Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 119

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 117Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121→Archive 125

Bob Hewitt

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

The flag icon used in the person's bio box. A few have agreed that since the person is a South African, the flag should be the current South African flag. However, 1 editor insists that the pre-1994 flag (the apartheid flag) be used, since that was when the person was an active tennis player.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

Please state the purpose of flags in the bio box of articles relating to a person. If you agree with Fyunck(click) that the flag represents "active professional tennis era" instead of nationality, the bio box should be worded as such.

Summary of dispute by Fyunck(click)

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Every tennis player uses these flag icons in the infobox per MoS "The infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport." That is to represent sporting nationality. Flags cannot be used to represent citizenship/birthplace/residence, again per MoS. So if there is a flag it MUST represent their participation in international sports. Examples include grand slam winners Ivan Lendl, Jan Kodeš, Martina Navratilova. I do believe their was a dispute in the past on a different player where the decision was since no consensus "no flag at all." This player hasn't been brought to a full RfC so I can't say whether there is consensus one way or the other. But again EVERY player has these flags in this exact location to represent their sports country in international events. These players wouldn't be notable except for playing tennis so this is the general stance at Wikipedia Tennis project. Certainly there are exceptions but I don't see one here. His birthplace is listed and his residence is listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Hewitt discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer comment - There has been discussion at the talk page. The applicable guideline concerning the use of flags for athletes is WP:MOSICON. However, this MOS page can be read in either of two ways. It says that sometimes former national flags should be used for valid historical reasons; but it also says that some flags, including the pre-1994 flag of South Africa, may be controversial. Because the MOS guideline is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
One thing though... you mentioned MoSIcon and it specifically states: "the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport." That is what we use on every article of tennis bios. Hewitt is no exception. If really controversial we could possibly get rid of it and use no icon. But we cannot use his country today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
And lets look at another Grand Slam tournament winner from 1937, Henner Henkel. He played under three German flags:German Empire / Weimar Republic / Nazi Germany, none of which are the current flag icon. It's a German Empire flag, a Weimar Republic flag and a nazi flag... and that's a controversial flag. There is also Jan Kodeš Czechoslovakia. His country today is the Czech Republic but he played under Czechoslovakian rule, so that's the flag icon he gets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to open this case. I have suggested that an RFC be used on whether to use the pre-1994 flag. Does anyone have any comments on that? Does anyone have anything else to say? Please comment on content (which flag to use) and not on contributors. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by editors

I have no problem, though if it's an RfC I would think that WikiProject Tennis will simply go with what has been done for a decade. I haven't let the project know about this particular disagreement... trying to keep it calm. But if you feel the case has merit (I of course don't) then by all means open up an RfC. Wording of the RfC would be important. Remember that MoS does not allow flag icons in the infobox for where a person lives now... only for the nation they represented in sports. So it's a question of pre-1994 flag or no flag that the RfC should be based. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that this is linked to a bigger issue regarding use of flags specifically in tennis player infobox. Visiting an article on wikipedia that is a person's name (without any sort of "_(Tennis)" suffix on article title) and having flags displayed in the infobox that are not related to nationality, is counter-intuitive. It would seem that the only people who would know that these specifically represent flags that this person played under, would be the Tennis project editors, and a few who stumbled on this information, like I did. I feel this is creating an dilemma that can easily be resolved, simply by removing this kind of use of the flag graphics, and replacing them with labelled text, that can also provide more useful information, without anything lost - for example (wording can change, ofcourse):
Played for:
Australia (1961 to 1966)
South Africa (1967 to 1974)
I think it is also worth noting that having tennis specific information in a person's infobox, instead of just putting it in an article also comes with issues. This particular page is about a man that is a notable tennis player, and a notorious paedophile. It is possible for people to be notable in more than 1 area, and so an infobox should only include bio information.
That aside, it seems that will be a colossal undertaking, considering the number of articles, and special rules, that the Tennis project editors have been working with.
To clear up the flag issue specifically, I can suggest we a) remove flags and replace with text, or at very least b) label properly what these flags represent.
Autumnox (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It's true a person c[[an be notable in more than one way, but that makes no difference in flag icons since if he was notable in music or botany, flags are never used. But they are in Olympics, auto racing, tennis, football, etc... There will always be tennis specific things in infoboxes so i have no idea what you're talking about. Rankings, major championships, country represented in sports, etc... We have always had flags there, and there will always be flags there since it is written into MoS that they are used. They are sourced by the tournaments own draws and bios. It's been done this way for over a decade and this is the first time I've seen this issue. Obviously the vast majority have no issues at all but I will bring up your concerns at Tennis project to see if it's possible to label it better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

The article currently uses the pre-1994 flag with a note (pre-1994). Is that satisfactory to the editors? If so, we can close this dispute as resolved. Alternatively, do we want to use no flag, or to rely on a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's fine with me but I'm thinking it's not with Autumnox. I did bring this up at WikiProject tennis to see if it's possible to squeeze in a longer term than simply using "Country." I mentioned several examples there such as Country (sports) or Int'l Sports. They may have other better ideas, or they may also feel that simply adding the (pre-1994) note is enough. But since there was concern here on Bob Hewitt that somehow found its way to this noticeboard I thought I'd bring it to their attention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Battle of_the_Alamo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 am bringing to dispute resolution a bias by Karanacs against presenting a NPOV regarding the Battle of the Alamo, specifically the actions of General Lopez de Santa Anna in the Investment Section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed at length with Karanacs, provided ample sources for the inclusion of quote, Karanacs pinged Maile for a 3rd opinion (previously Maile (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) offered a compromise which I accepted, but Karanacs did not), I have rewritten the section in question and have asked for consensus (with no replies), I received an "add" vote from user SandyGeorgia on 14:28, 6 May 2015‎ under Talk page history, I've waited about a month.

How do you think we can help?

By deciding if the evidence I have provided and the opinions of the other 2 editors is sufficient to override the opposition of Karanacs, thus adding the Santa Anna quote and helping to bring a NPOV to the article, at least to this one very small section.

Summary of dispute by Karanacs

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Maile

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • SandyGeorgia told him to sign his posts and to be brief.1 She was neither voting on, nor encouraging, anything except that we are supposed to sign our posts.
  • This is a pattern of disruptive talk page editing on. Mexican Texas, Battle of the Alamo. Same editor, same message on both talk pages.
  • The talk page posts above are very POV, and bring up slavery as though this has never been mentioned. Mexican Texas had already covered the issue. It's not as such in the Battle of the Alamo, because that is about the battle itself.

Talk:Battle of_the_Alamo discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but not within the past month. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am suggesting that there be additional recent discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - There is renewed discussion at the talk page. I have notified the other editors of the request for moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but waiting for replies from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Very quick driveby comment (feel free to move this if it's in the wrong section): I previously raised a similar concern to that being raised by MiztuhX, regarding the lack of Mexican and Tejano perspectives, at Talk:Texas Revolution/Archive 3. I am fully satisfied with the explanations provided by Karanacs and Maile66 there; the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect what the sources say, and if a strong majority of sources favour a particular interpretation of events, WP:NPOV means it's Wikipedia's duty to reflect that (with a "some people disagree" summary of opposing views as appropriate), not to engage in original research by giving equal treatment to all attitudes towards a given incident. – iridescent 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Maile66 reported me for "edit warring" which I deny. Here is my side: edit warring.
  • Also, here is the evidence for SandyGeorgia: (cur | prev) 14:28, 6 May 2015‎ SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,390 bytes) (+603)‎ . . (→‎Seeking Consensus for Santa Anna Quote: add) (undo | thank)
  • Now, if I was verbose in my talk comments, it was to substantiate and defend my sources from editors who were very critical (as should be). I only changed half a sentence and was asked to provide ample proof, and when I did, from both American and Mexican sources, English and Spanish, I was told that those sources were not acceptable because they were not part of the Bibliography, were primary documents, were not contemporary. No help was offered on how to integrate the quote in the article, it was simply rejected because Karanacs claimed that the quote was not a part of the Investment narrative. But the strange thing is that the quote is mentioned in at least 2 of the books listed in the Bibliography (and the others I found).
  • Then, when I produced newer references, I was told that those books would be of better use in the Santa Anna WP article and not for the Battle of the Alamo article. The reason was never explained. Also, I was open and flexible to including the quote in whatever form they would have liked: direct quotation, summary, rephrase, remembrance, etc. So, in hindsight, the reason this discussion went on for so long was because I insisted on defending--and demonstrating in various ways hoping to convince them-- the importance of this one quote, hoping to bring the Mexican perspective of a major player--Santa Anna--to one small section, The Investment, to balance out the POV. It's ironic, but the very thing that many of the Texas articles need--Mexican and Tejano perspectives--is the very thing that these editors resisted here...even when that perspective could be found in books of the Bibliography, which were passed over...
  • If you look at my last edit of the article here, specifically in the Introduction and Investment sections, the editors can have an idea of the type of integration of Texian, Mexican and Tejano narratives that I advocate to improve and bring NPOV to the article. MiztuhX (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

First set of statements

I am opening this case for discussion now. Since the discussion has been extensive in different places (the talk page and here), will everyone please summarize briefly what they think the issues are? I see that one editor thinks that the article is not neutral and should give more weight to Mexican and Tejano sources. It appears that other editors disagree. I see that there has been a discussion of whether to mention slavery. The article in question is about the Battle of the Alamo, not the Texan Revolution, so any mention of slavery needs to be justified as appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other issues that need to be discussed here, about the Battle of the Alamo? This discussion is about the battle, not about the war. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil and concise. Discuss content, not contributors. Also, do not respond to the posts of other editors. Respond only to the moderator. (Responses to the posts of other editors are likely to go round and round.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by MiztuhX

The issue centers on providing NPOV by developing a fuller representation of President General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, leader of the Mexican army during the Investment, as has been done with Bowie and Travis, the Texian leaders. Specifically, the addition of a quote from Santa Anna that states: "Giving the Texans one last chance, Santa Ana sent Colonel Juan Nepomuceno Almonte with his offer of allowing the men at the Alamo to walk away free as long as they promised never again to take up arms against the Mexican nation. A refusal of this generous offer would be equivalent to passing their own death sentence. Colonel William Barret Travis replied by opening fire on the Mexican forces and, to quote Santa Anna, in so doing, sealed the fate of those obstinate men." (Santa Anna of Mexico, Fowler, p.166).

This quote appears in various forms in other books already included in the bibliography, namely, Lord and Todish, et al, which seem to have been overlooked. If needed, other sources, like García and Pereyra, Scheina, and Fowler, could be added. To the rebuttal that the Santa Anna quote is not encyclopedic because it is a primary document, I would point out the article cites Juan Almonte's journal, Travis' letter to the people, even Dickinson's last words to his wife Susana, which are all primary documents.

One must also consider that Bartres and Almontes' wording of Santa Anna's offer of surrender to the Texians is almost verbatim in their own primary sources, which lends to corroboration from a 3rd party because they received their orders from Santa Anna, in addition to the Álvarez confirmation in a 1905 newspaper.

I have written this paragraph that includes the above points, as a starting point to achieve NPOV: Santa Anna later stated in his "Manifesto regarding his operations in the Texas Campaign" (1837) that he made his offer through Almonte and by opening fire on the Mexican forces, Travis had essentially sealed the fate of his men. Furthermore, in response "to the proposals to surrender he replied always that every man under preferred to die rather than surrender the fort to the Mexicans."[Note 10: Sources conflict on whether a parole or unconditional surrender were offered during the parley. Lord notes that Almonte made the offer. In an interview with the San Antonio Express in 1905, Juan Álvarez confirmed the offer by Santa Anna. Todish, et al cites Bartre as the source for the quote. Since the quote is pervasive, one must consider that the order was given by Santa Anna who passed it down to his subordinates. Other historians flatly reject this and state only an unconditional surrender was offered. (Todish et al. (1998), pp. 40-41, 49. Lord (1961), p. 104.)]

It is my hope to achieve consensus and lift protection of the article, as soon as possible, so as to encourage and validate other editors who may also wish to contribute.

First statement by Karanacs

I think this is an incredibly premature step.

  • This is a Featured Article.
  • However, the article reached FA status several years ago, and there is newer scholarship available. Some of the references currently used in the article are not the best sources for the article (although the information is pretty much the same). Maile66 and I have started an effort to read some of the newer books and look at a potential revamp of the article to see what, if any, changes need to be made. This is not a quick process. I have three books currently on my desk at home that I'm reading and taking notes on, but I don't have a lot of free time at the moment. Maile and I also started a section on the talk page of the article to outline what ought to be included and identify what might be missing. MitzuhX was asked if he wanted to help with this effort and has chosen to restrict his comments to a specific quote by Santa Anna. Since seemed to lose interest, Maile and I have been working on improving other articles related to the Texas Revolution that were in pitiful shape.
  • The quote that this editor wanted to include is from a primary source. Many modern historians think that Santa Anna lied when he wrote that document. The historian that the editor was quoting used the information uncritically - according to his bibliography he relied only on that one primary source and did not look at other sources that might call that information into question. This is one of the reasons that Maile and I have advocated a more comprehensive look at the article on the article talk page.
  • This editor has been trying to insert a POV across multiple articles. His recent changes (since reverted) inserted a lot of POV related to the background of the war, and not to this particular battle. This is also the case for the most recent comments made on the talk page of this article.

Bottom line, for me: It is likely that there need to be changes made to this article, although I think for the most part these will be minor (i.e., the article does not need a complete rewrite, just changes to a few specific sections). Maile and I are doing the very slow work of actually reading scholarship so that we can assess scholarly consensus and see where those changes need to be made. If the issue is truly a matter of NPOV, we should be able to take a holistic look - to identify overall what themes are missing or overemphasized rather than argue about this particular word or that particular quote. A piecemeal addition of this fact or that word is not going to achieve NPOV; it's going to leave a patchwork of an article.

I have no problem leaving the article protected for the next 6 months to see if, in that time, we can complete the survey of scholarship and re-outline the article on the talk page. I'm not willing, however, to argue over individual lines of text at this point. That is NOT the way to identify POV or achieve NPOV.

Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Second set of statements

Thank you for being civil. Please be concise also. Both of the above statements are long. Please explain to me briefly what you want to change in the article or what you want to leave unchanged in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that six months is a very long time to keep the article locked, and would like to facilitate some resolution before then. Can the editors please provide concise summaries of what can be done in less than six months? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that one of the issues is whether to include a long quote. One of the editors added it. Others disagree. The quote was reverted when the article was locked. Are there any other issues to be discussed? If the main issue is whether to include the quote, one way to address that would be a Request for Comments, but the quote that is proposed will have to be available in stand-alone form for the community to see. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I will be checking on the status of this thread at least once every 24 hours, and I expect other editors to check on this thread at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs has suggested taking an overall look at the article to see if there are any particular areas that need more emphasis or attention. That seems like a useful suggestion. Does anyone want to follow up? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Karanacs

The article can be looked at as a whole to determine if there are any overarching themes related to this battle that are missing or that are overemphasized. This is a step that has not been taken. I see no value in arguing about one particular primary source quotation. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by MiztuhX

I'm sure we can all agree that the article is not NPOV, nor is it FA, but can we agree to identify and improve those "minor" points, and address those "overarching themes related to this battle that are missing or that are overemphasized"?

For me, off the top of my head, the portrayal of Santa Anna, the Tejanos, addressing the Texian slant, and incorporating the viewpoints of Mexican historians (I could translate pertinent Spanish sections into English).

Of lesser importance would be the Mexican government and people's response to the situation in Texas, specifically the Alamo; the myths versus the reality of the Alamo; and expanding the Legacy section. What are your pet peeves about the article?

But, IMHO, 6 months is a long time to have an article out there that we know is not only biased but not of FA quality (although it purports to be). Do you agree this should be fixed sooner rather than later because it is a huge disservice to the internet community?

My proposal is to work on an overhaul of the article (which I presume will take longer), while addressing these "minor" points in order to have a functional version of the article, a template of better things to come. Later, we can merge this working version with the revamped article... Right now, we sand off some of the rough edges. Also, later on down the road, we can reassess the suitability of the Santa Anna quote... Maybe a more accurate portrayal of Santa Anna will no longer require the quote. MiztuhX (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Third set of statements

I see that one editor says that we can all agree that the article is not NPOV and is not FA-quality. I don't see agreement to that effect. Please don't state consensus when there is no consensus. Discuss to get consensus instead. In particular, if you think that the article is not NPOV, how is it non-neutral? Neutrality reflects what the published sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Since six months is a long time to have the article locked down, rather than just discussing on the talk page, I suggest that a draft improved version of the article be developed, at Talk:Battle of the Alamo/Draft. That will initially be a copy-paste, and will then be edited collaboratively. When there is agreement that it is ready for promotion into article space, an administrator can be asked to do a history merge. Is everyone willing to work on a draft improvement of the article? What areas need improving? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't create your own subsections below this statement, but please don't reply to each other. Just comment at base level. Are we willing to work on a draft to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to suggest works by academic historians to address the points that the article needs to develop, as stated above. These are not my personal views; these are the perspectives of historians whose works have not been addressed, even though they form part of the bibliography. I will try to build consensus by working with as diverse a group of editors to improve the article. I understand not all will agree, but consensus can change, based on the quality of my arguments and material. Who knows? These might be the building blocks for tomorrow's consensus...or not. Time will tell, but that will not prevent from working diligently on these articles. MiztuhX (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please make any changes to the draft article, with informative edit summaries, and with discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything else to discuss at this noticeboard? If not, I will close this thread so that work on improving the article can continue on the draft page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've said my piece. Thank you, Robert, for moderating. MiztuhX (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Life extension#presidential campaign of transhumanist candidate

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

In the politics section of the life extension page, I mentioned that life extension is a focus of the presidential campaign of Zoltan Istvan and his Transhumanist Party.

It was removed by Jytdog because he thought that the cited source was self-published. I refuted this on the reliable sources notice board. The only third-party user to comment, Rhoark, also disagreed with Jytdog.

I added the content again with an additional cited source, but Jytdog removed that, too. He claimed this time that it was off topic and "coatrack". I asked him why a political campaign focused on life extension would be off topic in a section about the politics of life extension, but he has not given a reason. Instead, he continued to insist that it was. He then attacked me ad hominem and told me that he would ignore the discussion until a bizarre requirement was met: that I "bring a source like NYT".

His accusation did, however, prompt a discussion with another user, Ronz, about how much weight the subject should be given, based on its sources. I thus demonstrated how several reliable sources mentioned the campaign and life extension, and I made my argument with multiple quotes from the sources that discuss life extension in depth. Ronz has not since rebutted my argument.

Jytdog's accusation also sparked debate about the applicability of Wikipedia's soapbox policy. I have asked how my neutral statement violated this, but Jytdog's and Ronz's replies have only been about Istvan's words, rather than the content of my edit. They seem to conflate my words with Istvan's and ignore that the policy explicitly allows neutral mentions of political advocacy.

I added the content again, with wording adjusted to appease advocacy and "coatrack" worries, but Jytdog reverted it, saying there was "no consensus".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Other than what is mentioned above, I have reached out to Jytdog on his Talk page and replied to his messages on my own Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I think that a neutral, third-party analysis of Jytdog's reasons for reverting my edits, along with my rebuttals, would help us come to a consensus on whether the content in question should be kept in the article.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This matter seems very urgent to Haptic, who doesn't seem to understand that there is WP:NODEADLINE here. While it is great that he/she figured out DR and stopped edit warring, I think we could let the discussion at the Talk page run a bit longer to get other voices. But if Ronz, who is a yet more experienced editor than I, thinks DR is appropriate now, I will consent to going forward. I also want to note that i took a bunch of time out of my day to explain why his edits are SOAPBOXy, here at their Talk page, but the response to that was pure WP:IDHT - even in their post above, they are not understanding the problem. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi - what i wrote above, was that I would bow to Ronz's judgement here; I do not see that Ronz confirmed that DR is appropriate now...Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
So you will not continue to participate? Kharkiv07 (T) 02:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ronz

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I suggest Haptic-feedback WP:FOC, become more familiar with the relevant policies (especially WP:NOT), and make some alternative proposals.

Injecting political trivia into an article like Life extension, using it as a coatrack and soapbox for promotion, is not uncommon across Wikipedia, but only because of the relatively poor enforcement of WP:NOT and the massive problems Wikipedia has in general with advocates trying to bias this encyclopedia to their purposes.

The section of the article is what looks to be an inappropriate combination of two topics, both poorly sourced: ethical and political issues, the political bit being the worst of it. Today, it's just a pr campaign. "If something comes of it in the future we should add it as a part of whatever makes it noteworthy" [1]. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Life extension#presidential campaign of transhumanist candidate discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Due to a death in the family I will not be able to continue. I apologize to the parties and DRN volunteers, but I can't continue editing for the time being. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kharkiv07: You have my sincerest condolences. I sympathize completely. Thank you for the time and effort that you were able to give. Do take care of yourself. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Hello, and welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Before we begin, I would like to make a few procedural comments. First, I am here to steer the conversation in the right direction, not to make a decision of any sort. As for your responsibilities as a party to the dispute, I need you to comment on the content, not the contributors and to only comment in your own section. Failure to abide by these rules may lead to the termination of the discussion.

I would like to begin by making sure that I fully understand the situation at hand.

  1. This change is the one that Haptic-feedback wants. This is the change that all further discussion will be about, until a new version is proposed.
  2. Jytdog and Ronz object to the change on the following grounds:
  1. WP:SOAP
  2. WP:NPOV
  3. WP:OFFTOPIC (Note that this is an essay)
  4. WP:COATRACK (Note that this is an essay)
  1. Haptic-feedback refutes this by saying there are a number of sources which talk about the presidential candidate.
  2. Ronz says "If we put aside for now the interviews, puff-pieces, and human interest stories, what do we have left?" and later says "Of those left from my question, which of them discuss life extension, the topic of this article, in any degree of detail? If none, then it's probably not worth mention". To this point, Haptic-feedback says that there's background information in those articles as well.

From this, I believe all parties can agree on the following statement:

"If it can be proved that multiple reliable sources that aren't providing merely interviews and/or puff-pieces provide detailed background on the candidate's standing on the issue of Life extension then it may be included in a neutral fashion in the article."

I would like to hear responses to my bullets concerning the scope and depth of the dispute, as this will be our primary working points, and I'd like to hear if all parties agree with the previous statement. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

General question for all parties: Is there an objection to linking to this article, without specifically mentioning Zoltan Istvan? Kharkiv07 (T) 20:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kharkiv07: I have no objection, but I assume that Jytdog would, as my last attempt neither named nor wikilinked to Istvan or his Party, but it was still reverted by Jytdog. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Haptic-feedback

I agree with that statement. Thanks again, Kharkiv, for taking the time to help us with your spot-on analysis. :) --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

List of sources

Haptic-feedback, will you please provide a list of sources that you honestly think aren't solely interviews, puff-pieces, [or] human interest stories? Kharkiv07 (T) 13:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no agreement for the basis of the mediation - you should not be pressing ahead yet, Kharkiv07. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sources would help me see where we are to start. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07: I hesitate to provide a comprehensive list, as the sources are quite numerous, and neither Jytdog nor Ronz agree with the above statement, so I doubt that anything would come of it. However, I will provide some of the better sources across which I have come and which fit the description.
I will start with with "Zoltan Istvan’s 'Teleological Egocentric Functionalism': A Libertarian Philosophical Basis for 'Transhumanist' Politics" by Benedikter, Siepmann, and McIntosh, published by Transpolitica. As you might guess, the article details Istvan's political standing at some depth. I will quote a passage (with my added emphasis):

The literal meaning of “transhumanism” is, as the term suggests, to “go beyond the existing human being” through as free and open as possible application of technology to all sectors of human activity. But – more important – the meaning of “transhumanism” is also about merging technology with human biology, in order to extend human lifespan dramatically and, if possible, to eventually defeat death. Zoltan Istvan, one of the most publicly present and well-known advocates of transhumanism, stated clearly but controversially: "What are transhumanists to do in a world where science and technology are quickly improving and will almost certainly overcome human mortality in the next 30 years? [...] On the medical front, the good news is that gerontologists and other researchers have made major gains recently in the fields of life extension, anti-aging research, and longevity science. [...] Eventually, we’ll also wipe out most diseases."

This is just a part in only the first of sixteen numbered sections elaborating on Istvan's views, but it shows that Istvan favours life extension and believes that radical advances in the field are imminent.
Smith in "New-Time Religion", published by the Discovery Institute, says this:

Istvan argued that with transhumanism the only hope in a material world, “interfering with life extension research” should be a crime, and indeed, that substantially thwarting efforts to achieve transhumanism could be a just cause for war.

This establishes quite a strong stance of life extension, perhaps even militant.
Bartlett in "Meet the Transhumanist Party: 'Want to live forever? Vote for me'" in The Telegraph says this (with my added emphasis):

Zoltan will be running on a pretty interesting policy platform. First up – and a particular interest of Zoltan’s, who I’ve come to believe is genuinely determined to live forever – is life extension. This is the study of keeping people alive for as long as possible, either by slowing the ageing process or extending lifespan. "Few fields of study offer so much for civilisation," Zoltan tells me. "And we’re not far off the science being available so people can start living a lot longer – maybe even 50 years or 100 years in the very near future". I’m not sure how accurate his timelines are – others in the Transhumanist movement are a little more cautious. But as it stands he reckons there’s hardly any investment in research of this type – about $1 billion a year (and most of this is on diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's). In terms of what Zoltan considers life extension science – stopping ageing and eliminating death entirely – it’s far, far less. Because of that Zoltan thinks we’re letting people die unnecessarily. In a tidy populist touch, he plans to significantly curtail military spending in favour of research into all this. With enough resources, he thinks we can "conquer" ageing within a decade. The Transhumanist Party advocates spending at least a trillion dollars over ten years directly on life extension research.

This echoes the content of the other sources.
Fecht in "Vote For Zoltan If You Want To Live Forever" in Popular Science says this (emphasis mine):

Istvan is an entrepreneur, a blogger, and the founder of the Transhumanist Party--a group of some 25,000 people who want to enhance the human body and extend the human lifespan using science and technology. Man and machine are already merging through advances such as pacemakers, retinal implants that help the blind to see, and exoskeletons that let people who are disabled to walk again. Istvan and his supporters are radically optimistic that technology and science will solve the world’s problems, eventually leading to immortality and the ability to upload our consciousness to computers.

I hope that these sources will help to move the conversation forward.
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Jytdog

Most of the summary is OK. The statement by the moderator ("If it can be proved that multiple reliable sources that aren't providing merely interviews and/or puff-pieces provide detailed background on the candidate's standing on the issue of Life extension then it may be included in a neutral fashion in the article.") ignores the issues of SOAP and UNDUE and their interconnection that are the heart of the content dispute. Problems:

  • the part of NPOV that is relevant here is WP:UNDUE and the statement doesn't deal with that.
  • the candidate himself is a WP:FRINGE candidate presently (he says himself that he is almost no chance of winning) whose views therefore don't matter in an encyclopedia article. (per WP:UNDUE)
  • what any candidate is saying now is campaigning and may never be real. Candidates say all kinds of things. Obama said he would close Gitmo during the campaign, and the press made a big deal out of that at the time. Our article on Gitmo says nothing about that (see here) (This has to do with UNDUE as well as WP:NOTNEWS (part of NOT)
  • The only reason we are having this discussion at all is a violation of WP:SOAP - also part of NOT. WP is a not a platform for advocacy. It is a fact - not a personal attack - that Haptic's account is a WP:SPA for life extension/transhumanist topics per their contribs. Please refocus the statement you want us to gel around, to include the relevance of NOT and UNDUE. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Jytdog: Just for my information, does this mean you will continue to participate? Kharkiv07 (T) 13:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Ronz wrote in their first statement below that they are open to the DR going forward, so I am in. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Ronz

We've gotten sidetracked from the content problems and how they might be addressed. I hadn't yet brought up WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, other than the implication from my very first comment on the dispute, "If something comes of it in the future we should add it as a part of whatever makes it noteworthy".

It appears that the only reason this is getting any press is because of the campaign cycle, and it's an admitted pr tactic rather than anything new or different that deserves coverage in the article.

If there is anything new or different in the proposed sources, beyond what is already covered in the article, it has not been identified.

So, does a head of an organization that is using the current political campaign cycle to drive up publicity deserve mention in the article? I'd say no per NOT and NPOV.

We should also be looking at the section in general. It's unclear if any political issues belong at all. The section already has all the problems that we've brought up, so maybe it's no surprise that there's the temptation to continue in the same vein.

To address Kharkiv07 question directly, I think scope and depth is larger.

To address whether or not this is an appropriate DR step: I'm hoping it might get up back to following WP:DR and focusing on the content, proposed sources, and article context. However, I'm well aware that when it comes to injecting publicity and politics into articles, even BLP articles, we tend to do a poor job of following NOT and NPOV. I don't think anything short of ArbCom is going to do anything about these problems and this dispute certainly isn't going to ArbCom. NPOVN might be helpful at a later point. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


First statement by Doncram

I find my way here by checking contributions of editor Haptic-feedback, because they are one arguing elsewhere that a "Transhumanist Party" exists and is wikipedia-notable. My considered understanding is that it does NOT: it is more fringe than joke parties which have actually gotten onto ballots and have won local elections. There is March 2015 documentation of a filing of intent to qualify as a party for the June 2015 California primary election (which just one person perhaps Zoltan Istvan and/or Haptic-feedback can file)... but apparently it did not succeed or there would be coverage. There is no money, no members, no evidence of coverage as a party. SO, what's relevant here in this Life_extension discussion is: what Haptic-feedback wishes to insert starts with the (apparently false) implication that such a party exists and has a candidate. This is nonsense, and part of a multi-article, increasingly "sophisticated" effort by Zoltan and/or a few supporters or employees to create an appearance in Wikipedia that such a party exists. For background, see Talk:Transhumanist politics, Draft talk:Transhumanist Party, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transhumanist_Party. Also I personally was badgered/harassed by one of those persons to the extent that I reported their harassment off-wiki and got some relief. I resent their continued non-Wiki-way single-minded efforts, including this DRN wikilawyering. --doncram 01:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: There was continued discussion during July 8 to July 10 at Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described? and some further comments through July 11 in next section Talk:Transhumanist politics#Ballot access fun facts. The consensus is that reliable sources state that Istvan has said there is a Transhumanist Party, but there are not reliable sources covering the party per se, and no substantial evidence that there is a political party in any traditional sense of that (there is perhaps now a legal entity named Transhumanist Party but that is not the same). An uninvolved editor JJ commented "I agree with doncram & others that there is presently insufficient evidence to support the existence of the Transhumanist Party as an independent legal entity. The section currently included in this article which addresses the TP as proposed political party is, in my estimation, an appropriate and encyclopedic way of handling the subject. That having been said, I propose that the section be moved to the Zoltan Istvan article. This would be a sensible move given that the TP is mainly Istvan's project and most of the reliably sourced coverage of it focuses on Istvan himself seemingly as much as it does on the TP.--JayJasper". And even Haptic-Feedback replied "@JayJasper: I am okay with not calling it a legal entity," (although H-F qualified that and there was further discussion of the qualification). There was some movement anyhow towards complete consensus.
The diff that this DRN is about is yet another insertion into Wikipedia that backdoor-asserts Wikipedia recognition of a bona fide political party. It was written before the Talk:transhumanist politics discussions so H-F might not write it the same way now. But it is another of inappropriate assertions inserted at Zoltan Istvan, at Transhumanist politics, and elsewhere. Given the explicit past AFD rejecting a "Transhumanist Party" article and the continued explicit RFC discussion saying it is not shown to be a bona fide political party, the DRN-subject diff is unacceptable on those grounds. I haven't reviewed all of what was in the diff. But it seems to me this DRN is not needed; the Talk page discussions elsewhere may have resolved what needs to be resolved. --doncram 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Administrative side note

I've pinged the DRN moderator and made some suggestions for getting this case moving again. With no participation in 5-7 days it may need to be closed soon. I hope the moderator can reignite it. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: I hope so, too. Thanks! --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The bot will autoarchive this thread anytime after July18th there is a 24hr period with no comments. If the DRN moderator wants to extend the case past the 18th I recommend they manually extend the auto-archive date.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I just checked the moderator's user page (duh) and they are off WP for an indefinite period of time. I'll post a note on the DRN talk page to see if another moderator is available to take this case over. Thanks for your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. I note the comments by Doncram which indicates the issue has possibly been resolved. Could the others chip in here and let me know if that's the case? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang: Hi, Steve. No, the issue has not been resolved. Actually, Doncram was never even involved in this dispute – he/she has invited him/herself to this discussion after a disagreement on a related subject. Doncram's comments are irrelevant here, as the legal status of the party is not mentioned in the edit and those involved in the dispute have not challenged the existence of the party. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Doncram's comments are completely relevant. Attempts to dismiss them are hard to reconcile with our policies. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: Fair enough. I only dismissed them because I did not think that they were relevant, so I thought that they would derail the resolution. However, I am open to hearing your case for why they are pertinent here. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've read all the comments above, and the comments at the relevant talk pages. I largely agree with the comments by Doncram which are quite relevant. In my opinion, the proposed texts should not be added to any of the articles, mainly per WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a PR/advocacy platform. Until there is clear evidence of a campaign/actual candidacy, rather than a bunch of PR pieces/interviews by a prospective candidate, it doesn't belong on these pages. On their own Wikipedia article? Sure. But nowhere else. Will close this discussion in the morning. The resolution on this one is very cut and dry. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Steven Zhang:: Okay, I concede. I will not try to add the sentence again to the life extension article. Thank you for your help, Steve. However, I still do not understand how the content violates the soapbox policy. Would you mind if I asked you some clarifying questions on your Talk page, Steve? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Donner Party#Great_Salt_Lake_Desert

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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, another editor keeps reverting my edit to the page without saying why. I would appreciate either a) if I am in the wrong, an explanation of what I am doing wrong so that I don't repeat my mistake or b) if I am in the right, for the reversions to stop. I have asked repeatedly for an explanation (in the edit summaries, the article Talk page, the user's Talk page) without success. Our only dialogue does not give me much hope for a sudden burst of volubility either. (I was going to copy it here, but I'll link you to it since my inability to create paragraph breaks in this text box means it makes quite a mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&action=edit&section=3)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Besides repeated attempts in different locations to get the user to enter into a productive dialogue with me, not much, since the dispute resolution page indicated that this should be the next step.

How do you think we can help?

I figure someone with more experience and authority around Wikipedia has a better chance of encouraging the user to work with me, as there are likely policies and procedures involved that I, as a relative newbie, am unfamiliar with. My own attempts are obviously not working.

Summary of dispute by Eric Corbett

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Donner Party#Great_Salt_Lake_Desert discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - Only one of the editors has engaged in any discussion on the article talk page, and that was three weeks ago. If the other editor (EC) does not discuss on the talk page, the next step would be to ask him on his talk page to discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, is that a recommendation addressed to me? I have already done so, which I'm pretty sure I mentioned in the application, even going so far as to include a link to the delightful conversation.206.75.38.6 (talk)
  • Volunteer Note: I let Eric Corbett know which DRN case he is involved in on his talk page in response to him inquiring. I figure he should respond soon. Addition: After reading this discussion on his talk, it seems as though he is not willing to participate in any form of discussion related to this dispute. If that's the case, then this will probably be closed rather quickly by myself or another moderator. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Electronic harassment#Its_definition

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 very know-it-all editor reverts my edits and even threatens to have me blocked from editing if I edit, but s/he very lacks the ability to argument. On the talk page s/he is nothing but rational, explicitly refusing my central point which is that "my suggested improvements do not affect the sense of the article in any way". I even tried elaborating his own opinion only to have him/her reply with "I have said all that needs to be said here - if you lack the ability to comprehend it, that's your problem, not mine".

Basically, s/he states that my suggested improvements are to be rejected because they somehow affect the whole article. Well, my edits (3 words) don't affect the rest of the article, so I tried asking to discuss what s/he thinks the problem is but s/he doesn't reason, doesn't establish relations, doesn't use logic. It's true I'm suggesting to change the words used in the very basic definition thus they are relevant, but they don't change the meaning of the article at all. Changing those few words is just a way to describe with more accuracy what the claims of electronic harassment are about. Yet s/he is all into attacking my person neglecting my precisly outlined suggestions.

Also, s/he explicitly wants us to think s/he is just someone who dislikes insane conspiracy theories, thus someone who must be right. I did a lot of research on the topic of electronic harassment since well over a year ago because I also am attracted to understanding conspiracy theories, and indeed to debunking them, so I actually feel a little speechless being into a dispute like this. This is the first time I request a resolution to a dispute (I'm very new to editing) thus I really hope I did my best. I never even wanted to have anything to do with disputes because they look so complicated, but after reading about how they work for a few hours I feel more acquainted. Also, the other user involved openly pushed for a resolution outside of the talk page context, so here I am.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I did not try anything else other than discussing on the talk page. I decided to use the noticeboard because reading about disputes I came accross this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg and since the issue is at the very top of that pyramid I thought it was serious enough to set aside asking a third opinion and the other more relaxed venues.

How do you think we can help?

If I was you I believe I would carefully read the linked discussion on the talk page and judge if s/he is or isn't behaving correctly. I also believe you are supposed to fully research the matter by consulting for example the resources in order to really understand the topic and be able to give judgments on the content, so when you do I'm confident you will agree with the improvements I suggested (but this is too obvious). That's all!

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump

Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary, and I have no intention in participating here in a discussion with a SPA contributor who's entire editing history has consisted of the promotion of a fringe conspiracy theory, and who (after being warned for edit-warring) begins a discussion by bringing up 'invisible and silent "bullets"' and other unsourced nonsense, and then repeatedly accuses me of being 'irrational' when I state that the article must comply with Wikipedia policy. This is not a content dispute - it is a behavioural issue with a contributor who refuses to accept that Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of conspiracy theories about 'mind control'. Accepting the proposed changes (which I note that the contributor has not even bothered to provide - a curious approach to dispute resolution) would violate WP:NPOV policy. We are not going to replace 'harassment' with 'torture', because harassment (or rather claimed harassment) is what the sources refer to. And neither are we going to make any other changes based on the combination of WP:OR and sheer fantasy that seems to be behind the other proposed changes. If Clinicallytested wishes to promote such hogwash, it will have to be done elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic harassment#Its_definition discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate matches in Australian rules football

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

This is a content dispute concerning the article subsection Interstate matches in Australian rules football#Importance. The difficulty is in balancing an encyclopedic description of the historical important/popularity of interstate football – and most specifically, its importance within the state of Victoria. The two editors involved have substantially different interpretations of the history. I have been attempting to describe the fact that interstate football was, in general, less popular in Victoria than it was in other states; and I have been trying to push to quantify its popularity in Victoria by comparing it with crowds at club matches.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Began with a brief edit summary war, then discussion on user talk pages. Early discussion was hindered by a lack of references. See User_talk:Aspirex#Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football, and User_talk:2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (SportsEditor518 went under that IP in early discussion). Following Aspirex obtaining references, the issue has been re-discussed on SportsEditor518's user talk page with no further progress.

How do you think we can help?

A third eye would be helpful to make unbiased judgements on what can and cannot be concluded from the references in question. A communication intermediary would also be helpful, as neither side seems to be able to fully appreciate the other's position.

Summary of dispute by SportsEditor518

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Hi. I'd like to start by clarifying my position. The sentence in question, that I wrote is accurate. Which is But Interstate Football was still hugely popular in Victoria, which is sourced, and well supported by other references. Now certainly Interstate Football was not always popular in Victoria, the same as the other states, they had periods of highs and lows. But definitely at times it was very popular. Which I can prove, which is as follows, the 1989 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 91,960, and 10,000 people got turned away at the gate, reference [2]. The 1971 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 66,000, reference [3]. The 1963 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 59,260, reference [4]. The 2008 intestate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 69,000, reference [5]. The 1995 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 64,000, reference [6]. The 1978 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 45,192, that information is on the Wikipedia page (Interstate matches in Australian rules football). The two interstate games in Victoria in 1975 got big crowds of 40,006, that information is on the Wikipedia page 1975 Knockout Carnival. All of those games in Victoria got big crowds, which would mean during those times Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria. Also my reference for line in question, from a former professional Australian rules footballer Ray Walker who lived and played in Victoria, and was involved in Victorian Football for many years, states With the VFL still a few years from morphing into the national competition it is today interstate clashes between Victoria, South Australia & Western Australia were amongst the most anticipated clashes during the first half of the "electrifying" eighties. And to add to that it is common knowledge that Australian Football in Victoria is hugely popular, and has been described as an obsession, reference [7]. That would mean Interstate Football was hugely popular in Victoria at that time, because in a State where the sport is hugely popular, interstate games being amongst the most anticipated in an environment where the sport is hugely popular, means Interstate Football during that period was hugely popular in Victoria. Also another reference that proves my case is Ted Whitten a former professional Australian rules footballer who lived and played in Victoria for many years, and who played Interstate Football for Victoria for many years, and was involved in the Victorian State team for many years, is quoted as saying players would walk on glass to wear the Victorian jumper, that is how desperate players are to play, reference [8]. All of these references prove that at times Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria.

Editor Aspirex position that he is trying to prove how popular Interstate Football was in Victoria by comparing it to crowds at club matches is irrelevant. The subject is Interstate Football was popular in Victoria, not how popular it was in comparison to club Football. So therefore that argument is irrelevant.

I am still hoping that this can be solved by a compromise. I have recently left a compromise proposition on editor Aspirex's talk page. I have yet to have a response, but I only posted it recently. The proposal is get rid of the line in question, and add (Victoria's popularity in the concept was inconsistent. There were times it was very popular, but though out it's history in the State there were periods of low popularity. The periods of popularity usually coincided with close contests or losses with other states, and after periods of interstate games not being played in the State). I think this would be the best way to describe the content.

So in summarising at times Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria. I have several references that prove this. Therefore my statement in question and my proposal are accurate.SportsEditor518 (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Interstate matches in Australian rules football

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case. In looking at the discussion, which has all taken place on various user talk pages with no one regularly using signatures, it looks like there's possibly a third user involved? the possible third user was actually an IP of one of the two named users. valereee (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment – 2001:8003...etc was the former IP of SportsEditor518. Unfortunately, much of the early discussion took place with each of us replying to the other's talk page, affecting the trackability of the discussion – but all comments have been signed. Later discussion has all take place on SportsEditor518's page. Aspirex (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Offer I'm willing to compile all of the discussions into one place if desired. Aspirex (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer note Thanks for the offer, Aspirex! Let's wait until SportsEditor518 shows up. I noticed that the request for his input was inside another section on his talk page, so I just reposted it in its own section. He has edited today, so maybe he just didn't realize it was there. valereee (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have compiled everything at SportsEditor518's talk page. Aspirex (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Thank you, SportsEditor518 and Aspirex for both being open to the dispute resolution process; that alone tells me good things about both of you.  :) I see that Aspirex has compiled the information onto SportsEditor518's talk page; I'll read it over. I have an appointment this morning and likely won't be able to respond for several hours. valereee (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion as posted on SportsEditor518's talk page. From what I can see, you've both been sincerely trying to work together, talking about compromise, staying civil even when you thought the other was being unreasonable. Yay, team! For a next step I'd like to check that my understanding of your disagreement is accurate.

SportsEditor518, you seem to be saying:

  • that interstate football was hugely or very popular in VIC
  • that it was not less popular there than in the rest of AU
  • that low points in interstate football popularity occurred across AU, not just in VIC

And you've cited sources for this in game crowd statistics from reliable sources for various interstate games/times throughout history in VIC/AU.

Plus, you aren't sure you trust the interpretation Aspirex is putting on sources that aren't online where you can assess them for yourself.

Aspirex, you seem to be saying:

  • that in VIC, interstate football has at times been less popular than intrastate club football
  • that "hugely popular" and "very popular" are qualitative terms and therefore opinion, so aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia without a reliable source stating those opinions
  • that using game crowd statistics to support qualitative assertions represents synthesis and/or original research, which can't be used as reliable third-party sources in Wikipedia articles

And if I'm understanding it correctly, you both seem to agree that football in general has been at least as popular in VIC as in the rest of AU, and that the area of disagreement lies in the relative popularity of interstate football.

I'll ask you both to comment on whether my understanding of both your areas of disagreement and your areas of agreement is accurate. valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Aspirex

On those points:

  • "that in VIC, interstate football has at times been less popular than intrastate club football" (technical change, as 'intrastate' has a separate definition which is specifically relevant to Tasmania). That's not right. The main point I'm trying to get across is that interstate football in Victoria has throughout history been less popular than interstate football in other states. I see this fact as having an important part to play in the history and culture of interstate football – it goes most of the way to explaining why interstate football was more substantially centred in Adelaide and Perth after the 1960s, and it probably has a big part to play in explaining the ultimate demise of interstate football, which is why I'm so intent on its inclusion and description in full. I've been using a comparison between interstate football and club football because I think that's the most sensible way to "normalise" the concept of popularity between the states – but the take-home message I'm trying to promote by doing that is a comparison between interstate football in Victoria and elsewhere, not a comparison between interstate football and club football.
  • "that "hugely popular" and "very popular" are qualitative terms and therefore opinion, so aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia without a reliable source stating those opinions" More or less correct. The issue is probably more that the terms are ambiguous than that they are opinionated.
  • "that using game crowd statistics to support qualitative assertions represents synthesis and/or original research, which can't be used as reliable third-party sources in Wikipedia articles" Yes, I think this is a textbook exapmle of why we don't allow WP:SYNTHESIS. As you've seen from the history, the two of us are looking at the same crowd numbers and drawing opposite conclusions. (I recognise the descriptions of interstate football's popularity in SA, WA and Tasmania as they stand in the article are also SYNTHed, but neither of us seem to be disputing those conclusions)
  • "And if I'm understanding it correctly, you both seem to agree that football in general has been at least as popular in VIC as in the rest of AU..." – we haven't discussed this explicitly, but I'm not certain we agree on this one. I've been treating the base-line popularity of club football as constant across all four states, which is why I've been freely comparing club and interstate football with each other. SportsEditor518 has said on a couple of occasions "Football is like a religion in Victoria", and I wonder if that's intended to mean that club football should be assumed to be more popular in Victoria than elsewhere.

One thing I do agree to: the comment/reference about Ted Whitten [9] refers to the the importance of interstate football to the players, rather than its importance to fans – all of our discussion to date has been focussed on importance to fans. I think it would be worthwhile to include a separate paragraph in the same section of the article describing importance to players; I think that would be a useful addition and should be easily referencable. Any news article which quotes Graham Cornes will be able to provide an equally valid South Australian perspective on the matter. (Note, however – Whitten was the most vigorous promotor of interstate football in Victoria, and he would tend to exaggerate to generate public interest. But I've seen enough references of players talking about their pride to play for Victoria that I wouldn't dispute his sentiment) Aspirex (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by SportsEditor518

First I'll address the moderators requested points.

  • That interstate football was hugely or very popular in VIC - yes Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria.
  • That it was not less popular there than in the rest of AU - I'd like to clarify something, I'm not disputing that Interstate Football was more popular outside Victoria. It was a little bit more popular outside Victoria.
  • That low points in interstate football popularity occurred across AU, not just in VIC - yes I agree with that, and is accurate.
  • Plus, you aren't sure you trust the interpretation Aspirex is putting on sources that aren't online where you can assess them for yourself - yes that's correct, and I'm not sure if they even exist.
  • And if I'm understanding it correctly, you both seem to agree that football in general has been at least as popular in VIC as in the rest of AU, and that the area of disagreement lies in the relative popularity of interstate football - no for both. The first point, Football is way more popular in Victoria than in the rest of Australia, it's the heartland of the sport in Australia, references [10] [11] [12]. And I'm not debating the point the relative popularity of interstate football. I'm saying that Interstate Football was at times very popular in Victoria, not relative to anything else.

I'll now address Aspirex's points.

  • Aspirex claim that interstate football was more substantially centred in Adelaide and Perth after the 1960s is not true. Between 1981 and 1988 there were no interstate games played in Victoria. But for the rest of time from the 1960's onwards until the concept was abolished many interstate games were played in Victoria. So that statement is incorrect.
  • Aspirex's point I've been using a comparison between interstate football and club football because I think that's the most sensible way to "normalise" the concept of popularity between the states is irrelevant. Because like I explained the subject is was Interstate Football popular in Victoria at all, and a comparison between Interstate Football and Club Football is not needed and is irrelevant to describe weather the concept was popular in Victoria at all, therefore it's irrelevant.
  • Aspirex's point I'm trying to promote by doing that is a comparison between interstate football in Victoria and elsewhere is also irrelevant. Because in no way does that comparison describe weather Interstate Football was popular in Victoria at all.
  • Aspirex's claim that some of my sources are Synthesis is wrong. I have two references which is related to the topic of the article, one states a crowd I said was big is big, and the other that a crowd and crowds below and around the crowds in my references are big, references [13] [14]
  • Aspirex's claim that some of my sources are ambiguous is wrong. The references are very clear, and I proved that in my last point with the references.
  • Aspirex's position that club Football is just as popular everywhere in Australia, is not true. Club Football is way more popular in Victoria than in the other states. Reference 1 from Graham Cornes who is a South Australian, who was born in Victoria, and played for and in South Australia for many years, and coached South Australia and in South Australia for many years - [15]. 2 from the AFL - [16]. The reason I bring this up is because it lends a lot of weight to my point that Interstate Football was at times very popular in Victoria, reference [17]. Because interstate games being amongst the most anticipated during period in the reference, reference [18], in an environment where Football is hugely popular, which I've given several references for, means interstate Football was very popular during that time.
  • Aspirex's statement that Ted Whitten used to exaggerate interest in Interstate Football is wrong, and there is no evidence of that.

So in summarising all of my references are valid, and therefore my statement and proposal are accurate. I think my proposal should be added to the article because it's the best way to describe the content.SportsEditor518 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

1½th statement by Aspirex

I should let Valereee speak next, but I feel I need to make two important rebuttals before my next full statement:

  • SportsEditor518's assertion that club football is "way more popular in Victoria" than elsewhere is false. His view seems to be solely to be based the use of the word "heartland", which is more of a buzzword than an objective measure of popularity. This reference [19] from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has tables that show the Attendance Rate and Participation Rate in Austrlian rules football on a state-by-state basis, and shows that both attendances and participation (on a percentage-of-population basis) are very similar across Vic, SA, Tas and WA.
  • I'm also offended that SportsEditor518 is assuming bad faith on my part, with regard to what is clearly an accusation that I've fabricated my non-online references. I regularly use newspaper sources that aren't available online when writing articles about football history (1987 VFA season is a good example, containing about 50 print references), and I do this because I've found in sport that contemporary sources tend to be a much more accurate reflection of reality than modern references. Aspirex (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

2½ statement by SportsEditor518

I should let Valereee speak next, but I feel I need to rebut three important things before my next statement.

  • Aspirex claim that Football is just as popular everywhere in Australia as it is in Victoria is clearly wrong. I have provided several references that are valid that prove this. Here's a reference that gives you an idea of how Football is way more popular in Victoria compared to anywhere else. It's from Jason Dunstall a former professional Australian Footballer, who was born in a State outside Victoria, and moved to Victoria to play professionally, and the person who is interviewing him in my reference. The dialogue goes as follows Interviewer - it must of been a massive culture shock coming from Queensland to the (mad house of Melbourne with it's Football). Melbourne is the capital of Victoria. Jason Dunstall responds - massive culture shock, absolutely massive culture shock, I was like a Deer in the head lights when I came down. He then goes on to say the importance of Footy culture plays in people's lives in Victoria was extraordinary, I mean people's working week depends on how their team goes on the Weekend. He then goes on to say I'd never experienced anything as intense as that, so that took a lot to adapt too. Here's that reference [20]. Football in States outside Victoria doesn't get described like that. An important thing to note is it's not just statistics that makes Football in Victoria way more popular than anywhere else. It's what it means to people, it's how much it's talked about, and other such things. Here's another reference which proves Football is hugely popular in Victoria, it's described in the article as an obsession. [21]
  • Aspires's claim that all of my references for Football being way more popular in Victoria than anywhere else are based on the use of the word Heartland is wrong. One of my references that doesn't use the word Heartland is from Graham Cornes, who lived, played and coached in South Australia for many years, who is a very passionate South Australian, which is well documented, and which is described in my reference. And who is someone who hated Victoria! which is well documented. And he describes in my reference that Football is way more popular in Victoria than anywhere else, here's that reference [22]. Football in other states doesn't get described as profoundly as it is in that reference.
  • Aspirex's claim that the word Heartland is a Buzz word, and doesn't objectively describe a sports popularity is wrong. The word is accurately used by sports to describe where their sport is most popular, like Australian Football has done with Victoria.SportsEditor518 (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

So sorry, somehow the DRN got unwatched, and I was just coming in here to make a note to ping SportsEditor518 for his first statement. My bad. So it looks like I haven't done a very good job summarizing the actual dispute...let's try again. I'd like, if possible, to get this down to the absolute minimum of the actual dispute -- the primary issue, I mean -- to see if we can work on that.

Let me go read over your statements 1, 1 1/2, 2 1/2 etc., BRB. Okay, read through, and thanks for all the work the two of you have been putting into this.

So let me try again to get at the very heart of the dispute and state it as simply as possible.

Is it true that the main issue here is that the two of you disagree on whether interstate football was very popular in VIC, and that you both believe you've got references that prove your own side of the argument?

valereee (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

3rd statement by SportsEditor518

Spot on Valereee, yes that is the dispute. And editor Aspirex seems to be debating that Interstate Football was more popular in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, which I don't dispute.SportsEditor518 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Aspirex

Yes, that's right.

But to be honest, I'm now struggling even more to fully understand SportsEditor518's position. He says in his third statement that he agrees with me that interstate football was less popular in Victoria than elsewhere; but he's rejected every attempt I've made to include that information in the article and described almost every reference and argument I've used to push that case as irrelevant. So I'm confused about exactly what problems SportsEditor581 has with my proposed text. Aspirex (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we've go agreement that this is the crux of the dispute -- great! Let's stay within this section (rather than starting each statement with a new section -- just indent responses to each previous response by one additional colon at the start of your response as is normal on a talk page and when you're starting a new line of thought, leave out the indents.) Let's focus on just this one statement.

SportsEditor518, Aspirex is saying that the two of you are in agreement that interstate football was less popular in VIC than it was in the rest of WA, SA, TAS. Is it your argument that while it was less popular in VIC than in the rest of AU, it was still 'very popular'? Let's try to keep to just this one point. valereee (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


That's partially correct. My position is that Interstate Football was more popular in SA, WA and TAS than in Victoria. But at times it was very popular in Victoria.
I think the best way to address the issue is as follows - regarding Aspirex's proposal my problems are it doesn't describe how popular Interstate Football was in Victoria. Which was like I stated it was very popular at times, and it had it's highs and lows. Which I've certainly proved, with many references. The other problem I have with his proposal is that my proposal better describes the content.
Also I am very confused why Aspirex has the view that he's confused about what the debate is about, and what my problems are with he's proposal. For one I've stated several times what I'm debating, and what my problems are with he's proposal. Asirex's claims that I've rejected his attempt to include the information that Interstate Football was more popular in WA, SA & Tas than in Victoria, and I dismissed his references and arguments as irrelevant for it, are not true. The reason I bring this up is because the information he wants in the article that Interstate Football was more popular in SA, WA & Tas than in Victoria is already in there. So I'm very confused.
I think my proposal should be added to the article, which is get rid of the line in question, and add the line - Victoria's popularity in the concept was inconsistent. There were times it was very popular, but though out it's history in the State there were periods of low popularity. The periods of popularity usually coincided with close contests or losses with other states, and after periods of interstate games not being played in the State. I think my proposal should be added because it best describes the content, and it describes how popular Interstate Football was in Victoria, and the reasons for it.SportsEditor518 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, we seem to have an area of agreement. Let's keep to just that one area of agreement for now. What I'd like to propose is that we now check, for just the point that "While less popular than in other states, Interstate football was still "very popular" in VIC," that we have reliable sources. A reliable source has to have said something very very close to just that. Do you have a reliable source saying something similar to that, SportsEditor518? I looked at some of the sources you have cited so far, and some of them seem to be simple game crowd numbers which can't prove a concept like "popularity" one way or the other, others aren't reliable by wikipedia standards, and at least I couldn't myself get to because they require a subscription. Which isn't to say they aren't reliable or wouldn't prove the point, just that I couldn't check them for myself. But they may be available to Aspirex. valereee (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Valereee, I have to clarify my position after an oversight on my part, my position is that I agree that Interstate Football was more popular in WA, SA & Tas than in Victoria. But at times it was very popular in Victoria.
Yes I do have reliable sources. One is the reference I have in the article, which is from Ray Walker who played professional Football in Victoria, and was involved in the professional league in Victoria for many years, and lived in Victoria. And he says this - With the VFL still a few years from morphing into the national competition it is today interstate clashes between Victoria, South Australia & Western Australia were amongst the most anticipated clashes during the first half of the "electrifying" eighties. Here's that reference [23]. Another reference I have is a crowd number in a sentence, but it says this - Incredibly, 91,960 fans responded to Ted Whitten’s call to support the concept’s return to the MCG, here's that reference [24]. Also I've got another reference about the same game where it says 10,000 people got turned away at the gate at the ground, here's that reference [25]. And I have a reference which is related to the topic of the article, which states a crowd I referred to in one of my references is big, and a crowd smaller than crowds I described in my references are big. That comes under SYNTHESIS, under what is stated on it's page, which is - A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Therefore all of my crowd references are valid under SYNTHESIS. Here's that reference [26] SportsEditor518 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, so let's do two things -- first, let's assess the sources, then let's assess the conclusions we're drawing from those sources. I'll give you my take first, and then you tell me what you think.
The first source is australianfootball.com, which from their about page appears to be a blog about the history of AU football. I'm not an expert on Australian media, but in general what Wikipedia wants to see is a large newspaper, a published book, or an online source that is recognized by large newspapers as reliable, like Huffington Post or a few others. To me, this wouldn't look like a reliable source if it came up in my research for an article.
The second is the Herald Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper in Melbourne -- so yes, that's a reliable source. The third is again the Herald Sun, so yes, reliable. I can't reach the Courier-Mail because it requires a subscription, but it's one of the largest newspapers in AU, so again, a reliable source.
So this leaves us with the two Herald Sun articles and the Courier-Mail article, and now we need to assess what they say about popularity of football in VIC.
The two Herald Sun articles are both 'greatest moments in football history' stories, both covering much of the same ground. I see only passing references to crowd size, nothing that seems to come close to saying 'interstate football is very popular in VIC.' Other than a passing reference to crowd size and numbers turned away, I don't see anything? We can't take a statement from one and connect it to a statement from the other to form a conclusion that seems obvious to us. In general it has to be a conclusion someone else came to and which was reported in our single reliable source. The exception would be if reliable source A were to make a blanket statement that "Any game attended by more than 90,000 people inherently proves that the sport in question is very popular in a particular place," and reliable source B says, "Game C was attended by 90,001." We could then say something like "According to Reliable Source A, Game C's attendance figures (citation of Reliable Source B goes here) prove that interstate football was very popular in VIC."(citation of Reliable Source A.)
Which leaves the final reference to assess. As I can't see it, I can't comment, but it needs to say something very similar to 'interstate football is/was/has been/has often been very popular in VIC,' or make that blanket statement I was talking about above. Is there something in that article that says one of these things? valereee (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
My perspective on those references is as follows:
The Mick Rees/Ray Walker article, whether from a reliable source or not, simply doesn't allow SportsEditor518's conclusion about interstate football in Victoria to be drawn. It is talking about interstate football in a very general sense, and does not mention Victoria specifically when describing how "anticipated" the games were. SportsEditor518's argument has been that the generality of the article (and home state of the author) means that the conclusions drawn from it are equally valid for Victoria as they are for any other state. I don't accept that at all – especially not when we've already established and agreed that popularities were different across the different states. My other argument is that the article is referring specifically to the first half of the 1980s; we've already established and agreed that no interstate games were played in Victoria between 1981 and 1988, and therefore one can easily conclude that any generalised conclusions about interstate football as a whole in that period cannot be extended to Victoria.
Secondly, the references relating to the maximum crowd of 91,960 from 1989. Neither of us is disputing that this crowd occurred, and my proposed text does include a description of it. However, the Greg Baum reference I provided on SportsEditor518's talk page clearly describes the special circumstances which drove that particular crowd to be so high: namely, that SA's dominance over the previous three years had sparked interest and that promotion for that game by the VFL was unusually high. My proposal details this with Baum's article as the reference. I do agree that this one maximum crowd is worthy of note, but I do not consider it reflective of interstate football's overall popularity in Victoria – particularly since the next-highest crowd in interstate football history was only 69,000 (in a stadium which can accommodate 90,000-100,000). So in summary: valid reference for describing the peak crowd, but invalid reference for describing interstate football as "very popular".
The final reference (the one you can't see) is an article which details crowds at club matches in the first half of 2015. It is completely irrelevant. SportsEditor518 is using it to draw conclusions about crowds at interstate matches from between thirty and fifty years earlier. It's both an invalid comparison and a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS.
My proposed version of the text as it stands says "Other than the record-breaking match in 1989, the largest crowds drawn to interstate games in Victoria were between 60,000-70,000, on par a large home-and-away game but lower than a typical finals attendance; and average crowds were often around 40,000." To me, that is a fair and accurate description of interstate football's absolute popularity in Victoria, because it describes the crowds in the context of overall football popularity (i.e. by using club crowds as the baseline measure of football's popularity in Victoria). Even if I agreed with the sentiment, I find the thought of adding a term like "very popular" to try to summarise the thought to be problematic because it's such a subjective term – but the way I read it, it's a substantial overstatement of its popularity. I don't see any problem with just stating the numbers and letting them speak for themselves. Aspirex (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Aspirex! I think that if there were a reliable source from which a direct quote can be taken, terms like 'very popular' are fair game for a wikipedia article. I agree it's subjective, but we report it objectively: "Other than the record-breaking match in 1989, the largest crowds drawn to interstate games in Victoria were between 60,000-70,000, on par a large home-and-away game but lower than a typical finals attendance; and average crowds were often around 40,000. However, HeraldSunSportsWriter, writing in the Herald Sun, said 'the attendance figures understate the popularity of interstate football in Victoria.'(citation)" The key issue is finding the support for that subjective statement in a reliable source, which we can then report on objectively. valereee (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible way to phrase it – I've been struggling with coming up with a way to phrase it that doesn't sound contradictory. I'd want somthing a little more credible than a reference that just uses the words "very popular" though – in my mind it would have to be an article that was talking about its popularity as the main point of the article, rather than one of those 'top ten' type articles which included "very popular" as a throwaway line. Aspirex (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Short break I'm headed out of town overnight, may or may not have internet access. I'll be back either Saturday night or Sunday morning. valereee (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Back now! Hm, doesn't look like SportsEditor518 has edited since the 24th, so we'll give him a little longer in case he's in a busy stretch of real life. valereee (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see SportsEditor518 edited yesterday, so pinging him here. valereee (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for SportsEditor518 to edit again without showing up here to respond to the ping before we decide he's lost interest in the discussion. valereee (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like he edited as an IP yesterday, pinging him there, too in case he's simply forgotten to sign in and hasn't received the ping 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F
Aspirex, I'm wondering if SportsEditor518 has simply lost interest. In your discussions with him, was he ever absent this long? If he was, we can give him a little more time now that we've pinged him on both his user name and his IP. valereee (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
No, he had basically always responded within a day in the past. Aspirex (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hm...well, at this point it's been over a week since he's been in here. I'm headed out of town for three days, will have intermittent internet access. If he hasn't come back in by the time I'm back, I guess we'll have to conclude that for now he's no longer disputing the issue. valereee (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Reopening Discussion

Please remember to indent as appropriate and sign your posts with four tildes so we can all easily follow who is saying what. valereee (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This diff [27] shows our competing versions as they stand now. This covers a mix of content and style disputes. My issues with the text being added by SportsEditor are:
  • "Interstate Football wasn't as popular in Victoria as it was in the other states. Victoria's popularity in the concept was inconsistent, at times it was close to the popularity of the other states, but many times throughout history it had periods of low popularity. In 1989 Victoria set a State Football record of 91,960, with 10,000 people turned away at the Gate." – SportsEditor518 still hasn't provided any references that the popularity in Victoria was ever comparable with other states; I have provided references from five different decades showing that popularity in Victoria was lower, and SportsEditor is still relying on his own SYNTHESIS of crowd figures to argue differently and claiming I haven't done enough to prove my point. Additionally, SportsEditor518's styling is inferior, using "wasn't as popular" instead of "was less popular than", capitalising words randomly.
  • "The higher periods of popularity in Victoria usually came after Victoria had suffered losses or close contests." – This is unreferenced and I don't know whether it's true or not. The Baum reference describes this as an explanation for the high crowd in 1989, and SportsEditor518 appears to have assumed this explanation applies to all of the popular periods that he claims have existed. Even if SportsEditor does later provide references demonstrating other popular periods to have existed, the statement in question would need to be separately referenced for those other periods.
  • "It is no surprise that following the" – informal style; nothing lost by removal.
  • The competing paragraphs starting "Victoria's dominance for most of..." in SportsEditor's version and "Amongst the competing states..." in my version. SportsEditor goes beyond the information in the provided reference when he speaks expansively about the supposed reasons for the rivalry; the reference merely states that the rivalry existed, not why it existed. For the remaining content in the paragraph, SportsEditor's is written in a very round-about way, whereas I've summarised it more neatly. Finally, the statement "Victoria used make non-Victorian players playing in the VFL play for Victoria" is false – it was the Australian National Football Council which set these rules, not Victoria.
  • The Andrew Jarman quote adds no encyclopedic value. It's just a buzz phrase that neither proves nor enhances the point of the paragraph: namely that the rivalry with Victoria was particularly strong. Nothing is lost but a tone improvement is made by removing it.
  • The description of the "Kick a Vic" campaign is overstated in SportsEditor's version. That the slogan existed is well-established fact and is relevant for inclusion; but to claim that its existence proves the rivalry was "so intense" is either a SYNTH or a PEACOCK or both.
  • "In terms of popularity of Interstate Football from the players it was always very high in all states." – I think I've seen some references from the 1930s which indicated that Victorian players didn't view selection "very highly" at that time, but I need to check the references to make sure I'm interpreting them correctly. I'm just including this to make sure you're aware that I may be disputing this fact.
  • The description of the importance to players has a style issue. I'm comfortable that the references provided are adequate to describe the importance of interstate football to players; but SportsEditor's version is written very unencyclopedically, listing a string of directly quoted buzz phrases.
I also have a concern about describing interstate football as being always very important to the players, but I need a couple of days to gather references before I can make a formal objection to that. Aspirex (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep this discussion purely to content/sourcing issues rather than stylistic. We can deal with ways in which style can affect content later, after we've come to some consensus on the content/sourcing. SportsEditor518, are you here? valereee (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's Saturday in Australia, I've been out all day, and I'm going out tonight, I'll respond tomorrow.SportsEditor518 (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

SportsEditor518, great! In the meantime, I'm going to reiterate the content/sourcing points from Aspirex's above discussion points, with the stylistic points removed for later discussion. I'd also like to treat the subject of importance to the players as a separate discussion, if that sounds reasonable to both of you, as I think although it's related, it might be best to treat it as a separate point. So, from Aspirex:
This diff [28] shows our competing versions as they stand now. This covers a mix of content and style disputes. My issues with the text being added by SportsEditor are:
  • "Interstate Football wasn't as popular in Victoria as it was in the other states. Victoria's popularity in the concept was inconsistent, at times it was close to the popularity of the other states, but many times throughout history it had periods of low popularity. In 1989 Victoria set a State Football record of 91,960, with 10,000 people turned away at the Gate." – SportsEditor518 still hasn't provided any references that the popularity in Victoria was ever comparable with other states; I have provided references from five different decades showing that popularity in Victoria was lower, and SportsEditor is still relying on his own SYNTHESIS of crowd figures to argue differently and claiming I haven't done enough to prove my point.
  • "The higher periods of popularity in Victoria usually came after Victoria had suffered losses or close contests." – This is unreferenced and I don't know whether it's true or not. The Baum reference describes this as an explanation for the high crowd in 1989, and SportsEditor518 appears to have assumed this explanation applies to all of the popular periods that he claims have existed. Even if SportsEditor does later provide references demonstrating other popular periods to have existed, the statement in question would need to be separately referenced for those other periods.
  • The competing paragraphs starting "Victoria's dominance for most of..." in SportsEditor's version and "Amongst the competing states..." in my version. SportsEditor goes beyond the information in the provided reference when he speaks expansively about the supposed reasons for the rivalry; the reference merely states that the rivalry existed, not why it existed. Finally, the statement "Victoria used make non-Victorian players playing in the VFL play for Victoria" is false – it was the Australian National Football Council which set these rules, not Victoria.
  • The description of the "Kick a Vic" campaign is overstated in SportsEditor's version. That the slogan existed is well-established fact and is relevant for inclusion; but to claim that its existence proves the rivalry was "so intense" is either a SYNTH or a PEACOCK or both.

The above points by Aspirex will be what we're dealing with in the current discussion. valereee (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've struck out a section; looking more closely at the reference it appears to show approximately what SportsEditor has written, albeit imprecisely. However, I still maintain my style complaint about the poor tone of the phrasing in that section, and the part of the content dispute that I didn't strike out. Aspirex (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging SportsEditor518 and his IP as well 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F valereee (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

48 hour closing notice

  • Seeing that this case hasn't been active for over a week (except the last volunteer comment), and that SportsEditor518 has seemed to have disappeared despite saying they would respond last Saturday, this case will have to be closed as no consensus if there is no discussion within 48 hours. Thanks! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately SportsEditor518 hasn't edited since the 11th on either their user account or their IP 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F . Aspirex, I'm afraid there's not much more we can do here. I think if they continue to dispute this, you might have to take the issue for more formalized resolution. Thank you for your willingness to work through this and for your patience with an overlong process. You have gone above and beyond to try to handle this the right way; I'm sorry I couldn't help more. valereee (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Lucha Underground

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

Lucha Underground is a professional wrestling television series. Matches are typically filmed 3-4 months in advance, with considerable additional production beyond these matches, to the point of approaching a drama series. As it is a highly produced fictional series, rather than simply a tape delay of a live event, nothing is set in stone until it actually airs. In the 8 or so months the show has aired, little has changed from filming, but this does not preclude the possibility of changes being made in post-production, to account for real-life events occurring between filming and airing, on the whims of the producers, etc.


A handful of users have taken it upon themselves to bully their way around the main Lucha Underground page, as well as related championship pages, posting results on the dates they were filmed rather than the dates they air. Due to the nature of Lucha Underground as a highly produced fictional television show, this amounts to treating Wikipedia as a Crystal Ball. While it may be likely the filmed events will eventually make their way to television, there are no guarantees. Everything they are using for sources are nothing but rumors from a television production set, and rumors which are breaking non-disclosure agreements in the process.


This is not merely a matter of spoilers. It's a matter of unreliable sources. While the sources may be able to reliably relay what they saw, that is not the same as reliably reporting what will air on this highly produced fictional television series. These wrestling rumor sites, colloquially known as "dirtsheets", cannot confirm what the producers of Lucha Underground will decide to do months after taping. This is no different than someone on the set of a regular television drama witnessing a character's death during production and reporting it as "fact" without knowing if that event will ever actually air.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing it on the talk page with MPJ-DK. Observing C.Fred's prior involvement.

How do you think we can help?

Make a clear cut distinction whether or not this is a fictional television series, and thereby whether or not it is improper to post speculation of events that will air based on what was filmed months prior.

Summary of dispute by MPJ-DK

I just want point out that I do not appreciate being called a "bully", when all I have done is debate my views on how I believe it is/should be. I guess I bully by not being in agreement? Nothing personal on my part at all. Also, 1 day after you post in the debate it ends up here already? I mean unless you were one of the IPs involved in the earlier debate? Also I have taken very few actions beyond posting on the talk page.

So at the heart of this argument is very fun, highly entertaining Lucha Underground wrestling show and discussions around what is and is not against the rules/best practices of wikipedia or whatever something like WP:CRYSTAL is. The argument has been either for or against posting wrestling results until they have been shown on television, in a nutshell that is the "contentious" material here; the result of matches and the dates they were taped, so the dates they actually happened in real life. I have no problems agreeing that there is post-production going on from the producers' side and I agree that some times what was taped in the ring is presented with additional or different information than when it was taped, be it via segments in between matches or some matches being shown in a different order than they were taped. Yep that happens but does that change the fact that on "May X" they taped a match where Luchador A pinned Luchador B and was announced as the "Universal Internet Champion of the Worlds"? It still happened, it's a fact - If they later present it differently on TV then that's a fact too. A truly encyclopedic article on the event should state both facts, that during post-production they added a segment that made it look different than when taped, or that they never aired the title match and ignored it on TV. Those are facts, all of them. And they are all facts that are only added after they become facts (happened or shown on TV).

The argument was made that this is a case of "Crystalball", but my counter point was that it cannot be predicting the future if it's only covering what has already happened. Articles are not stating "this WILL be shown on August X in such and such way", only that it happened during a TV taping. I believe WP:SPOILER would be the appropriate thing to call attention to here? I would also like to call out the fact that these are articles about wrestling and thus the general conventions on wrestling is what we're being asked to ignore here. There are numerous examples of shows, title changes etc. being taped in advance and shown at a later date, heck there are instances where they taped a title change WHILE someone else actually was the official champion - leading to a "-4 day" title reign because that's the FACTS. We put down when it happened and when it was broadcast if those are two different dates. The argument that Lucha Underground is a highly produced TV show and thus is "not wrestling" to me seems like a misguided argument - I got three acronyms for you WWE, WCW and NJPW - All were/are known for highly produced, scripted, "fictional" wrestling shows and not always live either. To me the main difference is the tape-to-air time here, but that seems like an arbitrary distinction between "it's JUST a TV show" instead of "it's a wrestling and a tv show". We are talking about information that is in no way PERSONAL, no more than Han Solo's actions during a movie is a reflection of Harrison Ford, it's match results, dates taped etc. it does not really fall in the category of information that should be removed on sight for BLP. Needs citation? Don't agree with a source being reliable? tag it and let's deal with the specifics instead of a blanket "don't put anything on until they've aired" because you don't want "spoilers" in the articles.

So here we are - "Contend Dispute", which is true there is a dispute and a disagreement opinions on the subject, but the "solution" is pointless, I am not aware of any "speculations of events"  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  21:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by C.Fred

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Lucha Underground discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: Notice has been given and discussion is adequate. I'm neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. Awaiting summaries from the responding parties. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I am opening this case for discussion. I don't claim to know anything about the subject matter. The above comments are long, and I would appreciate concise summaries. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Is the professional wrestling that the article is about staged? (In the United States, professional wrestling is staged, and so is considered entertainment rather than a sport. In fact, declaring it to be entertainment is necessary because otherwise it would violate US laws against sport fixing.) Does the dispute involve statements about matches that have already been taped but not yet broadcast? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Each editor is requested to make a brief (concise and civil) statement at the main level. You may for now reply to each other, but if there is unnnecessary back-and-forth, comments may be boxed, so please do not reply in a back-and-forth fashion. Is there anything else besides making statements about the show after it was taped and before it is broadcast that needs to be discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MPJ I hope this is the main level? If not let me know. So yes pro wrestling is scripted, also known as "sports entertainment", not quite a soap opera and not quite a competitive sport. The complain centers around posting results of matches that have been taped, but not yet aired. Which is not uncommon for pro wrestling articles if we have reliable sources for the results. JasonOT claims that by posting what has happening we're speculating on how it will be shown on TV, none of the LU articles do that at all. For matches that have not aired at most articles state "scheduled to air on XX" because LU specifically promoted the dates. There is nothing speculative about stating what happened in the matches. I have not heard any other disputes than the articles mentioning match results before they're shown on TV. MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the sources for posting the results of the matches before they are broadcast? Is there a question about whether the sources are reliable? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not recall every single source for the unaired results but I believe the majority are from wrestleview.com which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources as acceptable for match results. Since I am just one of many editors on those articles I have not checked them all, but I will go look them over. MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  18:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So a quick bit of research to identify anything that refers to future events and not something that has already happened, with only 3 episodes left is very little, and here is what I found. I know I am an interested party in and could be "biased" but I just want this resolved as fast as possible.  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Statements made about matches that have not aired are sourced by WrestleView. Purely refers to match results.
  • Statements made about matches that have not aired are sourced by WrestleView. Purely refers to match results.
  • Statements made about matches that have not aired are sourced by WrestleView. Purely refers to match results.
  • Statements made about matches that have not aired are sourced by WrestleView. Purely refers to match results.
  • Statements made about matches that have not aired are sourced by WrestleView. Purely refers to match results.

Statement by starship.paint

I'm uninvolved in this case. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. The thing about posting spoilers - it's absolutely permissible - if verified by a reliable source determined by the project. But is posting spoilers needed? I would say yes to the following scenario: when a wrestler wins a championship. Thing is, many wrestling companies tape their shows instead of having them air live. Many wrestlers win a championship on a certain date, but the TV episode airs days, weeks, or months later.

We're Wikipedia - we report facts. A wrestler holds a championship from the day of the taping, not from the day of the episode airing. This is because the same TV episode may air on different days - Lucha Underground airs on Wednesday for El Rey, and I think Saturday for UniMas. See List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) - reign number 42, Christian and reign number 43, Orton, for an example.

The information must be notable when posting spoilers. Title changes fulfill that notability. Another possibility is the announcement of matches for a major event. But that will probably not apply here. P.S. I must admit that I have kept away from reading through the articles - because I don't wish to be spoiled either. So please don't spoil anything. LOL! starship.paint ~ KO 13:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Moderator question - Is it correct that the only real question is whether "spoilers", about shows that have been taped but not broadcast, should be included in the articles? If so, see the spoiler guideline, which says that there is no rule against providing spoilers, but no requirement to provide them. If so, what is the argument for excluding the spoilers, and what is the argument for including them? Is there a wrestling guideline about spoilers, or a more specific guideline? Let's focus on why and why not to provide spoilers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There have been past discussions allowing spoilers for wrestling articles. One is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 75#Spoilers. There were also discussions of the talkpage for Jack Swagger when he won the World Heavyweight Title on SmackDown. That show was taped days in advance but there were multiple sources confirming the win. While there were a few suggesting that it was only official after the show aired the general consensus was that since reliable sources covered it the title win could be mentioned on the article before the show aired.--64.229.167.72 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Moderator Question - It appears that there have been previous discussions of posting spoilers about professional wrestling, but not recently, and that there is no policy against posting spoilers if the source is reliable. (Posting spoilers that have been taped is not crystal balling.) So: Does an editor have a reason to say that we should not be providing spoilers, or do we have agreement that it is all right to provide spoilers? If some editors think that we should not provide spoilers, then one way to resolve this would be a Request for Comments, either at the article level or at the project level. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • JasonOT is in a minority on posting spoilers, we have wikpedians who avoid specific articles to not be spoiled but they seem to agree that they are allowed. I would agree if someone feels strongly enough about spoilers the RFC route is the way to go. MPJ -Viva Esfinge  20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Moderator Comment - It appears that User:JasonOT filed this case, and opposes the spoilers, but hasn't commented in the last 48 hours to provide a reason for opposing the spoilers. If there is no comment opposing the spoilers within 24 hours, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's fine to post spoilers. Editors should however exercise caution, and only include spoilers for the most notable content. There's no need to post full results of every taped show in existence. But important things such as championship changes would be notable enough. starship.paint ~ KO 00:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree and I don't think anyone in the pro spoiler camp here would suggest that we need to post the results of every single match a wrestler has since there is a difference between hiding spoilers and being overly detailed. it's the same reason that WP:SPOILER does not dictate that every aspect of a works' plot (film, book, video game) needs to be covered.--64.229.167.72 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
To put it more concretely we don't need Wrestler W defeated B one week, C the next, and D after that in a series of matches with no storyline significance. However if something more important happened, such as Wrestler A was assaulted by his former tag team partner wanted revenge against A who abandoned him in a match 2 moths prior that would be more significant.--64.229.167.72 (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing this so quickly, I go on vacation soon and I would have hated to leave this hanging, a general discussion on spoilers would not be held up by me not being here while this request would have stalled quickly. So thank you, I was not even aware that this existed but it's great to see people investing time in helping people.  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  02:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kenny Dalglish

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 have added edits to Kenny Dalglish to add in his individual achievements under Honours. If you look at football awards list 95% of them on wikipedia are not sourced externally (But are internally sourced). As many of these awards are from the 70's/80's it is hard to find an external source as the internet did not exist.

I have given Qed237 many reasons and talked extensively on his talkpage but he removed my edits despite me saying that good articles like Alex Ferguson, Bill Shankly, even excellent rated articles like Lionel Messi, the awards under Honours are not completely externally sourced.

Qed237 has removed my edits and I believe that is incorrect.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have said I will return the edits and in the coming days I will add any reference sources that I do find, however many may prove difficult.

How do you think we can help?

You can let my edits to Kenny Dalglish stand (Compare to any all other football articles) and for sources I do find, I will add them. Also I am being given a warning by Qed237 which is unfair as I believe I am right and it is wrong of him to just remove my edits without first talking to me on my talkpage and saying that it would be better for the article to research and get as many external sources as possible.

Summary of dispute by Qed237

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Kenny Dalglish discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dictatorship of the proletariat

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

The article describes the marxist term of dictatorship of the proletariat in comprehensive way, starting from its introduction by Marx and Engels, what they intended it to be, then how other marxists interpreted it and what happened to it in practice.

An IP user (or group of) introduced very significant changes to the article, essentially reducing it to a very limited interpretation of what Marx might have meant originally, removing large parts of the article on the basis that they are not part of this particular interpreation.

These changes have been continously reverted by several editors over the period of last year, but the IP users kept restoring them until we asked for full article protection. The article was however protected in the IP-introduced version, which is currently simply confusing (with claims like "dictatorship is democratic", which contradicts any mainstream definition of democracy). There is also some own research and questionable sources used.

The IP users happily take on an ideological discussion on the talk page, but they have not picked up any of the proposed changes, which doesn't really bring us closer to any consensus and lifting the protection.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked admin for article protection, started sockpuppetry investigation.

How do you think we can help?

Help agree on the consensus on how the article should look like and whether the questionable statements should remain in the protected version.

Summary of dispute by GeneralizationsAreBad

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This is basically an edit war over content. I didn't come over to the page until July 14, when I saw a very large change made to the page. As it involved what was (in my opinion) an unwarranted deletion of content and some questionable wording ("inherently democratic"), I reverted it. In hindsight, this was a mistake on my part. 189.68.223.213 reverted me, saying, "Discuss any radical changes in the talk page." The IP was attempting to include major bold edits in the article, and Kravietz was trying to remove them. The page soon received page protection, and looking back, I could see that there has been an extensive edit war over this wording involving these users and others. There were clearly some major 3RR and BRD issues going on, and I wrote my opinion on the disputed edit. The talk page became an unhelpful forum, and I essentially gave up. Then, I saw the announcement of a (currently-stalled) SPI and this DRN post, so I came here. That basically sums it up. GAB (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by My very best wishes

This is a typical behavior problem that comes from only one participant: an IP who does nothing but edit war and arguments on this page (see this history). As clear from edit history of the page [29] he edit war alone against several long-term contributors. This page should be simply semi-protected, nothing else. No one should waste their time here. Given no disagreements between other currently active participants, I would expect this page be fixed very quickly when protection expires. As a note of order, I did not edit this page so far, but only made a few comments on this article talk page.My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see that user Zozs came back after a two-month break to comment on the SPI [30] and here. OK, in response to his comments below, I must tell that no, according to multiple RS that have been partly provided in this article and talk page, this not a theoretical, but a practical concept, implemented in many countries, although not exactly as was envisioned by Marx. Actually, it has never been a purely theoretical concept because Paris Commune was very much real and served as a prototype of the "proletarian dictatorship" for Marx. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zozs

The dictatorship of the proletariat (DOTP) is a Marxist concept which belongs to theory. Therefore the lead has to explain the conception of the DOTP theoretically. In theory it is a "It is a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage"; this is true according to reliable sources which examined Marx and Engels' viewpoints in the matter -- sources which are cited and which have been tried to eliminated by other editors through tagteaming and edit warring. For example, Kravietz gave up debating me on the issue and then started edit warring to get his version through. Later others joined. I was the only one who had debated the issue (on Kravietz's talk page) -- everyone else simply reverted. That exposes the illegitimate behaviour of the other editors here.

The sections "Banning of opposition parties and factions", "Stalinism and 'dictatorship'" and "Post-Stalin" should be removed as-is. They are only a copy-paste of Russian history; in none of the sentences contained in these sections it is explained how these actions were related to the DOTP. Nor do any of the sources say that such actions were done because of the concept of DOTP. Therefore it is only an original research attempt to stain the name of DOTP. They should either be removed or information should be added on how such actions are considered a follow-up of DOTP idea by historians.

In any case the lead must explain what the concept "DOTP" means in Marxist theory -- which others here have tried to purge, for ideological reasons (anyone who knows the Wikipedia history of these illegitimate editors knows their political bias and their tagteaming/editwarring in all articles), despite the fact that reliable sources state the contrary. Zozs (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bobrayner

My Very Best Wishes is right. This is simply the result of tendentious editing by one anonymous editor (before that, by Zozs, who stopped their editwarring just before the IP started). I note that Zozs' previous account editwarred on related articles. The WP:WRONGVERSION has now been protected. We should return to the previous version, which is not only based on sources, but also supported by the existing consensus among editors. DR is not a last chance for POV-pushers who hammered the revert button and found that everybody else disagreed with them. bobrayner (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dictatorship of_the_proletariat#Proposed_content_changes discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Also, please note that everyone substantially involved in the discussion, including IP editors, must be included in the party list, above, and notified. Unless proven at SPI (and it appears that the recent case filed there has already been closed), please do not list nonparties who you believe to be sockmasters of IP editors, list only the IP editors. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Thanks, I have notified everyone involved, including User:Zozs and all the IPs because it's not yet confirmed that they are the same person, and all of them contributed to the article (even thought their edits were mostly identical). Kravietz (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer note - In looking over the history of this article and the number of registered and unregistered editors and the scope of the challenged edits, this may take longer than the usual one to two weeks for cases at this noticeboard, so that this may be a candidate for formal mediation by a member of the Mediation Committee. I am neither accepting nor declining this case here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

First stage of discussion

I am accepting this issue for moderated discussion. What it appears that Zozs is saying is that Dictatorship of the Proletariat had an entirely different meaning for Marx than was ever implemented under Lenin or his successors, and that Dictatorship of the Proletariat was not intended by Marx to be a dictatorship in the modern sense, but a form of democracy. It appears then that the issue is whether the article should describe Marx's concept, or its implementation by Lenin, or both. Is that the real issue? If so, the real question would appear to be how clearly Zozs's interpretation is verifiable from the writings of Marx. Is that the real issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil and concise. I don't want long statements. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion will run for no more than ten days. If it isn't resolved in ten days but is still making progress, I will request that formal mediation begin. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not respond to other editors, only to the moderator. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The article should describe anything that relates to the "dictatorship of the proletariat". However, none of the sources used to write the "Lenin" section state that Lenin's actions were related to the "dictatorship of the proletariat"; therefore, the entire "Lenin" section is an intentional or unintentional violation of WP:OR and illegitimately conflating two issues. Like I said, anything that relates to the topic should be written in the article, including Lenin's actions should be included - but only when written legitimately with proper sourcing. Furthermore my descriptions explaining Marxism's original conception of the issue, using NOT Marx's quotes but rather reliable, independent, non-primary sources, were removed based on edit warring. Zozs (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't exactly answer my question. Are you saying that Marx's concept of Dictatorship of the Proletariat was not envisioned by Marx as a dictatorship in the modern sense, but as a form of democracy, and that its implementation by Lenin and his successors was contrary to what Marx had originally envisioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Reliable, independent sources which describe Marx's original conception of the DOTP, describe that in his theory it was a fully democratic state form. Some other sources, cited by me in the article, judge it to be completely incompatible with single-party rule, as well as mention that Marx explicitly wanted a "all representatives would be elected and recallable by democracy under universal suffrage" rule in the DOTP.
The article states, that for example, Lenin's government banned opposing parties. The article never explains, however, how this action was inspired by the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor does it cite any sources which point to this view. If such sources were found, such material could stay on the article -- as it stands now, it must be removed. In my opinion there are no truly independent and neutral sources which claim that such actions were related to the Marxist concept of DOTP. Zozs (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a question for editors who disagree with Zozs's concept of Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Do you disagree with the above statement that the original concept was democratic in nature and was not a dictatorship in the modern sense? If so, do you disagree because you think that the scholarly sources are being incorrectly quoted, or why do you disagree? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do disagree. First a note on semantics: Marx did not use most of the terms in their contemporary meaning. Marxists use "dialectical thinking" for their reasoning, which essentially means that if some means merely had a potential to bring democracy in some undefined future, these means were themselves "democratic". Using dialectics anything becomes "democratic" - terror, dictatorship, concentration camps - simply because it's used with a distant intention to bring democracy (also alternatively defined, by the way, as the Marxists "democracy" only includes proletariat and any other classes were forcibly removed in the process). This approach stands in an obvious contradiction with any contemporary definition of democracy, which describes a consistent democratic process that includes open debate, free elections and in general decision making without the need for violence. So this is really a question about which semantic system should Wikipedia use to describe philosophical phenomenons such as Marxism: should it use a widely acceptec consensus of rationalism, science and critical thinking, or maybe always wear the shoes of the very philosophy it describes? If the latter, you can imagine how horrible mess would Wikipedia become with articles like scientology rewritten using their internal beliefs and quasi-logical systems. This is precisely why most of the contributors to the article used the contemporary meanings of words, while a minority of contributors attempted to rewrite the article using the Marxist terms (like "dictatorship is a democracy"). Kravietz (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Absurd. Which sources claims that "concentration camps" can be considered as "democratic" under Marxism, or anything similar? Furthermore, we are not making original research interpretations about what Marx may or may not have meant - in the article, we're representing the majority scholarly interpretation of Marx through reliable, independent, non-primary sources. So we don't make speculation about what Marx may have meant. Zozs (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Leon Trotsky, "Terrorism and Communism", Chapter 8: Problems of the Organization of Labor. First he's setting the problem: "True, before us there arose quite new questions and new difficulties in the sphere of the organization of labor. Socialist theory had no answers to these questions, and could not have them." Now watch this dialectical leap: "We are making the first attempt in world-history to organize labor in the interests of the laboring majority itself. This, however, does not exclude the element of compulsion in all its forms, both the most gentle and the extremely severe." So, slavery was bad when it was used for the benefit of minority, but it's not very bad when it's used for the benefit of majority. And a bit of "everyone knows" wisdom: "As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education. One may even say that man is a fairly lazy animal." Voila, Trotsky just defined slavery and forced labour camps as part of democracy — it was 1920. Kravietz (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Second, Marx and Engels written in 19th century were in no means complete or consistent, they were created over a period of almost half century, many of them are random speeches or comments to various debates ongoing at that time. As result, you can find citations from Marx that are perfectly original and contradictory at the same time, either due to different context, or the semantic mess caused by dialectics, or just change of Marx or Engels thinking over time. For example, initially they insisted that a violent revolution is absolutely required, then late Marx once commented that maybe an evolution might be also an option in advanced democracies.
There are two definitions of "revolution" used by Marx and Engels, which may confuse some readers: (a) social revolution, meaning a widespread social change that may be peaceful or involve violence, and (b) a violent insurrection that does not necessarily meet the definition of a social revolution. Marx and Engels always insisted that a social revolution is necessary in order to make the switch to communism, but they also insisted from the first day that this may be completely peaceful. E.g., before "The Communist Manifesto" was even published, Engels remarked in Principles of Communism: "It would be desirable if [the peaceful abolition of private property] could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it". Marx and Engels were entirely consistent on such fundamental principles, and it is not subject to interpretation. Even Lenin claimed that a peaceful revolution was possible in Russia as long as power was handed to the workers' council system. Zozs (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This is as much as "peaceful" as putting a pistol against someone's head and saying that there will be no violence if he peacefully hands his belongings over. When citing Principles of Communism you cited it quite selectively and omitted the paragraph that starts from "but" which negates the whole preceding statement. Engels knew perfectly that the "bourgeoisie" would never abolish private property peacefully (because who would?) and violence was inevitable. Unless, of course, the way to communism could be evolutionary, but that was categorically rejected by both of them. Kravietz (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, Marx insisted that communism can only work in a developed industrial country, but at the same time in a letter to Vera Zasulich admitted that it might also work in Russia, in spite of it being undeveloped and largely rural. What I'm trying to say that in Marxism, there is no "ultimate" interpretation of Marxism, simply because Marx and Engels had no ultimately defined and clear idea on how it should work. Analysis of Marxist sources is pretty much like analysing Bible and you can find many citations to support almost any number of interpretations, even pretty contradictory - there are indefinite ways of determining the "original" meanings by just re-reading the texts selectively, because there is no Marx alive to tell them right or wrong. This is precisely what various Marxian sects, like Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Stalinists and Trotskyites, happily did over the 20th century, each of them providing a fair amount of citations to support their claims. Any interpretation that claims to have found "the Marx's original conception" unescapably has to take the point of view of one of these interpretations, and just claim this is the "original" one. But it's not. Kravietz (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Marx didn't say that "communism could work in Russia", he said that a revolution could evolve fruitfully in Russia as long as it relied on a revolution in the advanced industrial countries becoming stable. Surely there is no "ultimate interpretation", but reliable, independent sources claim that Marx meant a democratic society by the dictatorship of the proletariat, so that is what the article must say unless sources which say the opposite are found. Zozs (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Because of these two factors any encyclopedical approach to Marxism (DOTP included) should objectively describe all major interpreatations that managed to get some political momentum in 20th century, and definitely Bolshevism, Trotskyism etc should be included. And this is pretty much how the article looked like before the dispute.
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What Zozs was trying to turn it into was a Trotskyite-only version that was basically saying that Bolsheviks have read Marx wrong (but only after 30's because until then Trotsky vigorously implemented the Red Terror without noticing any incompatibility with Marx's "original" teachings which he only "discovered" later) Kravietz (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I never wrote a Trotskyist POV, and furthermore Trotskyism is pro-Bolshevik. Yes, it should neutrally represent all "interpretations". Zozs (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a question for Zozs and any editors who agree. Did Lenin, or the Soviet Communist Party, justify the banning of opposing parties based on dictatorship of the proletariat (whether or not a correct presentation of Marx's view)? If the banning of opposition parties was Lenin's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, then shouldn't both viewpoints be presented? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

While Lenin's government claimed that the state was an accurate representation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, actions such as the banning of opposite parties were not justified with a reference to the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Some parties were banned referencing the that they were violating legality by calling for the overthrow of the Soviet government. Lenin, in his theory, presented the dictatorship of the proletariat as democratic. Lenin argued that the Russian Soviet Republic, and the soviet system, was, actually, the strongest fulfilment of democracy, as contrasted to the short-comings "bourgeois democracy", that, in his view, was democracy only for the capitalists. Lenin argued that the Soviet system constituted "democracy for 99% of the people", while "bourgeois democracy" consisted only of "democracy for rich men". Zozs (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that the section on banning of opposition parties doesn't fit very much the article (or there is no obvious link between this section and the article), Lenin's interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat was presented quite explicitly in State and Revolution: "the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat)"[31]. This source was long time referenced in the article before Zozs edits precisely because it represents the Bolshevik interpretation, as usual with a wealth of citations carefully selected from Marx and Engels to prove Lenin's point. I can see a way how this particular Lenin's definition of DOTP could have easily dialectically evolved into the ban of opposition parties, but I have not researched this topic and I would love to see better references in this section. Kravietz (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, answering myself: I found a pretty good sources in Main Currents of Marxism about the single-party policy: most important attempt to rationalize and vocalize that policy was made by Nikolai Bukharin, who "reminded that basics of leninism is that there's just one ruling party and the party is united, so that no fractions are allowed (...) because fractions can easily turn into separate parties". Kravietz (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The dictatorship of the proletariat has long been understood in the West to be a Communist dictatorship. Even if this was never what Marx intended, then shouldn't that use of the term be included in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If independent, reliable sources argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a "Communist dictatorship", then such information should be included. It's unlikely that, in any case, they constitute stronger sources than the ones for the opposing view. Zozs (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Are there independent reliable sources that Communist dictatorship was justified (by dialectical reasoning or otherwise) based on Marx's concept of dictatorship of the proletariat? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Lenin's State and Revolution is one key such sources, providing a comprehensive dialectical rationalisation of Bolshevik policy based on interpretation of Marx's concept of DOTP. Kravietz (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism is second such source, that precisely describes the causal connection between the Marx and Engels description and the Soviet implementation (see the reference below). Kravietz (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic" is, in modern terms, a contradiction. Is that because "dictatorship" is being used in a non-standard way (e.g., a reference to dictatorship in ancient Rome is non-standard) or because "democratic" is being used in a non-standard way (e.g., as the use of non-democratic means to implement future democracy)? If that inconsistency is not clearly addressed, that statement will merely confuse readers. Will both groups of editors please respond?

It is not a contradiction because the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a Marxist concept. When we say "DOTP", the reader does not understand each word independently, but rather understands "DOTP" to mean the Marxist concept. Therefore, "the DOTP is democratic" is not a contradiction because whereas DOTP is understood as a Marxist concept, "democratic" is understood as the mainstream interpretation of the single word "democratic". Furthermore, the DOTP itself does not concern the means to implement the DOTP - it consists only a form of government. Talk about this form of government in general does not neccessarily involve talk about how it may be established. Furthermore, to Marx the establishment of the DOTP itself required means which would require general social agreement and furthermore would necessarily involve representation of the majority of society. For example, Marx struggled heavily against the Blanquists, who believed that a minority making a coup d'Etat could bring about the working class' goals. Zozs (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean that there is no contradiction because "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a "dictatorship" in the mainstream sense? If so, the article should be clear, because otherwise it will confuse the reader. Replies, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The very purpose of any encyclopedia is to explain specialist terms in non-specialist and mainstream language. Assumptions about the readers having deep understanding of the proprietary semantic system of Marxism will be in most cases wrong. Bertrand Russell already in 1920 explained how wrong these assumptions were back then: "Friends of Russia here think of the dictatorship of the proletariat as merely a new form of representative government, in which only working men and women have votes, and the constituencies are partly occupational, not geographical. They think that "proletariat" means "proletariat", but "dictatorship" does not quite mean "dictatorship". This is the opposite of the truth. When a Russian Communist speaks of dictatorship, he means the word literally, but when he speaks of the proletariat, he means the word in a Pickwickian sense. He means the "class-conscious" part of the proletariat, i.e., the Communist Party." (The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism). The pair of words "dictatorship" and "democratic" are simply an oxymoron because democracy is not just about simple "rule of majority" (that's ochlocracy) but also about the democratic process in which also the minority have their say, which is not the case with any dictatorship. Kravietz (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant comment - Bertrand Russell is interesting when seen in terms of Marxist class consciousness because he was neither a bourgeois nor a proletarian. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I referenced him just to demonstrate that the DOTP phrase was already confusing back in 1920 because of it's non-mainstream usage of the word "dictatorship". BTW Russell wrote this book just after taking part in a visit for UK communists in USSR organised by the Soviet authorities, where he spoke directly to Lenin and others. Kravietz (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Second stage of discussion

I am not closing the first stage of discussion. It may continue. It seems to me that there have been multiple concepts of dictatorship of the proletariat, and they all should be described. Does anyone disagree, and think that there is only one valid concept? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is only one scholarly majority view of what Marx originally meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat - that view is the one that should describe what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Other interpretations may be given space as a minority interpretation. Furthermore e.g. the Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, etc. view about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" may be described, as long as this description is based on reliable sources. Zozs (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it only the lede of the article that is disputed, or are there other sections of the article that are also disputed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the "Lenin" section is under dispute. Zozs (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend everyone here to read Hal Draper's Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is possibly one of the most complete expositions about what Marx really meant by the original terms. It does not concern interpretations at all - it merely objectively assess what Marx himself meant in his original thought. For even more information check Draper's The ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ in Marx and Engels. Zozs (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that there's any unique "scholarly majority view" on that matter. For example Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism (which I also recommend etc) definitely belongs to "scholarly majority" and discusses the topic of DOTP in quite detailed way. Kolakowski comes to a conclusion (volume 1, page 425 of Polish edition which I have) that maybe it wasn't Marx's intention to remove democratic institutions as Lenin interpreted the "dictatorship of the proletariat", but the "logic of the doctrine" definitely allowed such interpretation, and continues that "leninist-stalinist version of marxism is indeed a version (original emphasis), an attempt to practically apply an idea, which Marx had expressed in a philosophical form, lacking any detailed guidelines of political interpretation". In that paragraph Kolakowski, in my opinnion, presented the most balanced view of the term, because he not only takes into consideration a single declarative intention but also the whole context in which it was presented. And all that should be part of an encyclopedic article on DOTP, not just Marx's narrowly interpreted intention. Kravietz (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, we just had one reader who was suprised by the current version of the article to leave a comment: "I came here by accident at present the lead (...) is pure doublespeak"[32]. Kravietz (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Drafts

Would each editor please provide a draft of what they think should be in lede section and in the Lenin section? Either prepare it here with its own fourth-level heading, or prepare it in your user space or sandbox. We can then see whether there is any room for compromise. If there is room for compromise, we will see whether we are likely to finish within ten days, or whether we need formal mediation. If it becomes clear that there is an impasse, we may use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I argue that the current protected lead in the Dictatorship of the proletariat article is a good draft that more or less represents what it should finally look like. Zozs (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My only problem is with the absolutist tone introduced with the new edits: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule... it was never intended to mean a dictatorship — as the term is currently understood — in any way, and that it was always conceived of as a democratic society." GAB (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It is quite simple. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist concept. As a Marxist concept it represents a democratic society (according to reliable sources which have analysed Marx's thinking on the matter and are being cited). Furthermore it says more than you quote: "Research into the origin of the term has shown that it was never intended to mean a dictatorship — as the term is currently understood — in any way, and that it was always conceived of as a democratic society." In other words all it says is that the original founders of the concept "dictatorship of the proletariat" never intended it to mean a dictatorship in the modern sense. This is very simple writing to clear up any misconceptions readers may have. It concerns only the original concept and not any possible applications. Zozs (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

As noted above, another editor states that a sentence in the lede is doublespeak, and I agree completely that it is. It is using terminology in a very non-standard way, by saying that dictatorship is democratic. I have already asked the editor who introduced that language to explain whether "dictatorship" is being used in a non-standard fashion in the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", in which case that usage should be explained, or whether "democratic" is being used in a non-standard fashion, in which case, since that is in the voice of Wikipedia, it must be changed. User:Zozs is merely restating his own opinion and is not yet engaging with the other editors or the moderator, and is called on to explain, within 24 hours, which word is being used in a non-standard way. If the apparently contradictory language in the proposed and current version is not explained in a way that uses English as it is normally used, I will have to fail this discussion and request User:KrakatoaKatie to unprotect the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

While there should be debate on the exact wording, there is no validity in the claim that it is some form of contradiction. For example, many Marxist parties in modern times have started using the terms "workers' state" or "proletarian democracy" as new names for the "dictatorship of the proletariat", though in content the meaning is exactly the same. "The workers' state is a concept that, within Marxist theory, refers to a democratic form of organization" would not be contradictory. If "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the exact same, then, why would it be contradictory? Here you are assuming that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is understood as each individual word: "dictatorship" "of" "the" "proletariat", in combination, which is absurd, because what is understood is the concept. "Star Trek" refers literally to a journey through the stars, yet the Wikipedia article about "Star Trek" claims that it is an entertainment franchise. To claim that a journey is an entertainment franchise is a contradiction... but obviously, what readers understand by "Star Trek" is the CONCEPT, not the literal meaning of the individual words "Star" "Trek" in combination. Even if the reader does not know about the concept, the reader is INFORMED about it - that's the goal of an encyclopaedia. Zozs (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
In direct answer to the question: it is "dictatorship" which is used in a way that must be specially understood. "Dictatorship" in the context of "dictatorship of the proletariat" means not total, absolute, unrestrained rule, involving despotic measures, but rather refers to the proletarians as the dominating social class, in the same way that Marxist analysis concludes that the bourgeoisie is the ruling social class in capitalist society, democratic or otherwise, and also to the temporary character of the proletarians' rule until the withering away of the state occurs. Zozs (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
First, in mainstream English usage, "dictatorship" and "democracy" are antonyms. To use a phrase that contains the word "dictatorship" to refer to a democratic polity is inconsistent or contradictory, and so requires explanation. Second, in the phrase "Star Trek", each of the words is being used in its standard sense, because the entertainment franchise really is about fictional voyages across interstellar space. I am asking whether the word "dictatorship" in the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is being used in its standard English sense, or in a non-standard sense. If the words are being used in their standard sense, then "democratic" is being used in a non-standard sense. Third, I agree that the statement that "the workers' state refer to a democratic form of organization" is not contradictory. However, just defining "the workers' state" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" as synonyms doesn't take away the inconsistency of the former phrase. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And the explanation which is provided in the lead is exactly this explanation. Democratic is being used in the sense that would be understood by most people, dictatorship is not. Zozs (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that it does say that. What do the other editors say? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Point 1. Yes, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" came from Marxist theory, but it has been also widely used (or claimed to be used in a huge number of RS) on practice, for example as an official doctrine by the Soviet CPSU - until 1961. Therefore, telling in the introduction that The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule is nonsense and WP:OR. This term was widely used in the soviet historiography, in official documents by CPSU, and in a lot of other literature.
Point 2. No, Marx talked about dictatorship in the conventional sense, meaning repressions of minorities by force, exactly as in the Paris Commune. This is all correctly explained in Encyclopedia Britannica.
Point 3. No, Marx did not use democracy in conventional sense. His "democracy" was dictatorship of alleged majority, which is not democracy. True democracy requires rule of law and human rights. But once again, main problem of this and many other "political" pages is WP:OR. Some people are using this site to promote their own political views. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
On point 1: The CPSU eventually abandoned the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and rather started describing the USSR with the term "state of the whole people". The CPSU can say what it likes, but they cannot modify the original definition of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", they can only state their own view. The CPSU's line on the DOTP is not distinctly notable, but if anyone actually finds the reliable sources to describe it, then hey, it can be described. On Point 2: Actually, Marx and Engels explicitly said that the Paris Commune experience was a "dictatorship of the proletariat" due to the fact that all representatives were elected by universal suffrage. That's explained in several reliable sources cited in the Wikipedia article about the DOTP. You should actually review them. On point 3: But Marx's definition of "democracy" isn't being used, rather, what independent reliable sources classed as "democracy" is. Zozs (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Impasse

There appears to be an impasse, with no room for compromise between the view of Zozs that "dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to a democratic organization, because the word "dictatorship" is being used in a non-standard way, and other editors, that it has been used to refer to a Leninist dictatorship. Does anyone want to propose a compromise? If not, a Request for Comments is the most likely way forward. Does anyone have any comments in preparation for the Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:
Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Zozs views are simply wrong, and from this discussion, what is abundantly clear is that he does not understand basic Marxist theory. This kind of user is dangerous to WP because they misinform other users (and makes illegitmiate and wrongful views legitimate)! ....

This must be removed "The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule.[5] Research into the origin of the term has shown that it was never intended to mean a dictatorship — as the term is currently understood — in any way, and that it was always conceived of as a democratic society.[6][7] The view of modern Marxists critical of the Soviet Union-style states is that they did not form in any way a practical application of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather were not dictatorships of the proletariat at all." ... This is biased to the extreme. Capitalism is not in theory supposed to subjugated and controlled by a state-dominated economy, but the Chinese seems to be doing it very well.... --TIAYN (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I may not "understand basic Marxist theory", you may suspect that I "willingly misinform other users", and you may personally believe that my text is "biased to the extreme", but, you must have the arguments and reliable sources to back up the removal of sourced information. You can't just say that you disagree with me soooooo much and use that as an argument. Zozs (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As I have said before, the "dictatorial" view of some "20th-century communist parties" about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can also be written about in the leads, if the other editors here find the reliable sources to do so. However, the editors here aren't interested in actually finding reliable sources, all they're interested in is removing the original definition of DOTP according to reliable sources, because they have a personal disagreement with it... Zozs (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The lead is for the dominating narrative. The alternative narrative, that dictatorship of the proletariat, can not entail political dictatorship by the few should be mentioned somewhere in the body, but it should not be the main focus of the lead! A lead is the summary of the dominating narrative, and the body focuses on the dominating narrative, but very good articles make room for the alternate narratives in some shape or another too. --TIAYN (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The lead is for the dominating narrative. It is yet for you to prove that your view constitutes the dominating narrative. Zozs (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Zozs: True indeed Zozs. Unlike the M–L article my difference with you here is not as large.... You're right, many believe that "The dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule", but again 1/3 of the lead is dominated against a highly controverial alternate narrative. And the fact that you say that the alternate narrative is indeed correct is problematic. Secondly, to use Jon Elster as a source without stating he's a leading figure within analytical Marxism is a problem. Me being Norwegian and all too, he regularly visits the University of Oslo and speaks on various issues. He's a good guy :) .. This was also the problem with the lead of the Marxism–Leninism article; what sounds less biased, this "Marxism-Leninism" was founded as Stalin and his ideologists' own doctrine, with Marx and Lenin's words being merely used as justification, selected opportunistically and taken out of context" or this "Historian Robert Vincent Daniels argues that Marxism was used to "justify Stalinism, but it was no longer allowed to serve either as a policy directive or an explanation of reality" during Stalin's rule"? The first one you single handedly stating thats how it is, in the second we get one of the most leading historians on the field expressing a similar held belief.--TIAYN (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
We are not talking about the Marxism-Leninism article. Can you prove that is the "alternate narrative"? The lead never says that is the only interpretation possible, it says that is the original meaning intended by Marx as evaluated by the people who researched it. Zozs (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Zozs: And what makes you think that that interpretation of DOTP is more correct than the Marxist–Leninist one for instance? Its just one interpretation. For example, while its true that Marx stated that the dictatorship of the proletariat would mean the exercise of democracy, he never explicitly said how it would be organised and he made it very clear that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a class dictatorship... The question, which Marx left unresolved is, what is most important? Class dictatorship or democracy? This is a mute point, and a very basic argument (the discussions themselves are of course more complex) ... My main problem with you're edits, throughout our several heated and very unfriendly interactions, it that you claim that one interpretation is the mainstream one when you indeed meet great opposition that states the contrary (here you have four users disagreeing with you; it should tell you something.) --TIAYN (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
For Marx, class rule does not imply the abolition of democracy for the other class. E.g., proletarians can vote in bourgeois democracy. But they are still subject to the social conditions of rule by the bourgeoisie. "And what makes you think that that interpretation of DOTP is more correct than the Marxist–Leninist one for instance?" Nothing, but here we are not debating which interpretations of the DOTP should be described. The Marxist-Leninist view may be described. But what primarily has to be described is the Marxist view, and that's what is done in the lead version I support. "he never explicitly said how it would be organised" Reliable sources argue that he explicitly stated that democracy in the dictatorship of the proletariat would constitute the election of all positions of public power through elections involving universal suffrage. That several users disagree with me does not mean that their view necessarily represents the main scholarly view. Zozs (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_119&oldid=1232499991"