Misplaced Pages

• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

• Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Steeler Nation#Hillbilly and Appalachia references. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bdb484 (talk · contribs)
• blackngold29 (talk · contribs)
• GrapedApe (talk · contribs)
• Marketdiamond (talk · contribs)
• 76.189.108.102 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Main point is the derogatory nature of "white trash" and "hillbillies", and with this offensive material the relevance (necessary to understanding an NFL fanbase?), notability of the source (a free weekly located more than 1,000 miles from the region), and its many factual inaccuracies given the Federally defined region and league defined team territories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussion on the talk page, with links to wiki definitions of the terms.

How do you think we can help?

Allow the article to revert to its encyclopedic nature (sans the Phoenix New Times quotes and conclusions) by removing false, irrelevant (to a sports fanbase) and not notably sourced offensive material.

Opening comments by Bdb484

Hi, everyone.

If you've already read through the entire talk page arguments, forgive the following quick recap. I added material about four years ago to balance out the page, which until then had been a pretty crazy mess of uncited, pro-Steeler drivel, which is about normal for a lot of these types of pages. I made a quick run-through to add new material for balance -- including the paragraph in question now -- and remove uncited material that sounded sketchy.

This of course bothered a small number of editors, who had gotten the impression that anything negative about the team did not belong on the page, and who felt that the wording of my edits was over the top or otherwise posed POV problems. Objections included that the material was offensive, false, negative, and improperly sourced.

Given those complaints, we reviewed the relevant policies and collaborated on a series of drafts until all those questions were addressed. After a couple of days, we found consensus, and the material has largely been stable since then, with the exception of the occasional vandal.

This brings us to today. Over the last week, Marketdiamond has resurrected the previously settled questions. I believe they have all been thoroughly addressed, but I'm getting hammered being met with filibustery long posts on the talk page demanding that the material be taken down, because he feels that it is false (despite its being verified with an in-line citation to a reliable source) and offensive (despite Misplaced Pages not being censored). — Bdb484 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, blackngold29 hasn't edited in about a year, so it may not be productive to wait for him to chime in. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by blackngold29

As Bdb484 stated above I have not edited for a while, nor have I been involved in any of the previous discussion on these particular edits. I therefore will decline to comment. Thank you. --blackngold29 04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by GrapedApe

In my opinion, WP:V allows the obnoxious criticisms of the team's fans, as they are cited to a reliable source. The problem was in the WP:NPOV way it had been written, which was as if the criticisms were "truth," not "criticisms made by X." So, I fixed it with these edits which clarified who made the insults, and the the context of those comments. In my opinion, that's the way to go, and everyone can just chillax.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: chillaxing. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 76.189.108.102

OK, here's my trimmed-down version. ;)

I didn't find this dispute until after I made edits to the article, so I thought I should add my name here. I am not a fan or foe of the Steelers, but I had some immediate concerns when I read the contentious content.

Examiner.com cannot be used as a source per WP:PUS, which says its "content is by amateur writers and lacks editorial oversight." I removed the Examiner cites.

Although content can't be censored, it does need to be worthy of inclusion and meet other basic guidelines - reliably sourced, written accurately, in context, etc. A lot of this contentious conent failed on one or more of these.

WP:SYN and WP:NPOV were violated by (inaccurately) combining two lines from different sources, falsely implying that visiting fans frequently complain about Steelers fans. USA Today doesn't even mention the Steelers. SI.com cite doesn't support claims made in article; pure POV. The 1994 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article has no link, so no way to verify it supports the content.

Most of the very derogatory language comes from the Phoenix New Times (PNT) story. The entire PNT article is undisputably from a rival source - based in the city of the Steelers Super Bowl opponent - and published just prior to the game. It's obviously a one-sided hit piece intended to entertain and incite Phoenix fans. Legitimate criticism in an article is of course fine, but the PNT story is purely tabloid journalism.

Before I knew about this dispute, I rewrote the content a bit. I left in the PNT content but put it into context. Afterwards, I realized that it should just be removed because it fails reliability guidelines on multiple levels. By the way, an editor described all the PNT derogatory content as a "warning" to fans, which is total POV.

Overall, the editors who inserted or support this contentious content seem to want to give the impression that Steeler Nation is widely disliked across the country. But the sourced material simply doesn't support it. It's a deep reach that's anchored by very weak sourcing, especially the PNT article which majorly fails the reliability test.

I read that the editor who originally added the contentious content did so because they said the article had no criticisms of Steeler Nation, and so they figured they should find some to "balance" the article. The PNT article is what was found and used to feature the criticism. Anyone can easily finding trash-talking sources for any professional sports team. But the issue is about the reliability and credibility of the sources.

Every team has rivals. Therefore, every team's fans obviously have other fans who don't like them. If there's going to be content that's negative about Steeler Nation, that's fine if it's encylopedic, reliably sourced and accurately presented in the article. All POV, original content, interpretations, and out-of-context language need to be left out. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The opening comment has 4603 characters. Can you trim it to 2000 characters? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I reduced my original comments with the trimmed-down version above. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Steeler Nation#Criticism discussion

I'm not very familiar with american sports affairs, so may I ask, whether the information in the section is factually wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a disagreement on this question among the involved editors. Of course, WP:V tells us that the question is not whether this is right or wrong, but whether it is backed up with a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:V tells us that the question about reliable sources only rises about the content that is appropriate. If this information is factually wrong, it doesn't belong to the article regardless of sources reporting it (unless there is enough misstatements to report the amount of misstatements, not the misstatements themselves). If it is accurate, it should stay. That is: unless the sources are spreading lies (which doesn't seem the case), there is no reason to remove the section (see WP:WELLKNOWN, which doesn't apply directly, but contains a rule for the closely related cases). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of WP:V, though I could definitely be wrong myself.

But more importantly, I do agree that there's no reason (not yet, at least) to remove the section. My argument has been that if the reliably sourced material is inaccurate, then we should at least wait until there's a reliable source saying so to justify removing the content. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the policy was recently heavily damaged for the sake of clarity, so now it is not clear at all. The relation of verifiability and truth is still covered in explanatory essay Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth § "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". So if something is known to be untrue, verifiability doesn't help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, appreciate the discussion on this. The bottom line for me is that the use of the derogatory, offensive and slurs w.t. and h.b. is not necessary to understanding a National Football League fanbase, is very bad encyclopedic policy to insert the Phoenix New Times racial stereotypes to something as broad as an NFL fanbase and because of those things is a clear and bright violation of WP:GFFENSE. Czarkoff, I am currently working on a very simplified map of the actual "factually wrong" items in the PNT article, to be as fair as I can the wiki article has been edited down since this request to delink the Appalachia = fanbase, w.t. & h.b. The factually wrong items of PNT is that it seems to draw weak conclusions based on a few irrelevant and separate "facts" mixing and matching stadium locations with "fanbases" (league defined territory and I'm assuming broadcast stations) along with the mixing and matching that Appalachia (which it is true Pittsburgh is in) completely equals the w.t. definition of among other things poor whites, names house slaves used to refer to whites (aside from the fact that Pennsylvania was a non-slave state since independence) and the h.b. phrase which is typically southern (Alabama) and even Ozarks (an area completely outside Appalachia). The w.t. and h.b. definitions are available on their wiki pages of which Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic Region, North (region) and Pittsburgh are never mentioned, the NFL territories and league defined "fanbases" I can also submit to this discussion. To the very limited extent the PNT article is factually accurate it seems to be similar to a Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, a few accurate but irrelevant statements cobbled together to incite and provoke (in the PNT's purpose a biased fanbase 2,000 miles away). The PNTs use of WP:GFFENSE and insertion of race and other biases only further substantiates that they are low on generally accepted facts. Thanks for the consideration. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but all of this seems quite unconvincing. First of all, neither whitetrash, nor hillbilly seem to qualify for WP:OFFENSIVE, which is specifically less relevant, given that the terms are sourced. Next, the question of precise geographical distribution is not explicitly connected to the description of the subject's members, so the accurateness of geographical definition of "fanbases" does not contribute to the verifiability of criticism.

Now, as I contributed to this discussion as much as my awareness of US matters allows, I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, just for clarity WP:OFFENSIVE I always thought applied to all content including sourced quotes (especially those inserting racial/regional biases/slurs) into articles that have no relation to that race. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion is non-sensical. The Phoenix New Times content was obviously just a comical piece from a local Phoenix freebie that was solely intended to taunt its team's Super Bowl opponent (the Steelers) and rev up their own fans. Therefore, it's not even close to being a realiable source. Just because something was published somewhere doesn't mean it's automatically worthy of being included in an article. The content should be removed and stay removed. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Though I retired from this case, I think I should reply:

@Marketdiamond: though it might seem obvious, that WP:OFFENSIVE should equally apply to quotes and other statements (quotes don't differ much from illustrations in this regard). Still, there is strong long-standing consensus that being offensive is not enough to be excluded, and in this particular case the article clearly attributes the alleged offensive language to the particular source without presenting these words as the generally accepted properties of the subject. That said, I'm not convinced that these words are exactly what was meant in WP:OFFENSIVE, specifically that they are enough offensive to qualify for exclusion.

@IP: Obviously? I see nothing obvious about that, and particularly I see a published article in a source with editorial review. In fact, I don't even see any reason to believe that the author belong to another fan organization or is otherwise non-neutral towards the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the content is offensive is not the issue; it's only about whether it is worthy of inclusion. And of course it's offensive. The newspaper calls the Steelers the "grubbiest, loudest, and nastiest fan base in all of sports", "White Trash America's team" and "hillbillies". If you don't see the obvious intent of the piece and the fact that the writer is a huge fan of the local team writing for the local freebie newspaper that is also a huge fan of the team, then you clearly should not be involved in this discussion. You seem not to understand that simply because something is published, whether the source is reliable or not, does not automatically make it noteworthy. The only issue here is solely about whether the content is worthy of inclusion. The answer by any unbiased standard is clearly no. This whole matter started when an anti-Steelers fan saw no criticism of the subject, felt it was necessary, and admittedly set out to find content, no matter what its source, that would trash the Steelers. Well, he found it. Right in the heart of Phoenix. This entire thread is laughable.--76.189.97.91 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's all restrain from advancing points until a new volunteer is assigned. Also 76.189.97.91 Wwelcome to Misplaced Pages! For the sake of clarity and focus please register with a username. Marketdiamond (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Marketdiamond, I am on your side in this discussion. Regarding your "clarity and focus" comment, I suggest you read WP:HUMAN and WP:URIP2. As it explains, "You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so." ;) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, not my intent, was due to wiki technical probs and me not 2x. A status not based on reality I struck. I have held ?s on non-76.189.97.91 points but await topic reopening. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very nice response. :) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take on the case. Can you show the specific text and the specific sources and them to the box below. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the seeming Q.E.D. Appalachia=h.b.=w.t.=Steeler fans source material and the authors (I contend false as he says "anecdotal evidence") justification:
• Thou a fallacy to have to prove a negative (that Pitt. is not the only team with or even the "team" for h.b and w.t.) Here is arguably anecdotal evidence of 11 other League defined team territories (fanbases) also existing in Appalachia: under "secondary markets" and and , and radio , and book explanation of the concept and the base maps explaining the "market" regions and Appalachia .
• Another article where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here.
• Excerpts of h.b. and w.t. wiki articles on article talk as a "slur"/ "derogatory" both exposing the citation as being not reliable (so short of real factual conclusions that it resorts to racial slurs to make a point) and the absurdity of injecting racial identity/ethic slurs into sports fans article. Aside from the repeated "southern" and "slavery" origins/definitions of the terms.
• Marketdiamond (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you didn't add the specific text and specific source cited which is under dispute. There was a lot of text removed and restored.

Steelers fans have also been singled out by newspapers in rival cities for inappropriate behavior during games – a frequent complaint from visiting fans in the NFL.

References Giro, Tony (2009-01-15). "Why do we hate Steelers fans? Let me count the reasons". The Baltimore Examiner. Balitmore, Md. Retrieved 2009-01-31. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)Forrester, Paul (2007-11-07). "NFL Fan Value Experience: Pittsburgh Steelers". SI.com. Retrieved 2009-02-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help) Cook, Ron (1994-12-18). "O'Donnell can't control critics or crazy bounces". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. p. D1. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)

McCarthy, Michael (2008-08-06). "NFL unveils new code of conduct for its fans". USA Today. McLean, Virginia. Retrieved 2009-02-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)

Is this the specific text under dispute in the lead? Is it the entire criticism section as well? i.e if you mention a source, also include the text, and state why it is either undue, original research, or unreliably referenced. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, the 1st bullet point I wrote has the text "h.b." (hillbilly) and "w.t" ("whitetrash America's team") along with the PNT link (Cizmar, Martin citation #30) it is multiple pages but the only relevant page is what link directs to. Sorry if I provided an overload, beyond the simple judgment if "w.t" and "h.b." are offensive/irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on sports fans the other 2 bullet points deal with refuting the fact/conclusions Cizmar reaches and then the source reliability. Appreciate your time and effort on this so I purposely arranged the bullet points to refute fact/conclusion then notability in a way that someone possibly unfamiliar with NFL fan areas, territories, TV networks that abide by them and the definition of Appalachia (and thus PNT's Cizmar h.b. and w.t.) could better understand. Also several posts prior an opposing editor stated something about the "section" to be clear my only deletion would be the h.b. and w.t. references or possibly all PNT Cizmar quotes, the Criticism section to me would stay put. Interested in hearing from others on this, and thanks again. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just uploaded this to summarize all the links (and refutations to Cizmar) in the 2nd bullet point above. The map should be self explanatory though studying it for awhile will be necessary. You asked about "text" IRWolfie, the link to the PNT article page should suffice but be clear if you want me to quote Cizmar's paragraphs here. There is some wild Q.E.D. that Appalachia=w.t.=h.b.=Steeler Nation in it and then the Myron Cope yiddish phrases is somehow w.t. or h.b.? I can get real deep into everything I have against that page of the article line by line but I feel like readers will earn a degree in Pittsburgh studies if I do. Suffice to say (and it should be very obvious even to those unfamiliar with the region or football) that Cizmar uses tons of very weak and anecdotal connections to conclude the w.t. nation and h.b., similar to a Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, several unconnected irrelevant truths mashed up together to = a big false, or as Cizmar might say: to somehow say that Pittsburgh is "whitetrash nation" and that everyone will die from water today. Reliability is also questioned with bullet point 3 "Another article where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here", and as mentioned earlier by several editors its a free alternative weekly that supports itself on "sin ads". Let me know if any further clarity is requested and please click the map link with the knowledge that radio and TV are multi million $ setups so if there is no fan demand or tons of it, that map reflects it. Marketdiamond (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Marketdiamond, but for brevity's sake, I'll try to present what I believe is his argument: that the Phoenix New Times is not a reliable source, and that any material sourced to it (specifically statements about Appalachia, "white trash" and "hillbillies") should be removed.

Arguments proffered thus far against categorizing the PNT as a reliable source fall into a few categories:

1: PNT is free: This argument would disqualify nytimes.com and virtually all of the Internet.

2: PNT is an alt-weekly: This argument means nothing, and would disqualify Pulitzer winners like the Willamette Week (where the author of this article is currently employed, incidentally).

3: PNT is geographically separated from the subject it is writing about: Again, this argument would disqualify so many sources from writing about so many things it would be absolutely unworkable. We might as well nominate the Moon for WP:CSD.

4: PNT runs ads for escort services: Marketdiamond says he wouldn't hold himself to high journalistic standards if he worked for the PNT, so can we really trust it?

5: The author doesn't root for the Steelers: Be serious. Cizmar is an award-winning journalist who's worked for multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning papers. I suspect he can be trusted to write accurately.

6: PNT is wrong and I have original research to prove it: Marketdiamond is seeking to remove unflattering characterizations about Pittsburgh because they aren't supported by a map he drew to disprove them. This is classic WP:OR and POV-pushing.

Obviously, none of these arguments actually have anything to do with actual Misplaced Pages standards for evaluating reliable sources. I suspect that Marketdiamond may already be aware of this, and that this is why his arguments are invariably couched in sprawling lectures about the minutia of Appalachian geography, NFL market boundaries and anything else that will keep us from simply applying WP:V. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the content we're discussing can be found in the page's last stable version, here. Jump to "Criticism," then to the third sentence of the first paragraph. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's almost unbelievable how much time has been wasted here on issues that aren't even relevant. It's useless to debate whether the source is reliable or if the content is true. Regarding truth, some editors really need to understand that it's about verifiability, not truth; they need to educate themselves on WP:VNT. Other editors need to understand that even if content is reliably sourced, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in an article. They need to educate themselves on WP:WEIGHT, which says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Only one determination needs to be made here: Is the content worthy of inclusion? Period. So, are all the indisputably biased and derogatory descriptions used by a newspaper writer in the hometown of the Steelers' Super Bowl opponent worthy of inclusion? Answer that question and close this discussion. IMO, the content under debate here is clearly not worthy of inclusion, which renders all the other issues in this discussion moot. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT: I've restrained to only answer volunteers requests but I am--like you--am coming to realize this really is just that simple, great appreciation for the focused statement! Marketdiamond (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Note, the weight of this source should be assessed against the other sources about critical reception of SN, not just about anything related to SN. Otherwise nearly everything on this page is undue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Drafts

Obviously, the article needs to mention critical reception of the subject to address the balance issue. As long as this discussion became stale, I ask parties to propose drafts of the "criticism" section for the article. Probably this will help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts D. Czarkoff, given this is the 13th day of discussion about two RACIST terms of 1 misguided reporter, I (we) never had an opportunity to further discuss your several points since you stated: I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) let us know if you wish to renew those discussions on how two terms aren't WP:GFFENSE. And blackngold29 said: "I therefore will decline to comment. Thank you." --blackngold29 04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)", so why will we in your words "became stale" providing a slot for comment?

Is there actual confusion about the Cizmar citation, where we are having a Day 1 Hour 1 question on the 13th day? Perhaps working out any remaining differences on the exact level of w.t. and h.b.'s WP:GFFENSE in a sports article may be more beneficial at this matured stage. I respectfully state this as we are now quoting this discussions comments from weeks ago, or do none of those comments mean anything? Marketdiamond (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you might notice, all the other volunteers vanished from this discussion, so this dispute may either be closed or addressed another way. I preferred the second.

As I said above, I don't see connection between "whitetrash" and "hillbilly" words and WP:GFFENSE (Racist terms? Why?).

Regarding consensus: here on Misplaced Pages consensus is judged on arguments, not on head count. To date arguments-wise the position against this source is too weak to stand any critics – you failed to advance it significantly beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you quote "head count" anywhere on this discussion page or the talk page of the article? You can't.

Can you quote anything that states that IRWolfie- "vanished"? You can't.

What you can quote (besides you stepping down then coming up with a Day 1 question after another volunteer opened it is the arguments you are so thirsty for were:

• "Here is the seeming Q.E.D. Appalachia=h.b.=w.t.=Steeler fans source material and the authors (I contend false as he says "anecdotal evidence") justification:
• Thou a fallacy to have to prove a negative (that Pitt. is not the only team with or even the "team" for h.b and w.t.) Here is arguably anecdotal evidence of 11 other League defined team territories (fanbases) also existing in Appalachia: under "secondary markets" and and , and radio , and book explanation of the concept and the base maps explaining the "market" regions and Appalachia .
• Another article where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here.
• Excerpts of h.b. and w.t. wiki articles on article talk as a "slur"/ "derogatory" both exposing the citation as being not reliable (so short of real factual conclusions that it resorts to racial slurs to make a point) and the absurdity of injecting racial identity/ethic slurs into sports fans article. Aside from the repeated "southern" and "slavery" origins/definitions of the terms."
• Marketdiamond (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)" all left 4 days ago

Its troubling that there seems to be vast knowledge all about this request by volunteers elsewhere but not on here after evidence and facts and sources and links and opinions were delivered to you all days ago yet those posts are somehow not being read? It seems not even a reading of Whitetrash was conducted by at least you.Marketdiamond (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So there is no further confusion which seems the only thing that has been fostered by volunteers thus far (I say that regretfully and after days and days of patiently answering requests and waiting and advising other editors the same). Just please mark what I deferred at the time out of respect for volunteers and the quest not to have things confused: the moment where incivility wasn't only felt "cope" but prompted all kinds of chaos and misunderstandings (and even apologies from non-deleting parties), all from a party that self-admittedly was not involved, the potential spiraling from that moment is what I have attempted to redirect into a resolution. Clarity and empathy is the least one can demand on this NB from neutral parties.Marketdiamond (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this is the kind of jeremiad I've been contending with from the beginning. Maybe I'm just frustrated, but I don't know what I'm expected to do to move this toward consensus. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Bdb484, I empathize with your frustration but using jeremiad to describe my AGF contributions takes us further from consensus. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Bdb484

As there have been no developments since consensus was reached three years ago, I would recommend restoring the version that editors agreed to then. This would require including unflattering depictions of Steelers fans, but that's how reliable sources have depicted them. Leaving this out seems like an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE.

Like other large and vocal fan bases, Steeler Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams. They have occasionally been described in unflattering terms by sports journalists in other cities.For example, prior to Super Bowl XLIII, the Phoenix New Times warned readers that Steelers fans were the "grubbiest, loudest, and nastiest fan base in all of sports – as well as one of the largest" and that as the only NFL fanbase in Appalachia, they were "white trash" and "hillbillies." Steelers fans have also been singled out by newspapers in rival cities for inappropriate behavior during games – a common problem in the NFL.

Anti–Steeler Nation sentiment has grown strong enough that in some cases, front offices for other teams have taken steps to keep Pittsburgh fans out of games in their cities. Instead of being permitted to buy tickets to a Chargers-Steelers game in San Diego, for instance, they were required to pay for tickets to two other games, as well. In other cases, teams refused to sell tickets to fans calling from Pittsburgh's 412 area code, and they encouraged fans who were selling their own tickets to do the same. Steelers President Art Rooney II complained to the NFL about the situation, but his grievance was not well received.

1. ^ Giro, Tony (2009-01-15). "Why do we hate Steelers fans? Let me count the reasons". The Baltimore Examiner. Balitmore, Md. Retrieved 2009-01-31. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
2. Cizmar, Martin (2009-07-27). "Arizona Cardinals Fans, You'd Better Get Ferocious or Steeler Nation Will Eat You Alive". Phoenix New Times. Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved 2009-02-04. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
3. Forrester, Paul (2007-11-07). "NFL Fan Value Experience: Pittsburgh Steelers". SI.com. Retrieved 2009-02-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
4. Cook, Ron (1994-12-18). "O'Donnell can't control critics or crazy bounces". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. p. D1. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
5. McCarthy, Michael (2008-08-06). "NFL unveils new code of conduct for its fans". USA Today. McLean, Virginia. Retrieved 2009-02-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
6. ^ Bendel, Joe (2006-04-07). "Rooney: Opposing teams discriminate Steelers fans". Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
7. Bendel, Joe (2005-10-06). "Steelers are hot ticket in town". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. p. D3. Retrieved 2009-02-19. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)

Draft by blackngold29

Draft by GrapedApe

Draft by Marketdiamond

7th time (on the 13th day) I have repeatedly mentioned only the (all for consensus but these positions should be clear by now):

"Cizmar, Martin (2009-07-27). "Arizona Cardinals Fans, You'd Better Get Ferocious or Steeler Nation Will Eat You Alive". Phoenix New Times (Phoenix, Arizona). Retrieved 2009-02-04." aka "w.t. and h.b." for complete deletion.

Please see another view HERE on author and publication

WP:COMMONSENSE time after 13 days of providing several facts against 1 persons (Cizmar) RACISTWP:GFFENSE. --Marketdiamond (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft by 76.189.108.102

What is with all these Draft sections you posted, Marketdiamond that someone posted??? We were right on the verge of ending this whole matter. All we needed was one question answered and we would've been done. Why did you someone clutter up the whole discussion by doing this? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not I, best I can figure out Dmitrij D. Czarkoff did, but he stepped down or didn't or . . . Marketdiamond (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Completely agree.

Sorry, you're right. It was Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Two weeks of mostly irrelevant discussion. And now this, which will of course only perpetuate all the chaos. And Dmitrij removed himself five days ago: "Now, as I contributed to this discussion as much as my awareness of US matters allows, I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)" It's a huge disruption to a 13-day discussion, so I removed it. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to do that. And edit-warring on a noticeboard? Are you… touched? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone is disruptively editing they most certainly can be reverted. Kerfuffler, are you a sockpuppet? Your account was started just days ago and yet you seem to know an awful lot about editing. And per your talk page, I'm apparently not the only editor wondering about this; there are at least three others who are very suspicious of you. The third one said, "Came to this user talk page from an ANI discussion that he took part in - reviewing his earliest edits, I am also deeply suspicious and feel this one should be thoroughly investigated". Are you using mulitiple accounts to edit? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The only evidence of disruptive editing on this noticeboard is from you. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, you didn't answer the question. And you just showed up in this discussion without any prior participation. Are you a sockpuppet? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we are patiently waiting for volunteer(s?) to assess some of these points after one stated our comments are going "stale", and all about slurs in a "source". Perhaps your expertise Kerfuffler can be used to further the resolution. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Market, I don't want his involvement because he won't even answer if he's using mulitiple accounts at the same time to edit. He just showed up here after two weeks, minutes after I removed the disruptive content. As several other editors have clearly told him, it's very suspicious. See his talk page --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not plugged into NFL stuff enough to really make sense of what's going on here, but it smells like the main players here all have a vested personal interest in this. Also, it's particularly hard to sort out with all the yelling. The only thing I can say is that the quote does seem a bit over the top—I don't think WP should be harboring extremist tripe. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is now the second time that Kerfuffler has refused to answer if he/she is using multiple accounts to edit. He/she also refused to answer all the other editors who stated their strong suspicions. Therefore, his/her participation here would have no credibility at this point. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@76.189.97.59, already did but its moot I agree that after 14 days we deserve tons more clarity and mature discussion (1 dedicated volunteer).

@Kerfuffler, appreciate your thoughts. I don't feel the problem with this topic is editors not trying to do whats right after having to suffer through 14 days of repeat requests all while living with slurs on a Wiki article, after awhile of chaos WP:COMMONSENSE is sorely needed by those we brought this issue to.
Marketdiamond (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Already did" what?? Kerfuffler has yet to answer a simple question: Are you using multiple accounts to edit? He/she may very well be another editor in this discussion, using a different account. If he's a new editor, as the Kerfuffler account indicates, then he clearly does not have the experience to moderate this discussion. And if he's a sockpuppet, then the account should be permanently blocked from editing. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You requested: See his talk page --76.189.97.59 (talk), just letting you know already did but since it is just more of this sentiment its moot. If this can co-exist I do appreciate Kerfuffler's statement on the merits (interruption is more chaos thou) and seeing that apparently the volunteers are letting this be a talk page again I agree with your actions 76.189.97.59 all things considered. Does it really take 14 days to resolve "cited" racial slurs on a Misplaced Pages "fanbase" article . . . seriously. 12 days to ask for the citation again?? Really?Marketdiamond (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for. This board is not for making decisions; it's for getting more input from uninvolved people in order to improve consensus. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  00:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't have an issue with slurs per se, if they're properly sourced and relevant. But in this case, the original article is clearly polemic, and the way it's quoted makes it even more polemic. It seems inappropriate. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Market, of course you appreciate his comments; because they agree with ours. Haha. And who cares if the source is polemic (as if most editors will even know what that means without looking it up)? It's completely irrelevant. All that matters is if the content is worthy of inclusion. Here we go again... back in senseless circles. And from someone who won't even answer all the editors who have asked him if he's a sockpuppet. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Crimean Karaites (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kaz (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• Nozdref (talk · contribs)
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I myself have tried to re-factor talk pages to improve flow. Perhaps my own re-factoring was naive, but at least I never deleted another person's comments. I would like to let those involved in and approving the re-factoring of the Talk Crimean Karaims talk page to understand that it is subjugative to delete or move my comments without my approval, and that it is deceptive to refactor my comments as Toddy1 did then tries to make it look like I am the one who is moving other peoples comments without approval when I undo such edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I was concerned that this was vandalism so I asked for help here, but it seems Toddy1 has the support to do whatever he likes to my comments and I have no way to complain about it. I took this to the Wiki Admin Noticeboard but was told that it is not vandalism but simply re-factoring and basically it seems I was told to stop complaining. It does not seem right that I have no recourse to stop this.

How do you think we can help?

If really Toddy1 is entitled to do what he is doing to my comments while I have obeyed instruction not to do it again I want to know why. I also think a policy needs to be written concerning not letting someone accuse a user like me of doing something which in fact has been fabricated by the other users. It stacks the deck and makes Misplaced Pages look like a place where if you are not in a guild you are on your own and will be bullied out of it. Policy needs to be written to stop this.

Opening comments by Toddy1

Opening comments by Nozdref

Opening comments by Beeblebrox

Opening comments by Dennis Brown

• I've only been involved in this article in an administrative capacity, not as an editor. I'm not sure there is much I can offer to assist as I am ignorant of the subject matter and my actions have thus far been restricted to assisting others discuss the issues in a constructive manner, dealing with some incivility and a technical move per request of an editor, with no endorsement of content or views. As to the content itself, I would defer to the mediator(s) here to determine the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best for the filing editor to remove mention of the administrator from this filing and "involved parties" at the risk of having the DR closed as malformed. We cannot begin this case while the filing includes uninvolved administrators as this is innappropriate and sets a very bad precedence. Since Dennis has commented the filing editor can simply strike out the name above where listed with parties involved with the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that I have actually read the complaint, I would suggest closing as improper venue, as this isn't about a content dispute at all, but about behavior. Since this has already been to ANI, this amounts to forum shopping, and likely a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Of course, that is only my opinion and I trust the judgement of those who regularly work this venue, as I assume they trust the previous outcome at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • While Amadscientist's response to the first comment by Dennis is appropriate, and the first comment by Dennis made it look like he was stepping away from involvement in the dispute, the next comment by Dennis (comparing me with the Boy who cried wolf) shows that he is indeed interested in simply shutting me up or removing my voice. While there is an 8 year long dispute on Talk Crimean Karaites, that alone is not what brought me here. It was the fact that voices like mine are continually subjugated. I do feel that I am failing to communicate my concerns correctly which is why I have brought it here to find someone who will help me understand the hostility from others and help them understand why this hostility is unjust. Dennis for example wrote to me that he thinks I am just a troll, which is really not fair at all. Kaz 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Crimean Karaites discussion

I say this will all respect to all the editors involved in the page, but stop refactoring each other's talk page statements. The recent history of the page is a disaster. I'd like to see the page's sections (From the "Ad-Hominem Talk" onward) fixed so the Table of Contents jumps to the right section. I'm going to recomend that the talk page be restored to some sort of working order before we move forward with this. Also, has there been consideration of starting Archiving on the page? Do we really need threads from 2004? HasteurMobile (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear HasteurMobile, If I am not mistaken, the unilateral re-factoring issue began with this edit . I myself have not re-factored any other user's talk comments without seeking permission since which in fact is a move Toddy1 himself has also requested but since the initial move of these comments upset User:Nozdref, I am waiting for the permission of User:Imeriki al-Shimoni to mine and Toddy1's request before we move the "Dispute history" section to just before the "Redirect page" section. If User:Imeriki al-Shimoni accepts the request, then the entire 8 year long dispute on the correct topic of the article will be more or less in one place without interruption. Then an appropriately skilled Admin can to look into the very complex move request, which Dennis Brown says is too complicated for him to perform.

After that, it seems to me that archiving is the natural step forward. Kaz 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think the reason the links at the bottom of the talk page does not work has something to do with the "collapse" function inserted by User:Toddy1 with whose permission it can be reverted. for the time being, I myself have been scarred out of making WP:BOLD edits without first seeking permission, so Toddy1, can we remove your collapse function please?Kaz 09:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Yitzhak Kaduri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Cpsoper (talk · contribs)
• Botsystem (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A rabbi wrote a note to be opened after his death. The note suggested, by acronym, the name "Yehoshua", and there are acceptable WP:RSs for this. One editor Botsystem (talk · contribs) has been adding a sentence like "This is also the Hebrew name of Jesus whom followers of Christianity and Messianic Judaism believe to be the Jewish Messiah." without a source. Myself and one other editor Cpsoper (talk · contribs) agree this edit fails WP:V (unsourced) and, even if it were well-sourced, WP:SYNTH. We have tried to engage Botsystem in discussion on this but so far he has not engaged at all. Discussion open here, invitations to discuss at User_talk:Botsystem, but no engagement as of yet. I am concerned because Botsystem has not yet edited the Talk page of this article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

open discussion on article talk page, invitations to talk in edit summaries and at User Talk:Botsystem (please see edit history, he has removed the invitations)

How do you think we can help?

Get Botsystem to address the Misplaced Pages policy-based concerns regarding the edit.

Opening comments by Cpsoper

Opening comments by Botsystem

Yitzhak Kaduri discussion

Hello, I am Amadscientist. I am a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before we begin we await the opening statements of all parties involved. Before that happens I am requesting the filing editor, go over their opening remarks and remove all mention of outside parties not associated with the DR/N or add them to the "Users involved" section. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Zad68 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remove all mention of the Administrator and their advice to come to DR/N. This information is irrelevent to the discussion and is not appropriate as it gives the impression of involvement with the case that does not appear to be accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, think I got it now. Zad68 19:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We can begin once all parties have made opening statements.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually a question about that... the issue we've been having is that Botsystem doesn't engage in discussion. What happens if he simply ignores this DRN case? Zad68 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

All parties must be involved in order to begin. If one editor refuses to join, then another route will need to be used, such as Request for Comment or just continue to discuss on talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to add to my last reply. In this particular case I would be inclined to suggest AN/I as the next logical course of action. Having the entire article locked down over edit warring is not a good sign that this will be resolved through DR as it does appear one user is refusing to collaborate in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. (Normally I would suggest a third opinion as the dispute is between only two editors however, it does not appear that would be a succesful route)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, with the way things have been going, ANI does seem to be in the near future. I did narrow my eyes a bit at the suggestion of "just continue to discuss on talk page". Zad68 20:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I should be clear about one thing, the talkpage IS ALWAYS a good place to attempt to reach out to editors but one cannot force cooperation. When faced with an editor who refuses to engage in a civil discussion it sometimes becomes clear that disruption may be the main goal and the main outcome. There can be only so many attempts to assume good faith before we seek administrative action, but from all I am reading, this may indeed be the only route to take in order to keep information flowing freely. A locked page on Misplaced Pages is not a good thing to have.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody came here to comment, and the editors are not very active on Misplaced Pages currently anyway. As soon as this dispute has a pretty straightforward policy based solution – remove the statement and re-introduce it once it can be reliably verified without improper synthesis – I close this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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