posed POV problems. Objections included that the material was offensive, false, negative, and improperly sourced. Given those complaints, we reviewed the relevant policies and collaborated on a series of drafts until all those questions were addressed. After a couple of days, we found consensus, and the material has largely been stable since then, with the exception of the occasional vandal. This brings us to today. Over the last week, Marketdiamond has resurrected the previously settled questions. I believe they have all been thoroughly addressed, but I'm
Opening comments by blackngold29As Bdb484 stated above I have not edited for a while, nor have I been involved in any of the previous discussion on these particular edits. I therefore will decline to comment. Thank you. --blackngold29 04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by GrapedApeIn my opinion, WP:V allows the obnoxious criticisms of the team's fans, as they are cited to a reliable source. The problem was in the WP:NPOV way it had been written, which was as if the criticisms were "truth," not "criticisms made by X." So, I fixed it with these edits which clarified who made the insults, and the the context of those comments. In my opinion, that's the way to go, and everyone can just chillax.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by 76.189.108.102OK, here's my trimmed-down version. ;) I didn't find this dispute until after I made edits to the article, so I thought I should add my name here. I am not a fan or foe of the Steelers, but I had some immediate concerns when I read the contentious content. Examiner.com cannot be used as a source per WP:PUS, which says its "content is by amateur writers and lacks editorial oversight." I removed the Examiner cites. Although content can't be censored, it does need to be worthy of inclusion and meet other basic guidelines - reliably sourced, written accurately, in context, etc. A lot of this contentious conent failed on one or more of these. WP:SYN and WP:NPOV were violated by (inaccurately) combining two lines from different sources, falsely implying that visiting fans frequently complain about Steelers fans. USA Today doesn't even mention the Steelers. SI.com cite doesn't support claims made in article; pure POV. The 1994 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article has no link, so no way to verify it supports the content. Most of the very derogatory language comes from the Phoenix New Times (PNT) story. The entire PNT article is undisputably from a rival source - based in the city of the Steelers Super Bowl opponent - and published just prior to the game. It's obviously a one-sided hit piece intended to entertain and incite Phoenix fans. Legitimate criticism in an article is of course fine, but the PNT story is purely tabloid journalism. Before I knew about this dispute, I rewrote the content a bit. I left in the PNT content but put it into context. Afterwards, I realized that it should just be removed because it fails reliability guidelines on multiple levels. By the way, an editor described all the PNT derogatory content as a "warning" to fans, which is total POV. Overall, the editors who inserted or support this contentious content seem to want to give the impression that Steeler Nation is widely disliked across the country. But the sourced material simply doesn't support it. It's a deep reach that's anchored by very weak sourcing, especially the PNT article which majorly fails the reliability test. I read that the editor who originally added the contentious content did so because they said the article had no criticisms of Steeler Nation, and so they figured they should find some to "balance" the article. The PNT article is what was found and used to feature the criticism. Anyone can easily finding trash-talking sources for any professional sports team. But the issue is about the reliability and credibility of the sources. Every team has rivals. Therefore, every team's fans obviously have other fans who don't like them. If there's going to be content that's negative about Steeler Nation, that's fine if it's encylopedic, reliably sourced and accurately presented in the article. All POV, original content, interpretations, and out-of-context language need to be left out. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Steeler Nation#Criticism discussionI'm not very familiar with american sports affairs, so may I ask, whether the information in the section is factually wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, appreciate the discussion on this. The bottom line for me is that the use of the derogatory, offensive and slurs w.t. and h.b. is not necessary to understanding a National Football League fanbase, is very bad encyclopedic policy to insert the Phoenix New Times racial stereotypes to something as broad as an NFL fanbase and because of those things is a clear and bright violation of WP:GFFENSE. Czarkoff, I am currently working on a very simplified map of the actual "factually wrong" items in the PNT article, to be as fair as I can the wiki article has been edited down since this request to delink the Appalachia = fanbase, w.t. & h.b. The factually wrong items of PNT is that it seems to draw weak conclusions based on a few irrelevant and separate "facts" mixing and matching stadium locations with "fanbases" (league defined territory and I'm assuming broadcast stations) along with the mixing and matching that Appalachia (which it is true Pittsburgh is in) completely equals the w.t. definition of among other things poor whites, names house slaves used to refer to whites (aside from the fact that Pennsylvania was a non-slave state since independence) and the h.b. phrase which is typically southern (Alabama) and even Ozarks (an area completely outside Appalachia). The w.t. and h.b. definitions are available on their wiki pages of which Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic Region, North (region) and Pittsburgh are never mentioned, the NFL territories and league defined "fanbases" I can also submit to this discussion. To the very limited extent the PNT article is factually accurate it seems to be similar to a Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, a few accurate but irrelevant statements cobbled together to incite and provoke (in the PNT's purpose a biased fanbase 2,000 miles away). The PNTs use of WP:GFFENSE and insertion of race and other biases only further substantiates that they are low on generally accepted facts. Thanks for the consideration. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's all restrain from advancing points until a new volunteer is assigned. Also 76.189.97.91
It's almost unbelievable how much time has been wasted here on issues that aren't even relevant. It's useless to debate whether the source is reliable or if the content is true. Regarding truth, some editors really need to understand that it's about verifiability, not truth; they need to educate themselves on WP:VNT. Other editors need to understand that even if content is reliably sourced, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in an article. They need to educate themselves on WP:WEIGHT, which says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Only one determination needs to be made here: Is the content worthy of inclusion? Period. So, are all the indisputably biased and derogatory descriptions used by a newspaper writer in the hometown of the Steelers' Super Bowl opponent worthy of inclusion? Answer that question and close this discussion. IMO, the content under debate here is clearly not worthy of inclusion, which renders all the other issues in this discussion moot. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
DraftsObviously, the article needs to mention critical reception of the subject to address the balance issue. As long as this discussion became stale, I ask parties to propose drafts of the "criticism" section for the article. Probably this will help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Draft by Bdb484As there have been no developments since consensus was reached three years ago, I would recommend restoring the version that editors agreed to then. This would require including unflattering depictions of Steelers fans, but that's how reliable sources have depicted them. Leaving this out seems like an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE.
Draft by blackngold29Draft by GrapedApeDraft by Marketdiamond7th time (on the 13th day) I have repeatedly mentioned only the (all for consensus but these positions should be clear by now):
Draft by 76.189.108.102
To be fair, we are patiently waiting for volunteer(s?) to assess some of these points after one stated our comments are going "stale", and all about slurs in a "source". Perhaps your expertise Kerfuffler can be used to further the resolution. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
|
![[4]](http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/nfl%20radio%20networks.gif){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Appalachian_region_of_United_States.gif){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Appalachia_Williams.png){kind=link}
Talk:Crimean Karaites
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct Complaint, not Content issue. User has been informed multiple times that refactoring others talk page statements is a really bad idea, Administrators are entrusted with powers because the community doesn't see problems with their editing, and that consensus is the agreement between multiple editors. Editors still holding a grudge are invited to drop the WP:STICK and move on from this percieved slight. Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I myself have tried to re-factor talk pages to improve flow. Perhaps my own re-factoring was naive, but at least I never deleted another person's comments. I would like to let those involved in and approving the re-factoring of the Talk Crimean Karaims talk page to understand that it is subjugative to delete or move my comments without my approval, and that it is deceptive to refactor my comments as Toddy1 did [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=512077557&oldid=512076891] then [23] tries to make it look like I am the one who is moving other peoples comments without approval when I undo such edits. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I was concerned that this was vandalism so I asked for help here, but it seems Toddy1 has the support to do whatever he likes to my comments and I have no way to complain about it. I took this to the Wiki Admin Noticeboard [24] but was told that it is not vandalism but simply re-factoring and basically it seems I was told to stop complaining. It does not seem right that I have no recourse to stop this. How do you think we can help? If really Toddy1 is entitled to do what he is doing to my comments while I have obeyed instruction not to do it again I want to know why. I also think a policy needs to be written concerning not letting someone accuse a user like me of doing something which in fact has been fabricated by the other users. It stacks the deck and makes Wikipedia look like a place where if you are not in a guild you are on your own and will be bullied out of it. Policy needs to be written to stop this. Opening comments by Toddy1Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by NozdrefPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by BeeblebroxPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Dennis BrownPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Crimean Karaites discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I say this will all respect to all the editors involved in the page, but stop refactoring each other's talk page statements. The recent history of the page is a disaster. I'd like to see the page's sections (From the "Ad-Hominem Talk" onward) fixed so the Table of Contents jumps to the right section. I'm going to recomend that the talk page be restored to some sort of working order before we move forward with this. Also, has there been consideration of starting Archiving on the page? Do we really need threads from 2004? HasteurMobile (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Yitzhak Kaduri
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | There seems to be consensus on the talk page, and in any case the only policy-based recommendation DRN can provide case is to remove challenged statement in the lack of proper reference. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A rabbi wrote a note to be opened after his death. The note suggested, by acronym, the name "Yehoshua", and there are acceptable WP:RSs for this. One editor Botsystem (talk · contribs) has been adding a sentence like "This is also the Hebrew name of Jesus whom followers of Christianity and Messianic Judaism believe to be the Jewish Messiah." without a source. Myself and one other editor Cpsoper (talk · contribs) agree this edit fails WP:V (unsourced) and, even if it were well-sourced, WP:SYNTH. We have tried to engage Botsystem in discussion on this but so far he has not engaged at all. Discussion open here, invitations to discuss at User_talk:Botsystem, but no engagement as of yet. I am concerned because Botsystem has not yet edited the Talk page of this article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? open discussion on article talk page, invitations to talk in edit summaries and at User Talk:Botsystem (please see edit history, he has removed the invitations) How do you think we can help? Get Botsystem to address the Wikipedia policy-based concerns regarding the edit. Opening comments by CpsoperPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by BotsystemPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Yitzhak Kaduri discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I am Amadscientist. I am a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before we begin we await the opening statements of all parties involved. Before that happens I am requesting the filing editor, go over their opening remarks and remove all mention of outside parties not associated with the DR/N or add them to the "Users involved" section. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Nobody came here to comment, and the editors are not very active on Wikipedia currently anyway. As soon as this dispute has a pretty straightforward policy based solution – remove the statement and re-introduce it once it can be reliably verified without improper synthesis – I close this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Oren Wilkes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | There was no discussion on the article's talk page, and two messages on user talk page (with one of them being a warning template) don't qualify for thorough discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hi, I have been trying to resolve the issues with the article for the past few months. I've provided more than enough credible sources. The last vote about the article had more keeps then delete. Need help getting the issue fixed and have not been able to do so. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried editing the article but have not gotten any feedback, put together list of over 9 credible sources How do you think we can help? Remove the issue tags on the page. There are more than enough credible sources. Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Oren Wilkes discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Christian right
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)) |
| Closed discussion | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Later added:
Dispute overview The content dispute is happening on the Christian right talk page. The issue is that plainly stating a strong association between the Christian right and the Republican Party, which is well-known and accepted by scholars and the media (and shown in the article), is opposed by some editors. The connection is so established that it can actually be difficult to find sources that plainly say there's a link, although there are a great many that study it. For example, a book called " God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right." Two proposed changes on this ran into opposition because other editors dispute the CR link to the GOP. The first proposal, to add it to the lead, has been done on the basis of the article, which talks a lot about the CR and GOP. The second proposal has been undone, though. That was to change a list called "Parties of the CR" to "Parties associated with the CR" (since there are some Christian parties outside the U.S.) and then add the Republican Party. I did that and added some poll results on white evangelicals Protestants and the GOP. The poll itself links these religious voters to the GOP. I also added elsewhere in the article numbers from the poll on WEP who are Democrats, black Protestants who are mostly Democrats, and others. When adding the Republican Party to the list, however, a description actually isn't needed. It could be added to list alone, but the idea of adding it at all is opposed. User Collect wrote: "absurd silly season POV. The GOP also has atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, and so on. Your proposal is violative of every precept of the Five Pillars. Cheers." And while I understand that the Tea Party isn't a party, I also added it to the list under "Tea Party movement" because of a poll showing that much of its backing comes from conservative Christians. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posted extensively on the talk page, answering all arguments and adding several proposals. How do you think we can help? To focus on the content issues and how other WP guidelines apply here. Opening comments by StillStanding-247I would also point out that I've dug up a bunch of potential sources for us to cite, in addition to the ones we cite now, so it's not as if we've run out of options. The only problem is that there seems to be strong opposition to listing the Republican party regardless of these sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by CollectPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The issue is simple -- should the Republican Party be specifically categorised as a "Christian Right" organization. The secondary issue is whether the "Tea Party movement" should be specifically categorised as a "Christian Right" organisation. Alas for those who seek to so categorise the groups, the evidence is not there, although they keep adding irrrelevant cites for the claim they implicitly seek to make. In the past, it was decided by overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party movement was not "radical right wing" and that it is substantially libertarian in emphasis - which means ab initio that categorising it as "Christian Right" is unlikely to succeed. The Republican Party is described by those seeking to categorise it as "Christian Right" as consisting, according to the poll cited, of possibly 34% evangelical Christians, which is also insufficient to categorise the part as "Christian Right." That is the actual sum of the dispute, and until 34% is defined as the controlling group in a party, I doubt that those pushing this categorisation will be satisfied. Collect (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC) [28] is the latest version of the SYNTH claim being promoted - (white) evangelical Protestants ... "comprise about a third (34%) of all Republican or Republican-leaning voters. Which is insufficient to assert 1. That all of the 34% are "right wing" or should be categorised as "right wing" , or consider themselves as "Christian right" in the first place, and 2. that it is clear OR to then assert that this 34% (including "leaning" voters) runs the party. As this is the crux of the discussion and it is so clearly OR, SYNTH etc. this "dispute" clearly would require violating the Five Pillars to meet with what the "The Republican Party is a Christian Right party" as is being sought. Or even within a mile thereof. Collect (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC) And it is clear that if 1/3 are evangelical Christians (not necessarily even "right wing" then 2/3 is not in that category. I rather think 2/3 >> 1/3. Collect (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Toa Nidhiki05Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opinion sources are insufficient for statements of fact, and adding 'multiple polls' (none of which label the party as 'Christian right') does noting but add synthesis of sources to reach a conclusion none of them give. Further, the Republican Party is a big tent party which allows almost anyone from any religion or political ideology to join and run for a party nomination, so the label is inaccurate on the face of it. Toa Nidhiki05 22:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by The Four DeucesFirst, Still wanted to add the Republican Party to the list of Christian right (CR) parties in the article. When it was pointed out that all the other parties, all of which are minor parties, have clear Christian Right agendas, he suggested renaming the list to parties associated with the CR. While it is true that the CR is a major element within the Republican Party, the term "associated with" is vague and grouping the Republican Party with CR parties is misleading. I would point out that Still says he believes CR controls the Republican Party. But the sources he presents do not say that. The argument that the relationship is so obvious no one mentions it is disingenuous. There is certainly a lot of literature about the CR's political influence and if they had captured a major political party, someone would have mentioned it. I do not know why Collect has chosen to bring up an unrelated discussion. That discussion was not about whether or not the article on the radical right should call the Tea Party "radical right", but about whether or not we could mention scholarly opinion on whether it was in that tradition, based on a summary of the research in a scholarly paper.[29] Radical right is a term developed by Seymour Martin Lipset and adopted by scholars including Daniel Bell and others to refer to right-wing movements in the US, that typically combined libertarianism, anti-communism and conservatism, that operated outside the main two parties or challenged the party elites, and sometimes organized into third parties. So I see two sides - one trying to make the Republican Party and the Christian Right look bad and the other trying to make it look good, rather than just trying to make the article reflect what sources say. TFD (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by NaappleThe whole thing stinks of OR. Just because evangelicals are more likely to be in the Republican party doesn't mean the Republican Party is all evangelical. The Republican party doesn't discriminate against other members joining. No source provided by the opposition states otherwise. IMO this discussion need not even warrant an intervention by the DRN. It was discussed in the talk page, most persons are against it, and it was brought to this board way too quickly. Naapple (Talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening Comments by ArzelWhile it can probably be clearly stated that most that would consider themselves to be Christian Right would support the Republican party in national elections versus Democrats, the converse cannot be stated. Simply stated, All Sailboats have sails, but not all boats have sails and not all things with sails are boats. In general this appears to be an attempt to define the Republican party as a Christian Right party, which is clearly an attempt at Original Research within WP. Arzel (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by SphilbrickThis dispute is timely, as it relates to something on my to-do list, which is not exactly this issue, but is on-point. Humans have a penchant for categorizing. This is a valuable and necessary function (these types of plants are edible, these types are not), but can be, like many things, over-done. Making a binary pronouncement (you are either on the list or not), of a fundamentally analog concept can be useful, but can lead to problems. As encyclopedists, we must be especially careful of doing it ourselves. (and by careful, I mean we generally should not). This is the fodder of opinion creators and even of respected academics, but while they can do it, we must absolutely avoid OR| compartmentalization, and even as summarizers of reliable sources, we must take care not to over-summarize. The relationship of the Republican party to religion in general and to the Christian Right specifically, is a subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. But it is a nuanced relationship—one that take paragraphs, maybe even pages to articulate accurately, and cannot be summarized as an entry on a list. The original title of the list "Political parties of the Christian Right" was problematic because it isn't that simple. The revised proposal "Political parties associated with the Christian Right" solves one problem while creating a bigger one—it is a mealy-mouthed, monstrosity. Would we countenance "Politicians associated with terrorist organizations" and include anyone with any involvement? I certainly hope we would bury that quickly. My To-Do item relates to the use of entries in infoboxes, but it is the same problem—many things cannot be summarized in a single word, or even a short phrase. We are good at summarizing complicated issues into a few, neutral paragraphs, but that doesn't make us able to summarize a complicated relationship down to a single word or phrase. By all means, it is appropriate to discuss the relationship between political parties and religion movements, over time, and across the globe, but let's not jump to the conclusion that we can summarize that nuanced treatment into membership on a list.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ViriiKCollect has already summed up everything when I was involved before. Another issue was why this was obviously brought up was the investment of a specific editor in order to attack one organization by being associated with the article in question. The basis for this was supposedly the source that he was promoting was based on a book which costs $75 and I asked for page numbers for his citation claims which was never given so I has to logically assume that he was basing his entire argument on a book's description rather than something within the book. Especially I don't appreciate the fact that he uses "we" trying to represent ALL editors while intentionally excluding editors who do not support his worldview. Now unfortunately due to real life commitment, I don't have the time nor the patience to play Wikipedia. ViriiK (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Little green rosettaI'm perhaps the least involved editor at this article with respect to this DRN, so I expect my role here minimal. My initial foray into this article (and subsequent watching) was due to a completely unsourced edit attempting to link the Christian Right to the GOP being added to the article. After this the TP degenerated into finding sources that backed one's position. Now that ISS247 has formally declined DRN, I suspect the majority of the disruption on the TP that lead to this DRN being filed in the first place will subside here. I wish everyone the best of luck. little green rosetta(talk) Talk:Christian right discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. We will wait for the other parties before opening for discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that's everyone now. I'll add all the names to the list. I also included one editor that just contributed a list of possible sources after someone asked them for one, but has also been having a dispute since then over including other information in the article. They may have an interest in this. Psalm84 (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Should I also create the sections for the other users to add their opening comments? Psalm84 (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Comment I was notified on my talk page by Psalm84 about this issue. Collect's opening statement accurately describes the dispute, and why the current consensus is against making a Christain Right/GOP connection. I won't speculate on Psalm84's rationale for wanting to establish this link, but in my view he is editing and discussing in good faith. Unfortuantely I cannot say the same about another editor in this discussion who IMO has been enganged in deliberate and sometimes tendentious POV editing across articles involving politics and social policy. Because of such, I fear this DRN is DOA. little green rosetta(talk)
Hello, another volunteer here. Will try to help out when I can.--SGCM (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts so far as someone who's only vaguely familiar with American politics: The Christian Right are one of the main constituencies of the Republican Party, but so are the neoconservatives, Republican libertarians, and Rockefeller Republicans, who do not affiliate with, and are often opposed to, the Christian Right. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are big tent parties, that appeal to a variety of constituencies, without focusing on a single one. The Democratic Party is equally as diverse, appealing to progressives, social democrats, Southern Democrats, the Christian left, etc. It seems to me that that the claim that the Christian Right is one of the main constituencies, among many, of the Republican party, is less controversial and a more prominent viewpoint in the reliable sources than the claim that the Republican Party is itself part of the Christian Right. The article should state just that.--SGCM (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sphilbreak's comment is informative, and could lead to a solution. Would the parties object to abandoning the list and substituting it entirely with prose? Text will better convey the nuances of the subject.--SGCM (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I've read over the comments made so far and I don't agree that prose should take the place of a list, or lists. An important part of this issue is that the Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point. Anyone familiar with American politics knows that it is an unquestioned basic fact. It is simply taken for granted where politics is concerned and it's not fair to people seeking information here to not reflect that. Here's an example from a source listed by Still of how the link is treated in the media, which constantly mentions it: "Republican Party and Religious Right Heading for a Split?" US News The article just assumes that most readers are already aware of the strong GOP and Christian right connection. And here is also one quote from one book which could also be added to the article: "One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition." (The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics) When you are talking about the goals of an encyclopedia, it's being informative and accurate in a clear way. If something is a plain fact it should be just as plain in the article too. That is why the association was added to the lead. It simply summarizes what the article says. On the list, there is some description that explains the association, and it could be improved if necessary. Some of it was there already and I added to it. And the quote above could also be added. This is a complicated topic and things have to be reported with care, but still some things are plain, and should be treated that way. The readers too should be trusted to understand the explanations, including on things like polls. If you explain the universally known association between the Christian right and GOP, that should be enough. Trying to remove mention of the link or make it less plain than it is doesn't help readers who come here for accurate information. And for the record, too, the Republican Party is already listed in a hidden box of wikilinks at the bottom of the page under "Political Parties." This page also has a lot of questionable material in it if you look at it closely that has gone unchallenged and uncorrected. One of the first things said is that the Christian right is 15% of the population and there's no reference for it. The first source several sentences later doesn't mention any statistics so it's clear that's unsourced. And there are other issues as well if you look at the article closely. So, just to point this out, the article really needs a lot of careful attention to all of it. Psalm84 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary breakPsalm84, your link seems to be broken. And this brings up a point that I would like to bring up as a reminder. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or journalistic board. We actually don't "Report", we summarize secondary, reliable sources. In this situation and subject matter, relying on "News sources" can be problematic. Dead links are just one reason. The other is...America is in the middle of one of it's most contentious elections in years and news sources can and will contain a good deal of political bias. Many sources have bias of course, but using the media right now for this creates an immediate tug of war. With all political parties from the beginning of Democratic and Republican forms of government, there have been and will continue to be, seperate factions fighting for indentity. You state: "[S]ome things are plain, and should be treated that way". I would contend that, the subject matter we are discussing falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". And that WP:MNA: "Making necessary assumptions" is not a good idea here. Also (and down a bit from that) WP:RNPOV states: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., "fundamentalism" and "mythology". Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.". This is indeed a truly complicated topic. But we can get through this by using the tools we have, being patient with one another and, remebering that we should not be so set with our opinion that we can't consider an option that all can live with. Yes, this means that some or all will not get exactly what they desire for the article. But we have to work together on this and we have a really good start. So, Psalm84, I would ask if you could demonstrate with reliable secondary, mainstream sources, that (A) Show "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". These are, I believe your main points of contention. A good starting point. But I also ask that you begin thinking about what compromise you feel would be acceptable if these points cannot be demonstrated in a manner all can agree with. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Psalm84 sourcesSources (for now) to show "[T]he universally known association between the Christian right and GOP". and (B) that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". I would also ask if there are any reliable sources that deny this association, or claim it's a minor point, that they be added to this discussion too.
I have a very good understanding of Google books. Thank you. The point is...the page is NOT included in the preview. As such, if all you have is a google preview that does not include the page you are referring to, it is up to you to provide the quotes from the source. It is not up to me to find it. If you don't have have it, then you shouldn't be using it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(3) The Right and the Righteous: The Christian Right Confronts the Republican Party, 1996, page 1.
"More recently, the Christian right has become politically active, successfully aiming for inclusion into the Republican Party in a now more competitive two-party system." (4) Party Movements in the United States And Canada: Strategies of Persistence, 2006, page 81.
The cecond entry is from page 81 of that source (looks like someone was Google-farming a bit), the salient elided introduction is:
Followed by a state-by-state listing of Larouche and the Democratic Party, etc. Ending with takeover is as much a tactic of movements on the left as on the right. Again - a source of no value to Psalm for the claims he desires to make. Collect (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Changes in the religious landscape have been critical in elevating social issues to the foregront of American politics. Prior to the 1970s, religiuos differences were mainly between Protestants and Catholics. These differences had political consequences, particularly outside the South, with Protestants aligned with the Republican Part, whereas Catholics and their Jewish allies identified with the Democrats. Increasingly, after 1970, conflict had taken place within religious groups, with battles over gay rights, abortion, and women's roles. Inevitably, these differences also had political consequences. Strategic elites in both parties found it advantageous to raise such issues, ensuring their prominence in the public agenda (Jelen 2000, Layman 2001; Jelen and Wilcox 2003; McTAgue and Layman, chapter 12, this volume). As Layman (2001) has argued, politicians and political parties saw new opportunities for these religious differences. Democrats aligned themselves with religious modernists in taking pro-choice positions on abortion and liberal stances on gay rights. In contrast, Republicans took the other side on both issues, joining religious traditionalists. The result was a "social issue evolution" (Adams 1997), similar to the racial evolution described by Carmines and Stimson (1990).
One result of these changes was the realignment of white evangelical Protestants into the Republican Party; such "values voters" now constitute an essential component of the GOP coalition. Meanwhile, mainline Protestants, the former bulwark of the Republican Party, moved to the center based, in part, on social issues, as did Roman Catholics, the old champions of the Democrats. The GOP's social issue stance had special appeal to "traditionalist" religionists, particularly in the South, and helped transform the region from a Democratic Party bastion to a Republican stronghold by the end of the 20th century. Moreover, the increased visibility of issues such as abortion, gay rights, and school prayer occasioned the rise of the Christian Right during the late 1970s... (Oxford Handbook) Psalm84 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
And although the article talks about the mainline Protestants and Catholics going to the center, it doesn't at that point attempt to say which party they went to. As the CR mentions, there are conservative Catholics, and the polls I've found show some mainline Protestant backing for the GOP too. Psalm84 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Wide sampling of how the GOP and CR connection is regarded as fact in media reporting and discussions
(Mitt Romney and Evangelical Voters: An Arranged Marriage, PBS Newshour)
I also want to note that the Pew Poll that's been mentioned here (and cited in the article) says that the GOP has the support of 71% of white evangelical Protestants (and also has numbers for other groups such as Catholics). Another poll I cited on the Talk page which could be used in the article too says that "All in all, 47% of Republicans in the U.S. today can be classified as highly religious whites, compared with 24% of independents and 19% of Democrats." If I recall correctly, too, they came up with these numbers by asking about "church attendance." One other note, too. It is not at all easy being the only editor representing this side of the dispute and trying to answer everything other editors are saying while researching too, and even though I'm only one, that in itself should not be the only factor, I believe. Psalm84 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the "Christian right" article itself:
second break
Well, you have no way of knowing this, but just for the record, I'm not a "sir," but a "ma'am." And I'd to add that I've worked very very hard on editing and discussions to base them on verifiable facts and to respectfully state things. This is also very difficult for me because of the nature of this. To put it bluntly and just asking you yourself, assuming you're familiar with American politics, but in the case of, for example, Rick Santorum appealing to the Republican base. Would you have needed to be told that he appealed to the base because they're conservative Christians, or did you already know that? Are you generally aware, in other words, that the Christian right is an important block of the GOP? As to why I posted something a second time, it was because you had quoted me on that and asked for specific sources on it. I copied it to show specifically what the sources were about and that I was answering your request. My reply, too, I believe, as I said, discussed "arguments and specific responses about how I see these issues relating to guidelines of Wikipedia." Looking back over it, I gave specific examples about how the media covered the link in the GOP campaign, offered a quote from the Oxford Encyclopedia, mentioned that this issue isn't about labeling the GOP Christian right since the connection can simply be explained, and gave the text that was included in the article to explain it. I've put a lot of time and energy into this, as I know some others have too, including you here, and as I've said, and it's a hard thing to argue since the connection is so well established. Psalm84 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC) It's not hard to find academic papers that link the two, either. For example, Guth talks extensively about how Obama swung part of the religious vote, but the right (evangelicals) “remained entrenched as the core of the reduced GOP”. Burkee and Walz say “In 2000 the "God Gap" favored the George W. Bush by twenty points: Six out of ten voting Americans who answered in exit polls that they go to church about every week voted for the Republican. That number grew slightly in 2004.” —Kerfuffler harass Hicks says “Today, the religious right enjoys its greatest access to the corridors of power, particularly because of its relationship with conservative members of the Republican Party.” And here are a few articles by Forbes (“Despite all of these factors, the national Republican Party remains closely tied to the Christian right and the narrowest issue positions it has represented.”), The Guardian (“Since 1992, the religious right mobilized by the sexual counterervolution has constituted the largest and most powerful bloc within the Republican Party.”), The Associated Press (“The Faith and Freedom Coalition's two-day conference proved that the religious right still plays a major role in the nominating process, even if it's less organized than during the Christian Coalition's heyday and economic issues are dominating the early campaign.”), and a somewhat older one by The Washington Post (“Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.”). Of course I could also paste endless quotes from Huffington Post and many other sources, but there's enough obnoxious belligerence being touted here that I'm sure they would be dismissed out of hand. —Kerfuffler harass
Here is the full section:
I actually do contend that you are putting forth a "fringe" theory as stated at Wikipedia:Fringe theories:
We balance the mainstream academic opinion, only when such opinion is of equal validity. WP:BALANCE:
It simply is not the working assumption in politics and the media that "[T]he Christian right association with the Republican Party isn't just a minor point... - ...it is an unquestioned basic fact". In part you have proven one thing, and really it was never in question, that is simply that the Christian right generally votes Republican. But it is indeed a minor point and unquestioned basic fact that it is a minor point. If I were to be overly generous I might even go as far as saying that "Values Voters" see themselves as very important to the party, but they are clearly not the full force and arm of that right wing of the Christian base. They are simply not the all encompassing portion of the Christian Right. Your sources bear this out, and one (Oxford Handbook) interpretes the opposite, that the main portion of only the Protestant faction went center. "The Christian Right", by Grant Wacker of Duke University Divinity School states:
He also states:
This author seperates the Christian Right from the Religious right and accurately so. He says the Christian Right at a grass roots level stands out and is attracting attention...not the offical wing of the GOP as a party--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Wacker's article is about the CR. He mentions the RR just once. His claims, too, about who makes up the CR he says come from "polls and book sales," but he doesn't give any more explanation. His methods and interpretations would obviously be up for debate. His claim is the sort of thing that should be in the CR article, but it would certainly be as his expert opinion, and as said, the basis of his conclusions isn't presented here. On the CR and RR difference, it is discussed in the CR article, and there is no Wikipedia article on the RR apparently because it is covered by this one. RR is just a disambiguation page. The CR page says that the RR includes others like conservative Jews and Muslims, but their numbers are far less than the CR.
I haven't said that the GOP is a CR party either, and I've expressed the opposite view. What I haven't understood is why some see listing the GOP under "parties associated the Christian right" or something similar as saying that, especially if the connection is explained. To me it doesn't go any further than what the article already says, but helps summarize for the reader what the article was about, and if someone has read the article, which they probably would since the list comes last, they will understand the connection that much more. Someone who finishes the article, too, might want to go to some of these parties' articles, including the GOP, like they might want to go to the topics in "see also" that appear at the article's end, and the GOP link will be right there and they don't have to scroll back up to the beginning. That makes me wonder if adding the Republican Party to the "see also" section is part of this dispute. What about it appearing in "see also"? DR/N volunteer conclusionsIt is the opinion of this editor and volunteer for the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, that the case has not been adequately made for the proposed changes and list text identifying the American Republican Party as being Christian right. Therefore, I believe this revert/deletion was justified.[39]. Furthermore, it is the conclusion of this editor that the proposed changes [40] should not be made. While the editors involved clearly have proposed these changes in good faith, it is also clear that this is simply a point of view that could be viewed by many as fringe in some form and not main stream by academic experts, but has been formed from bits and peices of quotes that are attempting to stitch together these assumptions. This is not appropriate and none of the sources (with the exception of biased parties and/or partisan opinion) make these specific claims. There seems to be some use of expert opinion to source fact without attribution and could be seen as further reasoning to exclude this information. Many academics do make claims based on educated and qualified expertise, while others will form an opinion, make assumptions and state their point of view. When this is done attribution of the publication and author should be made and clarification of the stated opinion made in prose. It appears to be the rough consensus of this DR/N that these changes not be made as proposed. I won't be closing this filing immediatly to give editors time to respond with rebuttle and add any further comment to the consensus and/or propose any last compromises they feel may be justified, however if no further compromise is appropriate and all parties agree, I am inclined to close as "Resolved". Should an editor not agree with the resolution they have the oppurtunity to suggest what they can live with or request formal mediation as an option at this point but may not be the best choice.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I want to say that I thank you for all your time and energy spent on this. I'm sure DR is not an easy place, either. I do disagree with quite a few of your conclusions, though, but that's the way it goes. I do consider questions like this important, since I particpated here, but there are more important things too. On my disagreeing with things, well, that came from how the discussion developed. As I said, I only thought the lead and article "help" sections (my term here), which offer lists, links, etc. just reflect what's in the article. The discussion on sources did produce more information, sources that could be used, and discussion on article topics, so that's a good thing, but if I had to do it over I would only have pointed to what's in the article already in and presented my view that the supplemental section on Parties include the GOP because of its place in the article. And my concern is for the whole article, although I don't know about working on it now for me. On DRN, though, there was more than enough to cover with what was being discussed, and I didn't believe off-topic suggestions would be welcome to the discussion or even that they belonged here. On the two proposals I made, one was implemented, putting GOP in the lead due to its role in the article. I mentioned it as that issue had been a part of the larger dispute. I guess, then, I don't have anything else to say here, unless there are comments addressed to me that seek reply. Psalm84 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
|
- ^ Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Forgotten Books, 1984; first published 1748, p. 86: "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior."
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
COI SOURCESwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).