Dreamwidth has been a redirect for a long time but has recently been changed back to an article. Although there are a couple of reliable sources, almost everything in it is sourced to the site itself or to blogs. It could stand a few more eyes on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning page are included with a derogatory comment and removed a large amount (20 or more) of properly cited content. Granite07 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Luckily I've never had to do this before, so I don't know what protocol I should be following, but bear with me, and I'll spell out my list of grievances.

I am the principle editor of the Saturday Night Live article, and over the last couple of months, have been striving to not only bolster the information on offer, but to weed out the fluff that has infected what seems like every article on the subject. Through these edits, I try to remove information that is at best, glorified trivia. As such, there are a few articles where we need some mediation from editors:

• Talk:Saturday Night Live. Recently, a user deleted the majority of show notes that were written on the Saturday Night Live (season 35) page. This was a contentious edit, as the inclusion of show notes has been the norm on these pages for what I gather is years now. In trying to calm things down, I made a request for comments on the main Saturday Night Live talk page, but, to cut things short, it has escalated into a full blown argument. While I'd appreciate your help in mediating the process, I'd also like your input in spelling out exactly what the established Wikipedia policies are.

• Recently I did an overhaul of the Saturday Night Live cast page, where I turned a pseudo-list into a proper table, and removed numerous sections that I considered glorified trivia. Since then, more tables have been added, but where mine was directly relevant, these are still walking the line of trivia. These lists include: youngest/oldest cast members, and shortest/longest tenures. I do not consider these inclusions are pertinent to reader's understanding of SNL cast members, and are there for interest sake alone. While I am very against these additions, they do not form the brunt of my objection. Recently, a user added two columns dictating the date of birth, and death of castmembers to the main table. I do not consider this addition relevant at all (I have already bent the rules by including a crucifix next to deceased castmembers), and believe that if readers really need to know, then they can just check out the actors related article.

• As it is right now, there are articles for individual seasons, such as the aforementioned 35th season, where readers are given a list of episodes, including hosts and musical guests. Where my objection lies is that there is also a List of Saturday Night Live episodes, which basically replicates the information given on those season pages. In my mind we need either one or the other: keep the list, and reduce season pages to only having the history section, or vice versa, remove the list, and we can keep things as is.

Sorry if this seems like I'm making a big deal over nothing, it's just that as it is right now, I'm starting to learn the hardships of instigating change over an article that has existed for a long time.Mainly.generic (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Its wiki page describes it as being written by Brian Higgins and Xenomania with collaboration by Pet Shop Boys. The single was actually written by Pet Shop Boys with some assistance from Brian Higgins and Miranda Cooper and they should actually receive the main credit for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.197.93 (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I love these fly-byers who think they can singlehandedly dictate how articles should appear. They appear every so often and it does provide some amusement, at least for a while, until they realise they're on a path to nowhere. Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This about sums it up, while just doing some browsing I noticed an invalid WP:HATNOTE on Kevin Rudd's article, which I removed what I thought would be non-controversially. I was immediately reverted for having "no consensus" to make the ahcnge, and was done so another two times before 3RR kicked in. Attempts at working out the issue were met with "take it to the talk page" and I did, where it seems the article has been taken under a form of WP:OWN. All my points about why it was to be removed were shrugged off as meaningless "rules" and IAR was to prevail. I cannot locate the talk page consensus they keep referring to, but irrelevant they maintain that the hatnote must remain because it is "helpful" but dismissing my argument that helpful links are not for hatnotes. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm jumping in to help sort the matter. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Twice in the last hour I've reverted the addition of a long section of information only very tangentially related to the subject, which is the legal term. Note that the addition does not discuss what/how/where the term developed or anything like that, but rather discusses how someone has filed a quo warranto brief against Obama somewhere. Since I've reverted twice, I'd like feedback on whether my reversion was appropriate, and would appreciate more eyes on the article and editor adding this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good deletion of material not relevant to topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute at New England Institute of Religious Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the depth of coverage and appropriate use of sources. I would appreciate the guidance of uninvolved editors. The relevant discussions can be found here and here. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to propose edits that will improve the quality of the Belkin entry on Wikipedia. My name is Melody Chalaban, and I'm the PR Manager at Belkin (full disclosure here-- potential COI). There is some inaccurate factual information, such as company history, background, product range. I'm not requesting deletions of current content such as "criticism," but I am requesting more balanced information about the company so visitors can better understand Belkin.

I've submitted this "request for edit" on the entry's Talk page, but there has been no ensuing discussion to this. All content that I proposed can be verified by 3rd parties and are neutral. Can somebody please advise how this request can be considered or discussed? We want to post this in the correct manner without disturbing or disrespecting the NPOV nature of Wikipedia.

Mchalaban (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! I think you should jump in and make the suggested additions. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet- thanks for the reply! Just want to be sure-- so, it's fine/safe if I edit the Belkin entry myself? No COI or wikipedia-abuse, right? Mchalaban (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'll keep an eye on the progress. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet- I made the additions. Would you mind reviewing the entry to make sure it's correct (was a little unsure about when to use footnotes/references vs. hyperlinking)? Also, let me know if anything is out-of-line or inappropriate. Thx! Mchalaban (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lookin' good. I made a few small changes myself... One was to show the year that the CES Awards were given, and to use a year-specific reference for each one. Can you put years on the other awards? Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reached the limit that I can remove his content. He is removing sourced references to Orbital Jump and has replaced with a blog reference. I need a little help explaining reliability and sources and so on. New user doesn't understand...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me what to do when a common misconception is used as a source. Writing something down doesn't make it true.

Phil Plait is a NASA scientist, and his reviews are reviewed by his viewers, changes being made if necessary.

If they called it an "orbital jump" in the movie, I'd grudgingly concede to you despite the inaccuracy. But they don't- they call it a "space jump". Only people talking ABOUT the movie call it Orbital, and it is demonstrably not orbital. I'm really not trying to get into an edit-war here. I'm only trying to make the wiki reflect what is both the fictional reality of Star Trek, which, pleasently enough, also represents a real-world reality. Your real-world outside-the-movie sources are refuted by the definition of "orbit", as found right here on wikipedia. Inside the Star-Trek universe it is also not referred to as "orbital", so that term should've never been there to begin with- an oversight I was trying to correct.

Hit head against wall *repeat*. Seriously JJ Abrams can call it a jump from a ship in orbit and this Nasa guy knows more the the director in a CNN article? You are confusing the real world and the star trek one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The director is not a character in the movie nor is he the writer or the technical advisor. His opinion doesn't supercede the reality of the Star Trek universe, unless he directs something to actually be added TO the movie. His job is to supervise the performance of the actors and crew and make the performance believable, and he can do this without understanding every technicality. Even people who know better have slipped up and misused the term.

What about a blog is reliable? Please read Wikipedia:Reliable source. Blogs are rarely useful here. CNN is by far the better source for this. Also, please sign your talk page entries with four tildes. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've avoided biting, but at this point bluntly if you can't deal with the policies on sources, leave. Seriously there are Wikis devoted entirely to the truth of star trek. We don't care about that here, only what can be sourced reliably and a blog is no where close to reliable, unless made by the director or such. This is a movie in a fake universe it's not meant to be true to reality otherwise it'd be a documentary not a movie.... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then use the term used inside that fake universe: Space Jump. The phrase "orbital jump" was ONLY used outside the fake universe of Star Trek. It was used inaccurately at that, but that's almost besides the point. If you want to go by the rules of the fake universe, make the edit say "space jump".Carves (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, HiaB -- if the director calls it a "space jump", and the movie calls it a "space jump", and the ship from which they jump isn't in orbit, why is there a problem here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I just found a link to the script. You can download it here... The dialog in question says... "Mr. Kirk, Mr. Sulu and Mr. Olson will space-jump from the shuttle"Carves (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you have one source from what four? Sorry doesn't hold weight. Would you like me to compile each source with the blurbs that refer it to Orbital Diving? I can certainly do so. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I just found another reference in the script... "The shuttle GLIDES to a hover, 60,000 FEET ABOVE THE DRILL" As I said- hovering- not orbiting You are now using argumentum ad populum as well as argument from authority- both common logical fallacies (although more commonly used in religion). Just because more than one source holds the wrong view doesn't make it true. Besides- by your own words we have to go by the rules of the fictional Star Trek universe, so the script supercedes your outside references when referring to the plot. The fact that the script is MORE realistic than your outside references is just icing on the cake. Nowhere in the script is it mentioned they jumped from orbit.Carves (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see only sher numbers can defeat this. For the moment I will leave it until I hav4e a full and complete listing to show orbital is the corect term. I had to help do this on reboot appears it is needed again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're just wrong on this. If you want to go by reality, I can demonstate with physics you're wrong. If you want to go by the movie, I just posted links to the script demonstarting that you're wrong. Now, you think if you can find enough other people who are wrong, it'll make you right. This is the logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum, and it makes you wrong yet again. Your only "references" are people contridicting BOTH the movie and the real-world reality of physics.Carves (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so Likewise, if you're right you're right. As it is I don't think you are and I believe I can prove it. Nice job getting the script though, that's a hard one....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Space launch and satellites are my career field, so let me know if you have anything you'd like clarified. Carves (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of consideration before the script was found, my arguement was correct. However when the script was found it would defintely supercede the news articles. I have no objections to the change provided it is sourced to the script. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed my link to the script, above, is gone. There might be copyright issues with linking directly to that script since it is an unauthorized copy, but I think we can still make the change to "space jump". The whole page "Star Trek (film)" is about the movie, so the summary of the plot is implicitly taken to be sourced from the movie itself unless otherwise noted. I do still, however, disagree that what is "correct" has changed in the past few minutes. Wikipedia must reflect accuracy and not merely be an echo-chamber for what people have said somewhere else. Of course, then we'd have to start a discussion on logic & philosophy, so I will try not to further belabor this point, unless you'd still like to discuss that subject in a different forum. Thanks Carves (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• If reliable sources refer to it by two terms, use both terms in the article without making a judgment on which is correct, per NPOV. This is not a hard question. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a longish paragraph about this school band, full of comments such as ",they worked harder than ever and were truly a NEW and IMPROVED band." It's been replaced with the comment "Please do not delete,a brief descriptions of each club is appropriate.* I'm not even convinced a list of clubs at a high school is appropriate, certainly not this Facebook style edit. But I don't get involved with school pages often and would like other comments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that a bit of leeway is given on school articles but nothing that allows the inclusion of the paragraph I just deleted. I've asked for sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This school district article is being used as a vehicle to smear a local candidate of no discernible notability, possibly by sockpuppets that are single-purpose accounts [1], [2]. If this does not constitute vandalism, at least some oversight would surely be appreciated. If it continues I'll request page protection. Thanks, 99.155.206.57 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO 100% unacceptable per BLP. Reverted on the spot. Article contradicts itself-- the link the court records shows the case was dismissed. Reverted to a quite-old version from a trusted editor pending review to manually adjust what else was lost. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. That kind of abuse doesn't have a long shelf life once there are a few pairs of eyes watching. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added the following referenced material to the Bengali Language movement page (see below). The user Ragib is going around unreasonably changing this article and has now 'semi protected' it. This is an abuse of his position.

My contribution gives the reader a more accurate view of the movement in a rounded fashion. In fact, although Bengali is the 'official' language. Ragib is going around to articles like the language movement and Sylhet to maintain his derogatory view of Sylheti culture and language. For example he maintains the parts about Sylheti being a dialect (it is a fully fledged language in fact) and that it has no wrotten form (it does).

The language movement article MUST include mention of the impact on the Sylheti language as this is very important to Sylhetis whose language was disestablished and lives impacted after 1971 by a govt trying to argue it was trying to uphold values of linguistic freedom! I think wiki articles had to have standards of academic credibility.

Ragib is a ethnic Dhakaiya who usually have a centralised view of Bengali language and cultural dominance against regionalists like Sylhetis. In fact most Bangladeshis don't speak the 'official' language.They speak Sylheti, Dhakaiya, Chittagongi etc. In the past Ragib has ganged up with organisations like Drishtipat (who hold similar views of Bengali 'purity') to make changes to the Drishtipat page, even though these changes were fully referenced and eventually accepted.

There is a pattern here of Ragib simply editing things out of Bangladeshi pages he simply disagrees with by calling it 'vandalism'.

I would appreciate non Bengali non South Asian editors to keep an idea on the Bengali Language Movement, Sylhet and Sylheti pages in order to ensure that these Bengalis do not denigrade our language and culture by trying to maintain their 'pure' Bengali language and culture. Bangladesh is not homogenous and we need to recognise and celebrate the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylheti22 (talk • contribs)

First of all, I would request the user Sylheti22 to refrain from personal attacks along ethnic and regional lines. The comments he makes above are personal attacks, which is not really new for him ... in his previous persona and account (Habz (talk · contribs), blocked for PA) he has done similar personal attacks on other users.

Bengali language movement is a featured article, and hence I advised the above user not to add large amounts of unrelated content to the article. The paragraph this user is trying to insert is utterly unreferenced, pov, and seems like a personal commentary devoid of any scholarly references from reliable sources. I have requested the anon/Sylheti22 to discuss any major changes before adding them to a featured article. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I semi-protected the article to prevent an anon IP (82*) from repeatedly inserting an unreferenced, POV commentary into the featured article. As mentioned above, any major changes like this needs to be discussed in the talk page, which the anon IP/you are not doing at all right now. --Ragib (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The state language of Bangladesh is officially Bangla. However, the Sylheti language ^[1] is spoken by the Sylheti Bengali ethnic group in the districts of Greater Sylhet; Sylhet, Habiganj, Moulvi Bazar and Sunamganj. After 1971, Bangla, being the beneficiary of liberated Bangladesh, become the state language, dominating the political, cultural and social scene, and those who speak it have never seen Sylheti as a modern fully fledged language. Efforts to establish Sylheti as a modern language for the linguistic rights of Sylhetis were vigorously opposed by the political and cultural dominance by successive Bangladeshi governments. ^[2] In the UK, Sylheti is recognised as a language for the purposes of community service provision to the large diaspora. ^[3] Therefore, leading to a sitation where Sylheti linguistic needs are better served outside Bangladesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylheti22 (talk • contribs)

Why doesn't it surprise me that there are no references from reliable sources in the above paragraph? The last ref is to a wikipedia article where the same user just inserted his "version" of the story, and now is claiming it to be a reference! --Ragib (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources say that Sundial Bridge at Turtle Bay is the world's largest sundial. A couple of editors (or one editor who logged in once and then stopped loging in) disagree, have been going on at length about it in the talk page, and have tried to remove that statement from the article. I've hit the limit on the number of reverts I can perform, and in any case would welcome a third opinion other than my own and that of the other editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument of the other editors falls down when you realize that natural elements, buildings and broadcast towers that are larger than the Calatrava design are not accompanied by the dial part of the sundial. Time of day can be approximated using the shadow of taller objects, but the carefully plotted arc of timings is absent. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An experienced editor uninvolved in the climate change wars is requested to run the POV check at Scientific opinion on climate change, state their opinion, and promptly walk away. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note the extensive discussion on the talk page there related to the underlying issue. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been a dispute about the band Sublime. In 2009 two living members tried to reform the band with a new lead singer/guitarist (Rome Ramirez) and use the Sublime name. The family of deceased lead singer/guitarist Bradley Nowell sued and a judge forbade the group from using that name. "The court agreed that Bud and Eric and the new lead singer didn't have the right to go out and call themselves Sublime..." It seems to me, and many editors, that any attempt to edit the article saying that Rome Ramirez was a member of Sublime and that Sublime reformed in 2009 is incorrect. There has been a slow "edit skirmish" between posters adding Rome Ramirez, removing Rome Ramirez, etc., but users (particularly one named User:Alex 101) keep adding the name. I think consensus on the talk page is that Rome Ramirez and the attempted reunion isn't legit (or, at best, in legal limbo). I'm looking for outside opinion.

TuckerResearch (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like two very new editors are interested in Norman Chaney. They need help sorting through the issues of WP:V, WP:RS, and very lightweight WP:DR. Is anyone interested in historic American actors, or just feels like getting a gold star to help them out? tedder (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The article's been quite re-tooled in a manner that doesn't express clarification on the nature of classism and classism that doesn't fall on minority groups or low-wealth bodies. I feel the article needs to be reviewed for its bias angle and poor revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.114 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. This is a brief note to inform any users wishing to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup that they have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. Thank you in advance. iMatthew ^talk at 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an issue with a user reverting to a very poorly sourced version of this page, and removed sourced info [3], [4]. Additional input from previously uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the main issue is violation of WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This new article, Between-group differences in IQ, seems to be a way to include The Bell Curve work of Murray. Anybody familiar with this material want to take a look? Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has been removing the plot summaries from Par Ohmsford, claiming that they need references per WP:V and WP:CS.[5] He/she has now added {{cn}}'s to another article for the same reason, albeit not arbitrarily removing the information.[6] I'm coming here to ask if that is correct. From what I've seen, it is a longstanding convention that the summaries do not have to be cited. Am I wrong? Thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries should be cited to secondary sources, where possible, and many projects favor quoting the primary source where possible (for example, using {{cite video game}} to quote dialog; using both primary and secondary sources can be seen in Halo Wars#Synopsis.) That said, the common consideration is that generally the source itself is good enough (there is probably also a tacit understanding that if we required them, we'd have a hell of a lot of unciteable summaries and thus a lot less plot sections.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the unsourced material from the article on a literary character (Par Ohmsford). First, let me say that I think it a good idea to have this meta-discussion about Wikipedia policy on sourcing for literary plot summaries, and I'm glad User:the_ed17 initiated the discussion. Second, just to clarify, I removed the unsourced material only after it had been fact-tagged for several months and no editor with concern for the article or fictional character had added any sources. After reversion and initiation of a TalkPage discussion by the_ed17, I left the material in the article and only marked the unsourced material with {{citation needed}}, pending further discussion. Now, onto my take on the need for sourcing:

My understanding is that any plot summarization directly from the work being summarized, and done by a Wikipedia editor, would be original research. Failing to find any specific WP policy that says plot summaries are a special case, i.e., that original research is okay in the case of plot summaries, I would expect that the standard Wikipedia core policies of No Original Research and verifiability would apply.

Thus, any plot summary without verifiable, reliable secondary source citations can be challenged and removed, and per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, it would be up to the editor who adds or restores material to support that material with sources: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."N2e (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always assumed a straight-forward plot summary has the subject work as an assumed source and that the summarizing must follow the same rules as accessing information from any other source. A straightforward summary of a plot is "original research" in the same way that extracting information from any source might be so considered - it involves some judgement in selection of information and choice of words - but I do not feel it falls into the category banished by WP:OR. If another reasonable reader would get the same information from the source work, I don't see explicit citation is necessary.

That said, if the source work is difficult/ambiguous - like Finnegans Wake - citations would be appropriate. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The general issue of plot summaries has been dealt with ad naseum elsewhere. Many previous discussions on this:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Spoilers
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section
• Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
• Wikipedia:Plot summaries#How to cite
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 29#Descriptive plot summeries and primary sources
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive30#Fiction in Wikipedia
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 32#How does "no original research" fit with plot summaries?
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 38#Original research in plot summaries
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 44#Constructing a fictional character's biography from only primary source - OR/SYN or not?

WP:PASI notes this clearly as well. Straight plot summaries do NOT require citations. They are sourced to the primary source. Interpretation of plot is the only thing that requires a secondary source. If they are going to require sourcing, just delete all of Wikipedia because clearly editors can not read something and summaries it as we do with all sources. This is the overwhelming consensus across Wikipedia, including in WP:FA reviews. That said, in this case this is NOT straight plot summary. They are character articles, and yes sourcing, either to the primary source (specific, with page numbers to the place the work where the claim is made) or to a secondary source (if interpretation) is required. For example, Tokyo Mew Mew (FA) does NOT need a citation on its plot summary - the manga series itself is the source. On List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (FL), however, citations are required for each statement made about a character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Summarizing any source, including literary works, is source-based research, not original research. Source-based research is not only allowed, but required. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that, as Collectonian asserts, "The general issue of plot summaries has been dealt with ad naseum elsewhere." While all those links are certainly interesting history of previous discussions, it would seem that those ediotrs who don't want to have this issue be brought up by well-intentioned editors like myself who stumble into some esoteric area (e.g., literary plot summaries) that may have "special rulz", it would be worthwhile for them to see that the exceptions to WP:OR and WP:V be documented within those broad-consensus core policies of Wikipedia. It cannot really be expected that all editors are familiar with the gigabytes of previous arcane discussions. The conclusions ought to be summarized and consensus obtained for policy modifications. N2e (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The conclusions are usually summarized in the form of the policies themselves. The exception here (plot summaries) is in fact mentioned within WP:OR (section WP:PSTS). But you can't be blamed for not spotting it -- policy is a hydra, with a hundred heads, and every time we try to cut off one of them, two more grow back.--Father Goose (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Short answer... Yes, plot summaries do need to be verifiable to reliable sources... however, in the context of a plot summary, the book, film, play, etc in question is a reliable source (the primary source). This is so obvious that we usually don't require actual citation... the citation is assumed.

Longer answer... However there is a huge caveat to the above... and it revolves around the issue of what is contanied within the "plot summary"? If the summary consists of nothing but a very basic "liniar discription of the action" that takes place in the book, play, movie, etc then you can assume a citation to the work. However, if you include any sort of analysis or conclusionary statements in your "plot summary", then you need to cite secondary sources for that analysis or those conclusions (as per WP:NOR). In other words, you don't get a blanket pass just because something is in a section entitled "plot summary". Whether you have to cite or not depends on what exactly you are saying in the section. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't particularly like it, but the work of fiction itself is considered a valid source. Blueboar, Collectonian and Jc3s5h are correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

About the article Par Ohmsford in particular: this is not really a "plot summary"; it looks like a synopsis of what happens to a character in numerous books. Our inclusion policy is such that we ofter permit articles like this one, about characters that are obscure enough that there is no secondary, critical commentary about them. So the only sources that exist are the original books, and so those are the sources that have to be used, even though they are primary sources. A separate problem that makes the citations seem worse is that this article is written from a somewhat in-universe perspective. Switching it to a more detached perspective would make it easier to see what to reference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to "characters that are obscure enough that there is no secondary, critical commentary about them"... if no secondary sources discuss them, then I seriously have to question whether such characters are notable enough for an article on their own. They should be discussed in the context of the article about the work of fiction in which they appear. If the Par Ohmsford article came up at AFD, I would definitely !vote to "merge" it into Heritage of Shannara. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I suspect there are also no reasonable secondary sources directly about Heritage of Shannara. If we are lucky, there may be a book review somewhere. Our actual inclusion criteria are quite broad; I don't think this is an exceptional case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the views of User:CBM and User:Blueboar. The Par Ohmsford article is much more than a mere plot summary, and should therfore be cited with sources. However, I don't want to take this particular Noticeboard discussion too far afield from the main question: is it okay that plot summaries have no sources, in apparent contravention of [{WP:OR]] and WP:V? So I will let that discussion continue here and let the Par-Ohmsford-specific discussion continue there, on the Talk:Par Ohmsford page, should anyone be interested in doing so.N2e (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved some of the discussion on the Par Ohmsford character synopsis topic over to the Par Ohmsford Talk Page. Feel free to discuss Par over there, which might allow this Noticeboard item to remain focused on the meta-topic of sourcing for real and actual plot summaries. N2e (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen two new articles CSR Chemical Safety Report and Predicted no-effect concentration. To be honest, I'm completely unsure what they're about, and whether they even fall within wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Before sending to AFD, anyone with any knowledge of this wish to possibly clue me in, and possibly tidy them up? Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This user, User:Vitorvicentevalente, has been defending his arguement about the album's genres in the article to the extent that we have each been blocked once 4 "edit war". This has become dumbed down to his claim that he presented the source for genres first, which does not make him right. the user User:MariAna Mimi has told me that the user vitorvic... is a fan and has tried to defend the sources I used; MariAna has also been blocked due to this problem. I dont feel like arguing my claim to this user anymore (see talks at my page, his page, and the article's history of our comments) .... He just keeps reverting and claiming the same thing, that Rihanna has described it as hiphop or using one critical review by IGN about the album having hip hop/ rock. The fact is that music critics' consensus on the album is that it incorporates elements of hiphop & rock & dubstep (see all the reviews or articles cited in the article or the metacritic page), but it is primarily a pop/R&B album (several have called it just that, "pop record" Ive seen used atleast 3x) and I have used atleast 3 or 4 sources for one statement saying that the album is primarily pop/R&B and incorporates elements of rock & hiphop... And while listening to clips of the album myself doesnt have any matter here or my researching doesnt matter either, I have sourced the music section of the article appropriately and come correct, while user:Vitorvicentevalente has not. What should be done with this matter? Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• What consensus? Someone in Wikipedia said that the information will not by logic. Also, IGN is a site review of music, so it is reliable. The Guardian also says that the album is hip hop. And contrary to what this boy says, critics say first R&B and then pop. He thinks it is very gangsta, but don't know much about music... Even the singer, who wrote nine songs of the album, says that the sound is different, hip hop and rock. Moreover, it was I who first put the genres, according to sources and later I replace them with better ones, and the user refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, as in almost every critic has acknowledged it as a pop/R&B album [7], [8], "pop record", "pop album", "R&B album", "pop record", "pop opus", "eletronic R&B", "pop experience".; The Guardian does not say hip hop, the user is lying.[9]. I am not sure wat he means by "Someone in Wikipedia said that the information will not by logic", or "he thinks it is very gangsta". And he just showed why I dont feel like arguing with him, "Moreover, it was I who first put the genres". The Boston Globe wrote that "Most [tunes] retain the core of the evolving hip-hop dance pop of her earlier albums but also step toward a more jagged edge by piling on the squalling electric guitars and unsparing images" [10] About Rihanna saying what genre(s) it is, she did tell Glamour Magazine that "It's rock 'n' roll, but it's really hip-hop"; I obtained this quote from the Chicago Sun-Times's Jim DeRogatis review, in which DeRogatis points out

Though there's nothing inherently rock 'n' roll or "super-fearless" about lacing slick, synthesized dance-pop grooves with a little electric guitar, some of it courtesy of Slash, a quarter of a century after "Thriller," there is a more insistent punch and electrifying energy in the 13 grooves on "Rated R [11]

My bad if its too much quotes/links. Im just trying to defend my arguement. Does any editor/administrator have any help to offer? Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• What a liar... [12] Where does it say pop/ R&B? If you like so much pop music, why not edit in The Fame Monster or The Singles Collection? And yes they talk about hip hop [13]. Primarily, the singer talked about the album to Nokia. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Correcting the information: All Music - Genre:R&B, Metacritic - Genre:R&B, Rollingstone - Primarilly "R&B album". The user thinks that if by chance manipulate information, will prove him point of view. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

THe genre on the allmusic page is placed where it says "genre" on the left. And no, they dont talk about hip hop (nor mention the term "hip hop"/ "rap" or nothing). Now, is there an editor with assistance? Dan56 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Open your eyes and and learn to read. Also, delete the comments of others? This is not done. Manipulation to prove his point of view. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is no "manipulation", user. I quoted the critics in my 2nd paragraph of this noticeboard, which proves more than what U have with your arguement. Oh, and my bad about removing your comment, accident (i was gonna put it back, but you beat me to it, u silly goose) Now, "THe genre on the allmusic page is placed where it says "genre" on the left. And no, they dont talk about hip hop (nor mention the term "hip hop"/ "rap" or nothing). Now, is there an editor with assistance? " Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Manipulator, liar and silly. You removed my comment, and his edition proves that you did. Vergonhoso de facto. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: The WP:3O guidelines clearly make that procedure available only to editors who are exercising good faith and civility. In light of the block log of these two disputants and the incivility plainly exhibited here, this dispute does not qualify for a Third Opinion. I would also note that even though there are only two editors involved here on the Content Noticeboard, this is a continuation of a dispute from the article's talk page where other editors have been involved; the dispute also does not, therefore, qualify for a Third Opinion due to the involvement of more than two editors. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please help out at Human rights in Venezuela? Issues will be obvious from the talk page and article. Rd232 ^talk 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A flavour of the issue can be seen here: the user reverts my removal of his copyright violation with reference to WP:WL (wikilawyering). [14] Rd232 ^talk 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there is currently another try by a single-purpose account Dunganscholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to establish an American fake succession of incumbents of the peerage title Earl of Limerick - opposite to the actual Irish line - by edits on the latter article [15], on Thomas Dongan, 2nd Earl of Limerick [16], Baronet [17] and List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Ireland [18]. The edits are slightly changed variants of those the IPs 209.50.29.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 209.50.31.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 209.50.18.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have made in the last year (compare for example [19] and [20]). Personally since I consider it rather difficult to differentiate between possible facts and hoax, I would revert the articles to their last good version and would request at least semiprotection for the articles Earl of Limerick and Thomas Dongan, 2nd Earl of Limerick. (Note that I was alerted about the latest changes by a message by User:Tryde [21]). Any other suggestions ? ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Outgoing from a comment by the user on Talk:Earl_of_Limerick the user's purpose is most likely to represent himself as an earl, what reminds me on another case Talk:Earl_of_Stirling. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend indefblock of Dunganscholar + revert all his edits. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am currently in a discussion with IP editor 98.119.95.89 about an edit he made to Marina High School (diff).

It boils down to this. He has taken a 4800 byte article and turned it into a 17,000 byte article by inserting sections entitled: Criminal History, Burglaries, Vandalism, Assaults & Others, Bomb Threat, Drugs, and Cruise Incident. This turns an encyclopedic article into a referenced damning diatribe against the school which I feel is unwarranted, and against several Wiki policies.

My problem: I need other opinions with this editor. He has placed comments on my talk page such as: "Maybe other articles dealing with schools you edit do not wish to tell the truth about schools or either have people who delete them stating the article to be biased. My page is not an "attack page" because it merely states the truth of the school, and not my opinions. Everything there is backed by cold, hard facts to which if you want to check you can." and "I am merely stating what Marina is like. Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to have the TRUTH? Just because the article is negative does not mean it is biased. If you say a 350% increase in TRUTH is bad, then what happens if someone else put in 350% increase of information telling why Marina is good. They are both the truth and if a person put in 350% worth of information that is positive would you edit that and tell them that it is biased? I don't have the time to put in the positives of Marina High School."

I know this can be answered by some Wiki policies - I'm just not sure of which policies he's violating. Help please? --Manway (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS th4e instances don't seem to be notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On "Is an encyclopedia supposed to have the TRUTH?" I meant "Isn't". Mis-type >.< 98.119.95.89 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we aren't here for truth.....You want truth study Philosophy, we want facts..:) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What I stated are not facts? Including the WP:NOTNEWS notes the above person has stated, my section of the article violates none of those. As for the "News Reports" section my sections of news ARE relevant because they are singly the MOST IMPORTANT parts of Marina High School History The bomb threat being the first one in school history, and one of the few in the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the cruise ship sinking is significant because the lives of dozens of Marina students were in danger, which is an EXTREMELY important event in Marina history. 98.119.95.89 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the mistake here is assuming that the material is reliably sourced and from a POV - the reality is that it is largely unsourced and poorly sourced material from a strong POV. And when it is sourced, it is often misrepresented or trivial. As such it violates the verifiability policy, and, arguably, WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't, and can't, deal in truth, but it can deal in verifiable and reliable information. - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding the above reader, if you check my sources you will find everything verified, and if you don't then please notify me and I will either change my article or add additional sources. 98.119.95.89 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cough...WP:OWN...COughHell In A Bucket (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the above viewer, I understand everyone has a right to delete part of an article or edit it in any way, but those deletes must be justified. I am not claiming ownership at all I am merely adding information which is getting removed because people view it as unsourced (untrue), biased (untrue), or incorrect (untrue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.95.89 (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I followed up all of the references, except, of course, the telephone conversation with the Marina Police Officer, which was used extensively, the interviews with former and current students, and "Reported Thefts By Area in Huntington Beach, California". The last is most likely ok, but the others don't meet the policy on verification. Many other sources, such as blog posts, a podcast, and an unofficial online poll, wouldn't be regarded as reliable in the context that they are being employed. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, you're limited to sources which are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards and can be verified by other editors, which tends to be very restrictive but is probably necessary to make things work. - Bilby (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific on what sources don't verify what information? Thanks 98.119.95.89 (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the student account IS reliable because she was an eyewitness there at the school. EVERYTHING is based on eyewitness accounts and there would be no reason for her to lie. I also believe the podcast IS reliable because it is from a reputable radio station known as KFWB. I can remove the statistics for the unofficial online poll because that is not particularly necessary in this article. As for every other source, I find it quite reliable because they are either police reports or the official Marina website. As for the officer I interviewed at the Huntington Beach Police Force, he currently works for Huntington Beach and has been called to Marina many times (including times when I was still at Marina) and he has told me he has experienced many "alleged" cases of theft, fraud, assault, and just about any other crime you can think of (except murder).98.119.95.89 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that they aren't verifiable, and we can't confirm their reliability. Anything to do with an unpublished telephone interview with a police officer is out, I'm afraid. As are the two blog posts: [22] & [23]. The personal interviews with students can't be used, nor, as you mentioned, can you use the online snap poll, especially to provide statistics about drug use in the school. The use of the school handbook may be ok, but on its own all it says is that they have policies to handle issues such as sexual harassment, which doesn't say anything about their prevalence: for example, the handbook says that they may use police dogs to search for drugs, not that drugs are a problem and nor that they do so regularly. - Bilby (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This IP 76.110.163.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) cannot be reasoned with and insists on making changes to Haitian Americans, I do not want to engage in an edit war and I am requesting an admin deal with him/her. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding on article talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated...Modernist (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been frustrated in removing a bald quote from Susan B. Anthony that was presented at the page Feminists for Life (FFL). The quote is this:

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

User:Cloonmore wishes to have the quote displayed in the article because it is prominently displayed on one of FFL's webpages.

I wish to have the quote taken off the page, as Anthony was referring to an old inheritance law which unfairly gave an unborn child to the estate of a father even if his pregnant wife gave birth to the child after his death. In that case, if the man so willed it, the baby would be taken from the mother and cared for by the estate. Anthony and her feminist friends were able to beat the law, and the quote finds her exultant about it. This interpretation is one agreed upon by traditional Anthony scholars and by FFL member Mary Krane Derr, also an Anthony scholar.

I have asked that the quote be given context if it is kept in the article, so that readers will know that it was originally spoken without regard to the subject of abortion, but I have backed off from this position. Instead, I simply wish the quote left off the page as irrelevant to an anti-abortion organization.

Some additional eyes would be handy. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

<sigh>. Agree mostly, I worked on that article for a while when an SPA was targeting it for something or another. Several folks have gotten themselves blocked for disruption on it but ... it is improving. I suggest simplifying the issue of the quote down to (i) is the issue the general perceived co-opting of Susan B Anthony et al's work or just one quote? (ii) what reliable sources have valid criticism of FFL for doing this. You may want to pull this into your own user space to workshop it a bit if another user is disrupting a constructive process. Show diligence, civility and patience through it all. See what the best sources have to offer first and then contrast with what if anything FFL states. When there is some sticking points on sources ask a concise question at reliable sources notice board to see if source X can be used to support statement Y, etc. To lede into the process I suggest eliminating the entire criticism section and upmerging all that material as needed into the rest of the article. Article structures that are A,B,C,D,E,F followed by criticisms of B, C and F are inherently flawed and become a magnet for more problems. By discussing each criticism with due weight we offer NPOV to the subject(s). There are plenty of reliable sources on the group so using them will prove invaluable. Here is a quick Google Book search that may help. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a folding of the lower criticisms back into the upper sections of the article would be good for it, and I have argued for this practice on the talk page. I may yet attempt to enact your suggestion. Feel free to re-add the article to your watchlist to keep a finger on its pulse, and to jump in if you wish. Thanks for your heartening comments! Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've thought more on it and want to address using quotes from non-organizational members or indeed any quote that is not about the group directly. Anyone using such quotes is seen as WP:Soapboxing, on some idea unless reliable sources independent of the group demonstrate the quote itself is notable to the group. So either sources independent of the group state unambiguously how important the quote is or critics point out specific flaws in using that quote etc. Absent that I think it must go. Items removed from articles need to be justified by policy to be re-added, not simply edit-warred back in. -- Banjeboi 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at Péter Medgyessy, ex-PM of Hungary, who has a totally unsourced BLP since long long ago? Needs sourcers. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I only fixed the other parts of the article, including the internal link and the maintenance template, so, apologies if I did not meet your request. Minimac94 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me? I'm trying my best to remove those {{citequote}} tags on the Musical Style section of this BLP, but there are too many of them! I don't know what to do, because only one of the many statements in that section has a reference and the other statements have those {{citequote}} tags all over the place. Minimac94 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Longterm disagreement over 'controversy' section, renewed over last two days or so. Some extra eyes on this may be helpful before it escalates. 99.156.69.78 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the section and added a comment. I've also started an archive to clear old threads off. -- Banjeboi 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there is no entry for 'Corporate Greed'in either the Corporation section or 'Greed' section. Surely it is too big an area to ignore now especially since it has led to the present recession and many other injustices across the globe. I am a biologist so it may need a business / economist's expertise to document examples. There is plenty around! -- sber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.93.249 (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This should likely be brought up at that article's talkpage as those folks are more likely to be interested and familiar enough. You could draft up a few ideas and propose them on the same page. -- Banjeboi 12:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Other parodies, revisions and uses" section seems to be getting a little overblown. Can this be treated as a trivia section and deleted? I don't think it adds anything to the article. --Manway (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi I removed a statement [24] which said "Six months after the doctor's prognoses Megrahi is now out of hospital and lives at his family’s villa." with an edit summary referring the editor to WP:DATED and WP:ASOF. It was replaced with an edit summary saying "He cares what the US senator saids, it is that he is still alive that anoys everyone". Was I right to remove this? If so, can someone please explain this to the editor, as I'm having problems with him over NPOV issues elsewhere and I don't want him to think this is related to the other problems. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was fine to remove, as it was from a single source. One possible compromise would be rewording it, "According to Africa News, six months after the diagnosis Megrahi had been released from the hospital and was living at his family's villa." That is presuming, of course, that AN is a reliable source, and a quality one. If not, removing per BLP would also be fully appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also noted that the Africa News report says Posted on Friday 20 November 2009 - 09:00 so it's not exactly a good source to say anything about today. Also, looking at this page [25] on their site, I'm dubious that it is an RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This user Paulotanner has been removing well-referenced content, for example here and here, and edit warring with multiple editors while stating that what he did was "Stable version". The user is trying to deny that Led Zeppelin are the progenitors of, and helped develop hard rock as well as heavy metal, while the article shows the genres as "hard rock, heavy metal" with consensus. If you see the talk page of the article, the sources are highly academic, authentic, and clearly state that the band is the ancestor/progenitor of both the genres. Moreover, the Wikipedia articles for respective genres 1, 2 and Allmusic guide (1 & 2) also mention the point that Led Zeppelin helped develop those (along with earlier bands such as The Kinks, The Who and Cream etc). First two edits of this user, being unhelpful, were reverted by Fnlayson, and later edits by me. Meanwhile, he was also blocked for causing disruption, and edit warring. The block was released after 24 hours and he started adding his unhelpful edits again.

Your suggestions would be really appreciated. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, both versions are rubbish, the lede needs a rewrite it reads like a fanzine, overly gushing and with unnecessary claims to multiple greatness, just keep it clean and keep it simple, also.. the lede is not a place to even have citations as the summary should be all cited throughout the article.. and in the second line you have this... Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as one of the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

What is that all about? Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement's backed up by Encyclopædia Britannica, Allmusic and other highly authentic sources. I don't think the lede gets fanboyish, but those for other bands actually are. Zeppelin one is written in a WP:NPOV style, cited with multiple, authoritative WP:RS, and doesn't need any rewrite.

"The Kinks were an English rock band formed in Muswell Hill, North London, by brothers Ray and Dave Davies in 1964. Categorized in the United States as a British Invasion band, The Kinks are recognized as one of the most important and influential rock acts of the era."

"The Sex Pistols are an English punk rock band that formed in London in 1975. They are responsible for initiating the punk movement in the United Kingdom and inspiring many later punk and alternative rock musicians. Although their initial career lasted just two-and-a-half years and produced only four singles and one studio album, Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, they are regarded as one of the most influential acts in the history of popular music."

"Pink Floyd were an English rock band who earned recognition for their psychedelic music in the late 1960s and, as they evolved in the 1970s, for their progressive rock music. Pink Floyd's work is marked by the use of philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows. One of rock music's most critically acclaimed and commercially successful acts, the group has sold over 200 million albums worldwide, including 74.5 million certified units in the United States."

And mind you Led Zeppelin are widely considered to be one of the most famous, influential, and highest selling groups in music history. While I totally respect your opinion, I highly doubt you're an uninvolved third party. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Scieberking Ignores and ERASE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340321642&oldid=340316313all allmusic sources who point Led Zeppelin as heavy metal (more than five).

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Initially, Zep played blues tunes heavier and louder than anyone ever had, and soon created an epic, textured brand of heavy rock that drew from many musical sources."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues — it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) — into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hcfrxqy5ldte~T1 "Across the ensuing decade, the band ruled the heavy metal landscape, and Bonham's drumming was a key part of their appeal."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke "Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi is one of only two guitarists (the other being Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page) that can take full credit for pioneering the mammoth riffs of heavy metal."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:3ifyxqe5ldae "Iron Maiden were one of the first groups to be classified as "British metal," and, along with Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin..."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7760 "The New Wave of British Heavy Metal re-energized heavy metal in the late '70s and early '80s. By the close of the '70s, heavy metal had stagnated, with its biggest stars (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath)..."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifrxqe5ldse "Judas Priest was one of the most influential heavy metal bands of the '70s, spearheading the New Wave of British Heavy Metal late in the decade. Decked out in leather and chains, the band fused the gothic doom of Black Sabbath with the riffs and speed of Led Zeppelin, as well as adding a vicious two-lead guitar attack; in doing so, they set the pace for much popular heavy metal"

And ignor all sources through the decades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Led_Zeppelin_are_regarded_as_one_of_the_first_heavy_metal_bands_-_sources_over_the_decades

WORST, he claims Led Zeppelins as progenitor of hard rock, but hard rock already exist BEFORE Led Zeppelin, Zepp is regard as one of the first metal bands, not on the firs hard rock bands. Allmusic says Progenitor of hard rock: Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Cream. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 "Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group."

Hard rock contributors as it know are AC/DC, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper "Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar."

And the difference between hard rock and heavy metal point Led Zeppelin as METAL: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 "hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music." Led Zeppelin is NOT exuberant, chest-thumping party music. He changes the History with POV. Please someone read the links who call Zepp as metal over the Years. Paulotanner (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Why is this on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard? Is there a WP:BLP concern snuck in here somewhere? Please consider dispute resolution. --Onorem♠Dil 14:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And Scieberking broke the concessus in discussion page, LYKANTROP, Me and other IP are against your POV. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#heavy_metal_first_please He is fighting against many sources, erasing sources and changed the history. Read the biography of the band in 2 books:

When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin When Mick Wall's "When Giants Walked the Earth" was published in a hardcover edition last year for the U.K. market, it contained some timely commentary about their highly successful one-night show staged at the end of 2007. The author notes that Plant, who had been interested enough in the making of a re-released The Song Remains the Same movie and soundtrack that year to actually sit in, thought the Led Zeppelin reunion show ought to be a proper farewell from the band. Wall says Plant had a bigger say in what songs would and would not be included; gone were songs that were "too heavy metal," and he would do "Stairway to Heaven" but only buried in the middle of their two-hour set, not as a finale or an encore. Source: http://www.amazon.com/When-Giants-Walked-Earth-Biography/dp/0312590008/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264460961&sr=1-1

Hammer of the Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga The members of Led Zeppelin are major deities in the pantheon of rock gods. The first and heaviest of the heavy metal monsters, they violently shook the foundations of rock music and took no prisoners on the road. Their tours were legendary, their lives were exalted—and in an era well known for sex and drugs, the mighty Zeppelin set an unattainable standard of excess and mythos for any band that tried to follow them. They were power, they were fantasy, they were black magic. No band ever flew as high as Led Zeppelin or suffered so disastrous a fall. And only some of them lived to tell the tale. Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0061473081/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Paulotanner (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't removed ANY references. There were five previously and now there are nine (four added by me). Allmusic credits Led Zeppelin as the ancestor of hard rock the same way it does for heavy metal. I'm not trying to say that Led Zeppelin did not influence heavy metal music- they did. Without reading any discussion, and ignoring the valid, authentic points, you're writing the same thing again and again while reverting the edits of other editors. That does not make any sense and is ridiculously deconstructive. You've a long history of disrupting articles on Wikipedia and more than 70% of your edits have been reverted by other editors. You've tried your luck on Them Crooked Vultures, Blue Cheer, among others, and all your edits were reverted. Now you're trying to disrupt Led Zeppelin article. --Scieberking (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

POV push by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the talk page for an RS source to support the claim.

• The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature.
• The reliable sources available, some of which are cited in the article, overwhelmingly use the term "post-disco" or (postdisco) in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline.
• Much of the article's content is derived from the editors OR based observations and are supported by an assemblage of random references, that happen to feature the term "post-disco"; and in any particular context.
• None of the sources provided, except AMG, refer to the articles's subject in manner that is directly related to post disco as a genre of music.
• User currently engages in edit warring to stifle dissent [26][27][28][29]

The article was recently considered for deletion, where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any.Cross posted here Semitransgenic (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Post disco is not a genre, post disco is more like a movement of sound changes (yes it is same, but.. not same at all). New instruments were brought by late 1970s - it gave born to "post disco" music (src no 1). As AMG said, it have some reason to naming post disco as a movement of characteristic elements - for example, innovators like Leroy Burgress, Larry Levan and DJs and producers played in post-disco serious part; musicians, Nick Straker Band, Kashif, D. Train. These artists make disco that sounds different (we should say it is "disco not disco"). As source no. 19 said, post-disco is a [musical] style, because we know and sources saying it, rock and funk are musical styles too. Artists like Mtume, Klein + MBO, Change, Central Line, Kano, etc are related to post disco because it is not an era, but something like "genre"; if it is an era, these artists are unrelated to post-disco because post-disco range is from 50 Cent, Backstreet Boys, Snoop Dogg, Blur, Oasis to Frank Sinatra ("New York, New York" song).

"The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature. " - dubious/editorial observation/point-of-view/degrading of the source/trying to discredit AMG

"[sic] in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline." however it is questionable, there are also sources that saying it is underground music, but there are songs like "Love Come Down" (US #17) ― Evelyn King, "Big Fun" (US #21) ― Kool & The Gang, "I'm So Excited" (US #9) ― Pointer Sisters, "Call Me" (US #26) ― Skyy. Seems like "underground" music, hmm. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this version tries to mention all variants of post-disco (an era, AMG genre mentioning, Billboard/Cadence mentioning, Techno and house roots in post-disco dance music, etc). [30] ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started a RfC on my proposal for dealing with one of these articles, where the discussion has been particularly heated. My proposal is not specific to that kind of software, so hopefully the result of the discussion can be used as a precedent for all similar articles. Please participate at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#A way forward. Pcap ping 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm boldly archiving this to try to keep the discussion to one centralized place which in this case should remain the article talkpage. The two main disputants are starting to lean on sourcing and logically content decisions should be made at the article rather than scattered at various other spots. -- Banjeboi 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The title and some of the content in this article seem problematic if anyone wants to have a look or make suggestions. I know BLP is all the rage... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Several editors are working on it. So I think it will be okay... <crosses fingers> ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very possible that the subject of this page is committing trademark and domain name infringement. I have personally been in contact with this bands legal counsel in regard to this matter several times over the past 2 weeks. As a result I will be meeting with my attorney this week to discuss this matter and attempt to gain some resolution. Hopefully we will be able to come to a fair and just conclusion. If names are necessary to validate my position I can provide the names and contact information for the attorneys representing each party in regard. However I do believe that the least amount of research on the readers part should serve ample to discover that this is a real issue and should warrant the immediate deletion of this page until a time when this issue has been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.160.57 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to clarify this a little if you want anything done. Are you saying there's a copyright violation somewhere on The Drums? If so, can you identify it for us, please? You said something about "trademark and domain name infringement" committed by the subject of the article. Are you trying to say that the band is infringing someone's trademark by using the name it uses? Certainly you must realize that's none of Wikipedia's business unless it becomes notable enough to be covered in a Wikipedia article. Please clarify. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you asked for deletion. That's not going to happen unless you give a reason for it that's based on Wikipedia's policies. And watch what you say about lawyers. If you make a legal threat here, you'll be blocked from discussing it further. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He already has been. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was astonished earlier to come across an editor who had descended on this article and without discussion altered the format of the References section from a normal Harvard style to something that looks like the cat dragged it in. Before I escalate this issue I'd like to know if anyone here feels that I'm being unreasonable in objecting to this kind of change, or perhaps that the new style is preferrable to the old way? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

there's no battle brewling, Malleus just wants to be a dick here is all, for whatever reason. I've removed all of my contributions to that page so there's no issue here any more. Wikipedia is plenty large enough for everyone, and there's plenty of other things I can work on.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You just moving on to another article and wrecking it in the same way is not the answer. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your version is better, Malleus, but your method of decimating whoever you disagree with is, as usual, despicable. You're smart enough to not do it, so how about you, ohh.... not do it? Just a thought. Ohms law, please don't do this with other articles. As Malleus so unpleasantly pointed out, it breaks when there's more than one book cited. It also looks quite weird. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. As usual it's all my fault. Thanks for offering your opinion anyway Roux, most illuminating. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The nastiness, as usual, is most certainly your fault. And I am at a loss to understand why you are incapable of a civil discussion with anyone without resorting to nasty language and browbeating. Beyond that I agree with your stance on this issue. → ROUX ₪ 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop with the personal remarks, and I suggest that you do that right now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest anything you like. I will give your suggestions exactly the consideration they deserve. One is reminded of a quote from the Bible, something about motes and beams. → ROUX ₪ 05:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is already a halt to this kind of reference style change requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Suspend replacing of ref by Template:r in citations. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was done manually in the case by adding a group to the <ref> tag, but I guess it's part of the same issue. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

let's not conflate multiple issues here. The issues with {{r}} are separate from what Malleus seems to be objecting to here (as far as I can tell at least, since he's never really explained his objection). Utilizing the group feature of Cite.php for pseudo-Harvard style/short/parenthetical references is something that it used already in various places. I didn't come up with it, I simply try to use the solution when I come across a need for it.

I also wanted to briefly address "it breaks when there's more than one book cited." because it doesn't (although admittedly, you need to be fairly familiar with the workings of Cite.php in order to know this). All that needs to be done is to use a different group name along with another {{Reflist}} with a matching group parameter.

For those of you with a real interest in this subject though, I highly encourage you to start a discussion in a more appropriate location, such as the Village pump, or Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My only interest is in preventing you from trashing other articles in the same way you trashed Jeannette Piccard. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Making such a random change to the formatting of the references in an article, especially a GA, really serves no purpose .May I ask why you are doing this? NW (Talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This request also posted at WP:AN.

Hello, I would like to ask somebody to assure to User:Stemonitis how ref tag should be formated at User talk:Stemonitis#Citing references. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied comment from user's talkapge. IMHO, any reasonable person would see adding extra formatting as this is not held as a community endorsed or approved. In fact there are some community-wide citation discussions currently in process to alleviate issues with perceived unneeded information and formatting. If you still think this is a good idea and acceptable please ask at Village Pump boards, I'm not sure which board would be best, to ask if this use is acceptable and if not is there any workaround that may be needed to achieve the same results. -- Banjeboi 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd go one step further than Banjeboi and say that those spaces are to be discouraged--I know of no style guide that approves of it, even if the MOS doesn't endorse one way or another. And Stemonitis' comment, "The way I see it, as they appear in an article, references are no different to any other kind of parenthesis; you wouldn't have them abutting the text beforehand," does that mean that they want spaces surrounding the parenthetical text, inside the parentheses? That seems entirely wrong to me. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. If I've understood you correctly, that would indeed be wrong. In normal, grammatical English, text inside brackets (such as this) is not separated from them, while the brackets themselves are separated from the surrounding text by a space (or another mark, such as a comma or a full stop). That is the analogy I am drawing. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you cleared that up. I don't see, however, how that would apply to footnotes. Certainly we don't put a space before other marks of punctuation; that we do so around parentheses is for reasons of legibility, no doubt--but that doesn't matter for footnotes, which are in superscript. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The superscript does not, however, separate the two horizontally, which was rather the issue. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Stemonitis, don't do this. Every single example given at WP:CITE, at WP:MOS, shows no such space before a cite. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the MOS other than a link to WP:CITE. Smartse (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant to point to the examples of cites used in explaining various concepts throughout WP:MOS. None have spaces. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this formatting is unneccessary and have previously removed them from an article Stemonitis had written. Whilst I'm not against Stemonitis doing what they want to I can't really see why the nbsp is required and I haven't seen anyone else doing it anywhere. Admittedly though, it is a bit of a waste of people's time discussing this when we could be adding content instead. Smartse (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Smartse. That's the attitude I expected from experienced editors — toleration and an emphasis on content. Wikipedia has a number of different styles in different parts of the encyclopaedia, and that's not only acceptable but desirable. (Humanities articles should not be forced to adhere to a scientific paradigm, or vice versa, for example.) It's more important that we all concentrate on producing high quality content, with plenty of in-line citations. There's a lot of work to be done, and I look forward to being allowed to help in doing it. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Will you point me to one single generally accepted style guide that inserts a space between a word and the superscripted note? Drmies (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean specifically at Wikipedia, or in the wider world? --Stemonitis (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the wider world, yes. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of WP:REFPUN leads me to believe you can put your references in front of the punctuation, in the manner of the magazine Nature, if you are creating the article, or if there is consensus from other editors. No guideline on Wikipedia specifies a non-breaking space leading into the reference. If you implement such a format, against guidelines, you are creating work for others. Nobody wants to slow you down as you create articles, but if you do not have to insert non-breaking spaces, your article creation will go that much more quickly, and others will be able to get their own work done. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Others are not required to make a fuss about minor issues of formatting, so I'm not costing anyone else anything unless they choose to intervene. Sorry to take a harsh tone, here, but I'm sure you can understand the annoyance of having to take a lot of time and effort to try and justify a minor point of personal preference. I have seen no explicit denunciation of a pre-citation space (although I don't doubt someone zealous will soon make a point of getting it added), and yes, to the careful eye, the articles I've created look slightly different (I like to think slightly better, but it's naturally a matter of taste) to most others, but it really isn't worth arguing about. I've seen a lot of articles that look much worse; even the edit that first drew Snek01's attention^[32] was a big improvement for the article (it was in a cleanup category when I got to it, and I made sure it wasn't when I left it; I added information; etc.). I wasn't expecting a medal or anything, but I certainly wasn't expecting this degree of opprobrium. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you acknowledge that this is personal preference, a matter of your personal taste, for which there is little consensus (as far as I can tell). That WP might not have iron-clad rules for all matters of style does not mean, surely, that anything goes. As for the careful eye, even my challenged eye sees from a mile away that you are using non-standard punctuation, in those many wonderful articles you wrote that were DYKs. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I would personally not use nbsp before a reference, there aren't any policies against it (whether that is right or not isn't relevant here) and really so long as it is consistent throughout an article anything should be ok. It seems to me as though it is similar to the use of American or British English, neither is right or wrong but whichever one is used, should be stuck to. Smartse (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally accepted procedure is like this: when an user will get to know that his edits are problematic, then he will not continue this. Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits are considered as Wikipedia:Vandalism. User:Stemonitis, who is an administrator right now, he knows this and he will behave as an administrator. He will not intentionally doing things against guidelines and against project Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia. Otherwise he will be blocked. Propose your changes or "imporovements" on proper talk pages. Thanks. OK? --Snek01 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down — this really is a storm in a teacup. I am happy to discuss the issue with anyone who is genuinely, and ideally dispassionately, interested; I'm not sure this is the best place for it, but I'll defer to the opinion of others on that matter. It strikes me that there's a lot of common ground that all those involved here share. We don't need to be belligerent, and we will be better able to come to an understanding if we try to work together. Let's try to stay civil, and assume good faith as far as possible. I'm sure you wouldn't say that I'm trying to harm Wikipedia, and I'm sure you, too, are acting in the project's interests as you see them (this isn't intended as a sleight, merely an acknowledgement that different people can come into conflict even when working towards the same ends). --Stemonitis (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I edited one of Stemonitis's articles some time ago to change the citation style to the one more normally found in Wikipedia—refs after punctuation with no spaces before them. He reverted me, and (in retrospect) rightly so: he uses a clear and consistent citation system in the articles he writes, and restricting users from using certain styles because others subjectively don't like them is a pointless exercise.

I would advise you not to stop using your current punctuation style, because the nbsp code makes it marginally harder to edit an article and because I don't like the way it looks, but neither is a very compelling argument and ultimately it should remain your choice what style you use on article where you are the sole major contributor. Ucucha 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Stemonitis did not stopped his devastating behavior with adding   [33] although he said not to do so, so I believe he must be blocked. --Snek01 (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully he made this last one only accidentally. We will see. --Snek01 (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Devastating"? That edit was "devastating"!? That edit did many things, which I am happy to examine in detail: it corrected an incorrect conservation status ("DD" was given when the species is "Least Concern" in the current IUCN listings); it lifted the article out of the cleanup category Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter; it tweaked a couple of links to go directly to the articles animal and chordate rather then through the redirect Animalia and Chordata; it added information on a second common name; it added a valid date of description category; it changed a heading to comply with the WP:MOS-preferred "References" from its previous "Source"; it removed unused template parameters, which simplifies the article for editors; it removed a signature which was inappropriately placed in an article. It did many things, and apart from that one space, all are unambiguous improvements. Let's be clear about this: your whole complaint rests on something which appears to most readers as about two pixels of horizontal space in an infobox. "Devastating" is a very inappropriate term to use in this context. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples how User:Stemonistis intentionally ignore community concensus to not add   before ref tag. Such behavior is not normal behavior of an administrator:

• [34]

--Snek01 (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill. It's yet to be seen whether consensus is against Stemonitis's changes (I, for one, would not agree with that consensus), but your claims of admin abuse are way over the top. Let's keep this civil and wait to see what other users think of Stemonitis's referencing style. unsigned 12:58, 8 February 2010 Ucucha

Let me to summarize facts:

• There are guidelines that recommend a certain way of formating. There are not mentioned other possibilities so there is also not explictlly mentioned "Do not use space before ref tag".
• Adding space before ref tag have never been solved before.
• There is historical consensus how should ref tag be used.
• Adding space in from a ref tag is a new idea, that theoreticaly could be accepted in the future, but it have not been accepted by the community.
• When this new idea is considered highly problematic, then it is recommended to not use space before ref tag.
• Because this new idea goes against guidelines (affecting the whole wikipedia!), then we should follow guidelines until a new thing will be un/approved.

--Snek01 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It *doesn't* go against guidelines, and reporting me and accusing me of sock puppetry for telling you so is not going to help you win your argument Thedarxide (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There has only been one situation where I have used a space between text and ref tag and that is when the immediately preceding text was in italics.

...of the phrase booyakasha^[4] has been...

...of the phrase booyakasha ^[4] has been... (edited to clarify mid sentence)

It seems to me that in the case of the Omphalotropis semicostulata article he has a similar problem and has solved it in the same way. It does look better with the space and I think that I would also have been tempted to do the same thing in that same circumstance.

As we have guidelines on almost every other style format perhaps we should agree one on this matter

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already discussion from 2007 Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 17#"Footnotes come after punctuation" (User:Stemonitis was a participant). Non-breaking space was discussed and a space was not implemented into Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Snek01 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! How long did it take you to find that? I'd forgotten all about it, it was so long ago. To summarise that discussion, the issue of the space was only discussion very briefly and very tangentially. The crux of the matter was whether or not references could go before punctuation, as is common in the scientific literature. The consensus, such as it was, was that such a method, consistently applied, should be allowed, and that is what at least some of the guidelines currently in place state. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I said that "in that case" because there is no sentence following it...and in the guideline Wikipedia:FOOT & Wikipedia:FN there is no mention of spaces except those within the ref itself

In the archive you use there is a quote from WP:FN - unfortunately that text does not appear in the article...

Amen. Just for info, WP:FN says:

Where to place ref tags

Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.[3]

When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space,[3] in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.[3] The same is true for successive ref tags.

There is , as always, the fact that the two editorial styles can be used, both after and before punctuation. The spaces comment is clearly to prevent loss of the ref marker to the following line. There is no following line, there is no guideline on spaces, the result of the discussion was the current wording of the guideline.

Solutions

1 Allow the use as there is no following line and remove the space if a following line exists/is created

2 Consider moving the ref tag to inside the bracket - the article has only one ref tag so there is no "in article" way of doing it as yet.

3 Consider that as the entry is in an info box it may be treated differently than in the article as it is unlikely that another paragraph would be introduced directly after that ref tag

4 Create a guidelines change suggestion that would determine this for future reference

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest:

5 Stop arguing about punctuation and get back to writing articles.

Ucucha 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all: long term editing by User:Stemonitis is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive". Edits by this user does not try to be compatible with guideline, although the user knows the guideline for years. Guidelines are important, because they are for certain unification and standardization. --Snek01 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Snek, I happen to believe that you are right re:punctuation and placement of notes. I don't believe Stemonitis has supplied a style guide accepted anywhere that supports his usage, and just because something isn't 'forbidden' by our policies doesn't mean it's OK: if I want to make all my superscript numbers blinking and red, I will be reversed very quickly. But Snek, this continued effort serves little purpose, and you appear to be escalating this; I advise you to drop the matter and live with it, as I'm doing. Of course, if I run into Stemonitis after class, we'll have to settle it like, ahem, men. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely. User:Stemonitis is broking guideline Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. There is certain example what Stemonitis should do but he is doing wrong:

“

If you wish to change an existing policy or guideline... do start a discussion on the talk page pointing out what you see as the shortcomings of the current rule do not actively push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong

”

And this is necessary to actively solve this problem. Not to discourage an user who reported it. --Snek01 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Solution 6: Follow actual guideline and request a bot like this: change code in articles from

&nbsp;<ref

and

 <ref

to

<ref

which is very effective and simple way. --Snek01 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer no space, but who actually cares? You're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's a minor issue, nothing more. Stop the bad faith accusations and try to work this out properly. And don't ask Jimbo to settle minor content disputes. That's not going to work. Reach Out to the Truth 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto here--please review WP:VAND#NOT and tone down the rhetoric. I don't like it either, but it there's a lot more important things to fight about. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. FWIW this seems like an issue to push over to the good folks at MOS who handle these nuances and issues regularly. I suggest this be in some way ended here as this board really isn't the specialists in this micro area, if this looks to be non-settled in some way i think they are more able to address the issues unambiguously. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further Comment. I am posting this here because Snek01 keeps removing my comments from his talk page: Please stop your disruptive editing and work properly to establish change if that is what you want. Reporting users for administrator attention is incredibly bad faith when no policy has been broken, as is continuous misuse of edit summaries when you have been asked to stop. This issue has been spammed across a multitude of places on wikipedia, and your actions, in my opinion, are starting to warrant a block Edit - And posting vandalism warnings on my talk page, after accusing me of being a sock, are really the last straw. Thedarxide (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Posting templated warnings to him isn't exactly likely to de-escalate the situation. WP:DTTR. Ucucha 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I posted a follow-up. Engaging in dialog isn't working, hence, in my opinion, for the need for a big red warning. Thedarxide (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Permitted, BUT... This style of formatting is (technically) permitted by MOS. When it is (rarely) used, it's always best to use non-breaking spaces (as done in these examples), so that the footnotes aren't separated by line wraps. However, we take a very WP:ENGVAR-type approach to minimize edit warring over these unimportant (=non-content) changes: Stemonitis should not unilaterally change the article's formatting approach to his/her personal preference without prior discussion. If Stemonitis creates the article, or dramatically expands a tiny stub, then s/he can certainly use that formatting style (and if someone else wants to change it to the more common style, then that other editor will need to demonstrate consensus through discussion on the article's talk page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Contrary to style guideline. This style doesn't conform to WP:REFPUNC, which says that the citation is placed "immediately after" the punctuation. This means no intervening spaces, as shown by the example in that section. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That is a rather selective quotation of WP:REFPUNC, which is actually solely descriptive, not prescriptive. Ucucha 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not only is it a somewhat selective quotation, it is a quotation of a section that appears to have been changed very, very recently to say essentially the opposite of what it has said for years, which makes one suspicious that someone changed it for the purpose of affecting this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I could use some eyes on Yellowface - editor Nemogbr seems intent on inserting the term "racebending" into the article - I've gone back and forth with him on this several times, as he also seems to have been promoting a website called "racebending.com" in the past. The problem is, most of his claims seem like original research or POV-pushing, and while he throws a lot of links up to justify his actions, checking those links shows (when the links are valid) no significant coverage of the term, or in most cases, not even a mention of it. He continued to revert to his preferred text, adding even more mentions of the term, even though that text is not backed up by any valid or reliable third party sources. I've tried discussing it with him on his talk page, but he only claims that his links are valid. Help would be appreciated... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "racebending" has zero appearances in Google Books and Google Scholar. It appears to be one person's term, and has no business in a Wikipedia article. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I warned the user and Binksternet has helped to remove or cleanup some of Nemogbr's edits. Cenarium (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I overhauled the yellowface article and have been updating the page, for the last three months and I have attempted to ensure a neutral point of view possible for one person and for a subject in overt racism. I have continually posted in the discussion page to report what I have been doing, as a record, in case anyone had questions and relevant points regarding the information.

I provided several links for the term racebending. I also linked the racebending.com website for their POV, which I have recently been informed is against wikipedia rules.

Books by George Sefa Dei(2007) and Mica Pollock (2004). Also one journal linked from Litigation Essentials(2008), which is a reliable source, according to wikipedia rules. I have to point out that both are published authors, but do not have entries in wikipedia. Presumeably due to their subject matters being too boring.

In regards to Hollywood, the term whitewashing was avoided and instead racebending was the term used.

• Patrick Stewart's role as a white Othello. We can't call the play whitewashing, since most the characters were changed to black actors. (1997)
• Racebending used as a term, by a newspaper review for "The Game (U.S. TV series)", 2006.
• Cloud 9, film and theatre.
• Racebending in regards to the Robert Downey Jr. role in Tropic Thunder. (2008)

I don't know why it would not be an allowed term. Would we now call the "white Othello" a whitewash? Even when the entire cast apart from Othello are all black? I can certainly see why they used "racebending" instead.

I am working on the article in my spare time and I find it UNHELPFUL when people delete entries due to a supposed lack of reliable data. If the information needs more citations, those editors like TheRealFennShysa should really add a "citation needed" tag. --Nemogbr (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet is correct that racebending does not appear in Google Books and Google Scholar. You can see "race-bending" appear in both sites along with the 2004 book by Mica Pollock and the litigation essentials journal regarding the race-bending of Barrack Obama.

Why do people insist that the term was invented by cartoon fans, when it's been used by people in race studies since, at least, 2004?

Is this the case of it can't appear in wikipedia until someone from MTV mentions the word? --Nemogbr (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Racebending" is a neologism; "race-bending" or "race bending" is a pun, one which has occasionally occurred to literate people familiar with the term "gender bending". --Orange Mike | Talk 03:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Below are definitions for gender-bender or gender bender. One with a hyphen and one without. Both define it as a noun. Entries on the internet do not ascribe any difference between the spellings or having a space between the two words.

(Definition of gender-bender noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

gender-bender noun slang - a person who wears the clothes and copies the behaviour of the opposite sex

From Merriam Webster the word is recorded from 1980.

gender bender Function: noun Date: 1980.

a person who dresses and behaves like a member of the opposite sex

— gender–bending adjective or noun http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender+bender

Race-bending is used in racial studies. Racebending has been used in a Litigation Essentials journal, New York Times, Variety and People Magazine. Perhaps the writers could have used the term whitewash, but they chose a different term instead. I already stated that the word is gaining more use via fans of the cartoon series, but the term had plenty of use due to Tropic Thunder. It's not original research on my part, I just collated the information and put it in one place. Isn't that wikipedia's function? --Nemogbr (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I found "racebending" in Google News clips going back 100 years, in Google scholar and Google Books. If it is a neologism it is a relatively old one that is still in use and there seems a good case to include the term and it's usage besides in just Wikidictionary. -- Banjeboi 04:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Using the information from -- Banjeboi I decided to do a search via Google and Google Books. Race-bending is not a neologism, it looks more to be a terminology rarely used by authors, but it is in use. I will copy this data into the yellowface discussion page.

How much more evidence does it take before the terminology is re-instated?

• As Mr. Wynter points out in American Skin: Pop Culture, Big Business, and the End of White America , race-bending has been endemic to white America for at least a century.

http://www.observer.com/node/46299 http://www.danah.org/papers/2009/WhiteFlightDraft3.pdf

• Orlando Sentinel, Des Moines Register, and Raleigh News and Observer:

(Does the race-bending of Tiger and Barack augur a change in racial thinking at last?) http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-25/news/TWINS25_1_woods-obama-multiracial http://golfpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/03/tiger-and-barack-ive-been-fascinated-by.html

• 1995 Race bending - being black for a while will make be a better white.

http://books.google.com/books?id=I9FiAAAAMAAJ&q=race-bending&dq=race-bending&lr=&ei=hwR8S5HzAYySNqCqhOcH&cd=17

• 1999 Disoriented: Asian Americans, Law, and the Nation-State

 By Robert S. Chang http://books.google.com/books?id=ZEsBvV---E0C&pg=PA124&dq=race-bending&lr=&ei=hwR8S5HzAYySNqCqhOcH&cd=19#v=onepage&q=race-bending&f=false

• The queer sixties  By Patricia Juliana Smith

Race bending antics of Dusty Springfield.

• Xcp: cross-cultural poetics, Issue 9  By College of St. Catherine

2001 - Investigates "race bending" in popular cultures, in forms like rock-n-roll and jazz and the impact it had on the civil rights movement.

• 1995 - A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men, and Popular Culture  By Paul Burston, Colin Richardson

• Fort Lee: the film town By Richard Koszarski

• 2002 - American skin: pop culture, big business, and the end of white America'Bold text'

 By Leon E. Wynter (My arguments about the moral and cultural illegitimacy of white identity, like my discussion of the race-bending impact of hip-hop on American commercial )

• 2007 Memories of the origins of ethnographic film, Volume 13  By Beate Engelbrecht

(The Kids put on plays and covered their affluent white skins with dark makeup. We may shudder at this colonial race-bending…)

Racists Beware: Uncovering Racial Politics in the Post Modern Society  By George J. Sefa Dei (Dei identifies and subjects to close scrutiny the new race-bending logics of what he calls "postmodern" societies in which the dwellers of the suburbs and members of the itinerant white professional middle class (the great beneficiaries of late capitalism and neoliberalization of the economy) now have become the new social plaintiff turning the complaint of racial inequality and discrimination on the heads of those most oppressed. ) --Nemogbr (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(cur) (prev) 17:25, 12 February 2010 Binksternet (talk | contribs) (24,082 bytes) (trim to absolute minimum, rename heading "Race-bending" with a hyphen.) (undo)

The above user has deleted most of the entry titled Racebending in the article covert racism. The section is now titled race-bending and from a couple of paragraphs it is now down to only one sentence.

Not exactly sure how you Admins go about things in wikipedia, but I do think that one sentence might be an insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Nemogbr (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the original research and synthesis you built out of tangential mentions in sources. It was in my mind to delete the whole section, but after looking at all the sources you cited, I found one that had meat in it; an author that talked about race-bending three times in her book, with a focus on change in schools. That is the bit I left behind because it was the only bit worthy of the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The data from George Sefa Dei (Racebending in society) and the journal from Litigation Essentials (Racebending of Obama) are not worthy of inclusion? Nemogbr (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted your Sefa Dei section because of its nonsensical writing style. The first sentence your wrote was this:

According to George J. Sefa Dei, who wrote in 2008, about identifying the new "race-bending" of what he calls "postmodern" societies in which the members, white professional middle class, now have become the new social plaintiff turning the complaint of racial inequality and discrimination on the heads of those most oppressed.

This sentence has no point—it doesn't go anywhere. If you had written effectively in English, I might have kept the section. Here's the rest of what you wrote:

Hollywood films, as entertainment media, have been accused of protraying various ethnic groups in a stereotypical way. Cases of blackface and yellowface were rife in the past. Blackface make up is now regarded as taboo, yet yellowface is still acceptable or the new phenomenon of racebending coming to the fore.

I deleted this because it appeared to stray from what Sefa Dei was saying. "Have been accused" is too general—who accused? When? The tacked on bit "the new phenomenon of racebending coming to the fore" is pure bullshit. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Galassi is inserting he was significant proponent of the Blood libel against Jews in Vladimir Purishkevich. Galassi supports this with two refs.

• http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/17_r/rez/reznik.html - Russian-language source that calls Purishkevish "leader of early Russian fascism" but says nothing about Purishkevich connection to blood libel. I guess, putting this fake reference, Galassi hoped that most readers of English Wikipedia will not understand what was really written in Russian-language text.
• http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/studies2.html - text by William Korey (lobbyist on international issues for B’nai B’rith). There are two sentences about Purishkevish in the text. "One of the Union's reactionary leaders, V. M. Purishkevich, was referred to by his Sovbiographer as a “fascist” who had set an authentic style for a movement that would blossom forth in Europe a decade later.", "While the Union's chairman was a physician, Dr. A. I. Dubrovin, and his two deputies were a nobleman-landowner (Purishkevich), and an engineer, the majority of the membership ranged from petty-bourgeois elements to unemployed workers, peasants, skilled proletarians, and professionals." Again, nothing is written about Purishkevich connection to blood libel.

Attention from uninvolved editors needed. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you cut and move this entire thread to Reliable Sources Noticeboard and simply ask if these sources can be used to support the content. They are specialists there and you likely will get a faster response. -- Banjeboi 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is not only reliability of sources, but if this sources suport this statement about blood libel in the article. DonaldDuck (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's still a matter for the RS noticeboard. The present noticeboard is relatively new and its function is not well-defined. You are going to find the experts for your kind of question at WP:RSN. Reliability of a source must always be evaluated w.r.t. the statement that is supported by it. E.g. even the least reliable book is usually a reliable source for its own ISBN. Therefore your question is very close to the purpose of that noticeboard.

Even better, since the question isn't so much a technical one about policies but more a matter of being able to read Russian, it might be best to ask for help at WT:RUSSIA. Hans Adler 02:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Slavic piracy contains unreal claims such as "three-hundred B.C up to the early 17th century" , "The earliest Slavic pirates on record, the Illyrians,", and others. The intro, and Slavic_piracy#Illyrian_Pirates is a paradox since the Illyrians were not Slavs. Then the article jumps from 168 BC to 800 AD.Megistias (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)