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.

• Soka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Soka Gakkai/Talk (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?

This subject is about a dispute concerning a certain sentence which appears in Soka Gakkai page - section: Perception and Criticism- posted by editor Catflap08 and discussed with Wikipedia editor John Carter on the Talk page at my (SafwanZabalawi) request without a resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C5%8Dka_Gakkai

The sentence in dispute is the following: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[58] and proselytizing[59][60][61][62] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[63].”

/1/ The dispute is about using unreliable sources and also making a misleading accusation about unspecified number of Soka Gakkai (and SG International membership of 12 million) members –in a negative defaming way, without any valid evidence. I’ll focus on the discussed in Talk page example of relying on unreliable references : http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html This reference is a blog which published a report in a tabloid style about a local disagreement between the parent’s association of a certain school (PS24) and a teacher (Mr. Scharper) - as the blog reports: “after weeks of rumors that he crossed the line between church and state with Buddhist prayer meetings in his office and attempts to recruit school staff for a “prayer circle.”

/2/ Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source is a blog, with a defaming accusation involving a living person (the teacher).

/3/ The source does not report a final fact but rumors and multiple conflicting stories about the alleged matter. The storytelling style based on rumors are not a reliable source in Wikipedia performance.

/4/ The source itself states that there are equal contra-claims about the reported rumors: “Not everyone at the school gives much credence to the accusations, including some people who work closely with the principal every day. They say they have never been offered a card nor have they been approached to join him for prayers”.

/5/ The blog mentions that Ms Trebach (an accuser of the Mr. Scharper, the Buddhist teacher): maintained “that she could not confirm or deny allegations of proselytizing or a hate list.” This is a source destabilizing its own credibility where the accuser cannot confirm or deny the accusations.

/6/ The blog also makes a hint to a bullying atmosphere in that school: “One staff member, who did not want to be named, said it was a small group of teachers and parents who wanted Mr. Scharper removed because they are now unable to exert as much influence as under the previous administration. Rumors that speak against Mr. Scharper are matched by others that say the allegations are part of a vendetta started by a disgruntled staffer at the school”.

/7/ Another source repeating the same tabloid and unconfirmed story was also used by the editor involved. My question to Wikipedia is whether a source based on: “rumors, did not want to be named, could not confirm or deny, vendetta, accusation of no credence... administration influence, allegations...” is acceptable in Articles.

/8/ These sources were used as the ground for a sentence generalizing this alleged (and probably fabricated) incident to defame an unknown number of an organization, SGI, which firmly opposes rumored in the blog wrong behavior. The editors’ claim that “some” of the 12 million members also follow the blog’s example (of alleged proselytizing) is lacking substance and has no validity nor any proof in reality.

/9/ This subject brings this dispute to another source (mentioned in the disputed sentence), being: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ and which the editor used to accuse SGI of lack of religious tolerance. The mentioned source claims that a teacher at the University ( Ms Christoffersenat) was discriminated at because of her age and religion. The Court however dismissed that claim as the following source reveals: http://www.rickross.com/reference/gakkai/gakkai56.html and this means that the source provided by the editor was misleading and incorrect.

/10/ The claim in the disputed sentence that an unknown number (of the 12 million members organization) allegedly practice proselytizing is not supported by any factual incident or source including the last source of that sentence, which is: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php. This is a rumor spreading source, which has no endorsement of any professional side and I am also questioning the validity of that source as a Wikipedia approved reference. Thank you for your attention.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• John Carter (talk · contribs)
• Catflap08 (talk · contribs)
• SafwanZabalawi (talk · contribs)

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

"Yes"

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Soka Gakkai Talk page

• How do you think we can help?

Clarify validity of disputed sentence and sources.

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

blogspot.de (or any other blog) is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Delete anything in the article that is only backed up by a citation to a blog and delete the ref to the blog. Double check to make sure the statement in the article isn't found in a blog and a reliable source. It is easy to remove those by accident.

For those who are wondering why blogs are not reliable sources, consider this; I could write on a blog that Betty White invented the telephone, then I could put it in her Wikipedia article with a citation to the blog. (and we all know that Betty White invented the telegraph...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest all that had to be said about the issue has been raised in the articles’ talk section already. Authors like Montgomery, McLaughlin also used as reference bringing up the issue. An issue that is not even new, two EXAMPLES of WHERE proselytising has occurred and have been reported on were entered. Even the court ruling on the Soka University case is weak, as it deals with grounds on which the woman got sacked … it was not said that proselytising does not occur. Other editors have also informed Safwan on the issue of sources and references. To my mind the editor would just like not to see the issue being mentioned at all. By defaming sources arguing on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines the editor has actually proved he has no real knowledge of the guidelines. And finally as the author seems to be going on about the issue – nowhere does it say that all alleged 12 million members proselytise … the sentence is a summary of sources and references critical/sceptical of Soka Gakkai. I suggest to you to get familiar to why references are used in general.

To my mind the author has actually shown WHY Soka Gakkai is often criticised – its inability to face criticism. Rather than to deal with issues raised the messenger is being ‘attacked’. Typically those issues are then branded rumours originating form tabloids, same old story. And ... the Riverdale Press is not a blog. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on article content, not on user conduct. Talking about other editors is not helpful. Criticizing other people is not a good way to resolve a content dispute. Please talk only about what should and should not be in the article and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above, the disputed sentence : “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[60] and proselytizing[61][62][63][64] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[65].” should be changed to meet Wikipedia guidelines, as presented in the following point by point for better clarity:

1/ The sentence’s allegation of controversy regarding “religious tolerance” depended on reference:[60]:http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ about a case, which was dismissed by the court. This part of the sentence and its reference has the potential to mislead Wikipedia readers about the subject as current or having validity - while there is none.The involved editor is criticizing the court’s decision, however, Wikipedia is not the place for criticizing the court as making wrong or weak decisions. This part of the sentence will be accordingly deleted. (It is also to be noted that the subject of “religious tolerance” is already mentioned in another paragraph in the article, following the disputed sentence).

2/ The sentence becomes: “There has been controversy about the degree of proselytizing[61][62][63][64] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[65].”, however:

3/ Because reference [61]: [Daniel B. Montgomery: Fire in the Lotus, Mandala 1991, p. 185-186] – meets Wikipedia guidelines, it should be kept as a valid,

4/ Reference [62] http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html is a blog (it reads “blogspot” ) and it admits that it presents a rumor. Rumors are not a Wikipedia approved source of information. The contents of that rumor was disputed even within the blog. Further, the reference contains statements of individuals who did not want to be named, indicating an atmosphere of bullying and threats associated with that tabloid type information. There are also many Anonymous comments put in the blog's discussion part about the rumor. This reference will be deleted.

5/ Reference [63]: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600 is a summary and repetition of the previous rumor, and will be deleted. Basically the whole described rumor is based on “ some parents did not like a teacher, but other parents disagreed with them” - and this is not a quality of reliable reference.

6/ Reference [64]:http://ncsu.academia.edu/LeviMcLaughlin/Papers/1636042/Did_Aum_Change_Everything_What_Soka_Gakkai_Before_During_and_After_the_Aum_Shinrikyo_Affair_Tells_Us_About_the_Persistent_Otherness_of_New_Religions_in_Japan is inaccessible. Reference to a title-only of inaccessible text to readers is not a valid source of information about allegations in the text. A title of a document without text is not a Wikipedia approved source. This reference will be deleted whenever it appears unless full access and verifiability of the claims allegedly contained in the source are presented.

7/ Reference [65]: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=867&Itemid=11&limit=1&limitstart=5 presents a POV of an unknown writer, in an article which was not published in any journal. This reference is used to wrongly generalize a POV of amonymous writer or group of writers - criticizing the attitude of “some” of the 12 million members organisation - but being unable to point to a single incident, nor to even a single individual of the “some members” of the 12 million group. The quality of this reference, and its use here to generalize a stereotype over a whole group of people (a group which officially dismisses the allegation) all this does not support its use as a reliable or honestly-informative source, and it will be deleted. Finally the disputed sentence will become: ““There has been controversy about the degree of proselytizing[61] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members.” Regards. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a question to Dispute Resolution Editors. You have mentioned that Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.. Following this, I resonded with the above 7 points of discussion about the disputed sentence. The opportunity was open to the editor involved (Catflap08) to have an input and cooperate, respond, discuss here on this page, but he failed to do so. There was no further addition to his previous input (focused on attacking the person). I have presented my points and suggested an alternative solution and invited for discussion here. I waited for a further discussion, but having no response, I took it as his acceptance to my suggested editing of the disputed sentence, and changed it accordingly with explanation on Talk page of the article.

Unfortunatelly, I was unfairly accused of vandalism and other rude remarks - and the disputed sentence was returned back to the Article, as if your opinion here or following the rules in applying to Dispute Resolution was meaningless!. I request your guidance on this situation. Regards.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, I think the Riverdale Press blog might actually meet WP:USERG standards, which specifically indicates that "news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I am not myself sure how to actually determine from the newspaper's "blog" site whether it actually meets those standards myself, because I actually haven't dealt with such sources before. But if it is, as it appears to be, a form of online edition of that newspaper, it probably would meet RS standards. I have sought outside input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Riverdale Press blogspot. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to the comment: The comment above does not help in resolving whether a blog can be used asa reliable source. Guy Macon says blogs are not reliable sources. John Carter says he is not sure. I request other Wikipedia editors to examine the matter, because it belongs to clarifying Wikipedia guidelines. To initiate an examination of whether a blogspot - and in particular the mentioned one - meets the guidelines I’d like to present the following points:

1/ Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source in dispute is a blog, with a defaming rumor involving a living person (the teacher).

2/ In Citing Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sourcesources we find: “the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia”. Here we have an information about “controversy about proselytizing” supported by a blog which defines the information as a mere rumor.

I disagree with the editors (involved in supporting the blog) on accepting a rumor as a reference in Wikipedia article, whether it is on a blog or a rumor spreading -self confessed tabloid.

3/ There is a problem of Anonymity, included in the blog. The blog indicates statements of individuals who “did not want to be named” and created a string of personal comments - similar to chat groups comments - with many identifying themselves as “ Anonymous”. Question to all Wikipedia Editors: Is a blog reporting a rumor and including anonymous contributors to the information, is this a reliable source? John mentions that blogs are acceptable if : “these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field”. In the examined case, the writer confesses of writing a rumor and the other contributors to that blog are not professionals, as they signed with “anonymous”.

4/ The rumor-based information (contained in that disputed reference) was copied by another similar source. If a person repeats a lie or a rumor many times, that does not make it reliable. The other source which “copied and pasted” the same rumor meets also the same quality of lack of credibility.

5/ If the opinion of other editors is to accept the disputed blog (and the second source which copied the rumor from that blog) then I suggest the following: the accurate citation by the editor(s) of the sentence should include that “there was a rumor about proselytizing”, and then add the blog as a reference. If the word rumor is not added to the citation, then the citation is misleading as it falsely claims that it is about proselytizing while it is about a rumor of a single incident of alleged proselytizing (and which was disputed by other individuals involved in the matter, as the blog itself mentions).

6/ Both editors involved in this dispute ignored an important issue raised, being another false claim of the editor involved about “religious tolerance”. All rasied matters should be addressed, and this matter in particular is very important and should not be avoided: the disputed sentence starts with a claim of “controversy regarding religious tolerance”. To support this claim, a source citing a complaint by a certain individual about age discrimination and religious intolerance, in a case which went to the court and which was dismissed by the Court. The Court did not rule about any breach of religious tolerance referred to in that misleading source. I do not know about Wikipedia rules concerning criticising a Court’s decision on this page as being wrong or weak - as a justification of including a misleading information in the article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• We have a content noticeboard that specifically deals in source reliability, the reliable sources noticeboard. This matter has not gone through RS/N to my knowledge, and I check RS/N multiple times a day. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I was responding here to a comment which appeared on this page. Do I have to do something else, such as referring the contents to another board? and how? Appreciate your help.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DRN doesn't have the kind of reliable sourcing experience that RSN has. You may wish to read WP:RS/N's instructions on how to ask a reliability question, as we're requiring editors to supply sufficient information to allow answers regarding reliability. In future, if reliable sourcing issues come up, WP:RS/N may be the appropriate noticeboard to bring the reliability aspect of content disputes to. Consulting RS/N can help clarify the reliability aspect of a dispute, and allow disputants to focus their attention on other aspects of the dispute to help produce the best articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarificationSafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: December 26, 2024 at 02:57 (UTC) Reason: Discussion appears to have moved to RSN. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 2 July 2012 (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.

• Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Rangers Football Club Ltd (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?

On the 14th June 2012 Rangers FC where officially confirmed as to be liquidated. Since then there have been a lot of POV pushing from both sides ie rival fans making a mockery of the situation, and supports not wanting to admit the demise of there club which was a very big club. However at the moment no one can agree on what to do with the article because of POV and conflicting sources saying different things. The biggest problem is are the club are company serperate as a lot of sources suggest or is the company the club as some other sources suggest. Also how the article should be as there is two ways similar clubs have had there articles done, one for new club or club page and a page about the liquidation process. There is also a problem with how people interrupt the sources.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

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

Yes apart from various ip users as there not listed what ips

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rangers FC club dead or not}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

There is loads and loads of discussion on the talk pages and at various users talk pages, the problems is there is users pushing pov and also taking advantage of the club demise to make a mockery of it, there is fans who dnt want to accept there club might be gone, there is problem with sources conflicting themselves, there is also user who contact sources and complainant there publish stuff wrongly so making source conflict even further. we had agreed back about 14th june to wait and see what happens and not to create a new page for the new company as no one knows the final outcome and what is truly happen, someone created it and now that is in afd, whoever created went against consensus and made the page and now the old page got constant abuse the admin have fully protected it and forcing discussion on the talk pages. There has also been discussion at the project page but most editors seem not to want to get involved because it such a sensitive issue and they do not want fans of the club or opposing fans say there taking sides.

• How do you think we can help?

hopefully by having someone neutral look at the sources and the arguments and hopefully not got much knowledge in football (soccer) that a cones-us can be reached and agreed on, as then no one can say that it is conflict of interest or pov pushing and who can read the sources and determine what they might be saying

Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I think. The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers as we have always known them. They have went through 2 name changes, they started as The Rangers Football Club in 1872, they then became a Ltd Company in 1899, changed their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, in 1995 they became a PLC and changed their name again to The Rangers Football Club PLC, who as we know are currently in Administration/Liquidation and soon to be dissolved. That is the long and short of it. Sevco Scotland(new Rangers) could basically be anyone, technically a Hearts fan could have went to Rangers administrators instead of Charles Green and bought all the assets to a new Club called Hearts of Scotland. Just to finish off, technically they are not dead yet they are still alive but about to be dissolved(dead). I would also like to add anyone who believes Rangers still exist would need to provide proof that Rangers FC are basically a Fictional Non-entity that only exists in the mind, because those people refuse to accept that The Rangers Football Club PLC is Rangers and claim that The Rangers Football Club PLC were just the owners of Rangers, however if they were just the owners then the "club" would be an asset of The Rangers Football Club PLC which would mean they exist in The Rangers Football Club PLC's annual accounts but obviously they do not as The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers. So there is two options - (1) The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers and Sevco Scotland Limited are new Rangers or (2) Rangers FC are a Fictional non-entity that only exist as people say they exist and they can be whatever people want them to be.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan to put both sides of the argument and my own opinions later, my problem realtes to what the sources say and as wikipedia editor i cant use my POV against what sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to this. Not really my specialism but if pushed it looks, on the face of it, more of a Darlington/Halifax scenario than a Leeds United one. That's because - by hook or by crook - Leeds got a creditor agreement. As such I'd say two articles would be better in this case. Ie. a separate one for the phoenix club/NewCo type thingy which will apparently start in the lower leagues, if it gets off the ground at all. I have some sympathy with the contributors who want to "wait and see" how it all pans out but the problem with that is that it could take years. Meanwhile the existing articles remain in a misleading or innacurate state. I found my way to the discussion after checking the Rangers L.F.C. article and was shocked and surprised that basically NONE of all this stuff was on the main Rangers FC page. That situation has improved now and I'm sure that by working together you guys will get things right whether you decide to have one big article or two. Good luck! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The decision on the entry point of the newco into the Scottish football structure is likely within 2 weeks. Leaky Caldron 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment about Leeds United is exactly the point - while Leeds United managed to escape liquidation at the last minute, Rangers are going to be liquidated. Liquidated clubs do sometimes lead to new clubs that claim to be a continuation, but they are new clubs with new articles. Airdrieonians and Airdrie United sees itself as the successor club. Halifax Town A.F.C. was liquidated and FC Halifax Town is the successor club. Chester City FC was liquidated and Chester FC sees itself as the successor club. Rangers FC should be no different just because it was so huge - it is being liquidated and the successor club is in process of getting established. By the way, I think it is significant that the advert on the Rangers website promoting the Rangers strip for 2012/13 speaks about "The Spirit lives on" - an acknowledgement that it is a new club. It also speaks about getting the 'new Rangers strip' but the word new is in red to stand in contrast to the rest of the statement - again, an acknowledgement that the old Rangers is finished. I realise that Rangers fans find this hard, but Wikipedia has to take a NPOV approach to these matter: Rangers FC should be about the club until 2012, and a separate article is needed for the new entity. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

but that is your pov and interposition of what it says on the site, i agree with you the club is dead, but we cant refute the source saying it is alive i agree some have a vested interest to make sure it is, but we cant say we ignore one source because it doesn't suit what we want on wikipeida, we have to be neutral. ill reply later tonight or tomorrow with my onion and views, so it is clear what my pov is, but then ill put my argument which supports both dies of the argument as i believe both are correctAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Im going to ignore the sentiment of your statement re new strip because that is your point of view and should not be taken into consideration. However originally (still do) i felt that eventually we should go down the new club route however as long as there is equal sources disagreeing then we should of stayed with one article until we could factually state one way or another. Some sources link club and company as one and others don't. The way the main article was before Superbhoy and a few others edit warred rather than actually spending time to gain a consensus was as neutral as it could be for now and had stopped edit warring. Superbhoy ignored the consensus on the talk page and pushed ahead creating a new article and editing the main page against that. Im not saying he is right or wrong just that he won't listen to anyone unless its his version of events. In the form of the new entity they have set that up so that club and company will not be the same as they will have two boards and operate separately this is so they cant bring each other down so Sevco and club aren't one in the same. In regards to Airdrieonians F.C. they purchased another club Clydebank F.C. so thats a different situation. At this time we have two articles neither of which are either accurate or neutral. A draft article should be drawn up for the main page and be worked on to make it accurate and neutral and form a consensus. My opinion is the new article is factually wrong and cannot be deemed accurate until all the events have actually happened and we know more, that will gradually come out over the coming weeks. I think that should be redirected to Rangers F.C. or a brand new article Liqudation of Rangers where the content probably belongs, and then once we have sources that agree they are separate and have proof of the name of the new club not just the company name then we can recreate it. Wouldn't have any objection whatsoever to that but for now its unclear.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea why don't we create here a list of sources that state club and company are the same and equally a list of ones that don't define them as the same and then get outside opinion on which way to go that is what Dispute res is for after all.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan to edinburgh and my opinion is the same as your eh club is getting liquidated but sources are saying there serpentine and we should wait and see how it unfolds then create articles move articles etc and that was the cones-us we all agreed on. Bit busy just now but i am hoping to write up my statement and then write up argument for it be a new club with sources i can find people are welcome to add to what i get, and argument for the club and company are serpentine with sources i can find again people are welcome to edit. I just wish we could have all agreed on the talk page but i dnt think it will happen because of POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andrewcrawford for creating this talk page. Right now I see that the oldco is the club that holds the history but no assets that'll not play again. newco is a company that owns all the assets but not the history and holds no permit to play so is barely a football club. I think that we should keep the two articles like this until it becomes clear whether newco gains a permit to play in a league at which point we can discuss whether that should be in a separate article from the old Rangers FC.--Dingowasher (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Until such point as the "newco" is even confirmed as a footballing entity it makes little sense for us to declare it to be "Rangers", and even then our precedent for recent phoenix clubs is to assign them new articles even if they are regarded as spiritual successors to defunct entities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

All this arguing is because people think they understand what is meant by "Wikipedia is not a news service" but they don't. It means among other things that if we wait until the fourth of July meeting to find whether the new company becomes a "footballing entity" then it doesn't matter. It means we don't have to comment on this metamorphosis on a day by day basis. It means we don't have to do anything for the sake of doing it. Personally I think that the new company will be treated as the old club when the other clubs vote them back into the Premier League, because voting for the loss of the Rangers' support would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I could be wrong: but there's no point in rushing. Just because you can do things instantly doesn't mean you should. Britmax (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Britmax with Inverness and Aberdeen joining Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd in saying no to the New Club being promoted from the wilderness to the SPL then they won't be promoted.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Aberdeen have said the statement published the other day isn't theirs and until the vote is done we cant take a press release for granted they could change there mind episcopally if they get pressure from a bank manager dent forget that why david murrey sold rangers because of the bank and the bank will have far great say than supporter, if any of those club have any sort of debt that a reduction in income might mean they wont repay the bank will force there hands so let not jump the gun, but i dent think they will get back in i hope they dint. secondly they wouldn't have been promoted if they do get accepted they be replacing the old one ie like for likeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ingore mt statement on aberdeen just seen the news rangers will be voite no by aberdeenAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it certainly would appear turkeys are voting for Christmas as Britmax put it. That's five announced they will vote against. Aberdeen, Inverness, Hibernian, Hearts and Dundee United.[ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18577192] Love the analogy though. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that surprises me but not as much as you might think. I've been wrong before and I'm still breathing. Excuse me, however, if I reserve judgement until we see how the turkeys actually vote. None of this, incidentally, reflects what I think should happen. It's just my view on what probably will happen. Britmax (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the conclusive proof by Rangers, SFA and UEFA that Rangers are dying, the pictures are of the important bits, the websites are the sources of the pictures:-

Established

http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824

http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg

Rangers Football Club PLC aka the Club

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830

http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg

Full Member

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf

http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg

Legal Entity

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29

http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg

Company and Club

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf

http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As can be gathered from a lot of the above, the precise situation Rangers Football Club finds itself in is currently uncertain. Much of what has been discussed depends on how you chose to define the club, as opposed to the company that owns and controls it, as opposed to the team, as opposed to the position held within the league, as opposed to the fans, as opposed to its history. Current guidelines in Wikipedia regarding football clubs are not clear on the situation, simply because it is an unusual situation that only has a few, similar to some extent, precedents. Sources are also unclear, with much disagreement, conflicting interpretation and speculation. However, things are slowly clarifying.

But this hasn't stopped some editors straining to implement sweeping changes based on their own preferred interpretation of events and indulging in synthesis. My position is that nothing radical should be done at this stage until the dust settles. That isn't going to happen for a few weeks at best. Wikipedia is not a newsfeed. It doesn't need to be a constant stream of the latest guesses, speculation and theories. It shouldn't be attempting to establish facts, it should be collating them, after they are established.

If, after suitable time, it appears that reliable sources are generally reporting that the new owning company is a continuation of the club, then I see no no reason to break Wikipedia into separate articles. If it is generally being reported as a new club, then it should be divided suitably, according to consensus. Personally, I see a football club as being somewhat more than a company and it is a mistake simply to regard the situation as an acquisition of assets from a liquidated company and establishment of a new. Football clubs are as much a social and cultural entity, consisting of things that cannot be made bankrupt and sold.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I take it your a Rangers fan with their head in the sand? I have a shovel you can use to dig yourself out, if you want to smell the coffee any time soon. Football Club's are not Fictional Entities that only exist in the mind. They are Real Life, they can die and they can begin. As The Rangers Football Club and Sevco Scotland prove. One is dying, the other has been born. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

superbhoy please keep the discussion niceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Having made clear your allegiances so prominently, I suppose you would have difficulty with the idea that not everyone here has an agenda. Your opinion is noted, please do not confuse it with fact. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok here is my POV and opinions on the subject they are bold because it what i believe not what i am [pushing. It is my belief that Rangers F.C. the club is gone and once liquidation is complete no longer exist just like Third Lanark and Gretna.
Ok arguments for the club and company being serperate so the history carries on, a lot of sources say that the history continues on and that club and company are serperate entities.
Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." suggests that it is the same club, as if it was a new club you could not put it back into administration
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312#asset
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18496571
http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity."
http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.co.uk/p/live-event-page.html "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18417120 "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/uk-soccer-rangers-idUKBRE85O0WP20120625?feedType=RSS&feedName=sportsNews "this is talking about the parent company being liquidated but not the club"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18560798 "this is a interesting one it says early in the article the club and history does not exist, but later on says '"The formation of a new company is not the issue. The players would be playing for the same club - Rangers - in front of the same fans.' so saying the club still exist in it current form"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18592410 "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player." if it is a new club they would not owe the club anything as there be no debts, uefa or fifa rules state that football debt transfer to the new company but a club who is only related to a old club by name does not bear the old club debt owned
http://www.football.co.uk/rangers/green_aiming_as_high_as_possible_for_rangers_rss2446203.shtml "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business."There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play," Green said. "Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come."" if it was new club they would not face sanction for a club that is not them, ie the new club only shares a name with another club so can not face sanctions from another club but if the club counties then they can
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18418513 " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too." http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " this is very complying source it is goverment website for scottish law

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18687492 '"We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football," he said. "Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for.

"But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret."' if it is a new club they wouldn't apologise for a club they dnt own and wouldn't talk about people who are no longer there, also " the old company was consigned to liquidation " doesnt say club

Now i will present agruments for it being the club and company are the same so club is liquidated
http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/rangers-administration-timeline-19732/ "June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid."
http://www.clyde2.com/news/local/rangers-pair-reject-contract-transfer2012-06-24T06-06-25/
http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/newco-rangers-set-for-spl-rejection-11233/ "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season."
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7812988/Newco-will-be-The-Rangers-FC- "The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2163893/Steven-Naismith-Steven-Whittaker-reject-transfer-new-Rangers.htmlRangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company "Whittaker remarked that: "We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18603617 " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. "
Now as can be seen there is realible sources pointing to it be the club and the company getting liquidated, but there is also realible sources pointing to the PLC getting liquidated and not the company and the club are a serperate entity and has been tranfer to the newco, this is wher ehte problems stems no one really knows and until it is made clear we cant say the club is dead.

I am goign to try summerise what is disputed.

• Rangers FC PLC (this is not dispute as far as i can tell by anyone)
  
• Rangers FC and Rangers FC PLC are sereperate entites as source can confirm
  
• Rangers FC PLC is the club so not serperate entities so the club is liquidated sources can confirm this to
  
• Rangers History is transfer to the new club if it is deemed a new club
  
• The Rangers Football Club LTD is a new club
  
• Who is teh owner of Rangers FC PLC Craig Whyte or Charles Green conflicting sources say one and the other
  
• Playing squad should it be empty since the players have been trasnfer to the newco via TUPE again this matter after a decision on the article ie is the club dead or not
  

If i have missed anything please post, post any sources for either side of the arguement witha quote if possible ill add ot the list, can everyone involve say there thoughts on my opinions and my summary and soruces please :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Far too much info here for genuinely uninvolved, non-partisan editors to comprehend the arguments, WP:TL;DR. In my opinion the Administration & insolvency material should be the subject of a separate article, written from a neutral point of view. That article will form a bridge between the existing article and the new or between old & new sections of an extended single Rangers article. Leaky Caldron 16:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

i agree that article on adminsitration liquidation etc is required, but that doe snto solve the underlying problem that pov pusher are trying to amke the article one way or the other, the problem is we cant say for one way or another if it a new club or not the osurces are conflicting--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@STVGrant: It's Sevco 5088 because Green isn't operating a football club at present. If/when he gets Rangers' SFA membership, he's operating Rangers FC. There appears to be a growing consensus in the media that it is the same club IF Green can get Rangers share back — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)--BadSynergy (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Andrew. I've told you before but it's worth repeating, there is no need to rush. If the article is a bit flaky for a while, so what? Stick a non-neutral tag on it until the dust settles. Leaky Caldron 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

i know there no point in rushing and that is what i and others agreed early in the discussion on the talk page but POV pushers from both sides have made this debate so for now i want to get the cheapness to wait and that until we know for sure we cant make claims im in agreness with you but POV will not stop so by forcing this to weird discussion then a conesus hopefully can be reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew see your very first BBC link source thing up there, its a contradition on what your trying to say from the off. Your trying to say the Club has never even been in administration or is in liquidation because its only a company that is so how could a club go "back into administration" if it has never been in administration to start with, because its never come out of administration which means its now in liquidation. I haven't hid my allegiances, as you see from my name im a Celtic fan and am still dancing and consuming Jelly and Ice Cream at their death. PS. The only source that the club isnt part of the company is that there would be an asset called "the club" or whatever in Rangers accounts but there isnt... oh and take a swatch at this:- http://i48.tinypic.com/afemhv.jpg "SALE OF THE CLUBS BUSINESS AND ASSETS"--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Green has his say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qlOISpN_4&feature=youtu.be --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

i dnt take green comment with more than a pinch of salt or should that be a heap ;) no what i am trying to say with the first bbc one is for a club to go back into administration ie i think like Motherwell the club has to exist but if it is a new club then it is impossible to go back into administration do you understand what i mean now. the point i am making is there is conflicting information out there so we cant call it in Wikipedia sense that the club is dead until we have sources all more a less saying the same thing we cat make Wikipedia take sides and the way we have 2 articles and they have people pov means the article dnt comply with Wikipedia policies. now on personal note i agree with you completely rangers are dead or my opinion is the newco/club cause in my opinion it is a new club i wont follow it aint rangers in my books should be booted out the spl and go to div3 or lower if they introduce feeder league into div3 with this restructuring i email all the chairmen of the spl clubs and gave my vote for them voting noAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please discuss which way forward, and get consensus whether that is to use two articles or one so we can get both articles or one article correct there both inaccurateAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " this is very complying source it is goverment website for scottish law, now that state rangers plc own ranger football club two serpentine entries so this source holds more weight than any source since it from Scottish courts which has to adhere to law

LC, if you read Andrewcrawford's user page you may wish to strike your comments. Writegeist (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. Dyslexia IS a literacy problem. LC is correct. Rather than just explaining bad spelling, we should correct it to make it legible to the rest of the world, which is what I have now done. This doesn't have to be seen as criticism of Andrewcrawford, just assistance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

hilo48 dsylexica effects the ability to write as well at least in the uk, i think america it only affect reading as it is defined but i have problem with writing and the post complained about i did spell check but since i cant spell at all teh spell checker cant fix it please understand it not as simple as you think use a spell checker if you have no idea how a word is spelt then when you get options of say 5 options how do you choose? i will try spell a word i find hard and then put all the options it gives me and give the word i was trying to spell and see if you can work out what i tried ot say if you want me to show how bad it is for me, for example dsylexica it has 5 options lexical Mexican dyslectic despicable do you think any of them are saying what the word i am trying to say is? how do i choose the right one if any are the right one ?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. is not going to be liquated, it is The Rangers F.C. Plc that is going to be liquated. The club cannot be liquated, as it is not a body corporate, only the business arm is being dissolved. This is getting ridiculous, their needs to be a final consensus on the Club v Company question so we can move on.

It is my opinion that the 1899 company being liquated should be mentioned heavily in the Rangers F.C. history article. The clubs and its players and officals are of the opinion the history continues and the golden thread from 1872 has not been broken. If any user is to debate this, please make clear what the situation of Rangers F.C. was 1872 until 1889, should all that history be discounted? The club is more than just a corporate entity.Johnelwaq (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

From 1872 until 1899. Rangers FC was a football club without the protection that 'limited liability' would have given those who were running the club's finances. The club therefore registered as a company in 1899 to gain these benefits - the club was now also a company and the company was the club. Now we find that the club/company is so massively in debt that it cannot pay, and no-one was willing to buy it because of those debts - a CVA proposal having failed, it is now going to be liquidated. The End. (Except that the spirit of the club lives on in the hearts of its supporters and a new club is being formed to carry forward that spirit.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how this is going be resolved really because each side can pick from a variety of sources to back up their claim. However do we take the word of a couple of journalists? Or do we take the word of insolvency experts and the SFA? Just to put it out there IMO Rangers the club is separate from the plc just by going with HMRC and BDO statements. However I don't see a resolution coming anytime soon when you have editors like SuperBhoy who decides upon himself to create a new page on a whim when there was many sources stating the opposite to what his page claimed. BadSynergy (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We all know its a new club BadSynergy wether Rangers/Sevco Scotland fans like to admit it or not. The SFA said "Sevco Scotland" have applied for an SFA License to become a member club - this wouldnt be needed if they were Rangers as they are already a member club. I could be here all day proving it but here's Sevco Scotland Chief Executive in his own words telling it like it is.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qlOISpN_4 --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again you fail to grasp that there is a variety of sources stating the opposite of what you claim including the SFA. That's why I said I don't see a consensus being reached anytime soon as Wikipedia relays on sources not POV's. -BadSynergy (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And once again Superbhoy1888 produces his own preferred interpretation of events that aren't supported by the sources. Sevco Scotland have not applied to be a member club, they have applied for Rangers, the club owned by Sevco Scotland, to be a member club. Superbhoy1888 might like to read the cite he himself last placed on the Newco Rangers article that contradicts what he's saying here. That's not to say it's right, but it simply spells out that the situation is very open to different interpretations and not finalised yet.

Whether you regard that Rangers, owned by Sevco Scotland, to be a continuation of the previous Rangers, owned by the company entering liquidation, is a matter of opinion. It's got to the point of splitting hairs, but as long as some editors are willing to present their opinions as facts, it has to be done. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

i will be taking this to informal mediation because this is not good for wikipedia we have articles/articles that have so many problems, it is alos bad that the medaitors here have choosen nto to get invovled and some users have choosen not to be invovled but i do welcome the ones who have regardless of your view it better there views and comment than not botheringAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Everybody seems to accept that Rangers FC is currently a member of the SFA. In that case, could someone who is arguing that Rangers FC is both alive and will survive the liquidation process explain what need is there for Sevco Scotland to seek SFA membership? If Rangers FC is not dying, surely its membership of the SFA will live on? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said on talk page Fishiehelper Green's company needs that share otherwise Rangers don't have a league to play. This isn't a brand new club requesting a place in Scottish football, it's a club trying to stay in it. BadSynergy (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

BadSynergy when did the SFA claim anything different? Sevco Scotland does not own Rangers, The Rangers FC Group Ltd(owned by Craig Whyte) owns Rangers(The Rangers Football Club PLC). Sevco Scotland are nothing at all to do with Rangers, they have no connection other than they were the (soon to be) Football Club who bought their assets. It is a Brand New Club trying to join Scottish Football BadSynergy--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats an incredible distortion of what is currently happening. Sevco own Rangers however without the clubs share Rangers will be a club without a league to play in. Look at the SFL's brochure talking about loss of income if Rangers are thrown out of Scottish football. Nothing about letting in a brand new club. SFL'S chairmen want the club to start in Div 3 because of breaking the rules. If its a new club why are these officials talking about it being the same club? BadSynergy (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No its not its the truth.

• http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg .jpg
• http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj
• http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg
• http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg
• http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg
• http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg
• http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg

Has it never crossed your mind that if the "companies" owned the "clubs" then the "clubs" would be assets of the "companies" and that they would be in every single set of that clubs accounts. The reason that the "club" isnt listed as an asset of the "company" is that the club is the company. Clubs are Legal Entities, they are Incorporations, they are companies. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier I could bring up sources to support my claim and you could bring up sources to support yours. Until there's something clear and defined I can't see this dispute ending anytime soon. BadSynergy (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No you couldn't. Do it then, show me where Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club exist as a "club" written down in a set of accounts or whatever by Rangers, SFA, Administrators or Charles Green in an official document. Just like I have just showed you how Rangers say they "became" as company, not were taken over by one, also say they "were incorporated", how that the SFA says a member "is a club", and that a club is a "legal entity", a legal entity is a company, UEFA state that legal entities are the only clubs who can get a UEFA license that means clubs who are not companies cannot take part, this is because clubs that arent companies cannot legally accept or distribute payments as it would be illegal. You will find nowhere, not a single place on the planet where Rangers FC are a club owned by The Rangers Football Club PLC or Sevco Scotland Limited as they are not. Rangers FC was a name used by The Rangers Football Club PLC as a trade name, they owned the Trademark and now Sevco Scotland own it, they now own the trademark name of Rangers Football Club too, these are not clubs, they are names and nothing but names like I for example could be legally named "John Brown" but everyone could call me "Mad Ugly Alkie Fruitcake" and everyone would know me by that name, that doesnt mean its my Legal name, on my passport it would still say "John Brown" this is the same for Rangers, their real name is The Rangers Football Club PLC, Rangers FC and Rangers Football Clubs were just names they can be reffered to because they own the copyright, they copyrighted them so that no other clubs or people for that matter could call themselves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

as has been said many times any source that shows that it is opposite to you you either ingore it or refrut it, ok here is a question for you as i do enjoy your post even though you push your pov you do still respond civilly, do you accept that some sources say the club lives on and that the plc dies? if so do you accept this causes a a problem because how can we represent both sides on wikipedia which reliable sources say both sides of the argument are correctAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this dispute is that some editors are using the excuse 'the sources contradict' as a cover for the fact that they are unwilling to accept the reality of the situation. I asked a perfectly simple question about why there was a need for Sevco to apply for SFA membership if they 'owned' Rangers FC and Rangers FC is already a member. Answer? Well that question is never actually answered directly - loads of stuff about anything else, but a refusal or inability to address that central question. The reason is obvious - Sevco Scotland has to apply for SFA membership because it is a new club, formed to replace Rangers FC that is being liquidated. This is exactly what happened to Halifax Town which was liquidated and reformed as a new club - and there are two separate articles for each of those two separate entities. Why should Rangers FC be treated any differently on Wikipedia than Halifax Town? Rangers having more supporters (and more supporters who also edit Wikipedia) shouldn't be accepted as sufficient reason. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco have to apply for SFA membership because the club had its membership revoked, because the company that ran it is going into liquidation. This is against the rules of the SFA, as running a club in such a manner is not conducive to a fair and competitive league of good standing. This means the new company buying over Rangers has to re-apply to get back in. (See here for a reliable source that summarises it thus, "Rangers crisis explained".) Straight enough answer? Whether this should result in two Wikipedia articles depends on how the new Rangers is generally perceived by reliable sources. It it is regarded as the same club, in the same location, the same fans, the same manager, and many of the same players and staff, then it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to state otherwise. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not so. Rangers FC has not had its membership revoked. Rangers FC continues at present to be a member club of the SFA. However, when Rangers FC PLC is finally liquidated the club (which is the company) dies with it. Also, no new company bought Rangers - no-one would buy it because of its massive debts. Instead, once it entered liquidation process, its assets were bought by a totally separate and unconnected company. This company is now applying for SFA membership. As for the 'same club, in the same location, the same fans' - that was Halifax Town A.F.C. which was liquidated and started again as FC Halifax Town - two separate articles on wikipedia for the two separate clubs. Any reason that Rangers should be treated any differently on wikipedia? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So my cite is wrong and yours is ... non-existent. As I've said all along, there are a number of ways this can be interpreted. Your favoured one is just one of these. You say club=company, others say company is just part of what makes a club. You have no basis in deciding that yours is better or more accurate than any other because it's simply worthless POV founded on synthesis. Reliable sources will make the decision for you in due course. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

With no offense to those sources though, I know they are incorrect. Because a Club is a Company, it has to be to function in the SPL and in UEFA Competitions. Like ive said before, if Rangers were merely a club owned by The Rangers Football Club PLC, then they would be an asset of it and feature in everysingle set of accounts that they've ever published. But they are not, Rangers are The Rangers Football Club PLC, as you will see on official documents, such as announcements of shares, takeovers, going into admin etc. The Rangers Football Club PLC will reffer to themself as The Rangers Football Club PLC("the Club" or "Rangers FC" or "Rangers Football Club") thats an actual legal thing they do to make it clear that when ever they refer to "the Club" or "Rangers FC" or "Rangers Football Club" they are talking about The Rangers Football Club PLC and just using those informal names. 1872 The Rangers Football Club are born, 1899 they change their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, its a legal formality that you MUST change your name to include either Ltd or Limited when you become a Limited company and in 1995 they became a PLC and changed their name to The Rangers Football Club PLC, likewise you need to add PLC to your legal name when you become a PLC. Like the guy above states "sources contradicting" means absolutley nothing, Sevco are not Rangers and cannot ever be, because Rangers are The Rangers Football Club PLC--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here again is more total and utter conclusive proof. This is what Duff and Phelps say on their letter proposing the CVA http://i46.tinypic.com/2rc8oeo.jpg "Sale of the Clubs business and assets" not sale of the Club, the club like ive been pointing out all along is The Rangers Football Club PLC it cannot be sold by anyone except Craig Whyte who owns it but it would be pointless to own it as its now going to be dissolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

nither of you two understand the main prinicple of wikipedia sources not opinion or pov and what your giving is oyur pov and how oyu see the sources, i will rpeat i dnt deny you are right but you are also wrong with regard of wikipedia because sources say both wikipedia is not about you or me it is about showing the osurces and what they say, the fact both of you are not willing to you accept wikipedia polcieis you could end up getitng warning for yoru behviour i aint goign to personal do it but i am trying to give you both warning you are both turning your nose up at sources, the most relible sources are liqudiators, courts and sfa all of which same it is the same club when we cna get sources saying what you say then i will be on your side like i was in teh first plce until i start finding source saying the oher way and as wikpedian editor i cant ingore them even though i dnt agree ith themAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC) posting last source before taking to informal meditaion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18687492 '"We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football," he said.

"Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for.

"But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret."' if it is a new club they wouldn't apologise for a club they dnt own and wouldn't talk about people who are no longer there, also " the old company was consigned to liquidation " doesnt say clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that the quote is from the Chairman of Newco Rangers - the club that is trying to persuade fans that it is the continuation of Rangers FC so that they will buy season tickets! Hardly a source that can be relied upon! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

yes but we can not decide if it true or not based on that that is original research the source says teh club is alive but i can find and will put more sources that shows bbc as with otehr sources reports in one article the club is alive not jsut that one but other but in other article says the club is liquidated that is why this is not clear cut decision the founded 1873 is clear cut so can be changed as i said on teh tlak page i will for now until we get a consense on the dispute of club dead or not i will support it being two articles and we make both article reflec t what ther emeant to be if the dispute consense later on decided one articles we will merger it all togetherAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. It does not appear to me that anyone who is not involved in this dispute is willing at this point in time to step in to work on this dispute, nor does it appear that the discussion is making any real progress on its own. Under those circumstances, if I am correct, it would be much better for this discussion to be taking place at its proper place on the talk page of the article and/or perhaps moving on to a merger discussion or a request for comments. Unless someone is willing to say there is some benefit in keeping this thread open or unless some volunteer steps in to take it on, I am going to close it as intractable 24 hours after 19:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

i am in process of taking it to rfc as even with a volunteer i dnt think a consensus will be reach because the situation isnt clear cut and secondly pov pushers on both sides re not willing to back down so rfc will although outside input from neutral hopefully no knowledge of the subject to make neutral discessionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:21, 3 July 2012 (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.

– New discussion.

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

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

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

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

Resolving the dispute

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

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

• How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right - there is no content dispute - which is what this noticeboard is supposed to deal with. Nobody has proposed a topic ban for anyone (though this isn't the place for such a proposal anyway). There is nothing more to be said here. RJR3333, I suggest that rather than wasting everyone's time, you do something useful for Wikipedia.

Could an uninvolved contributor please mark this as closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2012 (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.

• German battleship Tirpitz (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?

This is a continuation of this discussion closed due to 3-days of my inactivity. Guy Macon said that I'm able to open up a new request. Unfortunately I'm out of internet permanently due to my schedule so please do not close this discussion so quickly if it's possible.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs)
• Zh.Mike (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

"Zh.Mike has been trying for over a year to insert Soviet propaganda", "Mike initially edited as 195.26.84.250, back in April 2011" (by Parsecboy, June, 22). This is a lie and slander. All the records by 195.26.84.250 (except one) are signed by Arthur. My name can be translated as Michael and Dolphin is absolutely right - I was signed up 3 month ago. Parsecboy's fantasies about me and propaganda insertion became offensive. I demand an public apology.

(Offtopic) "Soviet war logs are notoriously unreliable" (June, 22). As well as German, as well as British (by Parsecboy, April 1, 2012). Сitation:
1. "the Germans would have recorded the maintenance done to repair the alleged damage, as they did in every other instance" (by Parsecboy, April 10, 2011)
2. "Rudders can be damaged by all manner of things, without documentation of why the rudder was replaced, you only have irrelevant speculation. Drop it" (by Parsecboy, April 3, 2012)
Up to now Parsecboy can not tell stories about the reason to full rudder replace after the K-21+Tirpitz incident. So why my claim (that Tirpitz log is incomplete - with proofs and scans) has been called "nonsence"? Parsecboy knows...

"There is one secondary source that says two torpedoes were fired, and there are a couple that say four... All are from reputable naval historians"
How reputable historians could obtain different figures from the sole primary source!? Do not draw an analogy with casualty figures - we have one source. And there is one figure, no more. But reputable historians can not be wrong - only the Soviets can be! Therefore we shall insert all the figures written by historians! (sarcasm <- remarks for Parsecboy).

"That the Soviet crewmen claimed to have heard two explosions and claimed to have made two hits on the ship are effectively the same thing"
"Effectively the same thing" has never been claimed by the Soviet crewmen and their command - they have claimed sound of explosions only.

Now in the article: "K-21 fired two or four torpedoes at the ship, all of which missed. The Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship". Why? Does anyone know why the Soviets have claimed two hits (according to the article) while all torpedoes missed? The conclusion can only be like that: "soviets faked documents or forced people to tell fake stories, it may also have been a project to raise national morale" (by Denniss, March 29, 2012). I've cited the secondary source about contents of K-21 report. This source also says that the commander of submarine brigade (Northern Fleet) captain of the 1st rank Vinogradov waited a whole month (for recon, intelligence etc) and wrote that the attack's results can not be determined exactly! Is that propaganda to rise the morale: can not be?! But the article says that the Soviets: 1. knew the torpedoes missed; 2. decided to lie for the sake of propaganda. This is not true and there are no sources with that (below) - it's compilation.

Books deal with the incident (by Parsecboy):
1. Garzke's & Dulin's Battleships - K-21 fired two torpedoes, but missed: the only authors being fully confident that there were two torpedoes (in contrary to others and to the primary source).
2. Polmar's & Noot's Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies - the best review of the incident with all the details.
3. Zetterling's & Tamelander's Tirpitz - also it's a review with the details.
4, 5. Blair's Hitler's U-Boats and Compton-Hall's Submarines at War 1939-45 - there are allusions in correct form (K-21 have reported, but the Germans haven't confirmed).
6. Jurgen Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945 is unable to view on-line
7. Evans' Great World War II Battles in the Arctic - the sole author talking about no torpedoes were fired and even K-21 wasn't anywhere near Tirpitz. In contrary to author's opinion - "it was later revealed..." Lunin was awarded the Order of the British Empire (1944). So it was not only Soviet, it was Soviet and British "propaganda"

• How do you think we can help?

This article says:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. (Also note the third example.)
But the disputed text is a combination of three books and gives the opportunity to make a false conclusion about the Soviets Navy and the use of the incident for propaganda purposes.

Therefore I suggest using the review of the incident from the Polmar's & Noot's book given by Parsecboy.

Zh.Mike (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Judging from what's at Talk:German battleship Tirpitz#K-21 2/4 torpedoes, it appears that you're trying to insert your personal interpretation of primary sources into the article, despite multiple high quality secondary sources not supporting this view. That obviously violates the Wikipedia policy WP:OR. The article's current wording on this topic ("Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired two or four torpedoes at the ship, all of which missed") appears to be in line with what's in the secondary sources - some say four torpedoes were fired, others say two, none say there were any hits. When different reliable sources give different accounts of events, we need to cover all the main views, and wording like what's in the article now is a good example of how to do this. It's unclear to me why you're bringing this up on this forum seeing as the discussion on the talk page has been dormant since April - this appears to be a case of WP:DEADHORSE. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this needs more talk page discussion before being brought up here, considering the amount of time which has passed since the last discussion of it at the article talk page. I'll also note that while I've not waded through the wall-o-text above in detail, there appears to be some attempt to analyze what is said in sources in order to figure out which one is right. We don't do that here at Wikipedia, as Nick-D notes above. I will close this thread unless someone makes a good case for leaving it open within the next 24 hours from 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Additional suggestion: While this is not, in my opinion, a proper topic at the present time for this noticeboard, I believe that the sourcing issue could be raised at the reliable sources noticeboard. They have had extensive discussions there about the proper sourcing for historical articles and I believe that at least one of the regular contributors there, Fifelfoo, has particular competence in dealing with sourcing of military history articles. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 6 July 2012 (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.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Dispute overview

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

Flyer22 feels that I have been stalking her. The reason I keep posting her name on wikipedia is because she has been talking about topic banning me and reporting me but will not let me interact with her so I had to find another use to discuss the sitation with and find one who might support me. I would like to resolve the issues between us here instead of her unilaterally reporting me. I acknowledge that I was rude to her and I should have found one user to discuss the situation I had with her with instead of posting her name on a bunch of talk pages so I am at fault. But I do not think she has been very civil to me and I think she should try dispute resolution before reporting me. She won't let me use her talk page so I cannot interact with her directly about the matter. And I know I put another dispute resolution notice about this matter but I was basically ignored and told to shut down the dispute resolution. I think this is necessary because otherwise this dispute will get out of hand. I acknowledge that I am at fault for being rude to her. But I feel that she has constantly had an obsession with correcting my edits because of some animosity towards, because from the moment I started editing here, she has almost always only said bad things about my edits. There have been a handful of times she has said good things about them, but they were very rare and at least one of them was merely in response to my technically false claim that she said all my edits were bad, she then said some were good perhaps to disprove my claim.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

Not yet, because Flyer22 imposed a unilateral interaction ban on me. So I am not able to inform her.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I have tried to discuss it with her and she unilaterally banned me from interacting with her. She asked me not to communicate with her on her talk page, and any other talk page would be an inapropriate place to discuss it with her, so I can't discuss it with her.

• How do you think we can help?

By resolving the dispute so that Flyer22 and me can either become reconciled OR leave each other alone through a voluntary interaction ban.

RJR3333 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2012 (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.

I tried to help Wikipedia with my competence as historian in an Italian voice, I did it on the pages of discussions. A registered one has banned me for a month without any reason, without explanation. Now I can not contact any other administrators, I'm unfairly blocked by an unknown person called Vituzzu. I ask to be helped to communicate with serious admins in Wikipedia Italy. There are too many texts written without regard to the verification of sources, Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Italy) needs to expel these fascist omnipotent individual admin, It is not eligible to ban a professor of history like me, who seriously seeks to improve the system. My IP is banned, please contact a serious Italian admin for me, because I'd like explain what happened. For the glory of Wikipedia, serious people victims of bullying like me, need to be helped. Thank You. Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.183.238 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

First, this is the English Wikipedia and we have no authority over the Italian Wikipedia. Second, please do not assume that we cannot get your posts there translated before coming here for help. Ihe IP address you are using said that article about Hitler was disparaging. You brought up the Jewish ancestry of one of the authors you didn't like, as if that matters to anyone except anti-Semites. You objected to the information sourced to this article, which shocked you to the point of describing the news as ridiculous and insane over that. You were hardly civil, calling those who had written the Italian Wikipedia article deranged thugs and kids. So, no, we're not going to help you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2012 (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.

• Arthur C. Clarke (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 started a discussion topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_C._Clarke#Recent.2C_validly_sourced_content_about_Clark.27s_alleged_pedophilia

Recent, validly sourced content about Clark's alleged pedophilia

Graham Johnson's book Hack substantiates the claims against Clark. One alleged police investigation in Sri Lanka does not equal exoneration. A court of law does. Mr. Clark never took the case to court which he could have easily done to officially exonerate himself. I have an Independent (the newspaper) article and a published book that substantiate the claims of Clark's pedophilia, and as such the information rightly deserves to be published in the article, more or less as written (that is, factually, giving both sides to the issue and not simply removing the issue). As such, this is not hearsay or rumor, this has not been previously discussed (which is not a valid reason to remove the content), and the source is completely valid; all reasons given for removing the content. In any event there should be no removal of validly sourced content without discussion

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs)
• Novangelis (talk · contribs)
• Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs)
• 204.195.73.31 (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Started a discussion page.

• How do you think we can help?

Third party to mediate.

204.195.73.31 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As yet, I see no evidence of a 'dispute'. You have posted a comment on the relevant talk page, to which there has as yet been no response - though it was only posted a few hours ago. What exactly is anyone supposed to be 'mediating'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (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.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Dispute overview

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

DrKiernan has had now a long history of removing the personal monograms of various members of royal families when the file doesn't meet his personal approval. It can be something as simple as a minor colour variation. If he doesn't like it, he'll remove it from the page and say "no source for that colour" or something to the effect. the problem is these files ARE sourced on their pages. DrKiernan simply doesn't like these sources when they don't appeal to him. This has gone on for over a year. Recent examples are the monarchs of Greece. He thinks the crowns in the monograms should be blue, and refuses to allow them to be on the page unless they are. He even went to Commons to try and force the crowns to be blue, and after that left them on the articles for months on end, but the second the files' creator on Commons reverted back to a coloured crown, DrKiernan removed them. He is absuing his admin powers to control these articles and their content to his personal approval, it's obnoxious and needs to stop. He never provides counter-sources for anything, he simply just removes stuff if he feels it should be different then it is. He wont approach this collegially, he wont try and work on the files with us on Commons if he thinks they should be different, he just removes stuff if he doesn't like it.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Fry1989 (talk · contribs)
• DrKiernan (talk · contribs)

This infantile personal war needs to stop. If the files are sourced (which they are), DrKiernan should be forced to stop removing them from their rightful articles without first providing counter-sources for how he feels they "shoud be", or contacting the files' creator and working with them to change it to how he feels it should be. He should no longer be allowed to treat these articles like property, and cotrol their content down to the tiniest detail on personal whim.

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

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:Fry1989, User:DrKiernan}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I've contacted him and tried to reason many many times over the years, both on his talk page and on article talk pages. Reasoning with this person is impossible.

• How do you think we can help?

Make it clear that sources are king, not personal opinions and claims, and that to work here you have to be collegial in dealing with problems, not just remove content the second you don't like it.

Fry1989 ^eh? 19:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fry1989 and DrKiernan. I'm Mr. Stradivarius, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Sorry, but I've collapsed your comments above - I understand that you are both feeling frustrated with this situation, but I'm afraid that arguing back and forth like this isn't really going to help matters. I think the bet thing to do here would be to wait until a volunteer is able to deal with this. (I would try and help now, but I'm a bit busy.) Does this sound reasonable to both of you? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 22:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Too late. I have moved this behavioral issue to WP:ANI. DrKiernan (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And how is this a behavioural issue about me, when YOU'RE the one removing sourced content as "unsoourced" and not allowing others to re-add the sourced content? You're the one causing the problem and all you've done is try and make it about me! Fry1989 ^eh? 23:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The content issue is simple: Please revert to the blue crown, as shown in the source. If the files match the sources, they can be included. DrKiernan (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Was it realllllly that hard to ask me to do that? Why did it have to take a year and a half, and two dispute boards for you to ask me that? Why is it so damn hard for you to do such a simple proactive thing? Jesus christ it's like playing tug of war with the rope tied to a wall. Thank you, I will happily do it, if you will from now on be pro-active and try and solve the problem rather than just remove the content like you have in the past. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I was pro-active. I did it. I asked you. Many, many times. DrKiernan (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Show me! You haven't contacted me in atleast 8 months, and all your edit summaries ever say is "unsourced" or "wrong colour", none of them ask "please revert/edit the colour and then the image can come back". Fry1989 ^eh? 23:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, If you could just find one and show us

Please change the colors to match the source that I provided, or provide a source that matches the file You have graphic programs, so fix the files You need to show that the monogram is blue...Or remove the color You need to show that the monogram is blue...Or remove the color, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, you haven't in over a year! And they weren't requests, they were commands. I don't do commands. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:59, 8 July 2012 (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.