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.

---

• Conor Matthew Mccreedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I am being accused of copyright theft on the article stated above and I have given all the proof needed and have done whatever means necessary to try proof that I have obtained all the rights needed to post the article and would like to get this issue resolved if possible. Also it has been said that the article has be written like an advertisement and I have asked in what way it may sound like an advertisement so that I can correct the article accordingly but have but the user making the comments does not seem willing to help me improve and correct these issues instead he wants to push for a speedy deletion of the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• MikeWazowski (talk · contribs)
• Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

I have emailed permissions at Wikimedia stating that I have the right to distribute the content under the creative commons license and I have gone through a lot of trouble getting in touch with the persons where the content of my article was supposedly copied from and they have agreed to remove the content from their site and have done so.

• How do you think we can help?

Please help me resolve this issue and if needed guide me in the right way to improve my article.

Rusty69t (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

In regards the copyright issue, it can take some time for the OTRS volunteers to get to your email and deal with it appropriately, especially since much of the world is engaged in summer holidays. There's really nothing to be done with the copyrighted text before then. --Danger (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the copyright question, the original page was deleted as a clear copy of a .pdf file (now deleted, apparently) uploaded to Commons by a different user. The current problem section was copied word-for-word from the artist's Facebook page. As for the allegations that I'm "pushing for a speedy deletion of the article", except for the initial nomination, this is not the case. I do, however, think the article is incredibly promotional, has a great number of unreferenced claims, has severe problems with a lack of reliable sources for those with references, and the creator has a clear conflict of interest if he somehow has the "right to distribute the content". MikeWazowski (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rusty69t, and thanks for posting here. I'm sorry to hear about all the trouble you've had writing your first article. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and it takes time and experience to understand them fully, so I can completely sympathise with your situation. However, I'm afraid MikeWazowski is quite right in his points above - at the moment the article doesn't quite follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The most important part is the copyright. As I'm sure you have realised from all the notices on your talk page, we simply can't use copyrighted text on Wikipedia without permission, as it could create legal problems for the site (and the user that uploaded it). I see you have asked for permission through Wikipedia's OTRS system, and if everything goes well then you will indeed be able to use that text in the article. Usually, however, it isn't worth getting copyright permission for text like this, as material taken from other websites isn't usually written in an encyclopaedic tone. Have a look at this guide to see the kind of tone that is usually expected in a Wikipedia article.

I had a look on Mccreedy's website and some of the article seems to be copied from here and here. Mike, is this the same material as in the pdf you mentioned? If it is, then Rusty69t, I'm afraid we can't use most of it anyway because it doesn't have an appropriate tone.

I think that the tone of the article is also the reason that Mike said that the article is promotional. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) I'll give you an example of language in the article that could be considered as promotional. Let's take this sentence from the "Art" section: "Best known for his accurate lines and fluid colors, Mccreedy has begun to incorporate elements of self-written language, collage, and charcoals to his paintings." Saying that he is "best known for his accurate lines and fluid colors" is a subjective statement, and seems to be praising Mccreedy's work with no real evidence. (Hence the claim it is promotional.) We need to turn it into an objective statement for it to be suitable for Wikipedia. One way of doing this would be to use a quote, for example: 'Joe Bloggs from the New York Times said "Mccready's work is simply awesome, especially his accurate lines and fluid colors".' (Note that you would need a source for any quote.) Another way would be to simply leave the sentence out. You can take a look at Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and see some examples to get a better feel for how to write objectively.

Finally, I should point out that every claim in the article that could be contested by another editor should have a reference, and that other editors can remove any claim that is not backed up by such a reference. Have a look at Wikipedia's policy of verifiability for the details. When you add this to the copyright issues and promotional issues I outlined, then I think it is clear that the text can't stay in the article as it is. Anything that could be contested should be referenced, and anything that is promotional should be rewritten. I'm afraid that per Wikipedia's rules, anything else must be removed from the article. If you have any questions about this, then I'll be happy to answer them below. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead yesterday and stepped out of Dispute-Resolution mode to give the article a thorough promotion scrubbing. I believe the only remaining issues have to do with copyright and references (perhaps therein, notability as well). Only good sources will let us know if the article is truly neutral or not, but for now, at least it's not blatantly promotional. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 10:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Stradivarius - the original pdf file was nearly a word for word match for the article text, which is why the original version was deleted - it weren't identical to the links you provided, but it was obviously an official McCreedy promotional piece - I wish it hadn't been deleted so that it could be compared. I'm a bit troubled by Rusty69t's claim that he is "the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Conor Mathew Mccreedy articles" - to do so, he'd need to be McCreedy or part of the McCreedy organization, yet here he claims to "have no relationship with the subject of the article I am merely a fan of his work". Something's not adding up. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these statements don't add up - I think I missed the part about Rusty69t claiming to have ownership of the copyright themselves. I can't see how it is possible to own the copyright to Mccreedy's official site, and to not be closely connected with him. Rusty69t, can you shed some more light on this situation? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Placeholder post - I've left a message on Rusty69t's talk page, inviting them to reply here. Hopefully we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've placed an {{OTRS pending}} template on the article talk page - hopefully this should give us some insight on the status of the OTRS request to use the text in question. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Copyright violation has disapeared and the original complaintant has decided not to restore it. That's a wrap Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2011 (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.

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.

---

• Dartmouth College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Am in dispute with editor NBruschi regarding the validity of the Controversy section for the Dartmouth College article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Augustus1986 (talk · contribs)
• NBruschi (talk · contribs)

NBruschi claims that the section is not worthy of being included and is biased. I, Augustus1986, feel that the section is worthy of being included, but am open to it being improved in tone. However, I felt that NBruschi's editing of the section in terms of language and tone is biased in and of itself, as it treats the subject too favourably towards Dartmouth College.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have attempted to discuss this issue with NBruschi on the Dartmouth College talk page, and both of us have agreed that bringing it up for mediation is an suitable course of action.

• How do you think we can help?

Decide whether the section is indeed worthy of being included in the article. And comment on the choice of language and wording of the section.

Augustus1986 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I ask that the discussion not be closed too quickly. I recently started my first job and am quite busy, but nonetheless wish to have the choice to have my input on this issue before the issue is closed.--Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Below, NBruschi (talk · contribs) includes a long comment that argues that the section in question should be removed on the grounds that it fails to meet the inclusion criteria WP:EVENT, the section is factually inaccurate, the section is not not written from a neutral POV and violates WP:NOTSCANDAL, the section has undue weight, and that there is existing consensus to delete most if not all of the section. I have collapsed the comment down to preserve readability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, NBruschi is using somewhat biased language. While it is true that the bias is fairly mild and he may even honestly feel that way, I nonetheless disagree with his version of events. I think that the fairest thing to do is to ignore his version altogether, and just take a look at the Dartmouth College talk page. I do not wish to copy the entire talk page section on this issue in case this is against the rules, so I just provide a link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dartmouth_College#.22Controversy_Section.22_Re:_Laura_De_Lorenzo .

To sum up, please ignore what he says and also what I say, and just take a look at the talk page. I think that that is extremely fair to both of us. Please don't just listen to his version of what I said.--Augustus1986 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The underlying issue here seems to be one of WP:WEIGHT. In Wikipedia, we give events or viewpoints coverage in proportion to their prominence in respected independent sources. So the question we need to ask ourselves here is: given all the sources ever published about Dartmouth College - historical, academic, and modern - what proportion of them are concerned with the scandal that is the subject of this dispute? That is how much space we must devote to it in the article. If the number is, say, 10%, then we can have an individual section on it; if the number is, say, 2%, then we may be able to include a sentence about it; if it is less than that, we probably shouldn't include it. I haven't checked the sources, but I can't imagine this number would be high enough to justify its own section. As you both know the sources better than me, I'd be interested to hear your take on what the number might be. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^♫ 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the percentage would probably be in the low single digits at best. However, I would note that the issue is not only of relevance in and of itself, but that it also represents a broader trend of how colleges may be putting the all-mighty alumni donations drive ahead of their students' interests, among others. And that as such, we may wish to take a broader view of the issue.

Nonetheless, I agree and accept that according to this principle that you have stated, even with such a broader outlook, the section may need to be reduced in size such that it is proportional. Any thoughts? --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mr. Stradivarius above. A Google search of "Dartmouth College" (in quotes) yields more than 5 million hits, only 4 of which are the (mutually identified) primary sources related to this story. That's 0.00008%-- far too few to warrant inclusion. Now, if there was a page that only covered Dartmouth scandals, of which I am sure there are many, this incident may warrant a line. But as for its inclusion on the main article, I believe this is one of many tripped wires for removal.

And to August1986's point, I did not intend to provide the full discussion above, just a more organized version of my side of it in a way that would more easily allow him to add his counterpoints. I only provided his side at all to show the counter-counterpoints I already made. Sorry for that misunderstanding. NBruschi (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Couldn't have hurt you to be more even-handed though. My report on the issue to the dispute board was very even-handed, in my view. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As tempting as it may be, I'm afraid we can't use Google searches to arrive at our number - the sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. Blog entries and the college's own website cannot be used in the calculation, for example. Google News, Books, and Scholar can be more useful, but also note that there is a certain amount of discretion given to editors to determine the quality of a source. Sources of very high quality can be given more weight than coverage that is of less quality. See our policy on identifying reliable sources for more information on what to look for in a source. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^♫ 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Mr. Stradivarius's guidance, "Dartmouth College" (including quotes) yields 856 results on Google News, 571,000 on Google Books, and 121,000 results on Google Scholar. "Laura Delorenzo" or "Laura A. DeLorenzo" (the names used in the cited blog/news sources; including quotes) combined yield 0 results on Google News, 0 on Google Books, and 3 on Google Scholar (none of which are related to the incident). 0%, 0% and .002% What do you say August1986, is this a fair way to judge WP:Weight? NBruschi (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I had never said that your views are without merit. In fact, at the talk page, I explicitly noted that your views had merit. I merely stated my view that you are a bad person. My reply on this issue is above. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I am seeing is the sourcing in the section, as well as undue weight. Bear in mind that the article at present is a featured article, and this section does not conform to the requirements of a featured article. The section in total has a lot of uncited claims, and many of the citations used have issues. Three are sourced to the website of the college itself, three are cited to blogs, and only two are cited to newspapers, one to the NYT and one to the Chronicle. There's definitely an issue of undue weight here. It needs to have much more significant coverage in order to be included in the article, and that's in reliable sources. Dartmouth was founded in 1769, and this is one incident that occurred in one year of its 241 year history. Definitely undue weight here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not completely my fault. That version was written by NBruschi. I am not sure how much he changed my version. I am willing to work to address these issues once we resolved this dispute. I would also welcome any help. As for the weightage issue, please see above. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be an open-and-close case for which WP:EVENT and WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY are specifically targeted. I suspect this "controversy" won't be remembered by anyone at Dartmouth at this same time next year, much less the "enduring historical significance" warranting widespread national and international converge with which Wikipedia should concern itself. It merits a sentence--at most--in the History section. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it merits a little more than that, though perhaps significantly less than its current weightage. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking towards a resolution: I have argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:EVENT, its inaccuracy, POV/WP:SCANDAL, undue weight, and existing consensus for removal. Augustus1986 agrees with Mr. Stradivarius's notion that the section should be proportional in length to the percent of sources it concerns. I have shown this figure to be a thousand times smaller (at absolute best) than his 2% threshold for inclusion at all. Steven Zhang agrees with the undue weight issue and further faults lack of reliable sources and significance. Madcoverboy concurs with its violation of WP:EVENT, and WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY. I believe a consensus has now emerged for complete deletion of the section. Per the many (still unaddressed) violations included in the green box, any of which would independently be grounds for removal, I move for deletion. NBruschi (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not agree per se. Stradivarius stated it as a rule, and I simply accepted it. I presume he is not lying to me. The content issues can be fixed. As for the other issues, I move that it be kept. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And another thing. After reading what you wrote again, I find it not entirely accurate also. Neither Steven nor Madcoverboy said that they think it should be deleted. Instead, they said that it should be given significantly less weight. That is a lot different from what you are saying. And I agree and accept that notion of it being given less weight. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I should probably point out that 2% was just a figure that I made up on the spot, and is not included in any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The actual decision of whether to include it or not is made by consensus between editors. I have now had a chance to look at the sources more closely, and like Madcoverboy said, it seems that this event will likely have no lasting historical impact. Although WP:EVENT is intended to guide editors on whether events are eligible for a stand-alone article, and doesn't necessarily restrict coverage of events in other articles, I think it is useful to use it as a rule of thumb here, especially given the wide scope of the article in question. I also agree that WP:SCANDAL should be taken into consideration. I think all of this points squarely towards not including the information in the article at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the event rules does not forbid it, I move that it be kept, but perhaps rewritten with the scandal rule and proportional issues in mind. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that all reasonable arguments which can be made by the involved parties have now been made. Despite the assertion by Augustus1986 to the contrary, all three participating neutrals, Madcoverboy, Mr. Stradivarius, and Steven Zhang, clearly feel that deletion of the section is the proper thing to do. The consensus of the community would, therefore, seem to be that the section should be deleted and it has, indeed, been deleted by Steven Zhang from the article. In the event Augustus1986 should wish to contest that deletion, he should consider leaving the deletion in place and taking the matter to mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:04, 27 July 2011 (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.

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.

---

• Austrian business cycle theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I have an issue with the unwarranted deletion of information that is well within Wikipedia guidelines. I have attempted to initiate a conversation with the two users responsible for this deletion on the discussion page of the article, but no response has been forthcoming.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs)
• BigK HeX (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, I have attempted to open a discussion on the talk page of the article. No response has been forthcoming.

• How do you think we can help?

Revert the page back so that the edited information is available to the public.

Michael.suede (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

---

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.

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.

---

• Guru Josh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

The page in question is there for details about the person known as Guru Josh aka Paul Dudley Walden, for the uninformed he wrote a song called "Infiniry" in 1990 which then in 2008 was re-released to massive commercial success. The issue is that the 2008 version was released by 3 people working as "Guru Josh Project" which disbanded as a group in 2009. (see http://www.gurujoshproject.com/ for proof of disbanding). The issue that has arisen is that one of the previous members has been masquerading as Guru Josh falsely. Despite numerous edits by myself and others, a user specifically keeps revisiting and adding false refferences to a spin off band under a similar name trying to despertaley grab visitors from Guru Josh to their new venture.

It reached such a stage whereby Guru Josh took one of the previous members to court for trying to falsely register the name "Guru Josh Project" on his own without the knowledge or consent of the other members, Guru Josh won the case, which goes on in detail as to how this previous member has repeatedly tried to pass himself off as Guru Josh.

Full legal transcript and court ruling here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o12511.pdf

This same member has visited Guru Josh's page now some 5 or 6 times in 2 days trying desperately to vandalise the page and add redirects to his 'new band' under an almost too similar name.. this vandal needs blocking and ideally the page locking for a while until such time as all comments have been verified.

A better solution yet would be to lock the page for admin only edits, whereby any changes that need making need to be sent to admin for verification purposes before posting is allowed, to stop the repeated vandalism attacks.

As a seperate issue, I also tried to add an image of the Artist to the Wikipage, unfortunately the bot deleted it and despite my best intentions I cant get the image re.instated, even though the photo is from the artists own photo gallery from the press pack, and can easily be confirmed as him by doing a quick google search.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Dazperkz (talk · contribs)
• Zhardoum (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

unable to contact Dazperkz directly, plus as his obvious intention is to cause harm and damage to Guru Josh, it is probably best handled via resolution.

• How do you think we can help?

ideally Dazperkz needs blocking and the webpage locked for admin edits only, whereby any new changes to the page have to be vetted first by an admin for authencity.

Zhardoum (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As i've stated below, i Dazperkz have only commented with true facts Zhardoum has been commenting on TM proceedings that are still on going and really have no relevance to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

You didn't contact the other disputant. Your really need to do that Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he will listen, he has already been blocked on wikipedia once, I posted on this page as a way to find amicable solution to this problem, I do not believe that me contacting him will do anything at all to ensure a solution, I would like you to read through the facts and decide on how best to proceed, remember he has already been ordered by the courts to stop and is still continuing, so I doubt a well worded memo from a Wikipedia writer will cause him to 'cease and desist'.

- Zhardoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhardoum (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, according to [11] they have not been blocked. Posting on a page in all caps and bolding gives the impression of shouting. Furthermore, your supposition (and explicit linking) of the other disputant with a real world identity is bordering on a violation of WP:OUTING. Even if outside legal entities have ordered the real world identity to stop using the name, that is not enforceable here on Wikipedia. I have looked closely at the editor's very short history here and see a potentially misguided editor. The fact that you are refusing to engage the editor in any version of conversation about the articles suggests that either there's some sort of axe to grind here. Please make consider backing off this page as you are displaying significant ownership of the article and it's bordering on the level of a undisclosed conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No axe, I think if you compare the two editors in question, then one has added details with relevant links and references to back them up and the other has added links to another band infringing on the Artists intellectual property rights which have repeatedly been removed by others.

The very fact of me raising this here as a dispute must surely on its own merit preclude the option of being tainted as an editor, I am most happy for other editors to add comments as long as those comments don't border on vandalism, As to the capitals used in the post, that was due to copying and pasting using a different font.. and shall be remedid now.

Zhardoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhardoum (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Legal issues resolved or unresolved in real life have no bearing on Wikipedia unless a) reliable sources like newspapers have reported on them or b) the Wikimedia Foundation has intervened. To my knowledge, in this case neither has happened, so you can leave those details aside. The relevant policy is WP:LEGAL.
• Court documents cannot be used unless to 'augment' a published reliable secondary source (like a newspaper). This is especially true if the ruling involves living people. See WP:BLPPRIMARY
• Both editors clearly have a WP:Conflict of interest and should take extra care not to let their personal involvement or interests influence the article.
• Otherwise, that leaves a regular old content dispute about adding an external link to a band with disputed motives. So: 1) Are there any published reports about this dispute from independent non-judicial sources?; 2) Note that including a link to a related band does not imply approval, only relatedness; 3) the external link could have a note such as 'Band B, a spinoff from Guru Josh started by member x'; 4) External links should primarily be about the main article subject, not related subjects (that's what [See Also] is for). See WP:EL for external link policy; 5) All editors should try and discuss issues cooperatively and without resorting to legal language or assumptions/accusations about others' motives; 6) Note that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of bands or for advancing court rulings or for protecting intellectual property (unless covered by WP:COPYRIGHT policy). We just write articles based on good published sources. And we link to useful, clearly defined content. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more than happy to stop posting on this topic, unfortunately the other named writer repeatedly keeps changing the page about the Artist to constantly refer back to his own music group which as mentioned contravenes more rules than I care to mention.

Can I strongly suggest then, that the page be locked and only Admin be allowed to make changes, as this will both stop changes by myself and any others.. and to which seems like a perfectly good solution. If I am biased as you put it, then surely my requesting the page by only editted by admin would be the ideal solution. Zhardoum (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Locking everyone out of editing is not the solution. Now that it's been established that attempting to insert the external link is promotional, there are other tools (like reversion) to prevent Wikipedia from being used as a advertisment venue. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

now its gone laughable, now we have admins posting unfactual posts on the page. to whit "The Guru Josh Project still gigs worldwide..." as allowed and posted by 'Onewhohelps' please show me any evidence to prove this.. This is the whole point here, this is false, time and time again i have posted correct and verifiable documentation to prove my posts, yet now admins are coming along and adding posts with no proof whatsoever. Really, this is a total waste of space, if you as admins cannot read the information given to you and still add posts that go against everything that has been proven to you, what is the point of wikipedia? you might as well close up shop now. Seriously, I have given you more evidence that 80% of wikipedia pages ever get to see, yet you allow vandalism of a page without any proof whatsoever and then go so far as to complain to the person armed with the documents of fact.

Are you really going to sit back and now say that this case has been handled correctly, I request an admin of high standing review all aspects of this case make an informed judgement because right now it just appears biased against people who come armed with the truth. Zhardoum (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you want policies and guidelines...

1. Bold, revert, discuss - You haven't opened a single thread on the article's talk page expressing why the other artists formerly working as a partnership should not be allowed to attribute themselves in a way that was allowed in the Partnership Contract
2. WP:CIVIL - Your edit summaries of reversion and postings here are not compatible with editing in a collegial manner.
3. WP:BITE - Your actions against a relativeley new editor (and as yourself) are significantly harmful
4. WP:3R - You are as of this posting sitting on the 3 Revert line. If you undo one more change on the page you can be blocked for edit warring.
5. WP:DEADLINE - You haven't given the other editor an opportunity to speak, yet want action 'now. From what I can tell, this is not a violation of WP:BLP so we can take our time to consider the issue.

This board is not staffed by administrators. Pleas review the purpose of the board again and understand why requesting "an admin of high standing" is not appropriate here. You've been given the advice of 2 editors in good standing.

This constitutes the warning to ceace Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them. Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologise as i am new to wiki but the comments i have made are 100% true and factual and i do not intend to cause Mr Walden any problems, i only want the article to be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The facts are being twisted by Zhardoum to cause personal damage, the TM proceeding are still in process by appeal due to certain evidence being dishonest. As for the Guru Josh Project still gigging worldwide, this is 100% fact, Darren Bailie of Guru Josh Project played in Brazil on the 30th July 2010 and the week previous in Austria. He also has many gigs booked for the future as does Anders Nyman. [12] please select pictures on this site then scroll down to the 22/23 July 2011 to confirm that the Guru Josh project are still gigging and will continue to gig as they are also on the sites roster for future bookings. These facts are true. In all due respect I suggest you get your facts correct before making incorrect changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is improper to reveal the "real world" identities of other editors, to make negative statements about living persons without support from high quality reliable sources, or to make legal threats or implied legal threats. I have removed the offending material from this discussion. Do not restore it. Only discuss edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to be WP:BOLD and make the following changes

1. Stip all 3 artists that were part of the project of the personal website references. We can't use individual self published websites for references
2. Strip the Guru Josh Project Reference. We have a article for the project and the external link can be used there.
3. Remove extra bolding to be consistent
4. Add the internal wikilink to the project's article

Hearing no objections I think this will resolve the issue of negative advertising on this article and will archive this discussion in 36 hrs. Now the Project's page I'm going to look at closely again. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solution has stuck so we'll consider this closed

---

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.

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.

---

• Kristin Nelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Kristin Harmon Nelson--Note 20 in her bio states she may have had sex with Ron Reagan Jr. in late 1970's and was caught by Secret Service, but Reagan was not president until 1981

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• 99.22.220.13 (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

Note: Only other thing IP address has done is to post at Editor Assistance/Requests Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• How do you think we can help?

99.22.220.13 (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Editor did not provide us with enough context to understand what this is about. Their editing history does not reveal anything useful. Doing some research. I was able to determine that the article and section the IP is complaining about is Kristin Nelson for the 2nd Reference #20. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go to my local library and pull the book in question to read the ~5 pages before and after the specific reference. If that's what the book says then we have to go with it. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I'm going to close this as inappropriate for this noticeboard since (a) there's no active dispute and (b) the filing at WP:EA disqualifies it here, I would note that:

• The Kristin Nelson article says that they were discovered in 1976.
• Ronald Regan "Sr." was a presidential candidate in 1976.
• Presidential candidates have received Secret Service protection since 1968.

So despite the suggestion made by the listing party here, it is entirely plausible that the Secret Service could have been involved. At the same time, I commend Hasteur for agreeing to check this out and would encourage him to go ahead and do so and, if the edit is verified, note his results on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 5 August 2011 (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.

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.

---

• Death of Caylee Anthony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Missing white woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

As a result of the emotional investment of a number of editors at the contentious Death of Caylee Anthony article, it is nearly impossible to keep a link to Missing white woman syndrome in the See Also section. Editors appear to be taking personal offence at even the mention of the popular view that the hysterics over the Anthony trial are the result of MWWS, since it calls into question their own emotional investment in the issue. There has been no attempt to include MWWS in the text of the article itself, only to add it in the See Also section at the end of the article. There is ample evidence that many people -- particularly in the media itself -- regard the Caylee case as a classic and even prototypical example of MWWS. As you can see in the discussion, there is absolutely no controversy at all regarding the obvious and apparent fact that there has been discussion by the media of the Anthony case in relation to MWWS. However, several people are of the mistaken belief that a simple mention of it in the See Also section requires reliable media sources stating for an absolute certainty that this is in fact a case of MWWS. Even though a citation is not required for inclusion in See Also, when a RS citation was found, it was deamed unacceptable because the newspaper in which it appeared was "small." Between the specious dismissal of what RSes do exist and the obvious reason for a shortage of RS criticisms of the mainstream media by the mainstream media, even the completely nonsensical demand that RS be produced for a simple mention in the See Also appendix of an article which already exists on Wikipedia (with mention of the case under contention) can be seen as unsupportable.

Given that there is popular discussion around the Anthony case about its popularity being the result of MWWS, it seems to me to make perfect sense that it be in the See Also section. (Try doing a Google search on "missing white woman syndrome" and "anthony" on Google; this produced 31,500 hits for me; and while this is certainly not a RS, it is certainly solid proof that many, many people regard the Anthony case as MWWS -- certainly enough to warrant a mention in See Also.) The personal and emotional investiture of people in the case appears to be the only reason why people want this link removed, as is evidenced by some of the reasons given for its removal, which range from "lack of RS" (after dismissing what RS exist) to "I don't like it." Given the hysterical emotional irrationality around the case in the population as a whole which makes this article the subject of continuing controversy and dispute, I do not have confidence at this point in resolution without outside mediation by uninvolved editors.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Resolving the dispute

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

See discussion here.

• How do you think we can help?

This desperately needs the eyes of people without emotional investment in this case, who are not going to take personal offence based on whether or not to add a reference to the See Also appendix of the article.

SmashTheState (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I should probably be added to the list of editors above since I too removed this from the See also section. I believe that the sources being used to state this are unreliable. I also believe that the reason this case got so much attentions is because of the lies, sex, and videos that were produced, not because she was a single white female. Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the sources being used? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This repeated rationale, that the See Also link needs to be removed because there are no "reliable sources" makes no sense whatsoever. That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject. It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist. It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS. Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS. That there are those who do so has been amply proven. Anyone who disputes that there are many who regard the crazed circus antics around Anthony case as MWWS need only type "missing white woman syndrome" and "caylee anthony" into the Google search engine and observe how many thousands of links pop up. Again, putting a link to MWWS does NOT require reliable sources because no claim to its veracity is being made. -- SmashTheState (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are being used. You can see them at Death of Caylee Anthony. To SmashTheState, the article doesn't say anything about this so putting it in the See also section isn't proper. The article should state something that the case got attentions because of this which it doesn't that I remember. Give a reliable source, not an opinion piece, or add something to the article that shows this, again using a reliable source. You added the Death of Caylee Anthony to this other article, but you used an opinion piece to do so. My understanding is this is not the way policy works. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, Crohnie. The article actually DOES make a reference. The body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology. The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible." [105]" Apparently you never noticed my comments on the talk page about this. Nor read through the whole article carefully. Also, to be honest, it does not even matter if the article itself made a clear reference to this. That's NOT a hard-fast qualification for a link to be in then "See also" section. As long as there's arguably SOME relevance or remarks made in other sources, or whatever. And there are some. Even though others like to rationalize them away.

Also another thing that you (and others) are just plain wrong about or just don't grasp...is that MWWS is BY ITS VERY NATURE AN "OPINION". So to complain "oh it's just an opinion piece you cited" is rather silly, given the fact that uh Missing White Woman Syndrome is already a THEORY AND AN OPINION TO BEGIN WITH ANYWAY!!!! So any one who mentions it in the media (either McBride the psychiatrist or Rivera the journalist etc etc) would always only be giving their "opinion" about that matter IN THE FIRST PLACE. It would ALWAYS be that way basically. Pretty much. Because it's a theory. But it doesn't matter if they're "opinion pieces". The issue and theory have been raised by quite a number of people and authorities, regarding this media insanity with the Casey Anthony/Caylee Anthony case. In general. Peace.... Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a neutral on this dispute. It seems to me that this matter should be settled in favor of inclusion on the basis of this sentence from the WP:ALSO section of MoS:

Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.

(Emphasis added.) I would note that nothing in that section suggests that See Also entries must be referenced or reliably sourced. Taken as a whole, that MoS section would seem to favor inclusion of a link unless it can be shown that the subject linked is absolutely unrelated, with marginally-related links being subject to removal if the See Only section becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article (which is not the case here). It would thus be one thing if the proposed link was to, say, Creation–evolution controversy or Persimmon, but there is at least a clear a priori argument to be made that there is a peripheral link to MWWS and some have argued in the discussion that the connection has also been made in the press, if somewhat unreliably. That ought to be enough for inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree include in See Also Section with or without reference. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need for a reliable source, only for relevance to the topic. There can be pointy examples of "see Alsos", but this seems sufficiently relevant to be of interest and use to the reader. The question to ask is - doess this add something useful? It seems to me that it does. In response to User:Crohnie, there is nothing wrong with using "opinion pieces". After all, this is inherently a matter of opinion. There are no established medical means of reliably diagnosing this 'syndrome'. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok fine with me, I pretty much just lurk on this article and add when I have something to say, which isn't too often.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How do we know if MWWS is related to Cayley Anthony at all, peripherally or otherwise, if there are no RS that support that assertion? Shirtwaist ☎ 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

the body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology. The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible."[105]" My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle. The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section. Why not just let this go already? If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What does "Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman" have at all to do with Cayley Anthony? The article is about the death of Cayley Anthony. Casey Anthony is not the presumed (by some) subject of MWWS, therefore the quote you cite is totally irrelevant to this discussion. And if, as you say, "it means this much to "SmashTheState", why would he say something like this - "I had typed a long response, full of citations and references and a bit on the purpose of consensus. Then I realized that I don't actually give a fuck. You win." -- SmashTheState (talk)2:02 pm, 17 July 2011, Sunday  ? Shirtwaist ☎ 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, uh, Caylee was Casey's DAUGHTER...and was "white" too. Did you even read ANY of what I wrote on the talk page regarding this? How can you say "what at all does it have to do"? It has everything to do with it. If it was a black mother with a black toddler daughter, it's NOT likely it would have gotten like this. I've heard Geraldo Rivera (and a few others) say that if this was a black woman who killed (or accidentally killed) her black child in Florida (which happens) this would NOT have gotten NEARLY as much attention, if at all. But, Geraldo and others continue, because Casey is a W-H-I-T-E woman, and the little girl was W-H-I-T-E, that that is at least PART of why the big attention and frenzy. Which, as an example, can be seen right here. Not sure how you missed that, but it's been there. (Also, as to SmashTheState, yeah, he did say that in frustration, but if you notice, HE CAME BACK LATER ON AND STATED A BUNCH OF LOGICAL THINGS, AND GAVE A CITATION AND LINK...to consider. Did you ever see that?) Anyway, the link is NOT totally irrelevant. My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle. The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section. Why not just let this go already? If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "a 'source' in a sense" does not appear anywhere in WP:RS as being a valid option. WP requires real, reliable sources. Again, the quote you're talking about is in relation to Casey Anthony as a mother, NOT Cayley Anthony as the supposed subject of MWWS. And yes, I did read what you said in talk, and I also read Swarm's (among others) effective refutation of it, which is what helped inform my opinion on this. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Swarm refuted nothing. But just ranted and whined and rationalized sources and citations away. As you're doing. And was wiki-uptight. Not understanding the simple fact that there's a VERY ARTICLE IN A RELIABLE SOURCE that has the VERY WORDS "missing white woman" in it...like right here. That was not "refuted", but simply rationalized away, as "just opinion" (not grasping the point that MWWS is by very nature theory and opinion anyway). You can't see how it "has to do", if they're mother and daughter, and how it was related as a general phenomenon. Then there's not much more I can say. Because when it comes right down to it, you and "Swarm" simply don't like this link in the article, don't like the implications of the matter, and SIMPLY DON'T WANT IT THERE, then NO AMOUNT of "reliable sources" will do, because you and uh "Swarm" willy just find silly reasons to either deny them as "reliable sources" or use sophistry to explain them away, and it's "not good enough" or "was not really referring to that" or "it was just that person's opinion" (not understanding that this very notion of MWWS is basically a theory and opinion to begin with!!!!) or your non-sensical "what does that have anything to do with Caylee"... Why did the psychiatrist even bring it up then? Why are there articles saying this? Obviously the "has to do" is that BOTH of them are white. And you wrongly think that because it says "missing white WOMAN" that "Caylee" can't qualify cuz after all she was a just a child. FAIL. Shows that you're not grasping what the syndrome is really about, and that it's broader than just that. As I said, Swarm (and you) refuted nothing...

Many "See also" links in articles don't necessarily have 100% relation to the main article it's posted in. So what? As long as there is arguably SOME connection or relation, and if some news sources brought it up, whether we personally like it or not or totally agree or not, it's whatever. If SmashTheState wants to put it there, and he has made at least some case for its application or relation, I don't see the big deal. It's not like putting "serial killers" or something in the See also section. Or "Satanic ritual murders"...or something like that, that has NO real relationship to the article, at all. "MWWS" at least is SOMEWHAT pertinent or relational, in some sense. So to me it's whatever. I can see it being there. Or not. (Though I lean more obviously towards it being there...) I don't think this matter is worth this much stress, energy, time, or attention. For this page to even be here now. This thing has gotten silly now. There's pertinence and relevance, and there's enough to prove that. Despite the denials. Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Having reverted the link back into the article three times without achieving a clear consensus to do so, thus exposing yourself to possible charges of edit warring, seems to say more about your position on this than "whatever". Shirtwaist ☎ 05:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to learn how to count also. I only reverted TWICE in 24 hours. NOT "three times" like you wrongly said. Also, nice DODGE to all the points and things I raised... Which shows a lot about YOUR position. Whining about "whatever" and slandering me. I NEVER violate "3RR". So saying that I did on this public forum can get YOU in trouble. Gotta be careful what you say. I only reverted twice. It was "SmashTheState" that did it before... I'm not him. You said I "reverted link back into article three times." FAIL...it was only two times. Check it again. The only reason I'm even addressing you now is to set your wrong assertion straight. Otherwise I would not have bothered. I don't want people believing a lie. I NEVER EVER violate "3RR". I'm careful with that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about 3RR or 24 hours, did I? "Edit warring" is also construed as repeatedly reverting the same thing over more than 24 hours (which is done by some to try, usually unsuccessfully, to get around 3RR- and I'm not saying this was your intention), which is exactly what you did here, here, and here. That's 3 reverts of the same thing in less than two weeks. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well fine. It's true...you didn't actually say "24 hours". But the implication seemed to be there. Because you said "three reverts" and also "charges of edit warring". So I thought you were meaning that. Yes, I did revert a few times, but over a span of time. As you said "2 weeks". And others have too, on this matter. But ALSO, you see that I have put good-faith efforts to DISCUSS the matter at length, on both the talk page and also this special page. As I said, I try hard to avoid CLEAR violations and "3RR". But yes, there was confusion as to what you meant. Because even though it's true you did not say "24 hours" in my case, you didn't exactly say "in the last 2 weeks" either in that comment. So I was not totally sure what you meant, given the context of your charge of "edit warring". I already know that "3RR" is not the only way to "edit war", but it's a bright line that is NOT AMBIGUOUS like other things might be. Also, another thing...I would NOT revert it at all if there was clear consensus on Talk (or here) against having that link on that article. As I said, I do NOT violate WP policies on these things. I do not violate "3RR" NOR "consensus". And no consensus has yet been reached on this thing anyway, so far. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus when smashthestate kept putting it back in (three times) either, without establishing consensus in talk and after being reverted by three different editors. That's disruptive and qualifies as edit warring. When I was the fourth editor to revert him, you decided four editors making the same revert wasn't enough consensus to keep you from carrying on STS's edit warring. You say there was no clear consensus in Talk against having that link in that article - well guess what - there was no clear consensus for including it either. That's why STS stopped reverting and started this DR. It wasn't a signal for you to keep on reverting where STS left off, that's not how WP wants editors to behave. Instead of continuing to edit war, you should have left it as it was and waited for a clear consensus to emerge here first, not continue STS's disruptive editing. That is how things are supposed to work here. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't know exactly that it was "four editors" that did that. Also, the point you're missing is that it was removed (by Macarion) before consensus was actually reached. Meaning that the MWWS link was there for a while now (a good week or two I think) yet someone ("Macarion") decided to remove it. WITH NO EXPLANATION GIVEN... Nothing was stated in his edit comment, when he did that. Why are you not complaining against THAT "behavior". (Meaning, that you're ignoring the CONTEXT of what I did and why...) Even though it was known already that there was a dispute, BUT THAT THE DISPUTE SEEMED TO HAVE ENDED, as no one opined or commented anymore for a while. Yet the link was removed again. That could be deemed as "edit warring" if that's the case. There was already a talk thing on this a week or two ago, the link was still there, yet "Macarion" (against policy arguably) removed it, willy nilly. And then because of that, SmashTheState understandably put it back. And then you and others all of a sudden decided to revert HIM. I saw THAT and did what I did. Macarion had no business doing that with a talk thing already there (so, again, why aren't you crowing against his rude WP-violating "behavior" in doing that?) and doing that with NO explanation or rationale given in the edit comment. He just did it unilaterally. So why shouldn't Smash put it back after that? And with no consensus reached I felt it was wrong for you and others to remove it again. As I said, not everything is so black and white. I did what I did BECAUSE OF A CONTEXT that was obviously warranting what I did. Macarion was wrong in doing that. So conveniently ignoring THAT (where this whole thing recently stemmed from) is not an honest or thorough recount of what went on here. Again, I don't violate 3RR NOR clear consensus. And there was none of that. There was a context for what I did, and Macarion was out of line. Therefore I submit that I did not clearly "edit war". peace... (also did you see my comment to your remarks below, and also Carol's?) Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You still seem to be unclear on the significance of the chain of events as it relates to edit warring and the consensus process, so I will attempt to clarify where you (and STS) went wrong. When Swarm reverted STS for the second time on 7-17 with an edit summary that advised STS to take it to Talk, the dispute began and discussion on the talk page was started. All reverting on this issue should've stopped at that point until a consensus in Talk for its inclusion was reached. As you probably know, it is incumbent on the editor who wishes to add controversial material, which has been reverted, to gain consensus for it first before re-adding it. USER:albacore then violated that by putting the link back while discussion was underway. Swarm then properly reverted it and again advised that the dispute be discussed in Talk by saying "it is seriously inappropriate to keep adding this without answering the clear justification for removal on the talk page". Then you, Hashem sfarim, decide a few hours later on 7-19 to improperly revert again, saying "it's been discussed, and there is some justification...see my response in Talk", as if the fact that you discussed it in talk settled the matter. Discussion continued with no consensus reached when on 7-30 USER:macarion again properly removed the link which was improperly put back by you earlier - an edit summary would've been nice, but it was clear to all why it was done anyway. STS then continued this disruptive editing by again re-adding the link (without an edit summary) ignoring the fact that still no consensus had been reached. This was then properly reverted by Chronie for the same reason as the other reverts up to that point, after which STS again improperly put it back. Seeing that there was no clear consensus in Talk for the link's inclusion (which was echoed by RxS's comment below), I then followed protocol by again reverting STS's improper revert, repeating Swarm's original admonishment that the issue should be resolved in Talk before re-adding this highly contentious link to the article. You then show up to again improperly revert while saying "this has already been discussed quite extensively on the talk page...and there've been enough valid reasons to keep this link in...sources and references regarding this exist...stop edit-warring over this please" - apparently oblivious to the fact that you were the one engaging in edit warring, while apparently asserting that you, Hashem Sfarin, have unilaterally decided that there has been enough discussion, and that you, Hashem Sfarin, have decided which reasons presented were "valid" and which were not, therefore giving you the right to circumvent the consensus process and reinstate the disputed link. After reverting you and pointing out to you that this matter has been been brought up at WP:DRN at 04:32 on 8-1, you ignore this and again put back the contentious link at 16:13, the inclusion of which is still being debated there(here) and remains unresolved. I hope you can see by this that after the issue was brought up in talk on 7-17, and certainly when the issue was raised at DRN on 8-1, continuing to add the link after those dates without clear consensus at either place to do so is in violation of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which states: "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution." WP:TALKDONTREVERT also states: "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."

Hopefully, you and STS will learn from your mistakes here and avoid being blocked in the future for this kind of disruptive behavior. If not, well, you've been warned. Cheers Shirtwaist ☎ 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can use "including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." for controversial stuff. There are thousands of subjects that are peripherally related. I can think of a lot of semi related subjects, so there needs to be a way to sort through them. Reliable sources is the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that you regard the McBride quote as unreliable? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a real case for inclusion here. There's a fair bit of WP:SYNTH going on here. I also agree with the above comment, controversial inclusions need to be supported by more than just " peripherally related". Even at that, there are no RS that firmly link this and MWWS so the association is a little POV (in addition to WP:SYNTH. I know there may be some opinion pieces on this but you need to be careful with those, especially in BLP's RxS (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And, as I look at the talk page I don't see anything like a consensus to include it. It should be removed until consensus is reached. RxS (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, as I said, what you and others are failing to grasp is that this very notion of MWWS is basically a theory and opinion to begin with. So it doesn't matter that this thing was brought up in "opinion pieces"...because that's the nature of the "syndrome" in the first place. A hypothesis. The point is that it's been brought up ENOUGH to warrant a simple See also link. As SmashTheState said, all you have to do is google the words "Cayle Anthony" along with "missing white woman", and see what comes up, to see how this has been something mentioned by experts and journalists, and the arguable relevance. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If MWWS is so theoretical, subject to opinion, and so bereft of WP:RS that all anyone trying to put it in can find to support its use is an op-ed piece...maybe we should avoid it altogether. To quote WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion". I assume this also holds true for "See also" sections.Shirtwaist ☎ 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but then are you saying that the "MWWS" Wikipedia article should be "avoided" as ever being a See also wiki link on any other WP article? Because of the nature of the "syndrome" being an opinion or theory. I don't know. I was just making the point that simply because it was found on some "opinion pieces" does not matter much given the fact that this whole "MWWS" is an "opinion" in many ways to begin with. Also, earlier, my point is that the Caylee article DOES mention something (however brief) about "white woman", by McBride. It's an opinion by nature. Also, again, I did NOT revert "three times" with this. But only twice. I'm very careful to never violate "3RR". So I'm not sure why you said that. Maybe you mis-read it, and counted SmashTheState's revert also with mine. But I'm not him. Anyway, I don't like this "syndrome". I just know that it HAS been brought up by quite a few in the media and in psychology etc. I don't know if it's honest to simply ignore that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying MWWS is a vernacular term with little or no solid RS to support it or verify it that I can see. So why should any article link to something as tenuous as that, much less an article where nobody can find an RS that links its subject directly to MWWS?

As for 3RR, see my response above. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My response to that is basically two-fold. One...It's debatable whether those sources are "RS" or not. It seems to be based on an interpretive thing about "opinion". It could be argued that in a sense they are reliable sources, to a decent extent. And the nature of MWWS is "opinion" anyway. But also, number two, something that Smash has brought up. In a See also wiki link WHERE EXACTLY DOES THERE HAVE TO DOGMATICALLY BE A "RELIABLE SOURCE" SOMEHOW INVOLVED WITH THAT NECESSARILY? That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject. It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist. It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS. Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS. That there are those who do so has been amply proven. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note I also heard this concept (if not the exact phrase) mentioned on two or three different cable stations during various discussions of this case, so it's definitely a concept that's out there and relevant for the see also and/or a sentence or two in the publicity section. (And glad to see outside editors are coming by DRN and opining!!) CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things. First, please don't yell, some of us are sensitive to use of the caps keys. My take is that everything in WP needs to be verifiable in reliable sources, even if it isn't directly cited. Now, some of you are arguing that op ed pieces are not reliable sources. That's not really true, in that an op ed piece by an acknowledged authority can certainly be reliable for statements relating to their field. If Hawking writes a blog or editorial column for the NYTimes about the history of scones, that's not a reliable source, but if he does so in regard to quantum mechanics, that's a reliable source. I suggest that since MWWS is about how the media focusses their attention on crimes carried out against certain types of people, opinions expressed by news professionals published by reliable news outlets would be reliable enough to justified a see also link.

Also, I took a look and some of the see also links are unneeded, for example, links to people involved in the trial are better made in the body of the article rather than the see also section. The main questions governing see also sections are relevance and number of links. The bar for relevance is pretty low, since the purpose of the see also links is to suggest additional reading on topics that are related, but not relevant enough to include in the body. So all that is required is to show that there's some reasonable linkage, and I think there is, for example this article, and a piece by a media critic posted on an NPR blog, which does not mention Caylee by name, does link her murder to MWWS. And this op ed piece by a someone who served on a community editorial board for a local gannett publication. The McBride quote doesn't cut it for me, but any one of the three sources above meets the relatively low bar for an RS for a see also link for me. But that's just my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one more piece of bureaucratic background: In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults in September, 2006, a case in which the editor in question was among other things accused of edit warring over inclusions in a See also section, the Arbitration Committee made a finding of principle that, "Internal links in a 'See also' section need only be of related interest." and for various reasons rejected an alternate statement of principle that "'See also' sections should contain directly relevant material, and should not be used to make arguments or points." The current "peripherally related" MoS formulation in WP:ALSO was adopted, I believe, in June, 2008, without any discussion that I can find. I remain of the opinion that relatedness, per se, is not needed and that "of related interest" is enough. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very useful information. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Two things - this proposal was evenly split 3 to 3, not exactly a "rejection", and what exactly does "of related interest" mean? Shirtwaist ☎ 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See the top of the page, in this particular case it appears that a majority was 6, rather than a simple majority, so I think it is fair to say that it was a rejection of point 6. Point 5 seems to be a clear majority. My point is that there are reliable sources establishing a connection between this particular case and MWWS, enough to support a line in the article itself that the case has been discussed as an example of MWWS. I believe TransporterMan's point is that the MOS and the cited arbitration suggest that sourcing for see also links are not required. Thus far it appears that you have been arguing that the external link should not be included because there are no reliable sources for it, but it appears that there are, and that they are not required in any case by the MOS.

I would take "of related interest" to mean that some significant number of people would find the material in the linked article to be of interest as they read the linking article. I think that the fairly large number of google hits, over 10k, on '"Caylee Anthony" and "missing white woman syndrome"', particularly the coverage in news outlets, and op ed pieces establish that there is "related interest". But again, these are just my opinions. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, 3 "oppose" and 3 "support" of point 6 is neither a rejection nor acceptance, but that's beside the point.

In any case, the argument put forward by others, which I agree with, that controversial inclusions like this one need to be supported by more than just "peripherally related" as stated in MOS, is a valid one. I've already stated my views on what constitutes an RS in this case so I won't repeat myself. My opinion of what "related interest" means differs from yours in that the two subjects must be connected in a significant way to each other, other than the appearance of the words "white woman" in both. A "See also" link is basically telling the reader that the link has enough relevance to the subject of the article they're reading to justify its inclusion. I'd rather not rely on some op-ed writer's opinion of how Cayley Anthony is an actual example of "MWWS", which in itself is a vague and unquantified vernacular term. As others have said, using such sources as that for info like this is not a problem - if all the other "syndromes" describing the media fascination with this case are also listed along with MWWS. The result would probably be a "battle of the op-ed pieces", but incorporating that stuff into the body of the article, instead of sticking it in the "See also" section, would better serve the article by neutralizing the MWWS bias created by only having MWWS in "See also". Shirtwaist ☎ 12:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some editors on this article who haven't figured out that Consensus does NOT trump policy, including even obvious BLP violations that have to be fought over. Sigh.... So something like this that is in a somewhat gray area are even more difficult to deal with. I think the POV for some may be that Casey's death is some cosmic message (or similar event of importance) that can't be sullied by any allusion to what many see as a racist media emphasis on the disappearances/deaths of white children/women. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Of course it does. WP:Consensus is policy. In the context here, linking MMWS is a slam on Anthony and we shouldn't do it. Gerardw (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(insert) To clarify, consensus of a few editors highly involved in the article, if they ignore all input from visiting editors or various noticeboards, doesn't trump obvious policy as communicated by those other editors. (Not as sexy as the short version.) Sometimes there are gray areas, sometimes an issue is more clear. The arguments below make me think it is clear this should at least be in See also, though a sentence or two in text to explain it would make even more sense. It's not a BLP issue because it's an analysis of media/public reaction to Caylee's disappearance, not a claim of something Casey has done without any WP:RS, which abound ad absurdum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(insert)If we paraphrase the above as 'The consensus of the greater Wikipedia community trumps the consensus of highly involved editors,' we're in agreement. Given the above reasoning I concur with the inclusion. Gerardw (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Several points:

• Nuujinn is correct #1. In the context of the arbitration decision, they rejected inclusion of point 6 in their final decision and approved inclusion of point 5, on the basis that a majority found that point 5 was a more appropriate statement of WP policy than point 5, point 5 was therefore included in their final decision, point 6 was not.
• Nuujinn is correct #2. "Related interest" means only that people who read one article might find the other one interesting because of some kind of similarity. Per MoS, the degree of similarity can become relevant if there are a disproportionate number of see also links, but when there are only a few links, as here, the only test is whether or not they are utterly unrelated.
• I recommend this dispute be evaluated by an uninvolved neutral and be closed in favor of retention of the "See also" link at this time. Everything that can be said has been said. My evaluation is (a) that there is sufficient similarities in subject to retain the link, (b) that even though verifiability is not needed for the addition of a see also link that there is, indeed, some degree of verifiability available, and (c) if the opinions given at the article talk page and on this page are analyzed that there is a consensus in favor of inclusion of the link of about 6 or 7 in favor to about 3 opposed. Since any one of those three reasons, (a)-(c), would justify inclusion of the link, my recommendation is that this matter be closed in favor of retention of the link.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what some people are missing here is that even if something is allowed by policy, it does not mean it's mandated. It still has to get consensus (when it's challenged). In this case, the see also link may or may not be justified by policy but it doesn't matter if you can't get a consensus for inclusion. There are enough reasonable arguments on both sides, but there's not an agreement that it should be added. RxS (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Policy is the standing consensus of the community as a whole and if it allows something, then it is allowed. To disallow that thing, either the policy must be changed (which cannot be done through local consensus) or an IAR local exception to that policy must be made. That requires the formation of a consensus to make that local exception, but the policy to allow it stands until and unless the consensus to make a local exception comes together. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If an edit is not specifically allowed or disallowed by policy, then a challenge is, indeed, enough to put it into question. A mere challenge is also enough to require an unsourced assertion in an article to either be reliably sourced or removed under WP:BURDEN and enough to cause a speedy deletion or non-BLP prod nomination to be rejected, but it's not enough to put an edit which is either specifically permitted or specifically prohibited by policy into question without an IAR local exception. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I'd like to clarify that when I said that if "an edit is not specifically allowed or disallowed by policy, then a challenge is, indeed, enough to put it into question," that that's a broad practical summary, not a statement of policy. A challenge to such an edit only puts it into question to the point that its retention does not justify an edit war over it. That is, if a challenger abandons the challenge it does not mean that the challenged edit must still be removed if consensus for its retention cannot be obtained. That is unlike, for example, a challenge under WP:BURDEN which requires the unsourced assertion to be sourced or removed even if the original challenger does not follow up on the challenge. (And before you ask, yes I can tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Transporterman - I'm not following your reasoning regarding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Consensus, whether for or against inclusion, is not going against any policy that I can see. You seem to be asserting that the wording "peripherally related" in MoS and "of related interest" in the ArbCom finding clearly relates to the "grey-area" situation in dispute here, which is: 'does a link to the subject of another article belong in this article, even though no reliable sources have been found - and only opinion pieces have established a barely-tenable connection between the two.' If you're trying to say that a vague statement like "of related interest" means what you and Nuujinn say it means, you'll need to convince me by providing evidence of that, and not just your opinion, as I have my own opinion of what it means. If you can't, then you can't hang your argument on "Policy clearly allows it, therefore consensus does not trump policy". I would also suggest that stating "Everything that can be said has been said" in a discussion is presumptuous and usually premature. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again...because maybe you missed it a little farther above, or maybe it's not totally sinking in, or perhaps it is, but you just don't care all that much (because of simply not liking or not wanting this link in that article). Ok, here goes... Number one...A See also link DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED "reliable sources" so dogmatically, like you and "Swarm" or others want to constantly assert. It's like what STS and I keep saying on this that completely gets ignored or un-appreciated. Also, number two... I said already, and as editor "KLP" stated, pointing out your CIRCULAR REASONING...that the very nature of MWWS is "opinion" to begin with. (sighs) And theory. So the sources are BOUND to be uh "opinion pieces." So what??? They're in reliable sources. And that's not the point anyway. A See also wiki link does not necessarily have to be that way. Again, did you even google the very words "Caylee Anthony" along with "Missing White Woman Syndrome" and see what comes up??? TONS...from reputable people. I mean, these are not nameless bloggers saying this stuff, but PEOPLE IN THE FIELD. Journalists, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc. Solid credentials, and so forth. (And so what that they're mostly "opinion pieces"...when the very thing is by nature "opinion" to begin with? So that argument becomes empty and CIRCULAR...as KLP said right right here.) And then it becomes a clear case of simply WP:I DON'T LIKE IT that you and Swarm and Crohnie etc are guilty of. Again, I said above, that my response to you is basically two-fold. One...It's debatable whether those sources are "RS" or not. It seems to be based on an interpretive thing about "opinion". It could be argued that in a sense they are reliable sources, to a decent extent. And the nature of MWWS is "opinion" anyway. But also, number two, something that Smash has brought up. In a See also wiki link where exactly does there have to dogmatically be a "reliable source" somehow involved with that necessarily? That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject. It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist. It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS. Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS. That there are those who do so has been amply proven. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim - I'm getting really tired of your uncivil behavior and treating this discussion like a battleground. I understand your arguments - repeating them even louder accomplishes nothing, so unless you intend to add something new without being so confrontational and uncollegial, I'd suggest you avoid participating in this discussion. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's been that bad. Compared to how some others on WP have acted at times. But really? No one's perfect every second in every syllable. And neither are you. Also...I was just emphasizing some points. Look at what Nuujinn wrote to you below (as I see you have), and see how your charges have added nothing to discussion, but simply distraction and a waste of time. When you do that. Instead of dealing with the actual substance of what I've been saying, you harp on junk like my supposed "edit warring" which arguably was not even true, but just a matter of interpretation. Or my supposed "loudness", which is just emphasis. Or supposed "incivility", which is just straightforwardness and boldness. What do you call your stuff here? Sweet and congenial? Yes, you have addressed some things here that I've brought out. But it seems you've evaded and complained more with me, than anything else. Over petty stuff. And then have the rude nerve to say "I'd suggest you avoid participating in the discussion" when I was already IN the discussion pretty much from the start, and am part of the whole matter unfortunately. Again, it's just frankness that I see that your main reason for not wanting this link has nothing substantially really to do with WP policy. But simply because the idea of it and the implication of it irks you, and you "just don't like it". Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. (Also, what I write on here is actually not just for you...but for others to read and consider too.) Like I said too, so what that they are "opinion pieces"? When the countless statements are IN "reliable sources"?? And who really is an "expert" on MWWS anyway? I mean, if psychiatrists can't be considered "experts" in various human and social behaviors, then who would be? Is there a degree in the studies of MWWS or something? And the whole subject is by nature opinion to begin with. And making such a fuss over a See also wiki link about "reliable sources" is a bit unnecessary in the first place. You say that you "understand my arguments", but you have yet to really refute any of them. And they're not just "mine" anyway. As you can see from others on here. Making either the same or very similar points. Also, like I said, a whole host of sources and comments and links to "MWWS" and "Caylee Anthony" can be found, proving the point quite amply. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Shirtwaist, I would hate to think that this is a really a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. First, you questioned whether there were reliable sources. The NPR piece I cited is not a "vague op ed piece", as the article is written by a media critic and published by a reliable source, and it is thus clearly reliable. Then you made accusations of edit warring and disruptive behaviour, which isn't relevant to the question of whether the see also link should be included, and generally not helpful in these kinds of discussions. Your assumption about having to attribute see also links sourced to op ed piece seems not to make sense to me, since normal practice is not to provide citations for see also links, and, as Transporterman has argued, we don't require reliable sources for see also links in the first place. Your repeated assertion that the arbitration finding on point 6 was "evenly split 3 to 3" and thus not a rejection isn't really true, if you look at the top of the page you'll see "On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority", and as Transporterman points out, proposal 5 is the one that carried the day. You've arguing that the link is somehow controversial, but have given no rational that I can see that it is. Caylee is sadly no longer alive, and the article is about her death and the surrounding events, not Casey, so I see no BLP issues. And I see no policy or guideline that suggests that we have to convince you of what "of related interest" means, since it's pretty straight forward english, and the finding of the arbitration committee clearly rejected the notion that '"See also" sections should contain directly relevant material.' I'm afraid I'm seeing a pattern of trying to use any excuse possible to keep out a simple see also link, and I'm not seeing any argument that is informed by policies and guidelines. I'm sorry if I am missing something, but that's what it looks like to me at the moment, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise, and I'll wait and see how the addition of the information relative to MWWS works in the article's body goes. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn - I don't intend to restate my argument, but I'd like to clear up your confusion on a few points.

1)The writer of the NPR piece, like all the other sources presented, is expressing his opinion that the Cayley Anthony case has something to do with MWWS, and as others have pointed out, opinion pieces are not reliable sources on anything except their own opinions or their own field of expertise. The writer may be a "media critic", but I see no evidence of him being an expert on MWWS.

2)If Hashem sfarin hadn't engaged in disruptive editing on the Death of Caylee Anthony page, then denied his obviously disruptive behavior there, there would be no need to have it pointed out to him in great detail.

3)The ArbCom finding about proposal 6 has nothing to do with my arguments, I never implied it did. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion, as I made clear to you earlier. Why you bring it up again here is beyond me.

4)If all the reverting and discussion about including/excluding this link doesn't prove to you the link is controversial, I don't know what will.

5)I don't see where any BLP issues have been brought up in this discussion.

6)"I see no policy or guideline that suggests that we have to convince you of what "of related interest" means" - I agree, and the same goes for me not having to convince you of what I think it means, thus the inability of either of us to assert our meaning on others while claiming support of policy.

7)If you're not seeing any argument from those opposing inclusion that is informed by policies and guidelines, I can only advise you to read the discussion here and on the Death of Caylee Anthony talk page again. I hope this has cleared things up for you. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I'm not sure where you get the idea that if content is allowed, it's mandatory, That's never been the case and it isn't now. All it means is that the content in question is open to editorial judgement and consensus. Let's look at the policy: Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. (my bold) Nothing there states that see also content is immune from consensus or editorial judgement. In this case, there's no consensus for it's addition in the editorial judgement of the participating editors. You simply cannot bypass the process of consensus. RxS (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are bounds to assuming good faith, and it should be manifestly obvious to any outside observers that the Death of Caylee Anthony article is a great, glowing, neon placard for WP:OWN in mile-tall letters of supernatural flame, where a group of editors regard it as their duty to expunge it of anything they regard as injurious to the memory of Caylee Anthony. I brought the case here because the talk page discussion was completely circular as a result of endless rounds of completely specious rationalization in which the Caylee fan club totally ignored all rational conversation through a series of increasingly torturous "talking points" which have no relationship whatsoever to Wikipedia policy (or, indeed, reality). The colossal irony, of course, is that these people are exhibiting classic signs of MWWS themselves, even while they fight bitterly against any mention of it. The fact is that we could argue here ad infinitum and they will continue to fling up random assertions for why a simple mention of MWWS in the See Also appendix is unthinkable because they are not constrained by either logic or reality. Frankly, at this point, I'm not sure what can be done about a group of people who manifestly exhibit a toxic combination of pathological obsession, ill will, and total moral certitude in their holy vision of Saint Caylee the martyr of the Master Race. -- SmashTheState (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

SmashTheState's comments, as well as the absurd length of this thread on a minor issue, point out the problem that there are a few editors (and not necessarily the ones who've posted the most in this thread) who have an irrational lack of ability to deal with this topic in an NPOV way. Some don't even want to see the prosecution evidence presented in any logical order, not to mention have a fair exposition of the winning defense side. The only solution may be WP:RfCUsers for the most recalcitrant and argumentative editors.

Related question: So should such user behavior be brought here first? A purpose more generally this noticeboard has to decide, including per my earlier comments on talk. CarolMooreDC (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything we can do here. The notion that a simple see also link can be considered so onerous astounds me, and some of the editors are clearly in a battleground and wikilawyer mode and unwilling to consider the arguments presented by others. My suggestion would be to start moving towards mediation by moving through the dispute resolution guidelines, because I think that's where this will wind up ultimately and there's no reason not to cut to the chase. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

{Insert}: You may be right. It's probably the most nightmarish article I've worked on as far as questionable and absurd arguments to support even clear policy violations in BLP. I've worked on some contentious articles on the Israel-Palestine issue, which needed it's own Arbitration. At least in that case the POVs were more evident; here it's more obscure so more frustrating. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A structural note. And article about MWWS is basically about the term, a term which is essentially a POV/political "lens" that those with particular POV apply to the situation, and which alleges discrimination. So, while, at the simpleton literal level, the term appears to about be situations themselves, in reality it is about a "lens" which some apply to those situations, and a lensed view of those situations. So, any application of that term to the situation (e.g. as implied by a link) is essentially a statement that the "lensed" view is valid & applicable. The MWWS article is about the "lens", not about the situations that one might view through the lens. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything is a lens, even death to those who believe the living soul/spirit/consciousnes keeps on going after the physical body is dead - whether it reincarnates being another lens. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

True. But I guess what I meant but failed to say is that the subject of the MWWS article is itself a controversial assertion. Like creating a "Miserable failures" article and then linking people's articles to it. North8000 (talk) (signed by Nuujinn)

Well, if one could create a "Miserable failures" article without violating NPOV, V, and other policies, I think linking to it would be appropriate. I think in that case there would also soon be a "Stunning successes" article, and a link to that as well, then huge discussions at various noticeboards about deletions, mergers, wording, etc. To me the issue is fairly straight forward--media critics and editors (former or active) have some expertise in discussing what the media is doing, and there has been discussion of this particular case by such people, so some mention of it somewhere in the article seems appropriate. If editors feel that the body is more appropriate, seems fine to me so long as they adhere to policies and stick to reliable sources which directly link this case to MWWS, and not turn the article in question into a debate over whether or not MWWS is real/true/accurate/fair/, etc. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Good points. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@RxS: Local consensus can simply not trump policy willy-nilly. I've cited clear policy — WP:LOCALCONSENSUS — to support my position, but your argument is nothing more that it's just not that way here. What proof of your position do you have? For example: Let's say an article clearly meets both the general notability guidelines and any specialized notability guidelines set out for that subject matter. Policy therefore says the article can be included Wikipedia. Just because a couple of editors then claim on the talk page of that article that it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia does not create a situation in which the article must be deleted unless a consensus is built to keep it. If a local consensus is successfully built to support an IAR local exception to delete the article because deletion would benefit the encyclopedia more than retention (which is always the reason for an IAR local exception), then it can be deleted but the "no consensus" result must be that the article is to be kept. (I'm not referring to the AfD process here, though I think similar logic may apply there.) In the final analysis, of course, this is a wiki and within the limits of the Founding principles and certain other restraints set by the Wikipedia Foundation and/or Jimbo Wales, anything can be changed by consensus. But there are certain established consensuses which cannot be changed locally except through a IAR local exception, they're called policies, and in those cases a "no consensus" result on the proposition that policy not be followed requires that established consensus, i.e. the policy, be followed. I wholly concur, by the way that there's nothing in the MoS section which says, expressly or in effect, that "see also content is immune from consensus or editorial judgement," but there doesn't need to be: Once the standards set out in that section were elevated to policy, that result is required by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (Lest I be misunderstood, let me make clear that I'm not saying that see also content is entirely immune to removal, but I am saying that the only grounds on which it can be removed are those set out in MoS [and, perhaps, the Arbcom decision, though I personally think that they both mean the same thing]: "peripherally related"/"related interest" and removal of more remote links in favor of closer ones if the see also section is overcrowded.) Let me begin to conclude by saying, however, that our discussion of this point may be moot and/or entirely theoretical: As I asserted above, I think that if the pro and con voices here and at the article talk page are carefully evaluated that there is a consensus in favor of retention of the link, including the neutrals who have weighed in here on this issue. What's clearly not here is a consensus in favor of its removal. Our discussion about the effect of policy vs. consensus only has meaning if I'm wrong about there being a retention consensus and the neutrally-evaluated result is "no consensus." Finally, let me reassert that I am here as a neutral: I truly do not have any emotional investment in either of the articles in question, the subject matter of those articles, or in whether the link is included or excluded. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It helps to say who you are replying to :-) I'm not sure. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

@CarolMooreDC: All of that was to RxS. I've linked the @ at the beginning to make that more clear. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

@North8000: No, your analysis that, "any application of that term to the situation (e.g. as implied by a link) is essentially a statement that the 'lensed' view is valid & applicable," tries to read something into "See also" links which plainly is not there under MoS. A see also link does not imply that the linked article is directly related to or a type of the linking article; MoS clearly says that it only implies a peripheral relationship, and ArbCom says that it only indicates an article of related interest. Neither of those comes even close to implying that the linked view is valid or applicable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, if I put a "see also" link in the Obama article to the future "Socialists run amok syndrome" article, that would not imply that he is one of those?  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@TransporterMan - I don't think it's proper for you to refer to "policy" in regard to this issue. MoS is a guideline, and as such is not under the same constraints as a "policy". I think you'll find the words "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions" in the guideline template, and "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" in the instructions for a "See also" section. And as we all know, "common sense" is a matter of opinion and consensus around here. Therefore, you cannot assert that "policy trumps consensus", as there is no policy involved here. It naturally follows that "peripheral interest/of related interest" are open to interpretation, are they not?Shirtwaist ☎ 23:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion, so I'm coming in late. I don't understand the approach to a "see also" section that is being taken here. WP:SEEALSO says that the see also section should only include links that would be in a hypothetically "perfect" article. That means links that can be sourced. It has been shown that "Missing White Woman Syndrome" can be reasonably sourced; however, as this article falls under BLP, we should not slap on contentious links, especially links that are sourced with op-ed pieces. Why? Because, when dealing with op-ed pieces, we are to attribute the opinion to the author. This should be even more important when dealing with a contentious opinion on a BLP. Therefore, it makes more sense to remove the link from the "see also" section, and attribute the opinion to its author, in the body of the article.  Chickenmonkey  22:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

@Shirtwaist: Actually there is no substantial difference between policies and guidelines except that, in practice and as stated at Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines#Enforcement you are more likely to be blocked or banned for violation of a policy than you are for a guideline. The words in the guideline template reflect a similar statement in the definition of guidelines at Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines#Role, but the reference to common sense needs to be understood in the context of the provision in the lede of Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines that, "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." The link on common sense is important because it takes us to an essay which says, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|existing agreements]], [[Meta:Community foundation issues|community foundation issues]] and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." (I've expanded the links so it's easy to see what they mean.) So what does using common sense mean? It doesn't mean opinion and consensus as you suggest. It means following policy and guidelines and Wikimedia's founding principles and doing what's best for the encyclopedia. What's the process for deciding a claim about what to do when policy/guidelines and what's best for the encyclopedia conflict? First, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies to both policy and guidelines: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ... Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." (Emphasis added.) Consensus can change, of course, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that in the case of policies and guidelines that the established consensus set out in a guideline applies unless a new consensus is formed to either make an IAR local exception or to change the guideline altogether. Thus:

• both policies and guidelines are subject to the use of common sense and exceptions, but there's nothing to suggest that those apply differently in the case of guidelines than they do in the case of policies,
• an exception in the best interest of the encyclopedia can be established through consensus for either a policy or a guideline, but if there's no consensus for an exception the policy or guideline still applies, and
• in the final analysis there is no substantial difference between policy and guidelines except enforcement.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@TransporterMan - I really don't see how you can use that argument to assert "policy trumps consensus" in this situation.

• "established consensus set out in a guideline applies unless a new consensus is formed to...make an IAR local exception" ← I think we all agree with that. That's why we're here in the process of forming an IAR "local exception".
• "both policies and guidelines are subject to the use of common sense and exceptions" ← Also agree, considering the following entry in common sense: "just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation". That is exactly what we are trying to decide here - through the consensus process - whether or not including this link is a good idea in this situation. Your point about the essay is fair, but then it's an essay, not a policy or guideline.
• "(Common sense) doesn't mean opinion and consensus as you suggest" ← I don't agree at all. The wording in WP:COMMON itself, which I've quoted above, clearly holds out the option of local consensus (through opinions of individual editors) deciding what's best for the encyclopedia in a particular situation. This thread is a perfect example of that. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Chickenmonkey: Unfortunately, WP:SEEALSO isn't the best-written guideline to ever hit Wikipedia. It helps to know the history of the current section. When this section was created the big debate was whether see also sections should exist at all are not. Some folks thought that — as has been argued here — that if a link wasn't good enough to be in the body of an article that it just shouldn't be included at all. A counterargument was made that articles ought to be succinct and as brief as possible, with the result that some less relevant links should, rather than taking up space on relatively marginal matters in the article, be included in a see also section. A third faction thought that a see also section should not only exist for links that could be included in the article, but also for links which would be of related interest but which weren't relevant enough to be in the article. There was also some support for the position that relevant links should go in both the body of the article and a see also section. The text of WP:SEEALSO was written to make clear that see also sections should exist and that higher quality links should not go in both the article and the see also section, with editorial discretion and common sense being applied to decide whether those links ought to go in the article or in the see also section. It also agreed, however, with related interest — peripherally related — links being included in the see also section even if they could not also be included in the body of the article. The appeals to "perfect article" and editorial discretion and common sense refer to the question of whether links should go in the body of the article or in the see also section, not to the question of whether they or peripherally related links ought to be included at all. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly the argument I made: the link should go in the body of the article, not in the see also section. Keeping editorial discretion in mind, I believe that's the best course of action, for this particular link. The reason I believe such is due to the fact that it is contentious, opinion-oriented material in a BLP. With such material, we should attribute the opinion to its author. I'm not making any statement on the quality of WP:SEEALSO or whether "see also" sections should exist. To that end, I'm not sure what your reply to me was meant to convey.  Chickenmonkey  21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that no RfC was ever posted about this issue, but was skipped by the OP in favor of going directly to DRN. Would it be worthwhile to post an RfC about this as a next step in the process? Shirtwaist ☎ 04:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Transporterman. It seems that putting a contentious link in context with a few sentences along the lines of "X, Y, and Z (important commentors on racial issues[ have attributed the media attention surrounding Caylee's death and Casey's trial to missing white woman syndrome. Blah blah nice analytic quote, blah blah." would be the best way to solve the problem, if in fact, there is significant discussion of mwws with regards to this... bazaar. (I've heard plenty of discussion along those lines, but I'm not particularly well versed in the body of work surrounding the case; perhaps it's not a significant viewpoint overall.) If that angle isn't significant enough that this sort of passage could legitimately be written, then the link doesn't belong in the "See also" section either. Danger (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1:

The guidelines of this project state that nonproductive discussions should be closed. This discussion is no longer productive and should be closed.

Support:

1. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (the discussion continues to be productive and should be continued.):

Abstain:

Proposal 2:

If this discussion is to be closed, a neutral editor who has not been involved in this discussion should examine both the application of policy and guidelines to this dispute and also the level of consensus reached in regard to this dispute here and at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony and render an opinion as to whether or not the "See also" link in question ought to be included or excluded or, in the alternative, whether the resolution of that issue remains unclear, and stating as briefly as possible the reasons for that opinion.

Support:

1. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
2. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
3. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (the discussion should be closed without such an examination or opinion):

Abstain:

Proposal 3:

To assist in either the examination described in Proposal 2, as a waypoint if this discussion is not to be closed, or to aid in any future examination of this discussion in a different forum or process, please state your opinion:

A "See also" link to Missing white woman syndrome should be included in Death of Caylee Anthony:

1. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No such link should be included there:

I have no opinion:

Template for additional proposals

Proposal _:

[State the proposal]

Support:

Oppose ([state the counter-proposal]):

Abstain:

---

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.