Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:51, 4 January 2012

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ugg boots - is "It's a generic term" the mainstream view?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

1. Is Factchk a bona fide participant, ie should he/she be allowed to vote on the following.

1.  Not to be handled, if you have an issue with an editor, WP:RFCU or WP:ANI are your venues, all below !votes were counted.

2. Mentions of UGG brand and associated trademark disputes *on the ugg boots page* should be limited to a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail on some other page.

   The main consensus was in support of this idea.

3. The opinions of J.Lo and anyone else on the subject of UGG brand boots belong elsewhere than on the ugg boots page.

   The main consensus was in support of this idea.

4. Mentions of Australian boot manufacturers are just as pertinent to the ugg boots page as the American brand.

   No consensus.

5. The UGG Australia page should have a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail elsewhere, of the existence of an ugg boot style.

   The main consensus was in support of this idea.

I have to admit I really am just closing the last section of this RfC as RfCs should progress to move on as the discussion does. If there is a discussion on another page that is in reversal of this consensus, let the latter dated comments stand as opposed to the earlier. I would note that the numbers more came from a raw pulling of numbers because it looked like most were in support of the ideas. I did read through the discussion, but found quite a bit of discussion about the editor, instead of the content...i'm a little disappointed. Most should know that there are other venues for that. So now that there has been an official consensus declared (not that i'm about to close some other RfCs on similiar subjects), lets move on. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are involved in contributing to this article and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement and nationality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is about the Ugg boots article. The hatnote states that it's about the boot style, and the hatnote does not limit the discussion to the countries of origin, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore this is about the boot style in the entire world. The article has naturally attracted a severely disproportionate group of editors from Australia and New Zealand, with only a few editors from other countries. The WP:CSB project is designed to counter the kind of systemic bias that arises when one demographic group is dominant.

Ugg boots are a fashion phenomenon, with worldwide sales growing 5000% in the past 16 years. Deckers Outdoor Corporation is almost entirely responsible for this growth, and has trademarked the word "ugg" (or terms like it) in 145 countries, including all of the 29 most heavily populated countries, as the brand name for its line of sheepskin boots. Opinion polling has been introduced as evidence in the courts of several countries, that proves an overwhelming majority of the people in these countries perceive "UGG" as a brand name; Deckers has also introduced declarations from professionals in the footwear industry who stated that "UGG" is widely recognized in the industry as a brand name, not a generic term. (Walter, John F., February 25, 2003, UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al, United States District Court.)

The term "Ugg" originated in the slang of two tiny countries, Australia and New Zealand, and is in common usage there to describe a boot style. There are also 110 other countries in the world where Deckers did not trademark the term, but they are not part of Australian or New Zealand culture. So what we have here are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated ones) saying "It's a brand name," two tiny countries saying "It's a boot style," and 110 countries undecided. WP:WEIGHT, a section of WP:NPOV, clearly defines "It's a brand name" as the mainstream view, and "It's a boot style" as the minority opinion. Deckers UGG brand dominates the worldwide market for this style of boots. Australian companies only retain a significant share of the market in Australia.

A group of editors from Australia and New Zealand are attempting to treat "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view in the Ugg boots article. They are planning to change the current version of the article, which is fairly well-balanced and close to compliance with WP:WEIGHT, to a version that more closely resembles this one: The entire "Concerns about quality" section will be removed. Four key words, "a protected trademark or," will be removed from the article lede. In addition to the changes shown, the Australian editors also want to remove the product counterfeiting cases won by Deckers worldwide. Essentially, they want to remove all the cases that Deckers won, and keep in the article all the cases that Deckers lost.

Aussie editors have repeatedly claimed that the word "ugg" has been removed from the Australian trademark registry, without any basis in fact: The fact of the matter is that only the trademark "UGH-BOOTS" was removed from the registry, and it was for non-use. The Australian government's intellectual properties office, IP Australia, released a fact sheet stating explicitly that IP Australia could not and would not declare "uggs" to be a generic term, and that only the courts had the authority to do so. So far, no court has ruled on the matter.

The fact sheet is posted on the Deckers corporate website. Deckers could be subjected to severe civil penalties, and its corporate officers extradited to Australia and prosecuted in criminal court, if they altered or forged this official government document. This PDF scan should be treated as a reliable source. Much of the content of the IP Australia fact sheet has been mirrored by other reliable sources. The IP Australia fact sheet was once posted on the official government agency website, but it was removed.

The "Concerns about quality" section is an expansion and correction of a single sentence that has existed in the article for several months. None of the Australian editors had any problem with it when the single sentence stated that quality testing showed an Australian company making the best ugg boots. But when the quality testing results were more accurately described as a pair of Australian "fake uggs" being the most difficult to tear apart, followed by Deckers Ugg boots as the toughest brand made of genuine sheepskin, and all the other Australian brands "fared poorly for quality," suddenly the Australian editors wanted to delete the new section, "Concerns about quality."

This encapsulates the approach of the Australian editors to this article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a brand name, or if it makes Deckers look good, they want it out of the article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a generic term, or if it makes Deckers look bad, they want it in the article and they want to expand upon it. The history of this article, aside from the usual vandalism that a fairly high profile subject attracts, has been low scale edit warring between a large group of Australian editors who believe "It's a generic term" should be presented as the mainstream view, and a small number of other editors who realize that "It's a brand name" should be and is the worldwide mainstream view.

The article's talk page and its archives are loaded with enormous efforts to resolve this dispute, covering a span of over one year. At the start of your response, please indicate whether "It's a generic term" should be treated as the mainstream view or the minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Also indicate whether the current version of the article should be retained, or reverted to the earlier version preferred by Australian editors that does not contain the "Concerns about quality" section, and removes all the counterfeiting cases that Deckers won. Thank you.

• Minority view. It's 145-2, with 110 undecided. I believe the current version of the article should be retained, with the "Concerns about quality" section, the counterfeiting cases Deckers won, and the four words, "a protected trademark or" in the article lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk)
• I am involved. The efforts to use Misplaced Pages to promote the UGG trademark and UGG brand are exasperating, and have nothing to do with NPOV. We know Deckers owns the trademark "in 145 countries worldwide" (as the short lead says), and there is no reason to use an article about boots (see title Ugg boots) to hammer the reader with primary sources showing that Deckers has or has not won this or that legal battle. If it is notable, write an article on the UGG trademark legal issues, but please stop trying to use an article on boots to defend a company against counterfeiters and convicts down under (as I've asked on the talk page, please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it). The Ugg boots#Concerns about quality section is a joke as it uses a pathetic puff piece from a space-filling entertainment show with zero reliability—the "review" consisted of pulling a few boots apart, and to no one's surprise, the significantly more expensive genuine boot was harder to pull apart! The source fails WP:RS, and the information is not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"... please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it." Unfairly attacking the leading company in an industry "unduly promotes" all its competitors, both lawful and unlawful. By creating an article that undermines and dilutes the worldwide legal rights of a company that is obeying the law, you are (intentionally or not) enabling those who victimize that company by breaking the law. The requirements of WP:WEIGHT are clear. There are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated countries) where "It's a brand name," and only two tiny countries where "It's a boot style." Misplaced Pages policy forbids us from presenting "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view. The "pathetic puff piece" was sufficiently reliable for all the Australian editors (including you) to accept it when the article said, "An Australian boot was highest quality." But now that the article more accurately says, "The American company's boot was the highest quality made of genuine sheepskin," suddenly you object to the reliability of the source. The testing was done by an independent consumer advocate; if necessary, we can identify the TV station that reported it as sensationalist in nature, but that doesn't make the testing itself unreliable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree with Phoenix and Winslow that the current version is best. I'm not sure that the Concerns about Quality section may need better referencing.MONGO 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Phoenix and Winslow is contending that the current version is not best. Can you clarify what you mean by 'current version'. Thanks. Donama (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am disturbed that a purely legal system influenced heavily by well-funded companies - trademark - is being used to identify what is fundamentally a social construct based on common usage. It's certainly one factor to consider but it definitely isn't the only one. ElKevbo (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Public perception is constantly being manipulated, everywhere we look in mass media, including the Internet. Look at the advertising banner across the top of this page. Click on it. You're being asked for a donation. In the process, there is an effort to alter your perception so that you will believe your donation will go to a good cause. Sadly, that is the world we live in; and we must be neutral narrators describing the world we are observing, not pining away for a better world without commercialization and mass media manipulation. Deckers has successfully manipulated public perception throughout most of the world, to identify "UGG" as a brand name. Do we deny it? Do we pretend it hasn't happened? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Before making any comments, I want to be clear that P&W's request that we "state our nationality" is unreasonable. I am, however, involved in the discussions, and happy to acknowledge that.

Currently, there is an article on UGG Australia and another on Deckers Outdoor Corporation, both of which extensively discuss the UGG brand. There is a second part to the story, though: the style of boots, only identified as ugg boots, which originated in Australia and New Zealand. This isn't a case where a trademarked term became generic because of a failure to enforce the trademark, but where a previously-used term was trademarked after it had entered common usage. Thus it makes sense to acknowledge that there are two stories to tell: that of Deckers' and their UGG Australia brand, and the earlier and ongoing use of the term to describe a style of boots which originated in Australia, has particular cultural significance in Australian and New Zealand, and which is only properly identified under that name. To manage this we have used the multiple articles - in particular, one entirely about the brand, and a second article about the style, the latter of which acknowledges of the wider issues with the use of the term. Thus the Ugg boots article discusses the broader history, the trademark disputes where they are related to use of the term itself, and issues surrounding the boots in general, retaining balance by covering both Deckers' brand and the broader picture, and by using a hat note to link to the brand-specific article.

In regard to the two points raised by P&W above:

• With the court cases, the general consensus is that cases of counterfeiting UGG Australia boots belong in the UGG Australia article, as they are specific to one brand. However, cases which impinge on the use of the term itself belong in the Ugg boots article, as they refer to the broader style rather than a single example of that style. It is a difficult line to draw, but the approach has been to look for the use of "the generic term defence" in the court case.
• The problems raised with Concerns about Quality are the subject of an Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section, so raising them here while the RfC is ongoing feels a bit like forum shopping. However, the issue is that there is only one source being used, and that source is unreliable. Consensus looks to be to remove the section, with P&W as the main proponent to include it, but consensus is yet to be determined by a neutral party. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't discussed mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT, Bilby. What's your opinion on that question? Is "It's a boot style" the mainstream view? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fringe issue, so no, I haven't discussed it. The question is how do we handle having a well known style, and a better known brand. The solution at the moment is to have an article solely devoted to the brand, an article devoted to the owner of the brand, and an article on the style which makes extensive mention of the brand. That seems to more than meet any weight concerns from the brand's perspective. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about fringe? This is mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Minority is not fringe. Having one or two other articles related to this subject does not absolve us of our duty to deal with this specific subject in compliance with WP:WEIGHT. Does it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No "nationality" need be marginalized simply because they have a relatively smaller populace as compared to the U.S....just wanted to be clear on that issue. The WEIGHT of any article is based on what the reliable sources tell us...I'm thinking that Bilby is correct in his last comment but a simple clarification need be made in the independent articles so as to render single page views less confusing.--MONGO 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Australia vs. US. It's Australia and New Zealand vs. 145 countries, including China, India, Russia, the US, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Germany, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Thailand, the Congo, France, the UK, Italy, South Korea, South Africa, Myanmar, Colombia, Spain and the Ukraine. These are the 29 most heavily populated countries in the world. Tanzania (Number 30) is the most heavily populated country in the world where Deckers does not own an UGG-related trademark. Tanzania is an impoverished country near the equator, it isn't exposed to Australian culture, and I doubt that very many people there wear imported sheepskin boots of any sort.

Skipping past Tanzania on the list of countries by population, countries 31-35 (Argentina, Kenya, Poland, Canada and Algeria) all have Deckers-owned "UGG" trademarks registered. Country 36 (Uganda) doesn't but, like Tanzania, it is an impoverished equatorial country that is not exposed to Australian culture. This pattern repeats all the way down the list. All of this is confirmed by reliable sources. It doesn't marginalize any nationality either, Mongo. That's simply how mainstream views vs. minority views are determined. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am neither Australian nor American, and I have been involved in trying to build consensus towards a neutral article in place of the mess of unsubstantiated corporate mythology that sits in its place at the moment.

There are many matters which P&W has not seen fit to disclose here, such as his/her low-frequency edit-warring in attempting to keep the article in its current poor state (and, as a result of such edit warring, the article has been protected for the last month), but the most important factor to consider is this: This is an article about ugg boots. It is not an article about the Ugg Australia brand (which has its own article), nor is it an article about Deckers. It is reliably sourced that ugg boots were invented in Australia in the mid 1960s. P&W's contention that ugg boots were invented by an Australian emigrant to America in the 1970s is not sourced to anything more reliable than corporate mythology. Even the notion that the phrase "ugg boots" is trademarked in any country of the world other than America has never had a reliable source presented to back it up (when requested, all P&W could find was a free hosting site and a blog entry).

So, therefore, in the article about the generic ugg boot style, it is wholly appropriate for the mainstream view to be the reliably sourced description of ugg boots as a generic style invented in Australia in the 1960s. The alternative suggestion, being that ugg boots were invented in America in the 1970s, is sufficiently fringe that one would not be surprised to find a surrey underneath it.

Lastly there seems to be an unlovely streak of anti-Australian sentiment running through some of the contributions to the debate, in matters such as the description above of Australia being a 'tiny' country (Australia is in fact ten times the size of Texas), the statement recently on the talk page that Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" (sic), and the attitude shown here towards an Australian editor against whom P&W seems to be pursuing an apparently unrelated feud. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Dave isn't from Australia. He's from New Zealand, which shares the same culture and slang, and predictably the same beliefs about the phrase "ugg boots." Three reliable sources agree that Shane Steadman invented ugg boots, but that small point is a distraction. Australia is geographically ten times the size of Texas, but we're talking about population; and as population goes, Australia is ranked 52nd among nations of the world, and New Zealand is ranked 123rd. The phrase "ugg boots" doesn't need to be trademarked since "UGG" is trademarked as a boot brand in so many countries. The Wall Street Journal is a supremely reliable source, and has reported that Deckers owns the trademark in over 100 countries. The "blog entry" Dave disparages is the website of a well-known law firm. An article about ugg boots, for over 98% of the countries of the world where the phrase is known, should be an article that is principally about the brand since in those countries, the phrase is understood to refer to the brand. We cannot allow the other 2% to determine content for the 98%. That's what WP:WEIGHT is about. Clearly, "it's a boot style" is the minority view and "it's a brand name" is the mainstream view worldwide, and the Ugg boots article should be structured accordingly. It isn't anti-Australian sentiment, Dave. It's pro-Misplaced Pages policy sentiment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if "X is a Canadian so it is only natural he shares the exact same views as Y who is an American" would go down very well?Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that was a rhetorical question but for those who are wondering.... um...not. At all. Even in the English-speaking parts of the country. Elinruby (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not certain I follow all this, but for what it is worth, I have these thoughts: I do think it's a bit unreasonable to ask people their nationality. The fact that I am comfortable giving mine does not make this true of everyone, nor do I agree that this necessarily determines an editor's position. I will however say that I am a Canadian/British citizen who lives in the United States and that I have never touched any article about Ugg anything. Yes, I personally have heard of these boots as a brand. But there are many things I have not heard of. I think that weight may be the wrong argument to have about the situation though. If you already have three separate articles can you not handle the matter with a "for other uses see" notation? Or am I misunderstanding something? Seems like you have a) in Australia it's a boot b)a company has copyrighted the word outside of Australia and New Zealand, info on that discussion and c) a brand. An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)? I think there should be brief mention perhaps, with wiki links. It's not a matter of weight to my eyes so much as that if I understand the situation, there is already an article covering the material. And by the way, "Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" is not a productive comment ;) and to the best of my understanding a blog must, to be usable, have oversight by a news organization. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)?" No, what's happening here is the Australians and the New Zealander want to edit Article A to expel everything they find inconvenient to Article C. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, the most important policy at Misplaced Pages. It applies to all articles. Removing inconvenient material to Article C does not enable the editors of Article A to ignore this policy. And I repeat, it isn't a blog. It's the website of a respected law firm, and the material in question is independently confirmed by a separate source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how something in article a is inconvenient to article c. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that misunderstanding is the result of my unfortunate sentence structure. Here let me try it again. They want to remove from Article A any material they find inconvenient, and expel that inconvenient material to Article C. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. You may not like my answer then, as this is essentially what I propose, with modifications. I personally fail to understand the passion being expended here, but I am trying. What is the point of having extensive discussion of counterfeit and quality issues of a brand of boot on a page about a different topic? I think it should be mentioned with a link to another page for further information. See detailed proposal below. If it doesn't work for you, perhaps you could suggest another. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the talk section for this article and note some of Phoenix & Winslow's comments about the importance of "protecting Deckers trademark rights" then the reasons for his zeal should become clear. I really don't think anyone looking to protect trademark rights needs to be editing Misplaced Pages.Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as weight goes, my point is that if the subject of an article is that "in these countries it's a style of boot" then this is the place to discuss the usage in those countries, not elaborate on all the other uses. Yes, there are a lot of other countries in the world. Other stuff exists. And if ugg is used differently in those countries and means a type of boat or banana or red-bottomed gorilla there, then that usage is also separate and if that usage is notable then it should get its own page. The other pages can be mentioned and linked to. This opinion supposes that there are in fact separate pages. (I keep saying that because I don't see why all this would cause a year-long argument if there are three pages.) As for the law firm, I dunno. I am being told that external links are generally not considered reliable. Respected they may be, but let me take a shot and ask if Deckers appears on their client list? Hmmm. Lawyers are advocates, by their nature. Not always objective. I am having my own struggles with this policy and disagree with the way it's gotten applied in the article I am working on, so possibly I am not the person to ask, but that is what I am hearing over in my corner on *that* topic. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Elinruby. User:Phoenix and Winslow wants to go much further than that. He wants Deckers financial details such as sales records etc mentioned and he wants almost every court case involving Deckers listed (see his first post above). He also wants the word generic removed from the article. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. I want one sentence, which already exists in the article mentioning how sales have increased 50-fold, to mention a dollar amount from the 1990s and a dollar amount from a few years ago to illustrate the growth. No further financial details, just total sales from two years. Wayne removed these dollar amounts just before the article was locked and I want them restored. I don't see the harm in that. Also, since "generic term" is trademark-related legal terminology (look at any government's IP website and you'll get confirmation of the fact very quickly), use of the phrase "generic term" should be limited to the trademarks discussion in this article. I'm not advocating removing it from the article entirely. I just want it limited to the trademark section to prevent confusion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, but is this in the page about the brand or about the style? If the style... well. I don't understand. But I made a proposal below and under it you would get a brief section for anything you think should be there as long as it doesn't enrage the other people, lol. Would that work for you? Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias

That is what articles do. They discuss their topic. Not other topics.

The purpose of WP:NPOVN

Solution?

Another solution?

Further discussion

We have several new editors on the article. And in anticipation of the perennial accusations from the culturally biased Australian army, I've looked up the following in WP:MTPPT: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." My policy-related point has been consistent, and it isn't being effectively refuted: WP:WEIGHT defines "It's a brand name" as the mainstream view, and "It's a boot style" or "It's a generic term" as a minority view. I'll add that Ugg boots — while not created with this intention — has evolved over the past two years into a POV fork of UGG Australia. "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion ... in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Although the UGG Australia article was created first, it is in actuality a legitimate fork of the Ugg boots article per WP:SPINOFF and both are perfectly acceptable to Misplaced Pages. Thus WP:WEIGHT is already adequately addressed in the Ugg boot article and no Misplaced Pages policies have been "violated". Your promotion-related points have been consistent but, unfortunately, you have failed to gain consensus on any point of policy you have made for the last two years. It is time to show good faith, accept the communities decision and let the article move on without further disruption. Wayne (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, it is not "perfectly acceptable" if there is sufficient space in the Ugg boots article to hold all of the material. Read WP:POVFORK: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. (emphasis added) As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. ... pply Misplaced Pages's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

{{WP:WEIGHT]] isnt measured by populations its measurd by what the sources say, the sources dont dispute that uggs originated in Australia nor do they dispute that in Australia uggs is a generic term, even some of the court documents refer to it as such. No one disputes that UGG Australia is a trademark held by Deckers nor that the trademark has been upheld in various court cases where a third party was to have intentionally misrepresented themsleves as being UGG Australia. Ugg boot isnt a WP:POVFORK its the originating article about the style that encompasses the history of the style, neither is UGG Australia which is about the product produced by Deckers. The problem is that ugg boot has been over run with material that is primarily related to Deckers and this material has been present in such away as to violate WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 10:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gnangarra, WP:WEIGHT is measured by the "prominence" of the viewpoint, not the number of Australian sources you and the other Australian editors can find: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (emphasis added) Since all reliable sources either agree that the term is trademarked in 100+ countries or fail to address that area of fact, "It's a brand name" is the majority view. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to be one or the other? One of the "new editors" of which you speak below is named Cowboysforever - I assume this refers to the Dallas Cowboys American Football team -- a brandname. Should entries on "Cowboy" and "Dallas, TX" be deleted or edited to "protect the football team's trademark rights"? Should any product with the word "Dallas" or "cowboy(s)" in the name be edited on Misplaced Pages to point out that these are brandnames and the only real use of these words today is to refer to the football team? Unfortunately for Deckers, generic ugg boots didn't simply cease to exist the moment Deckers registered them and they won a court case in the US. What should they be called now? "The boots formerly known as ugg boots but which now possess no signifier"? Should this entry be deleted and replaced with "nothing to see here - move along - this concept may not be detailed on Misplaced Pages any longer"? Misplaced Pages is not about conforming to what people THINK. In my experience there is massive worldwide ignorance about every country and culture of which the person in question is not a part - Misplaced Pages is not about conforming to ignorance, it is about allowing people to overcome it by being given ALL THE INFO. Your desired outcomes for the article amount to nothing more than than reinforcement of the fallacy that Deckers wants to exploit. How about the word "Football" - should all mention of that term be edited to conform to the vast majority world view that Association Football (soccer) is football? SHould the Australian Rule Football, NFL, Rugby Union, Rugby League articles all be deleted or filled with reminders that most people think soccer is football? It's possible for terms to be more than one thing - Most people in the USA think a tortilla is a round, flat piece of bread from Mexico - but what about a Spanish tortilla which is a different entity entirely? What happens if one day someone in Outer Mongolia trademarks the name "Tortilla Mexico" across Asia and the sub continent, giving them the majority of the world population? Should the old entries be deleted or heavily edited to downplay the fact that such items were ever generic? Would it not be more sensible to have articles for both, perhaps with small mentions of the other meanings and how they relate to the overall history of the item, but keep them largely separate as the different concepts that they are? Is it OK that Deckers own the ugg term as a trademark in countries where the term was never used as a generic descriptor? That's not for us to say here, however it is equally not for us to decide whether this article should conform to Deckers' very obvious desired that no one in said countries ever cotton on to the fact that ugg boots were and are a generic product. What they want is to keep people thinking non-Deckers boots are "fake" and to do this they threaten dictionaries and businesses. I'm quite surprised, given their active efforts in these other arenas that they don't have a vigilant representative here on Misplaced Pages trying to push their interests to the letter. I guess they are just lucky they have unaffiliated folks such as yourself and a fleet of random new-to-Misplaced Pages-passers-by to uphold their wishes.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, that's a well thought out answer — thanks for that. In the first example, it would probably be impossible to trademark the single word "Dallas" or the single word "Cowboys," so your discussion of Dallas, Texas and Cowboy doesn't hold water. But any sports-related discussion on Misplaced Pages that contains the phrase "Dallas Cowboys" should be referring to the NFL franchise in Dallas. However, if someone markets a soft drink called "Dallas Cowboys Cola," we might write a Misplaced Pages article about it. And particularly if the beverage company is located in Texas, when the NFL franchise inevitably sends them a cease and desist letter, and if the beverage company digs in its heels and fights them in court, we would be more likely to have a notable subject for an article. If the beverage company wins — perhaps because it's not related to football, and they don't use the big blue Dallas Cowboys star as their logo, or any of the other Dallas Cowboys trade dress — it would have that "David beats Goliath" angle and it would be even more notable. I think at that point, a Misplaced Pages article about Dallas Cowboys Cola would be inevitable.

In your second example, nobody has trademarked the word "football." Soccer, rugby and American football are three different sports, and I think we have sufficient disambiguation. But in the case at hand, we have two meanings for the same term, and I think we can create one article that accommodates both. No, it doesn't "have to be one or the other." No, we don't need to eradicate the concept of "ugg boots" as a boot style from Misplaced Pages. No, we don't need to remove any of the information currently in the Ugg boots article about the history of the boot style. And no, we don't have to demote that material from its current position of prominence in the first half of the article. But WP:WEIGHT and ] instruct us that these two articles should be merged, that the brand must be given the weight it has earned in the reliable sources, and that all the counterfeiting cases in which the generic term defense was used should be included, rather than cherry-picking the cases Deckers lost.

In your third example — a trademark for "Tortilla Mexico" that starts in Mongolia and then gets registered in China — that may become an issue for the Chinese Misplaced Pages. This is the English Misplaced Pages, and in the countries where the vast majority of English-speaking people live (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India, etc.), "Ugg boots" is recognized as a brand name, not a boot style; other brands that are patterned in the ugg boots style are often called "fake UGGs," even though they'd be real uggs in Australia (if they're made out of sheepskin). Perhaps you aren't aware how fashion-conscious people think. They want that designer label. Brands are very important to them. Fakes are disgusting to them.

I want articles that obey Misplaced Pages policy. By dumping inconvenient material in the UGG Australia article and excluding it from the Ugg boots article, certain editors are using the latter as a POV fork. Whether this is intentional or not, it defeats the purpose of WP:NPOV. I hope that we can proceed in a collegial and cooperative manner, and obey these bedrock policies of the Misplaced Pages project. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As the alternative solutions have been rejected, the fall back position is the original proposal of Phoenix and Winslow. As it is clear that consensus has rejected the changes and disputed material in that proposal I think this discussion can and should be wound up. Wayne (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, please stop pretending that you have consensus. There are several new editors on this article and they oppose your alleged consensus. I failed to count Johnuniq in the last tally; he makes it 7/6, which cannot be a consensus either way. I realize you don't like these new editors, and you're mounting a desperate, relentless campaign to delegitimize them. But your avenues for delegitimization are on other pages and Daveosaurus, without any notice to me or anyone else, has been quietly exhausting those avenues. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever "UGG Australia" boots/footwear are advertised here in the United States, a registered trademark identifies them as a specific name brand. People buy them for that, and the "UGG" Australia logo is labelled right on the outside of the boot, where everybody can see it, with the "R" for registered trademark. If someone wants to discuss that in some areas of the world there are counterfeits, and "generic termed ugg footwear," that's perfectly okay with me. But I believe the main article should be about the "Ugg Australia" brand. Please see example of it here: http://www.uggaustralia.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-UGG-US-Site/default/Default-Start?source=msn_ppc&s_kwcid=TC-13830-6314506784-e-835586436 and here: www.uggaustralia.com and here: http://www.uggaustralia.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-UGG-US-Site/default/Search-Show?q=Classic%20Tall and examples like this: 80%OFF UGG®Boots Hot sale and this: UGG® Official Site

I could keep going with examples of the "UGG Australia" brand that prevails. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't in dispute, and never was. UGG Australia is a registered trademark. Ugg boot, however, is also a commonly used term to describe a style of boots made by multiple manufacturers around the world, that predates the existence of the trademark. Hence the existence of two articles - one on the brand, and one on the style. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the phrase "ugg boot" is only used in Australia and New Zealand to describe a boot style. In the rest of the world, it describes a brand. There is no reason why we can't deal with both in one article, and WP:POVFORK militates strongly against having two articles in these circumstances, where a group of editors with a cultural bias dumps inconvenient material into one article to push their minority POV in the other. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You see to be confusing the term with the thing that it describes. The article is not about the term - it is about a style of footwear with a history that is often quite independent of Deckers, who are a late player in spite of being possibly the biggest, and which is manufactured by a great many companies, of which Deckers is but one. We can't put all of that in an article about a single manufacturer's product. The term we use to refer to the product is also independent to Deckers - it is simply the proper term for the product in the country of origin, and is the only term which uniquly identifies it. But you know all this - the discussion here is not going to progress any more than any of the others have. - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Deckers, who are a late player in spite of being possibly the biggest ..." Deckers is the biggest by far; there's no "possibly" about it. They sold US$1 billion worth of ugg boots this year before the Christmas season even started. I mentioned Microsoft with a reversed timeline because Deckers is in a position analogous to the position held by Microsoft in 1995: many times as large as all competing manufacturers combined. The "great many companies" competing with Deckers are like ants trying to avoid being stepped on by an elephant.

"We can't put all of that in an article about a single manufacturer's product." Yes we can, if the article is about both the boot style AND a single manufacturer's product, since the two subject areas share precisely the same name. WP:POVFORK is very clear on this point. Since all the material will fit in one article with plenty of room to spare (see WP:LENGTH for the guideline, and don't forget that a lot of material in Ugg boots is duplicated in UGG Australia), WP:POVFORK requires that it must be in one article. The limit is "6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." Ugg boots, excluding the headers, references and footnotes per the definition of "readable prose," is a little over 2,200 words. UGG Australia is a little over 1,600. Even if we don't eliminate any duplication, the combined article would be well under the limit.

"The term we use to refer to the product is also independent to Deckers ..." Not outside of Australia and New Zealand, where 99.5% of the population of the world resides. Please try to overcome your cultural bias, Bilby, and see the worldwide perspective. The first few paragraphs of the combined article can and should address the history of the boot style before Deckers arrived on the scene. But after that, it's a story of (A) trademark wars, with nearly all the battles won by Deckers, and (B) exponential growth of the Deckers brand. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The history of ugg boots is longer than Deckers involvement, its longer than Stedmans involvement, it has manufacturers that have been producing them for over 70 years. Some manufacturers have come and gone other have persisted despite the efforts of Deckers. The term and the style has social, historical connetations that have no reflection on Deckers product and would be inappropriate to be included in an article about Deckers prouct. Deckers product is single part of the story but with sufficient significance that it should have overage as a section of the style article, other issue like counterfiets are a deckers issue where it holds trademarks not a style issue. Nobody disputes they ugg style boots what is in dispute is the use of brands, designs etc that sepficily tailored to reflect/impersonate the deckers product as such this coverage is warranted in the Deckers product article. Again population isnt a measure of weight if it was every association football/soccer article be named just football, weight is measured by reliable sources by far the greatest volume of information on uggs boot style is generated out of Australia because thats were its of greatest interest, thats were its most significant, thats were it has cultural ties and thats where they originated. Gnangarra 10:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the biggest, Deckers appears to be such, but I wouldn't be surprised one day to discover that a Chinese manufacturer of synthetic ugg boots sells more than all the other companies combined. We don't know the figures, but it isn't unusual for a company handling mass production of low-end goods to beat the high end manufacturers in sales or profits. As to the rest: these are two different topics. The style of boots, which includes Deckers brand, and the individual brand. I can't see where in policy we need to merge those two together unless it is because the brand can't support its own article. This has nothing to do with POVFORK or article size, but whether or not two separate subjects are viable as independent articles.

We really need to consider dropping this from this forum. The odds of an independent editor being patient enough to wade through this discussion is vanishingly small. If we can't go to mediation because of lack of support, I guess we're stuck with trying other channels. - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree all of this has discussed and discussed and discussed, consensus has been reached multiple times its always been the same and each time its resulted with "new accounts", its more akin to the disputes around the Church of Scientology. Gnangarra 10:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has repeatedly and unambiguously rejected Phoenix and Winslow's promotional proposals and interpretations of WP policy. We have to draw the line somewhere. It is now up to him to accept that he can not continue repeating the same arguements hoping to get a different result. Wayne (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and has changed. I will again remind you that we have several new editors. I think that as more people who are not swayed by an AU/NZ cultural bias become involved in this article, the tide will continue to turn against you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, but not overnight as you seem to believe. You have been pushing this for two years now and it is disruptive to bring it up again only a month after your last attempt to get consensus failed. Not to mention the edit warring to get your version in against consensus. How about taking a break and try again in six months, or even three months. Wayne (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "overnight" either, Wayne. I think bringing in more editors who do not share your Australian cultural bias, and your previous history of failed disputes with me, is a very positive step for Misplaced Pages. The process of bring in more editors has been going on, through RFC and WP:NPOVN, for two months. At first it didn't seem successful because new editors arrive slowly, and they are intimidated by the massive wall of the United Australian WP:OWN Defense Force. So you said in October that "your last attempt to get consensus failed," etc. But I am convinced that if we had every Misplaced Pages editor participating in this matter, you would be overwhelmed. This is not the Australian Misplaced Pages. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the Aussie/NZ folks "feel so strongly" about a generic term!!! What in the world is their motive in that? The rest of the world is hungry for the "UGG Australia" brand boot, and obviously sales are really doing well. Putting accurate history behind the popular brand would be a plus! So, don't separate the Aussie's point of view. I think it blends perfectly with the description of the so popular "UGG Australia" brand ... and would clearly complement the article. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting accurate history behind the popular brand would be a plus! the accurate story is that there is more to ugg boots than the brand, the brand is a significant element nobody denies that, its uggs Australian origins and the Australian culture that makes Australia such a necessity in Deckers UGG Australia brand, its just that for Deckers to accept that they are recognising that ugg is more than just a trademark, they recognising that ugg is a generic term. Gnangarra 17:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Only in Australia, mate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Likely, most of the world wouldn't have even heard about the UGLY boot, had it not been for the name brand. MORE significant HISTORY! The article shouldn't be "all about Deckers"... or whatever the company is that owns the Registered Trademark. The purpose of the article is to teach the background of: the terminology that people understand, not "the company," anyway! I think this issue is solved. Go with the nomenclature that the world recognizes and branch off from there with historical background, and the like. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, Misplaced Pages is not about "what people think". You can't teach people by presenting them with the same inaccuracies.Mandurahmike (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Bit of History and a Modest Proposal

Let me be a voice for sanity and reason. I think it is a good time to step back, speak one at a time and use our reason to figure this out.

We can start be going back to the beginning. Perhaps it may help if we examine the history and context of this particular entry. This entry was created in July of 2004 as a stub. By December of that year it had already acquired information about the burgeoning trademark dispute between Deckers Outdoor Corporation and local Australian manufacturers. Here is the text that was inserted in full:

“Currently these boots are very fashionable, due to a push by an American company, 
Ugg Australia which is also trying to appropriate the word ugg boot as an exclusive trademark. 
This brand is made in China. So you people that bought a pair of boots that are not the 
branded "ugg boots", as long as they are made of sheepskin they are still real ugg boots, 
and if they are made in Australia or New Zealand then you can say how these are true 
Australian/New Zealand ugg boots instead of those expensive imitators.”

This is inserted nearly 2 years before Uggs-N-Rugs case against Deckers is settled in 2006. Reading this now, the text seems very argumentative and has questionable NPOV. Look at the presence of the second person inquisitive, “then you can say,” or “So you people that bought.” It’s the similar to oft repeated quips about UGG brand boots worn by sorority girls here in the States. It also referred to the UGG® brand boots as “expensive imitators.” Since the brand was founded by Australian, Brian Smith, was sold to an American company in the last 15 years and continues to make high quality sheepskin boots, I don’t think its NPOV to call them imitators.

So what does this have to do with the present article? Well very much. It indicates that from an early date, this page refused to recognize and legitimacy in Deckers’ brand or product and was used to spread a specific Australia-centric POV. There also has been indignation from Australian editors who feel as though somehow something has been stolen from them. It’s understandable why this would happen. An American company battling local manufacturers makes for a great story and the anti-corporate narrative is very appealing. This attitude caused some odd pieces to end up on the page. One example was the ridiculous “flying ugg boot,” which attempted to place generic use in World War I.

When I came to the page I felt the most egregious error present was the assertion that Deckers’ trademarks had been removed everywhere. As we’ve seen Deckers legitimately owns the exclusive right to UGG in 145 countries, constituting a stupendous majority of the world. Moreover, and this continues to be banded about, the other editors refused to recognize what the decision of IP Australia was and what it wasn’t. It was not a dismissal based on generic, it was non-usage of the mark. This correct view has never been given credence despite both the testimony of the registrar and IP Australia itself.

There was also the refusal to give any credence to the perspective of the rest of the world where UGG refers solely to a specific brand.

Now over time, I felt the article underwent some fine improvements. I felt that by the spring of this past year it was in a far better place than it had been in the past. It was recognized that because of the national boundaries of trademark laws, Deckers still owned the exclusive rights outside of Australia. Other relevant cases to the “ugg is generic” claim had been added and given appropriate detail. I thought that was a major improvement. The inaccuracies regarding the 2006 decision were still in place but at least it was recognized that there was an alternate but equally legitimate perspective.

I want to put forward three simple suggestions that I feel are factually accurate and would improve the clarity of the article and smooth these ruffled feathers:

1: Immediately and clearly state in the lede (or through the title) that these boots are commonly called uggs in Australia and New Zealand and everywhere else UGG is viewed as a brand or that it is exclusive to the UGG brand. There is plenty of evidence to state that ugg is common in Australia and plenty of evidence that it is viewed as a brand here in the US. We don’t have to have it one way or the other. At present no editor has presented any information that ugg is a common term outside of Australia and New Zealand.

2: If the discussion of trademark disputes is creating clutter on the page then the whole thing could be moved to its own page. In order to maintain the proper scope, where the trademark is discussed, all cases have to be included. That includes the Netherlands, Turkey and the United States. If the status of a trademark is to be discussed all available material must be included. Anything else is not NPOV because it isn’t granting equal importance to each nation.

3: In the discussion of the 2006 IP Australia decision it should be stated that delegate found that Deckers had not used the 1971 mark in Australia in a 5 year period and that this was the grounds for removing that mark from the register. The delegate did comment that ugg was used commonly in Australia. However, the delegate himself and IP Australia also stated explicitly that the cause for removal was non-use. IP Australia explicitly stated that they do not have the legal authority to declare a word generic and as of today no court has issued such a ruling. The practical effect of that decision in Australia is still the same.

Please consider each one individually. I am willing to listen to any other positive suggestions from any editor. I don’t really care about the Quality section, if it is there it’s nice but I don’t feel it is necessary. Let’s not make this personal or about national boundaries. There’s plenty of room for every perspective without denouncing someone as wrong or ignorant.--Factchk (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Factchk asked me to comment on the above proposal. It seems to assume that there will be one article; this seems to be unacceptable to many of the other editors. On that basis alone the proposal makes me uncomfortable. Also, I still have not looked at the articles nor at their discussion pages and do not want to do so. I have my own ever-increasing list of things I want to fix and do not want to get sucked into a battle that's been going on for more than two years over copyright decisions I have not researched and do not have the time at the moment to research. I said above that my proposal represented my best understanding of what would be fair. I am hewing to that not so much out of pride of authorship as lack of time. I invited alternate proposals. I am not sure whether this is one. I do continue to object to the way this is getting framed in terms of nationality. To my eye, if there is cultural bias in the story, it lies in a US company trademarking a word in common use in another country and then trying to enforce it in that country. The details of the court case on the subject I leave to the lawyers; I am sure there is at least one in the background of this discussion. I am interested in this discussion but have already contributed what I can to it. Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion has merit. As proposed, the trademark dispute material can be fully represented in a dedicated article called something like Ugg boots trademark dispute. Absolutely, the article should say right away that the term is differently applied in different places. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I too think moving the trademark disputes to a separate page might not be a bad idea. However, the argument is about the page on ugg, the style of boot, you see Binksternet, and one side seems to be saying that since this is only true in a few countries then WP:WEIGHT requires that most of the article be devoted to the brand. They say this even though the brand and the owner of the brand have their own separate pages; I just checked. The other side compares this argument to an Australian company trademarking the term "cowboy boots" and someone re-writing the cowboy boots page to remove mentions of the Old West. I am leaving out some detail here but I believe this is an essentially correct summary of the positions -- if not please correct me. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A few points, I guess. The first is that there's no use pointing to the 2004 version of any article on WP - at that stage Misplaced Pages was a very different place, and it comes as no surprise that an article from that period would be biased. The history, therefore, isn't particularly relevant, and the version you point to as a high was the result of a rewrite that was produced by all editors, including "the Australians". That said, I'm not sure how this proposal differs from Elinruby's: I presume this would mean three articles, Ugg boots, UGG Australia and Ugg boots trademark dispute, which is pretty much what Elinruby suggested and I supported. In regard to the trademark dispute discussion, I have no hassles with that being there or in a separate article, and covering all relevant court cases. Naturally, this will mean limiting the focus to trademark dispute cases, rather than including all counterfeiting court cases, but that's been the general consensus anyway. If it is a trademark dispute - defined as involving a claim that the trademark doesn't hold - then it fits in the article's scoop, and if not it is outside of the scope. And in regard to the third point, the article currently states: "IP Australia also ruled that the trademark "Ugh-boots" should be removed from the trademark register for non-use as Deckers had only been using the UGG logo, not the UGH marks", so your point there seems to be covered. The statement from the register that it is a common term in Australia is relevant, so we don't want to remove it - noting that I have no problem with highlighting the non-use decision more. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

1: - The lead already does this. I would have no problem with rewording though as long as promotional material is not added.
2: - This was already proposed and failed.
3: - The article already states this. IP Australia stating that they do not have the legal authority to declare a word generic is totally irrelevant as no court makes such rulings. Including this would only serve to imply that courts do rule or that the case had no merit. IP Australia did however state: "The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that...these terms are generic – they are the most immediate and natural ways in which to refer to a particular style of sheepskin boot." To limit the article to a single finding from the IP Australia case is POV. Wayne (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding suggestion #2, to have a new article discussing the trademark dispute, there seems to be a new consensus for it, so past consensus against it is... past. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Having a new article for the trademark dispute was proposed on November 23. The vote was 5 for, 6 opposed and 2 abstentions. The original proposal was 7/2 against, so this new article as a compromise was suggested in the hope of getting those 2 supporting editors onside. Neither agree with having a new article and without a solution that those two editors agree to the edit warring will continue. Wayne (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was comfortable with the original proposal of moving the Trademark disputes to a separate page. I can see the reason why it might be looked on as impractical given the length of that section. In that post, I also raised my concern about naming and the lede as I felt that removing it left no mention of any alternative perspective. This is the result of the lede being altered in recent months from what I felt was acceptable and consensus to one that fails to put things in appropriate context. I think that Binksternet summarized that need fairly succinctly when he/she said that the article should say right away that the word has a different primary connotation in different places. I don’t think we have to promote one version or the other but state it as a fact. Namely that these boots are called uggs in Australia and elsewhere UGG refers to UGG Australia. While we have disagreed about the wording, I think there is consensus about the necessity of clarity as there are different ways of looking at this. I didn’t know that the article already included the non-usage. It could probably use some tidying but I’m glad there is consensus for keeping it up which is good enough for now. I expect there’s going to be a lot of discussion over the particular wording and implementation of the above suggestions but it seems for the moment that there is consensus in principle. We can rail at each other over who is neutral and who isn’t but we been at this for so long that I think we all know where we stand and that isn’t likely to change so we may as well make the best with what we’ve got.--Factchk (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we have the attention of Binksternet and Elinruby why dont we ask them to write an initial lede, then we can work with addressing the balance from an initial uninvolved POV and we can return to the Ugg boot talk page and close this discussion.Gnangarra 23:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Binksternet, but I would have to think about this. My questions would be a) would this involve one article? b) what is its topic? c) is there agreement on the facts of the article?

I'm pretty burned out on wiki-contentiousness, to the point where I am taking a break from an article that I consider really important. See previous comments -- you might be better off drawing straws than listening to me. I am wary of being set up -- not deliberately, but in effect -- for a bunch of argument about boots. Boots, people. I realize that there are cultural issues on the one hand and brand issues on the other, but neither is of burning import to me.

The thing about writing a summary is that it involves deciding which parts of an article are important :) Isn't that what y'all are unable to agree upon? I am not saying no, nor am I saying yes. But I am skeptical. Let's see if anyone else thinks this solves something, ok? Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I share Elinruby's skepticism. The article experts should be able to write this stuff better than I would be. And, yes, it's only about boots with fuzz on the inside. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support this and any proposal that does not treat Australia as more important than any other country, and Deckers as a gang of thugs. That is and always has been the problem with this article, in a nutshell, starting with the first day it was created. There have been improvements over the years, and as Factchk pointed out, this spring we reached a point where these problems were almost eliminated. But from edit warring and Talk page remarks by various Australian editors, there is still a large group of editors who believe that Australia is more important than any other country, and Deckers is a gang of thugs. If we can't overcome that cultural bias, we will never resolve this dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you care to cite one single instance in the existing article where Deckers are portrayed as a "gang of thugs?" The only place I can possibly see this coming out is in talk pages as a result of thuggish activities within the article on ugg boots. I think the best way to prevent any negative vibes toward Deckers would be if they kept to the Deckers articles and were limited here to a more appropriate mention of the companies role in the worldwide expansion of the larger concept of ugg boots as a style, without turning this into a third article all about Ugg Australia.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Swiftian Counter-Proposal

I have looked at the Uggs boot page. Seemed only fair after getting sucked into the weed-whacking of adjectives on an off-shoot of the Berlin Conference article someone posted about below.

It's my formal, considered, opinion, if anyone cares, that nobody can currently write a lede that properly summarizes the uggs boots page, since it most of it is currently made up of material about copyright cases in Turkey and the Netherlands and trademarks in Japan and the opinions of Pamela Anderson for crying out loud. There's no point in further voting on the above proposal, because I will not do it. If elected I will not serve, ok? That article, the UGG Australia and the Deckers articles all need a complete re-write so that they deal with their own topics, and I refuse to touch the uggs article without a mandate to do exactly that.

This is not an offer, as the time required would be considerable and I am not naïve enough to believe that I would not be plagued with reverts by brand new editors who claim to only want justice. The discussion page makes me want to take a shower. An editor who claims his only association with UGG Australia is that he bought his wife a pair of their boots responds to the word "generic" with mentions of jail time for contempt of court? Get out of here. That page and the enormously elaborate posts here are an insult to the intelligence of Misplaced Pages users. Sure, a lot of non-lawyers peruse the WIPO page on well-known marks for light reading. I believe that, and you should too. I mean, just the other day the custodian was telling me how strongly he felt about something he saw there. I may need to hand out barnstars to every editor who responded to that one with less than the contempt that it deserved. AGF has a lot to answer for sometimes.

So here's a better idea. Leave the current page locked but rename it trademark disputes or whatever name has consensus, and no, the meatpuppets don't count. Start a fresh uggs page. Ban P&W from editing it. The hallucinatory claims and belligerence on the current discussion page alone probably justify this, but let's throw in repeated remarks about ethnicity as a tie-breaker. In fact, P&W should have at least a temporary loss of noticeboard privileges, since he uses them to threaten people. Put a one-revert rule in place on the uggs page, or whatever other measure might better protect it from ip addresses fully versed in wp:whateversuitsmypurpose.

I'm completely serious.

Then write a page about the style of boot. This should have gone to COI. Now I really *am* done here. The torrential posts here are pure wp:icanthearyou. Close this mess. One side wasn't listening and apparently hasn't for a while. Misplaced Pages needs to find a better way of dealing with stuff like this.

Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

At last...someone willing to tell it like it is. Kudos. Wayne (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fookin' A. Perfect. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh! You must be Australian! Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider that I've been outnumbered by six people with a cultural bias, who are owning the article, and have adopted as their new de facto spokesman a person with a long history of fringe theory advocacy and POV pushing, particularly evident where admins stubbed a lengthy article that was loaded with his misrepresentations. In light of these conditions, Elinruby, I've been remarkably civil. The meatpuppet accusations are completely bogus; I've been supported repeatedly by several veteran editors who had thousands of edits before looking at this article. At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers:

... the items do have a WP:SYNTH look about them (particularly given the history of this article) where, whatever the author's intention, the text could be interpreted as cherry picking of isolated factoids in order to promote a view regarding who "owns" this style of boot.

That's exactly what it was. At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed, and has previously remarked on the advocacy of fringe theories by the opposing de facto spokesman on other articles.

Poorly sourced....that you can't see the misinformation is no surprise..you were trying to peddle fringe nonsense at 911 articles at one point as well.

User:Elinruby is clearly unaware of this half of the truth, because these six partisan editors haven't been directing his attention to this half of the truth. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• P&W Quote: I've been supported repeatedly by several veteran editors.
  Hardly "repeatedly" or even significantly. They each supported you once only for the same minor edit that was of little consequence.
• P&W Quote: At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers:
  This was over a year ago, it was removed as trivia not POV and none of the "Australian" editors objected. It was also NOT "on behalf of Australian manufacturers" but a quote by a politician made in Parliament that mentioned only one manufacterer, a non-profit organisation that only employs disabled workers.
• P&W Quote: At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed,
  Mongo, an editor canvassed by you, actually supported the version of the article he "thought" you had proposed. He made a mistake, he didn't realise it was the version in place after your edits had been reverted that he was commenting on.
• P&W Quote: you were trying to peddle fringe nonsense at 911 articles at one point as well.
  If you remember, you reported me for my 911 editing and canvassed seven editors to give evidence against me. Despite several requests to provide evidence, between the seven of you, you could only post a single diff as evidence, the case was dropped and admins told you not to continue making false accusations. Stop bringing up other articles I have edited where I have never been found to have done any wrongdoing. This is a violation of WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So why were "six partisan users" able to so easily sway User:Elinruby and the other editor above who calls his response "perfect", yet yourself and the various SPAs were unable to do so? It wasn't us chasing after him to bring him back here to further comment in our side of the argument's forum shopping attempt. If the entry on "backfire" needs better explaining I suggest we just cut and paste this whole discussion in there. I find it particularly ironic, after your previous complaints about existing users moving to discredit various SPAs and obvious meatpuppets that you now move to discredit a neutral editor who clearly states that they have spent time reading the original article, the other two Deckers articles, and who shows clear evidence of a long examination of the talk section. Does that sound like someone who has been "directed to half of the truth"? The fact that you would make such an insulting statement against a very active editor who is clearly in this forum to help is another example of why you forum shop - not to improve the article - but to have it comform to the your wishes. Whether you are, as you claim (a claim which User:Elinruby noted), simply a casual consumer whose wife once purchased a Deckers product or not, it should stand as testimony to your STYLE and INTENT displayed in editing the article over the years that neutral, non-Australian editors read your comments and edits and think "Deckers Shill". Whether you are, or not, only you know for certain, but the neutral editors can only draw their conclusions from the systematic bias and very clear agenda in your work. So, either you're working for Deckers, or your work is so out of line with actual reality and so in line with corporate "reality" that it makes it appear that you are.Mandurahmike (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, your repeated attempts to discredit Australian editors as "culturally biased" reeks of an attempt to go down the same path which allowed for a generic term to be copyrighted (and enforced) through ignorance. Since arriving in the USA I have been complimented on my English, had people observe that I "must be amazed to see skyscrapers", been asked (by a middle school teacher) if Australia was "on the Euro Dollar" and had many people tell me they "love Australian food and can I show them how to make a Bloomon' Onion?". Cultural KNOWLEDGE, not bias, is at work here. It's for the same reason you see retired sportsmen employed as analysts and commentators in their own sport. If Australians were banned from editing Australian themed articles then the Australian cuisine entry would be all about The Outback Steakhouse. You want to exclude Australians with cultural knowledge for fear of "bias", but you're happy to include the sort of blow-in off the WWW who posts on message boards calling Emu (or other brands) "Ugg knock-offs" without being privy to the long history of ugg boots outside of the Deckers context. In short, you want ignorance, fed by, and which may be fed the Deckers party line. That is why you want to exclude Australians and want to shop around for freshly ignorant reinforcements -- in the hope that the same sort of thing happens that happened in the court cases in California.Mandurahmike (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well P&W you came here looking for uninvolved advice, you attempted to exclude editors involved with the article, you thrown out policy and guideline links all of which have been refuted. The indpenedent editors you so desired have put considerable time in this they have look at the arguments and they even offered a solution which was rejected. Your response to all of their efforts is to launch into a personal attack, I see not point in continuing this farce and this discussion should be closed. Gnangarra 04:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Every indication is that the attentions of P&W is toxic to the progress of the Ugg topic articles. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The more you look the worse it gets. Do a search on the names of the various parties in the dispute. I'm not even talking about who has been active where -- though that's interesting too. The really discouraging thing is that many of the arguments made here were being made two years ago. This is not a case of someone needing a gentle explanation of the word consensus. There are gigabytes and gigabytes of the same stuff over and over. Ugg is a fashion phenomenon yadda yadda yadda. People were saying two years ago, yes that's fine, but it belongs in the brand article, since that's the fashion phenomenon. Can you conceive of any good-faith reason for that kind of single-mindedness over a period of years in the face of lo these many attempts to reason? Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok a lot has been said of late. Where do we see this page going forward? I’m sure no one wants to keep spouting heroic couplets over fluffy footwear until the discussion reaches some kind of Rape of the Lock absurdity. There’s a lot of support for moving the all of the trademark disputes to a separate page. If it leads to a small modicum of peace, that is ok by me. I don’t really know how to feel about starting from scratch on the main page. On the one had it’ll require sorting what information is notable enough to be in the entry and that could get messy. On the other hand, starting over and looking things with fresh eyes may ultimately prove fruitful.

There have been inaccuracies dating back to the earlier days of this entry. My theory is that a lot of that stemmed from the initial shock from the original trademark controversy in Australia. I think that is would be fair to say that people felt angry and vented that anger on Misplaced Pages. As recently as 2009, it was claimed that 2006 IP Australia decision affected Deckers’ American trademarks. As time has passed that kind of vitriolic fury has faded and inconsistencies have been corrected, remnants still remain and it may be an opportunity to strip this entry down to essentials.

I honestly believe that we are not that far off from agreement. I think that most of us agree that ugg is used commonly in Australia and New Zealand to describe a type of sheepskin boot. I think that most of us can also agree that in the rest of the world, a majority of people think of a brand when they hear UGG. I think that most of us agree that any company can use Ug, Ugh, Ugg to describe their products in Australia and that outside of Australia only one company is allowed to use UGG. I don’t think these are completely contradictory concepts or that one is nationalist posturing or that one is corporate machination. I think the disambiguation page is a solid idea and that it should continue to be developed. It is a very tidy way of keeping things clear, allowing the entries to be simple and straightforward in their purposes. There's a lot of positive directions we can take here.--Factchk (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope that the neutral observers of this discussion will recognise that Factchck (a genuine single-purpose account) has suggested a change from *well-established consensus* (including via several requests for external comment) in proposing a disambiguation page to take the place of ugg boots, a change which no doubt would be to the commercial advantage of Deckers but of no advantage to readers who are making genuine enquiry into ugg boots by reading an encyclopaedia. Donama (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Donama. The idea of a disambiguation page was suggested initially by Elinruby. You proclaimed abstention from the discussion of that proposal which was supported by Bilby, Mike, Wayne, and I. When I put forth a possible improvement, I solicited opinion from several folks both familiar and unfamiliar but all of whom had commented previously on this discussion including P&W, Bilby, Johnuniq, and Elinruby. I made a deliberate effort to be polite and courteous. I’ve rarely asked others to comment on anything I’ve posted and I’ve never solicited a RFC, posted on a notice board, nor lodged any protest against any editor. I’ve tried to remain positive, friendly, and focused on the task at hand which is improving the entry itself.--Factchk (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Factchk, you are mistaken if you think I proposed this. Possibly I mis-used some terminology -- I think the first one said "disambiguation at the top" by which I meant that the ugg style boots page should have a link at the top saying "UGG Australia" and vice versa. I think that is what Mike is calling a hat-note, though I did not know the term at the time. If that's the source of confusion, then my apologies to all concerned. I think that the ugg boot style page (or whatever the correct name is) should talk about the style of boots and that the UGG Australia page should talk about the brand of boots. The trademark disputes are notable enough for their own page but if nobody wants to write one then they belong with the trademarked item or the trademark owner. That's what I think. I am not sure why this is hard. Or controversial. Please re-read the two proposals I *did* make, or make your own without reference to me. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have misread that. That was a goof on my part. I think that I agreed with the general principle of trying to keep this all from getting too muddled. Again sorry for the misrepresentation.--Factchk (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite how it was presented - if it's about turning "ugg boots" into a disambiguation page then I absolutely do NOT support it. What I support is "Ugg Australia" and "ugg boots" having their own pages without the first invading the other beyond the point of important mentions of their history with relation to the greater history of ugg boots. I am with Donama on this and I am quite sure the others who supported that earlier proposal had this in mind. The hatnote we have now on "ugg boots" is more than sufficient as disambiguation without robbing ugg boots of their most natural term of description and sending them off somewhere via disambiguation to "ugg boots in Australia" or something equally clunkyMandurahmike (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Let's vote.

I propose a vote on the following questions. Please vote by bolding yes or no, followed by a brief explanation if you want to write one. Please do not vote if any ANI or SPI proceeding has ever found you a likely sockpuppet, meatpuppet or puppetmaster, or if you do not have at least two edits, pre-dating this proposal, on some subject other than ugg, UGG or Deckers. I think Factchk is still eligible under those terms and am tentatively ok with that.

• Let's make that question 1, actually. Is Factchk a bona fide participant, ie should he/she be allowed to vote on the following.

Again, votes here are non-binding, but if some sort of consensus can be achieved, perhaps the article can be unlocked.

• 2.Mentions of UGG brand and associated trademark disputes *on the ugg boots page* should be limited to a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail on some other page.
• 3.The opinions of J.Lo and anyone else on the subject of UGG brand boots belong elsewhere than on the ugg boots page.
• 4.Mentions of Australian boot manufacturers are just as pertinent to the ugg boots page as the American brand.
• 5.The UGG Australia page should have a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail elsewhere, of the existence of an ugg boot style.

Let's start with that. This leaves open the question of what the name of the boot style page should be, as well as whether trademarks should be on their own page, but if consensus happens here then you guys can try those. Maybe? Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not have an opinion regarding vote #1. I vote yes on 2 through 5. I expect that "well down the page" refers to article body text. I think the lead section should summarize the article, so significant "well down the page" text will have a brief presence in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure how to vote on point one. Factchk, as Donama says above, is a fairly unambiguous SPA; however, I am not sure if it's my place to decree this one way or the other. I will have to think about that one.

• Yes to question 2, although I have no problem if Ugg Australia is mentioned early or even in the lede with something like "the style gained worldwide exposure due to blah blah - link to Ugg Australia". Yes to questions 3-5.

• Unfortunately, as you've seen from the ugg boots talk page, points 2 through 5 are pretty much what the vast majority (not including SPAs and meatpuppets) of participants in the ugg boots discussion have been saying for two years. The simple majority consensus is not in dispute. The problem is that a certain editor doesn't care about consensus and makes edits anyway and filibusters moves to rework the article into the consensus view. The only way I can see this changing is through some sort of administrative action by Misplaced Pages - otherwise, consensus will simply be ignored again on the grounds that "Australians are biased" and "neutral editors were fooled by the Australian editors".Mandurahmike (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• 1: Abstain. For the obvious reason that I am biased about myself. 2: Yes. Short summary is fine, this should hold true for all disputes including those in Australia. Separate page is a good idea to provide extra details. 3: Yes. Might be pertinent with regards to expansion in US popularity if the scope wishes to be international, but it is understandable that some would find it superfluous. 4: Yes. This is correct. In Australia, all manufacturers are on equal footing as Deckers. Outside Australia, they just have to call their product something else but can still sell sheepskin boots. 5: Perhaps. So long as it is properly marked as being used only in Australia and New Zealand. Maybe we could work in some form of the hatnote discussing the UGG(R) brand on the Ugg boot page. Like putting it in reverse.--Factchk (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• sigh!<edit conflict> point 1 isnt for us to reslove and should be taken elsewhere for the wider community to decide until then we should be accepting Factchk particiation in good fiath. Point 2 daughter articles are an accepted practice for subjects that are notable themselve and that have information that is beyond the primary subject. Point 3, a bit grey but if the sourcing is primarily a brand issue then it should primarily be on the brand page. As the brand also has a part in the style article this should get a brief mention as it(animal rights) relates to the style as well. Point 4. Individual mentions only if notable to the style, history or any other section. Point 5 basic article style is lede, followed by a description or history section then other sections based on significance hat note link to style in description section. Gnangarra 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Agree. As far as I can tell all the confirmed sock puppets of Factchk (Erehwon36 and Erehwon37) and of P&W (Illume1999, Bigdog2828, Linda1997, Youngteacher and Barclaygla09) are currently blocked so won't be around to muddy the waters unduly. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no "confirmed sock puppets of ... P&W" in spite of your diligent efforts to obtain such a ruling without any notice to me. So please stop lying about that, Dave. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See here for the actual block concerned . I now await you presenting anything to back up your absurd allegations of "cultural bias" or whatever PC buzzword you're using this week. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Suspected," not "confirmed." Please stop lying about this, Dave. No PC buzzwords are appropriate here. Just stop lying, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• (2) Agree. as to mentions of Deckers and UGG Australia brand. Not sure if trademark disputes are relevant at all but that can be addressed through the normal editing process.
  (3) Agree. It actually looks as if one of the opinions is framed to portray the holder of the opinion as a shallow thinker, instead of having any relevance to the subject.
  (4) Agree. Also, more pertinent than the current manufacturers would be pioneers of the style such as John Arnold.
  (5) Neutral. I think all it would really need is a hatnote advising readers of the existence of a page for the generic style, and for the first mention of ugg boots in the article itself to be a link back to the page for the generic style.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• (1) ABSTAIN.
  (2) Ugg Australia Brand (registered trademark), should be what the Primary/original focus of the article should be about. For clarity, I believe you are talking PURELY about “trademark disputes” here. YES, trademark disputes should be a SHORT SUMMARY well down the page, with links to further detail on some other page.
  (3) YES. I don’t believe that Wiki is a good place for “pure opinion” of individuals, except if it is quoted language from somebody famous, for historical purposes...or, maybe EVEN the trademark debates. I do think it's important that the Ugg boots got the "name" from a wife who was stressing that they were UGLY! That is really excellent history, and is pertinent!
  (4) NO. The Ugg Asutralia brand is what is best known world-wide. If it weren’t for that, I wouldn’t have even heard (or cared) about the nomenclature “ugg or UGG.” Any type of generic of this style should be listed late in the article (further down).
  (5) Definitive YES. The generic ugg boot style is part of the history/background of what is known by most of the world today.

ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Christie, there is ALREADY AN ARTICLE about the Ugg Australia trademark - It's called "UGG Australia". Why do you want two identical articles about the same thing? I know you've likely been recruited from some forum to join this debate - hence your sudden appearance and zeal - but if you're going to contribute you should understand what we are debating rather than be a fresh breath of misunerstanding. An Ugg Australia article already exists - this article is not about Ugg Australia at all since the brandname article exists elsewhere - this is why the neutral editor who proposed this vote requested that brand new, single purpose users such as yourself refrain from voting in this long-running dispute. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not about what people think - what you, or others "care about" or what individuals (as you mention) or companies hold as opinions. It is about the TRUTH. The truth is that both "ugg boots (generic)" and "UGG Australia" exist and largely independent entities. Why can't they keep their own articles instead of making two about the brandname?

• • I would like to formally state, that I while I accept Factchk's role here, obvious meatpuppets such as this, who only appeared out of nowhere to be part of this discussion, be discounted from this vote as requested by the user who made the proposition.Mandurahmike (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike I feel I should point out what others have said about allowing the proper authorities to determine if someone is acting in bad faith. Christie began editing on Misplaced Pages a full month before this discussion began and has edits on several other pages. To my knowledge she has not been found to be a likely meatpuppet/sockpuppet in any investigation. By those standards she qualifies to participate in this discussion. You don’t have to agree with her opinion. I don’t think it’s fair to assume bad faith WP:DNB.--Factchk (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Factchk, what were those edits? I am not seeing them with a search on the username. I know there are other tools but I am on my way out the door and don't want to hunt for them. I set the number at two cause I saw you had edited transformers and something else -- was it Chicago Cubs? I see the appeal to AGF, but honestly, hasn't that been done to death on that page? I just, personally, find it very hard to believe in pixies and unaffiliated editors who feel so vehemently about a brand of boots. Even Apple users don't spent years arguing on wikipedia about stuff like this. @Christie, do you live in Las Cruces? How about you leave me a message on my user page describing the place and telling me why you care so much about UGG boots. That might maybe convince me you're real. Cause apart from you, this looks close to consensus. And right now, frankly, I don't think you are. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I found them. Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd also ask anyone, suspicious SPAs and otherwise, who are voting to make this article primarily about Ugg Australia - what is your justification for having two articles about the same thing, particularly as the existing article has a hat-note directing to Ugg Australia (if that's what someone is looking for). Also, assuming such an outcome for the article became a reality - what happens to the style of boot which would have been (for Misplaced Pages purposes) robbed of its first and most natural signifier? What would you do, for example, if one day Coke manages to trademark the word "cola". I can't see how anyone without a serious COI would want to REDUCE the amount of information on Misplaced Pages. The only people for whom blurring the lines between brand and style hold any benefits for whatsoever are Deckers.Mandurahmike (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• On the proposals: Donama (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Abstain - I don't know. If 'bona fide participant means' not a single purpose account, then FactChk should not participate here, but if that is allowed in a vote like this then Factchk should be included.
  • 2. Agree - A summary in main body with about brands of ugg boots, particularly Ugg Australia.
  • 3. Agree - Public statements about the ugg brand belongs on the Ugg Australia page. If it ambiguous as to whether the celebrities were referring to generics or the Ugg Australia brand then I'm very willing to compromise on that. But still any mention on the ugg boots page should observe the due weight guideline.
  • 4. Neutral - I don't really like the way this is worded. What I think is that brands should not be a major focus of Misplaced Pages, regardless of what country they're associated with. What is clear on Misplaced Pages at present is that some brands are more notable than others. If they have a Misplaced Pages article (two I know of are Ugg Australia and Uggs-N-Rugs) then that's a fair indication of notability and they should be mentioned in the summary of brands (as specified in point #2).
  • 5. Disagree - Ugg Australia is a specific instance of ugg boots. Thus the lead should read something like "Ugg Australia is an international brand of ugg boots" and that should not be buried deep down.

• Since there has been such a diligent effort to highlight unproven allegations about SPA/sock/meatpuppet status by the AU/NZ editors, I feel it's only fair to point out that Gnangarra, Bilby, Donama, Mandurahmike and WLRoss are from Australia, and Daveosaurus is from New Zealand. Therefore all of them may be affected by cultural bias, and less weight should be accorded to their votes. According to WP:MTPPT the number of votes one way or the other should also be given less weight, in favor of policy based arguments. Anything here that could be summarized by WP:LIKE or WP:IDL should be disregarded. On the proposals:

• • 1. Agree. Factchk is a bona fide participant and, to the extent that his arguments are based on Misplaced Pages policy, they should be given greater weight that arguments by an Australian editor with 10,000 unrelated edits, but knows what he likes and doesn't like about the article, may be swayed by cultural bias and hasn't even bothered to mention policy.
  • 2. Disagree. I find it difficult to believe that any Australian editor would consent to cutting one more word out of the "summary" of the Uggs-N-Rugs/Mortels vs. Deckers case. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT (part of the bedrock WP:NPOV policy) indicates that other cases, in other countries, should be given equal weight.
  • 3. Agree. I'm unaware of any relevant statement by Jennifer Lopez. The statement by Pamela Anderson, since it objects to the use of sheepskin, appears to object to all ugg boots (the style), rather than just one brand. So according to the terms of this proposal, the Pamela Anderson statement would stay in the article.
  • 4. Disagree (per WP:N policy). Some brands are notable and others are not. Once we get past that threshold, the number of mentions for any particular brand should be governed by WP:WEIGHT.
  • 5. Agree. I don't see anything wrong with this proposal according to policy.

Three out of five. That's better than you were expecting, isn't it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I just knew I was going to get mad. That is why I started with a sigh. P&W, you qualify based on the number of edits, but did HelloAnnyong yes or no not say that he/she was pretty sure there was meatpuppetry going on in this article?

Funny you should cite WP:MTPPT. Yes, it does say that votes are not binding. I said *that* way up at the top of this section. This is a non-binding vote which does however make it clear that with some shades of grey there's a possible consensus if you exclude people with meatpuppet cases. The WP:MPPT policy *also* says that one editor plus meatpuppets is one vote for purposes of consensus, by the way.

What's really hard to tell is who's a meatpuppet of who, around here. For instance, you seem to have appeared fully formed one day on an administrator noticeboard admonishing someone not to bite the newbies. Um, some *other* newbie, who supposedly had more edits than you. Along the way you because so attached to your wife's boots that you sang their praises in six or was it seven languages, with particular attention to the trademark cases. I mean, really. Do you *seriously* expect me to believe that? Factchk seems to have had his own adventures in sockpuppetry investigations, and Christie, giggle, Christie.... also appeared fully formed on the very day that Daveosaurus requested a sockpuppet investigation of you. How neighborly of you to welcome her an hour and a half after her very first edits -- which might be plagiarized, by the way, or a nursing textbook maybe stole from wikipedia, must remember to assume good faith...Except that if she wrote it she wrote real fast, paragraphs in a couple of minutes. But I digress, and perhaps I read the diff wrong. Other people have edited that article. But not you. Interestingly. You somehow noticed a brand new editor on a page you have never edited.

It could happen. Maybe you were reading this article about a nurse, you who seem pretty single-minded about editing one article at any given time, and saw something that needed to be fixed, and clicked history, and said gee, let me click this editor's name, and saw she was new, and wanted to welcome her. Within an hour an a half of her first edit.

Please.

The interesting thing about this non-binding, unofficial poll though is that since people are participating solely because I don't give a shit, I can *also* not give a shit about other things too. Like ya, I am commenting on editors. I see some here who need it.

Let's get one thing straight. Decker's is a legitimate stakeholder in these articles. But they are one entity and one only, and as far as *I* can tell they or their representatives have been playing sillybuggers with these articles in some sort of misguided SEO campaign. This is not good PR, people. It really is not.

As to your specious arguments above... ok, J.Lo didn't comment on the boots, she wore them. Equally irrelevant. It's not mentioning policy that matters, P&W, it's editing in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Speaking of which, you appear to have a truly twisted concept of WP:WEIGHT. All Australians together count as one? But not Americans, apparently. Don't kid a kidder - I can play word games too. I just don't seem to feel the need to waste other people's time that way. Your editing patterns make no sense at all to me unless they are subsidized.

See, I can post a wall of text too. Someone please close this and take the matter to ANI. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. P&W, I still can't believe you started this whole mess coming here contending that the uggs boot page needs to say *less* about ugg boots! When less than a third of the page is on-topic! If you are not getting paid by the hour for this, then please please consider that the world may perhaps not be as you perceive it. That is the kindest way I can think of to phrase this. If it gets me in trouble, you know what? I don't give a shit. It's only Misplaced Pages, and my family thinks I am nuts to even have tried talking to you :) Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've asked at AN/I for this to be closed, even challenged them to read the whole discussion. Gnangarra 11:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's not appropriate to have two separate articles for Ugg. Absolutely, there can be links to other issues, such as Trademark Law. But there is no point in bringing confusion to the topic at hand by having multiple articles about Ugg. I've paid quite a bit of attention to the issue at hand. There are generics out there that do not compare. The generics can be listed as a separate issue amidst the main article, just as the history can be listed below. I suggest:

Ugg Australia (registered trademark)

A. BRAND DESCRIPTION

1. Types of products

2. Sales, statistics

3. History of the company – and people involved

B. HISTORY OF UGG BOOT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

1. Origination: Australia – dates, people involved (known fact)

2. How “ugg” got it’s name

3. Other history that is not verifiable – possibly, "hearsay"

C. TRADEMARK LAW AND DISPUTES

1. …

Oh... P.S.: My edits are generally on nursing and health care issues. I don't have enough knowledge about Ugg to add text to the article. But I can surely contribute to the article's organization so that it makes sense to the reader. The article shouldn't run all over the place, or be divided into multiple articles. If there is content that strays away, there should be links to identify it as such.

 ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Being realistic, there is no possibility that any argument based on having only one article on ugg boots, with an almost complete focus on the single brand, is going to get consensus. The issue at hand needs to remain focused on how to provide balanced coverage of all the issues across two or more articles. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, what about using Christie's organization but changing around A and B as follows:

A. History of Ugg boots throughout the world

B. Brand description (including multiple brands if noteworthy enough to have their own articles)

C. Trademark law and disputes

This avoids "almost complete focus on the single brand." I've never advocated removing the "History" section, reducing it in size, or demoting it from its current place of prominence in the first section of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the issue of neutrality has been done to death here, can we please leave the NPOV discussion board for further discussion, given it's not related to neutrality, and allow this issue to be closed here. I do not see value in discussing article structure here. Further discussion belongs back at the ugg talk page. Thanks. Donama (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to move on, however, I am curious as to what the originator of this discussion things should be done now that it is he, not the Australian editors, who was fairly unambiguously deemed a POV and probably a COI editor of this article. I mean, presumably this discussion was launched so that something could be done about bias?Mandurahmike (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help P&W here. I know you voted against #2 but I think that proposal #2 is pretty balanced. I’ve created what I feel is a good summary or at least a template for a summary and posted it on the Talk page where we can discuss the actual wording.--Factchk (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Revised December 16. --Factchk (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of moving away from the NPOV talk page, Factchk, can you please repost a proposal for rewriting the trademarks section on the talk page and remove it from here. I don't want to take up any more space here. As to the resolution of this enormous discussion here, which is what I think Mike is getting at, I call on an appropriate uninvolved administrator to help us close it ASAP, since the neutrality question is done and dusted. Donama (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I’ve moved relevant discussion topics to the Talk page where the particulars can be discussed in detail. I agree, the discussion here has wrapped and any involved or uninvolved folks have had their say and we can move on to more productive matters now.--Factchk (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A compromise proposal

I think the following proposal should take all concerns into account:

• Move Ugg boots to Fashion crime.
• Extend the article so as to discuss other fashion crimes as well.
• Keep the redirect fromm Ugg boots to Fashion crime.
• Put the following note at the top of Fashion crime:

  "Ugg boots" redirects here. For the brand named after this Australian generic term, see UGG Australia.

For further information on the background of this proposal, see WP:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations and related reports in the world media. Hans Adler 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

PS to UGG Australia editors: I strongly suggest that you escalate this to your supervisor. Hans Adler 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh

I came across this matter when this war spilled over into sheepskin boots which was taken to AFD. In the course of sorting that out, I established that the Oxford English Dictionary, which is an authority on the English language, files the matter under the heading Ugh. Its usage examples show that the generic name for such boots has been variously spelt as ugh, ugg and ug. By following this authority and naming the article Ugh (boots) or similar, we would nicely avoid the trademark issue, as the trademark is UGG Australia, right?

As a precedent, please note that there was a similar dispute about the Slanket / Snuggie / Toasty Wrap / &c. — a variety of trade names for a popular type of leisure blanket. I resolved this by moving that article to Sleeved blanket and that seems to have been successful in quelling disputes between the competing commercial claims. The guidance of WP:NEO at the time was to "use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English". Moreover, MOS:TM stated, "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed". As there are numerous manufacturers of sheepskin boots and UGG now produce boots in a wide variety of styles, perhaps we should fold the sorry mess into sheepskin boots where we can focus upon the history of this footwear rather than current commercial interests. The title sheepskin boots is plain English which should be comprehensible to anyone.

Yet another good precedent is tree shaping. I also came across that at AFD — disputants often go there to try to stifle the competition. That matter seemed intractable and so ended up at Arbcom. Note that, among their rulings, they stated "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.".

Warden (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Russian elections

• Russian legislative election, 2011
• 2011 Russian protests

Apparently everyone seems to agree that it's not NPOV, but disagree on who it's slanted towards. Could benefit from outside editors, especially since this is currently a hot topic. a13ean (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no way to avoid serious problems with most Russian media controlled by the government and thus unreliable sources, and the distinct possibility of involvement by agents of the Russian government in our editing. To say nothing of the enthusiasm displayed by Western media. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of reporting on this from outside of Russia, so finding sources should not be a problem. At any rate, we should attempt to find English-language sources whenever available. As for "the distinct possibility of involvement by agents of the Russian government in our editing", let's try to assume good faith here. a13ean (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Russian Internet media are not controlled by the government. Most popular resources, like Lenta.ru, report all protests and arrests fairly, sometimes even with an anti-government slant. GreyHood 20:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The government certainly does meddle in internet media - like tweets on the protests (botnet probably goverment work), for instance, or forums on VKontakte (FSB pressure), according to the BBC. That said, as mentioned on the talk page, some editors do seem to be deleting pro-protest edits with pretty dodgy edit summaries that misrepresent WP policy. Particularly Greyhood, as a matter of fact. I'm not at all saying you're a government agent, but it seems you're bent on getting rid of much information that casts a good (yet neutrally-presented and well-sourced) light on the protesters. To be fair, you've slowed since I posted on the talk page.Malick78 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Malick, I just make edits and discuss them if they are found not at all good. When it comes to protesters, I just tried to insert the new information and remove the outdated one. GreyHood 00:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the so far jokingly rejected attempts of the government to meddle in Vkontakte just show that Internet is not controlled in Russia. There is a speculation, though, that by 2016-2018 most Russians will have Internet access, and by that time the government will be controlling the web. But for now the situation is different. GreyHood 00:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, you do not just "remove outdated" info. Here you remove a quote by Mikhail Gorbachev saying: "Gorbachev is not in any official position to place his criticism on par with the top politicians in other countries; he is a marginal opposition politician in Russia with dismal ratings". His opinion was significant, and you removed it because he called for a rerun of the elections. Here you removed info from a respected radio station, Ekho Moskvy, saying it was "apparently self-published"!!!! I guess that makes the BBC self-published, does it? And here, you twist things in a most worrying way: a) you call Commonwealth of Independent States "abroad", as if it's not dominated by Russia and as if it is neutral. b) "The overall results were not challenged in court by any parties which participated in the election, but the marginal non-parliamentary parties" - this skilfully elides the fact that the parties that "participated" (I think you mean "got seats") were hand-picked by the government (other "marginal" parties weren't allowed to register, or their votes were stolen meaning they didn't get enough votes to have seats... making them, beautifully and self-fulfillingly, "marginal"). Each edit you make, Greyhood, seems designed to spin in favour of United Russia/Putin, and belittle the opposition. Frequently your edit summaries bear little relation to your edits/WP policies. Here, you repeatedly misquote WP:CRYSTAL - complaining about an article about past events, when CRYSTAL refers to "anticipated events". That's why I think you are disruptive, wikilawyering, and not at all interested in "discussion". Malick78 (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. Here, the last link you mention, I haven't made a single edit so far, to begin with, so I didn't misquote anything and your accusation in wikilawyering is utmost unjustice in this case. But now I'll perhaps go and voice my opinion there.
• Re: Gorbachev, my position is very simple: comments from marginal opposing politicians have too little weight, whether negative or positive. And I see the practice of ignoring such marginal opinions implemented on many political articles. The case with Gorbachev is a bit more difficult, since he was top politician 20 years ago. If other users think this background is important enough to mention his view, despite his obvious COI and not representing Russia's position in any way (he has no significant support in population), than OK, but until the consensus is made clear or the discussion on talk is started I have a right to challenge and remove the information obviously contradicting existing practices as I understand them.
• Re: Ekho - I have deleted that because of the other self-published looking primary source from an organisation with no clear legal status or notability. I haven't noticed the Ekho source, sorry, we all make mistakes sometimes, you too. Ekho, btw, is not exactly respected with a large part of Russia's population and its anti-government bias is well known, so it should be used as a source very accurately.
• Re: CIS. There are 9 other countries. Some of them are in very strained relations with Russia.
• Re: "results were not challenged by any parties which participated in the election". That's correct. And I didn't mean only the parties which got seats. "but the marginal non-parliamentary parties" - yes, when I was writing this, mostly marginals protested. But since then it has changed somewhat.

Malick, I act perfectly in the way any reasonable editor would act, though perhaps sometimes I'm too WP:BOLD. I make edits I consider necessary and I can explain why, I respect the discussion, when it is started on talk, and I respect the consensus, when it is achieved. Disruption means avoiding proper discussion and ignoring the consensus, and I'm very far from it. As for the impression my edits make on you, that's not something anyone should bother about so long as I make my edits without violating policies. GreyHood 13:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the CRYSTAL thing - I conflated you with VsevolodKrolikov - many apologies (you have similar views and behaviour, guess that's why ;) ). I stand by the rest though. Btw, Ekho's "anti-government bias" could just be being neutral, you know ;) As for violating policies - well, misrepresenting and deleting sources as mere "blogs" when they're in fact published by the New Yorker (and are opinion pieces) is an example that springs to mind.Malick78 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

With VsevolodKrolikov, whom I respect a lot, we have quite different views on some points, and quite different editing preferences, so I guess you conflated us only because we were both opposing you in some particular questions recently. Painting all your opponents the same colour and making subtle allegations of sockpuppetry or other violations is not the wisest and nicest thing to do. GreyHood 14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I see no further need in this discussion. Some my edits stay in the articles in question, and some gained consensus to be reverted, which I never breached since I respect collaborative environment. If you have some personal issues with me, you may go to more relevant noticeboards. If some questions remain unresolved, we may resolve them on the talk pages of particular articles.

Let's make a bottom line on this: we all make mistakes sometimes, and we disagree on certain things, but this all is not the reason to focus discussion on users instead of articles and policies. GreyHood 14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No allegation of sockpuppetry was intended - just you are birds of a feather. The fact that VK forgot to sign his last two comments at the AFD probably didn't help me either ;) As simple and innocent as that. As for drawing a line - if you are more neutral and more constructive, I and others will have less reason to complain.Malick78 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, said on the other discussion but forgot to say here: apologizes accepted and hope we will indeed engage in more constructive discussions in more relevant places. GreyHood 15:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely worried by Greyhood's activities and I suspect some special interest on his part. He is stubbornly turning Vladimir_Putin into a fan article. While Russia has anti-Putin protests and the biggest civil unrest since 1993, the article effectively says "Putin is universally popular, most popular leader in the world", blah-blah. Greyhood, for example, fought tooth and nail to exclude even a simple factual sentence: "However, recent events and polls show that popularity of Putin is on the decline." It looks like Putin is his living God or something. And his wikilawyering is indeed extremely stubborn, opinionated, irrational. He simply bends every possible rule to make an excuse for his actions, erases high-quality citations of top periodicals, etc etc. He is on a Holy War here and he must be stopped. Gritzko (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(interesting edit conflict) I hope peace breaks out. Greyhood is a valuable and courteous editor - you should have witnessed his masterly trimming down last year of the Russia article from the bloated mess that it was. From what I can see of his edits on this topic, there is a genuine concern, based upon a close familiarity with the subject, that there is not enough due diligence performed with sources. I don't agree with all of what he's said. (For example, I would be more generous in giving weight to Gorbachev's views given that he used to be head of the USSR. It is certainly true that he's an irrelevance in contemporary Russia, but his words attract attention outside of Russia.) But Greyhood deserves to be taken seriously if he does raise objections - even if ultimately you still think he's wrong. On the other hand, those of us familiar long-term with Russian politics perhaps need to take more time to explain and provide more evidence in treating sources on all sides in a situation like this with kid gloves. To put it another way (and with no intended slight at any editor here) Russian politics isn't for people who need closure. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that Greyhood is overdefending Putin - cutting any new negative info as "recentism" has crossed over into wikilawyering and being disruptive. Meanwhile, over on 2011 Russian protests he's really taken the biscuit with a blatant edit which twisted the source unacceptably: Here, Greyhood took this source, ""Интерфакс" со ссылкой на пресс-службу ГУ МВД по Москве сообщает, что в митинге приняли участие 25 тысяч человек. В то же время блогеры усомнились в этих данных. Корреспондент "Ленты.ру" оценил количество собравшихся в 5-7 тысяч человек. В правоохранительных органах отметили, что мероприятие проходило без происшествий." and wrote in the article, "On 12th December the 25,000 meeting of pro-Kremlin youth groups supported Putin and United Russia and celebrated the Constitution." He meant, presumably, "25,000 strong". The source, for the benefit of non-Russian speakers, says that Interfax reported 25,000 at the meeting, but that Lenta.ru (the publishers of the article!) thought there were just 5-7,000 at the demo. He ignored the writer of the article, and used the higher, more pro-kremlin figure, that the article had rejected. This is his most blatantly POV edit (of a long list of blatant edits). He really needs a warning, in my opinion.Malick78 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Malick78, if I need a warning, than I would prefer to get it from more neutral editors rather than you and Gritzko who openly declare their negative attitude against the Russian government. With this article, I just haven't read the article properly. I've made few more mistakes when I expanded the articles recently, but I corrected some of them later. This is just a normal editing process, and in my opinion it is exactly the assumption of bad faith and openly negative attitudes to the subject of the articles which disrupts editing. GreyHood 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Me saying that Putin is an authoritarian leader qualifies as "negative attitude against the Russian government", right? No, Greyhood! You're too liberal! That is negative attitude against Russia! High treason! Gritzko (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

New dodgy source from Greyhood

Greyhood seems to think that this is a reliable source for Russian legislative election, 2011. Can we get some opinions on it? In my view, the fact that it says "15,000" Nashi members rallied on Dec 6 (when other sources say 5,000), and that it says things like, "В результате около 300 человек, участвовавших в шествии, в том числе блогер Алексей Навальный, призывавший к неповиновению требованиям полиции, были задержаны. В блогах уже раскритиковали организаторов, которые анонсировали мирную акцию, а по факту спровоцировали беспорядки и аресты случайных прохожих." - "As a result , about 300 of those who marched, including blogger Alexey Navalny, who was detained for disobeying police orders, have been arrested. In blogs the organisers, who announced a peaceful protest but in actual fact provoked disorder and the arrest of innocent passers-by, of been criticised.". Does that sound like a neutral, reliable source? The article makes no criticisms of the authorities, and just lays into the anti-gov protesters. It is not an acceptable source (NB. It was written on Dec 6, when many sites were still scared of saying anything against the authorities.) If more proof is needed, the next para says: "По мнению экспертов, обвинения в массовых нарушениях в ходе выборов, высказанные на митинге оппозиции, не имеют под собой оснований, поскольку предварительные результаты голосования по итогам подсчета большинства бюллетеней практически полностью совпадают с прогнозами социологов и результатами экзитполов." - "In the opinion of experts, allegations of mass irregularities during the election, made at the protest held by the opposition demonstrators, have no basis, since the preliminary results of the vote according to a summary of bulletins, almost all concur with predictions made by sociologists and the results of exitpolls." Who are the experts? And the sociologists? They don't say, and don't care, and neither does Greyhood. The article is completely anti-protester and makes no attempt to be neutral. For this reason, it should not be used by Greyhood here (scroll down), or on 2011 Russian protests, where he has been using it too. This really is persistent and biased editing by Greyhood, and even with the discussion here he is not interested in being more careful.Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not seem neutral. Mind you, I do not know what the norm is in Russia. But I did just go through the article -- mostly for English -- and agree that the tone is partisan in that section, ie, *they* had protests but *we* had *way* more people marching in support. I am also find it genuinely hard to believe that so many people would turn out to celebrate the return to power of an incumbent kleptocracy, but that's an opinion. Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

PS was somewhat puzzled by the several references to "the government and United Russia" -- doesn't getting elected make United Russia the government? Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Qais Abdur Rashid

After some name-calling on my talk page I thought I should bring this here. Qais Abdur Rashid is described as legendary in the lead, and many sources describe either him or the claim that all Pashtuns trace their ancestry to him as either legendary or mythical. I removed an edit by the editor calling my removal fascistic because it states as though fact that he was not the "the blood father of all modern day Afghan (Pashtun) people and that all tribes are descended from him." A number of what look like reliable sources make this statement (mainly as legendary/mythical), but the editor has chosen to have Misplaced Pages claim that they are all wrong and that one book is right, "The Lost Tribes in Assyria" by Rabbi Avihail A. and A. Brin, Translation: S. Matlofsky, Jerusalem: Amishav, 1978, pages 97–106. -The authors don't seem to have any academic track record and the publisher Amishav is an orgiansation "dedicated to locating the Lost Tribes of Israel (with the objective of contracting the population increase of a “bourgeoning” Arab population by their mass return". See Shavei Israel. I'm not at all sure we can use this source for anything, let alone for a section headed 'Misconceptions'. The editor has longstanding problems with sources and I suspect that he is particularly upset with me over Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oldest Afghan tribes. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Dougweller, I received your request for me to comment here. I did some more research and there are references that refer to Qais Abdur Rashid as being a historical figure, while others refer to him as a legendary figure. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, I would suggest that both perspectives are included. I found some information from the Census of India, 1901, Volume 18, Part 1, as well as from A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province that can be used to ameliorate the condition of the article. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam 04:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to clarify my position. I am not upset with Dougweller, and I am not upset he deleted my article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oldest Afghan tribes, though if it were upto me I would have liked for the article to stay. As for Qais Abdur Rashid, all Afghan and Muslim sources and many Western sources do accept his status as a real historical figure. He actually has a grave which I myself have visited, which people visit everyday. The grave alone or some reference alone might not be enough but both combined there is no doubt his actual historical status is more logical than legendary. Lastly, Dougweller seems to have a problem with my edits. In the past I used to provide the standard 1 or 2 references for each statement to which many Afghan users objected. To clarify to them it was a factual statement I had to provide 4-6 references or more. However, Dougweller didnt seem to like the idea, & instead of asking me about it he straight away deleted many of my posts. I do respect his services for Wiki which are numerous but my objection is, he isnt a specialist on the field, he even isnt an Afghan or from that area & so there will always be some issues an Afghan or a historian would be more capable of dealing. In all of this I find myself at odd with Dougweller on the one hand and local especially Afghan users on the other hand. I only want to bring Afghan history and related facts to Misplaced Pages. I hope Dougweller isnt offended and I would like him to try to understand my position. I am not going to do anything that is against Wiki rules or offends senior editors like Dougweller.

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This does clarify your position, but Anupam is correct. Our WP:NPOV policy requires us "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately. Anyone can edit an article, you do not have to be an expert in a particular field, what is needed is access to reliable sources, a neutral point of view, an ability to represent those sources correctly, and an ability to write so that others understand you. I can also bring to the table the fact that I've studied history at undergraduate and graduate level and have a good background in historical and archaeological research. I and other editors have had problems with your edits over issues including reliability of your sources and the way you represent them. These issues are in part what led to the deletion of the article you mention. As for the grave, there are a number of graves for people who almost certainly did not exist, so I'm afraid it proves nothing. except that there is a gravesite that people attribute to the subject of this article. I hope you've also read WP:NOR.

I presume you can find some reliable sources saying that he was a historical figure (the one you've used is not in my opinion a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A few things that I would like to say. I feel you're being too selective in this particular instance. I think the matter is more simple than that. There are people who consider him historical and others who dont. However, the truth is, there are more sources favoring his historical status than not. (Now dont ask me to go prepare a document on the ones that favor his historical status as you usually do) Off all of these sources the ones you should consider foremost are the Afghan people. There are dozens of tribes who cite their oral history with Qais/Kish being a real person, their historical leader and so on. It is good to know you do have a background in history. Now, the region we are talking about is not Scandinavia where you can still find in written form funeral and wedding details of people in the 9th or 10th century. The Afghan people dont preserve history in textual form but through Oral Tradition, why? because the region has always had a history of perpetual war and strife. There are key Afghan leaders throughout history like Khushal Khan Khattak, Bacha Khan and so on who made Afghan history and their family trees include the name Qais abdur Rashid. Now what seems more logical? a few Western historians who has never been to the region or had a 1st hand experience /account or the Afghan people, their leaders and many many historians Western & otherwise who say the man was their ancestor? Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the Misconceptions sub topic? I personally through my research do consider this man Qais /Kish to be a real historical figure. There are people who believe the Afghan people, all of them descended from this one man. This is completely illogical. Tribal populations, genetics, historical accounts especially of the Greeks and the Bani Israel story from the Jewish and Afghan accounts prove this. The Afghans didnt suddenly come out as the largest patriarchal group from this one man in the 6th/7th century. They were already living there. He was only an important historical leader of the time and this is why he has historical importance. The most important reason for which I can find in history is probably because he has a direct lineage or descent from the Royal House of Israel. He was the purest blood of Old Israel and that is why they must have chosen him as their leader. This is verified by historians like Farishta, many Prophetic (Muhammad PBUH) traditions and also by Western and Jewish sources. But I gave here the Jewish source because it is the most neutral in this case. It doesnt involve the supporters (Muslims and some Western historians) or the refuters (some Western historians). I completely feel I have been most impartial and neutral. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you will accept input from someone who knows even less about the matter, the heart of the problem here is in the words "personally through my own research". There is a rule against that on Misplaced Pages. I have had my own issues with it -- let me tell you briefly. In an article I was working on, a public figure was making preposterous, obviously false statements, but explaining why the statements were false was running into this rule, and citations from textbooks were getting removed as irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not perfect. I do hope to find a way to resolve that situation, but meanwhile, it seems to me that for yours, surely somebody somewhere in some language has collated some of these stories? An anthropologist. A soldier who spent a lot of time in the field. Somebody. Try scholar.google.com. You absolutely have to use a source other than your own knowledge of tribal oral tradition. That does not mean that these oral traditions are not valuable; if in fact they have never been recorded, I would encourage you to do so, but Misplaced Pages is not the place. Possibly Wikiversity? An alternative would be to write this as "these people say this, but these other people over here say they are wrong, and that this other thing is what *really* happened." If you do this then you do not have to weigh which of the several sources you say you have would be the "best" -- hope that helps Elinruby (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A few things about that ^, this Oral History Traditions have been recorded and are given in the more appropriate and related article Theory of Pashtun descent from the Ten Lost Tribes, to which I will add more stuff (hopefully without DougWeller deleting it, lol), should those references be provided in this article as well which is about something else? As for different opinions, all have been represented, there are Muslim and Pashtun sources, then there are opposing references from Thomas Walker Arnold and then now with this topic Misconceptions I have also provided a fourth view. Why? All topics related to the story of the decent of the Pashtuns from the Ten Lost Tribes involves four different groups of people and their views and all are important. The Pashtuns themselves, various Muslim historians, Western historians and lastly sources as important as the Pashtuns when it comes to Afghan/Pashtun history, the Jewish historians, Rabbis and other sources.

By providing the last heading "Misconceptions", all four sources have been represented, which satisfies I think all Wiki requirements. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But you're calling it a "misconception" which may be why we're hearing about it on the neutral point of view board, not the reliable source board. Because it seems that the other editor has a problem with your sources too. Look, despite my comments above, we have to have these rules, or people would be editing in all sorts of statements they *know* to be true. Different people get taught different histories. If I get a chance I will look at the article itself to see if that sheds some light on exactly what the issue is here. But I agree with the other editor that the existence of a grave does not prove historical existence. Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at the article and understand a little better how sourcing problems wound up on the neutral point of view board. I have knocked out some of the low-hanging fruit as far as pov language is concerned. For instance I changed "points out" to "wrote" and in another place inserted the words "according to Pashtun legend." For example. I also flagged some other specific problems. If you are having trouble with deletionists I suggest you move the article to your personal user space while you work on it, then ask for input before moving it to the main space. Just a suggestion.

Your guy can't be both a myth AND a legend, by the way. I went with legend but have no strong feelings about the matter if you think he's a myth. Just be consistent. You definitely do have some source problems and I would strongly suggest that you address them. As I mentioned above, you don't have to decide who is "right". If there is disagreement, report the disagreement. Here is a list of source issues -- I do not know if they are of your creation, or someone else's but they do need to be addressed, and you seem to care about the article.

• Reference 1 is a country study, part of somebody's "world terrorism resources." It ascribes the belief to an anthropologist, and with very minor googling I found what looks like a better reference, if only I had access to JSTOR to be sure. If you can get to a college library perhaps you can do so.

• 2 is a dead link. Since you provide an author and a date, perhaps the reference is findable, but your reader is not supposed to have to work that hard. In any event, I did not find it through the site's search box, using "qais", "abdur", "rashid" or "mansoor", the author name provided. Possibly a transliteration issue, but it is, yes, an issue. On the other hand, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has decided that this publication is usually reliable, so if you can sort out the link (or even if you can't, really) the reference is probably ok

• 3 is ridiculous."Pakistan pictorial, Pakistan Publications, 2003." What does that even mean? How is anyone supposed to verify it?.

• 4 looks plausible -- can't find a copy to look at though.

• 5 and 6 are the same text, which is clearly religious in nature and claims some startling facts. Any text written by someone who gives his title as "Messiah" is NOT an acceptable historical source, sorry.

• 7 is not the original reference; the author you cite is in fact quoting an unnamed book by Mountstuart Elphinstone, it looks like. That very long quote contains a lot of 19th century flowery language that amounts to yeah, the man went to Arabia. The space would be better spent on more detail.

• 8 has good reviews on Amazon, but I was not able to verify the reference. *Why* does he say the story has no basis in historical fact?

• 9 looks like an encyclopedia. You'll need a more specific reference. I made a good-faith attempt to find the text with a find function and did not succeed using either "copt", "pashtun" or "pashto". See above; your reader is not supposed to have to work this hard.

• 10 is bewildering. I *think* it is a website associated with a book you are using as a reference, but you do not cite it as a book; in fact you don't describe it at all. In any event, although it looks like this is supposed to be a reference for the existence of the grave, the only occurence of the name Qais Abdur Rashid is in a section devoted to the author's ancestry.

hope that helps Elinruby (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Qnet ltd

• Qnet ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• QNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit is why I'm opening noticeboard discussion. Freudianr (talk · contribs) requested the deletion of the current page on Qnet ltd based on the negative bias in the article. A look through his edit history revealed that the user had also created the article QNet, which was deleted with the edit summary "WP:G11 for the most part. Nothing worth keeping". (Qnet is now just a redirect to Qnet ltd.) This suggests that Freudianr has a strong point of view regarding the subject.

On the other hand, the article is currently overloaded with negative information about the company, although there appear to be reliable sources to back up all the claims. It's been maintenance tagged, but only since 11 November 2011.

I declined the request for speedy deletion, as I don't feel the article was created in bad faith. However, I'd like a wider range of users to take a look at the article. Is it salvageable if the negative information is pared back and balanced with objective information about the company? Or is the current article so hopeless that discussion should be opened at AfD? —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it can be fixed --Guerillero | My Talk 19:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• I suggest that thing that is proven to be True should not be deleted, just add whatever stands in the favor of that company to achieve balance.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I did edit the article a few weeks back. Everything I added was negative but the fact is that there is no third-party reliable source out there that isn't strongly critical of the company's practices. Even looking for online information can be a challenge because QNet has set up a bunch of seemingly independent websites that are in fact empty shells singing praise about the company. From what I've seen, QNet's defense against the accusation that it forms is a pyramid scheme is a combination of "no we're not, trust us" and "our accusers are jealous or misinformed or personal enemies or disgruntled former employees or direct competitors and possibly all of the above". But I haven't found a single business analyst that has given a credible defense of their scheme and people who have denounced it include prominent journalists, economists, lawmakers in countries as diverse as Rwanda, Egypt and India. They are also absent from most if not all western countries where their business model is simply illegal. As for the info I was interested in, it concerned one of their flagship products the BioDisc which is so blatantly fraudulent in its claims that it's hard to discuss it without giggling.

• (QNet's defense against the accusation that it forms is a pyramid scheme is a combination of "no we're not, trust us" and "our accusers are jealous or misinformed or personal enemies or disgruntled former employees or direct competitors and possibly all of the above".) I completely agree with that.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Finally, I'd like to note that this article in its current state is probably a grave cause of concern for QNet and I expect their supporters (and possibly their representatives) to fight hard over it. New investors into the scheme have to spend a very hefty sum to join so it's only natural that they will try to search for information online and if Misplaced Pages says QNet is considered in most serious circles... Our options are a) delete the article because it's too negative, b) keep an article that is dominated by criticism of QNet, c) keep the article but make it balanced. It may seem like WP:NPOV rules out option b) but in fact it rules out option c). Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• What a mess but its retrievable, I've started cleaning up the article some of the sources are questionable and in need of improvement. Starting paragraphs with "its worth mentioning...." "It should be noted..." scream of original research and synth by the authors. The choice of renames like "QuestNet scam" when "GoldQuest" was a more obvious choice screams of NPOV issue with the authors as does the use of Fraudsandscams.com to describe the compensation plan and to headline the sourcing and information in the controversies section is also a concern, while I havent looked into the site to conider if its an RS site, the its being used in this article definately isnt neutral. more to come as work through cleaning the article up. Gnangarra 13:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That article is a shocker - first thing would be to check all sources, delete anything that is not verifiable or from an RS - plus a lot of the english makes no sense - for example - Like the style of the company, its representatives in Egypt tries to gain credibility by posting news on their tongues, or of their leaders. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been its changed a lot in the last hour, the egyptian sections is gone hollis bollis as its a WP:FUTURE event. Still working on the rest Gnangarra 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Clear WP:OWN problems from SPIs on that article, more eyes (and hands) are needed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ick. Clearly people who know their SEO strategies. A lot of the references cited in the article are so stilted in translation as to be almost unusable. We could use an Arab speaker. I did a fast copy edit and am willing to put a little time into sources and research. Anyone know this site? http://observers.france24.com/content/20100504-questnet-pyramid-scheme-drops-anchor-africa-burkina-faso

Are the people selling gold coins the same company? I thought not, until I saw the article about Dubai. Serious nastiness if it is the same people. Elinruby (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an Arabic speaker, but as far as that latest is concerned - France24 is pretty solid, and off the top of my head I can't think of any other source which more reliable on current affairs in Burkina Faso. bobrayner (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Coleman Young

I can't figure which noticeboard is most appropriate for this, but the red flag went up for me on these edits: , I didn't know that the terms 'African-American' and 'white' were considered racist. Apparently the article has some history. Further input appreciated. Thanks, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

European-American?? That's funny ;) I guess I better look at the discussion page. Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well, these are kinda deep waters. I have family in Detroit and know it a little. I have visited quite a few times over the years and a relative's house off Jefferson Avenue was er, forcibly bought is the word I am looking for here maybe.... Anyway I think that the story of that city's decay is probably more complicated than anyone on the Talk page is dealing with. However. This question has to do with a former mayor's bio. Is he alive, is one question that might be important -- if so the article should not be blaming him for white flight or anything else without some very good sources. Just saying -- I did not investigate this point, but if you plan to edit it you should look at this. I was there visiting family and don't know when this guy was mayor, so I'd be no help on that...

But your specific question, huh. I have never heard the term "European-American" and think it's just silly. I believe that "African-American" is more usual than "black" any more, but like "Indian" and "Native American" preference seems to vary by individual. If I were involved in this article I would use whichever term the man used himself, unless somebody showed me a Misplaced Pages policy that says otherwise -- and I am pretty sure there isn't one. I do not think the term "black" is offensive. I use it myself because "African-American" sounds pompous to me, and in the many many years I spent living in black neighborhoods in the South I was never once reproved for this.

What I find particularly amusing tho is that whatever 222.129.105.50 has against "African-American" it isn't syllables -- he changes that to "black" but "white" to "European-American." LOL. hth Elinruby (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

PS - you guys should both sign in and introduce yourselves, hehe. Elinruby (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

These don't look like good faith edits, but rather, like someone trying to make a point. That seems likely given the changes of 'African American' to 'black, and 'white' to 'European American'. The previous version is non-controversial, given the standard acceptance of the terms in the culture and on Misplaced Pages. I didn't do a check of the article history, nor of the discussions, but wonder if this was a reaction to some previous argument. Thanks for having a look at this. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

hard to say. I did not look at the article itself but the discussion page, well, is about what you'd expect from an impoverished city that's had race riots. Apparently someone with a rather militant black-power attitude edited it, and some other people took exception, but that was years ago and all parties appear to have moved on. (?) Thanks for the giggle. Elinruby (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know about "black" being offensive (most black people I know identify that way), but "European-American" - in spite of comments suggesting the opposite cited in European American#Origin - is a phrase I've generally only heard as a white supremacist way of saying "white." (see: European Americans United, European-American Unity and Rights Organization) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• According to Gallup News Service (9/28/07), "black" and "African American" are the two most commonly used terms used to refer to black Americans (Gallup's term). Here is a summary taken from the article about the poll results:

"When given an explicit option of saying that they have no preference between the two terms , between a plurality and a majority of blacks have no preference. However, among those with a preference, 'African American' has grown in acceptance although 'Black' is still preferred by more Blacks... The fundamental conclusion from these data underscores what has been found previously: A majority of blacks in America today do not have a preference for the use of the term black or African American when they are given the explicit opportunity to say so." Considering this, neither "black" nor "African American" would seem racist. Both are proper and appropriate. "European American" would not necessarily be an accurate reference to all "white" Americans. I have never seen that reference used. It seems unnecessary.Coaster92 (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Favorite Enemies

I tagged the article for NPOV language on December 9, and it got reverted yesterday without consensus. Its main contributor openly admitted to a financial tie with the band, which presents a conflict of interest, and it appears that this user feels as though (s)he owns the article. I've provided a few tips on how to proceed, but the article needs quite a bit of work. For our discussion about neutrality, see here. SweetNightmares (awaken) 06:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I kind of question this article's notability per WP:BAND. SweetNightmares (awaken) 16:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Folio Society Article

Hi - I hope I'm in the right place. I ran across the article on the Folio Society, read it, thought it sounded a bit like ad copy, and tagged it as such. The article isn't a disaster; I just think that it has too many peacock terms in it and needs some minor cleanup (the article has been edited by Foliosociety, which is suggestive). The tag was quickly removed without consensus. I wonder if an admin would be willing to look the article over and assess its neutrality? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have looked at the article and notwithstanding the edits by user Foliosociety there really doesn't seem to be very much wrong with it IMHO. It all seems to be sound factual information in the current version. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

By "several" you must mean "two", neither of whom have made any effort to discuss let alone remove the peacock terms I explicitly identified. If a neutral administrator from this board reviews the article and finds it to be satisfactory as it stands, I will withdraw my criticisms. As it stands, I think that you and I have an honest difference of opinion. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any comments on the article (I haven't looked at it) but you might have some misconceptions about this noticeboard and what to expect here. There are no "administrator from this board" as administrators don't have special privileges related to this noticeboard or NPOV broadly construed. If you believe your concerns are serious enough to warrant administrator intervention, you're better off posting here. ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And after looking at the article and its Talk page I don't see any egregious NPOV problems. That may be because others have already edited the article, however. ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, ElKevbo, and for your opinion. No,I didn't imagine that admins reading this board had any special rights or priviledges - just a little more depth of experience in reviewing NPOV issues. Philafrenzy has made some headway in removing some of the worst of the puffery; I still think that the article has a ways to go. I am (self-) consciously aware that I am coming off as something of a douche in this matter, and recognize that there are several honestly-held opinions of varying intensity on this topic. But no matter what, thanks for taking the time to comment. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! It looks like you're still making (slow, somewhat painful) progress on the article's Talk page so that's encouraging. I think that since several editors aren't seeing the POV issues you perceive you will have to go into specific details. Best of luck! ElKevbo (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherkin and Clinical lycanthropy

• Otherkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Clinical lycanthropy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

On the article Otherkin, a see-also link to Clinical Lycanthropy has been added. I am very concerned that inclusion of this psychological disorder as a see-also for an article pertaining to the Otherkin subculture violates both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN, since the justification for the see-also is and continues to be "s'very obviously connected and it doesn't matter that otherkin people would find it's inclusion here offensive or whatever". I'm not sure how to link to a specific edit summary, but that can be viewed here: page history

Including such a see-also is akin to including a see-also to Paraphilia on the Furry_fandom article, or a see-also to Antichrist on the George_W._Bush or Barack_Obama articles. It cannot be considered NPOV, especially when the connection cannot be cited to a WP:RS making the claim that they are connected. And while Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the See Also section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, /--/ The links in the See Also section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the See Also links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." that is clearly not carte blanche for using See Also to insert an editor's biases and personal theories into the article.

There's been a long history of debate regarding the inclusion of Clinical lycanthropy in this article: link Previously, there had been a whole section discussing clinical lycanthropy in the article, which was removed when it was found that there were no WP:RS making such a connection. I believe this is the last significant discussion of the issue prior to the current discussion: link

Currently, the issue has already been discussed on two user talk pages link link and the Otherkin article talk page as well. link Qwyrixan, one of the admins, left a message on my own talk page which suggested I bring the issue here. link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarandhel (talk • contribs) 06:13 (UTC), 24 December 2011

If there was a reliable source that confirmed a connection or lack of connection between the subjects, then the source would be used as a reference for an addition into the article (addition about the connection or lack of connection) — and clinical lycanthropy would be removed from the See Also because it will have had already been linked to in the text.

Currently it hasn't.

Because we lack the reliable sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon  21:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also we have changeling and Furry lifestyler in the see also, are these any different? If I was otherkin, I'd be more offended by the connection to furries; but I completely fail to see how clinical lycanthropy is problematic (in fact it makes it more obvious that this type of thing (identifying as an animal) CAN be a psychological disorder but ISN'T NECESSARILY (otherwise these things would be covered in the same article)). I vote for keeping it because it's a very similar concept and including it can be helpful for people who are interested in but not knowledgeable in the general topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon  21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Been a little busy with the holidays. To respond: It seems odd to me to suggest that we would need a WP:RS to confirm that they are *not* connected. That's a bit like saying that you'd need to see a WP:RS to remove a see-also to Zoophilia from the Furry article. The connection there would be about as solid as the connection between Clinical Lycanthropy and Otherkin. On the other hand, the term changeling has actually appeared in otherkin FAQs as a synonym for otherkin, and the connection with the furry community is pretty undeniable given that the otherkin community's connection to both alt.fans.dragons and alt.horror.werewolves, two newsgroups that also figure prominently in the history of the furry community. There is, undeniably, overlap there. With clinical lycanthropy, the only overlap that exists is in the minds of the editors who believe that the symptoms of clinical lycanthropy are similar to the stated beliefs of otherkin. --Jarandhel (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The See also section is for topics related by theme or subject. In this case, people who believe they are animals. Now I can understand why editors whose pro-Otherkin lifestyle interests would not want the article to make statements about mental conditions that may or may not apply, but to object to the mention of the term anywhere on the article at all is pretty extreme. The fact that the article is there at all can be argued to be a promotion of a WP:FRINGE topic, and it desperately needs some balance, but because mainstream sources have routinely ignored it under its new name we don't have much of a balance there. Removing a related term from See also just because you find it offensive is an extreme amount of pro-Otherkin POV pushing, I'm afraid. If the people who believe in multiple personalities and think they are wonderful things to have create a new name for it, like, say, healthy multiplicity, and then created an article for Healthy Multiplicity and then forbid all mention of Dissociative identity disorder on the article it'd be the same situation. Or the pro-eating disorder people not wanting links or info about eating disorders on an article they create under some new name. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"People who believe they are animals" is neither the definition of otherkin, nor the definition of clinical lycanthropy. This has nothing to do with me having a "pro-Otherkin lifestyle interest", it has to do with removing anti-otherkin POV and WP:OR that you (and other editors) have tried to insert into the article in the guise of a see-also. And, just as a reminder, your theory that otherkin are clinical lycanthropes who have created a new name for themselves IS a personal theory and it is very much a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV to continue to push it into the article in the name of "balance" simply because you believe it to be true. --Jarandhel (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Are were and changeling being challenged? Or is it only things that might imply its all ‘in the mind’ that are at issue?Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As were and changeling are undeniably connected to the subject of the article, why would they be challenged as see alsos? It is specifically attempts to diagnose otherkin with clinical lycanthropy or other specific mental disorders without WP:RS that is being objected to. If a reliable source can be found that suggests otherkin fall under any given mental disorder, by all means include it. Hell, include it as more than a see-also, add it to the article itself. But using a see-also to slip the imagined connection into the article, when a whole section on clinical lycanthropy was previously removed from the article due to a lack of reliable sources (the only links were to articles on clinical lycanthropy that did not mention otherkin in any way) is a clear attempt to continue inserting a particular anti-otherkin POV. Particularly from a user who has previously stated: If I was really pushing my side the Otherkin article would start out something like "A bunch of raving lunatics who need psychiatric help claim to have animals and other species inside of them based upon their need to be highly dramatic and self-important because they can't get any self-worth in their pathetic, miserable lives any other way..." link --Jarandhel (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So Weres are part of the movement, but the psycological condition that is a feature of Weres is not linked to the movement?Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

People's Republic of China/China and Republic of China/Taiwan

These articles(China and Republic of China) have been attempted or have changed their titles of the articles to a common name, but this is not politically neutral. Because of both Chinas have a claim to China and mentioned in the One-China Policy violates the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. And the People's Republic of China's article is politically incorrect as 22 UN nations and the Vatican City recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. Furthermore changing Republic of China to Taiwan is politically incorrect as Taiwan is not a country and the Republic of China is a country. This change in title can promote Misplaced Pages as indirectly supporting Taiwanese independence and the creation of the Republic of Taiwan which the People's Republic of China disapproves of and states in the Anti-Secession Law clearly. And the current party in power is the Pan-Blue Camp which supports Chinese reunification in Taiwan. Please read Taiwan's political status for more background information on the issue.71.184.217.18 (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

possibly this would be better addressed at the noticeboard for geopolitical and ethnic conflicts. I for one do not feel able to begin to attempt this issue, although the post itself does not seem all that neutral to me either. Elinruby (talk)

Catholic politicians, abortion, and communion or excommunication

Would appreciate more eyes on this article. I've removed some of the BLP violations (material about living people cited to press releases from organizations that campaign against them, etc.), but we've still got some agenda-driven sources with documented histories of running false claims about living people they oppose being cited for statements about living people they oppose, users claiming that we can't use neutral language because a religious leader wouldn't like us to, discarding views of reliable sources in preference for the views of another religious leader, total misrepresentations of sources, weasel words, jargon, etc. Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify which sources or group of sources concern you? I could try to have a look if you point me in the direction that concerns you.Coaster92 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've since removed more of them and corrected some of the other issues, but I'll let you know if the problematic material is restored, which is likely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Slavic Neopaganism article

The Slavic Neopaganism article (which has been tagged after ) is currently written pejoritavely (calling it a cult/quasireligion, with an either misrepresented or fringe source that makes a sweeping generalization about all adherents) and does not give the whole picture that it used to. Galassi, with a long history of violations and being blocked, ignoring/denying discussion--the head of the mediation is recused from mediating with him--has reverted the article on two or more days twice or more each day, continually destroying reliable third-party citations and restoring incorrectly referenced information. Perhaps I should have reported it here before I reported it to the admins, who he is defying and wasting their time arguing with.--dchmelik (t|c) 00:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I found the current version of the article almost incomprehensible, at least on a fast read. Possibly it should be broken off into separate articles about beliefs in Poland, beliefs in the Ukraine, etc. Just a thought. Right now the average English speaker is not going to get past the long list of alternate names in Cyrillic under the Definition section.

But yeah, again based on a fast read, there definitely do seem to be some neutrality issues. Without getting into who did what to whom, which I did not take the time to follow and which might come dangerously close to being off-topic for this board, I have the following thoughts.

This is an article about a belief system. It should dispassionately and without adjectives report the characteristics of that belief system without calling them "fakelore" or conflating them with Satanism or anything else which could reasonably be predicted to outrage people who believe these things or come from families or cultures which believe these things. Particularly not based on a single dictionary of philosophy in Russian. Slavic-language sources are quite possibly needed on a slightly off-the-beaten-track topic in Slavic culture, but that dictionary's not exactly a specific scholarly source, and English-language sources would be highly preferred.

There also seem to be multiple reliable source issues you could take to that noticeboard and thereby winnow down the issues at ANI. I have not looked to see is taking place there, but that's the place, I gather, to take issue with the behaviour of a particular user. I do not know if anyone was, as alleged, trying to introduce points they *know* to be true based on cultural or family tradition, but yes, this *is* in fact a no-no, and if so these points need to be sourced. I suggest JSTOR, scholar.google.com, Google Books, and/or the corresponding Misplaced Pages articles in the relevant languages, if any of the editors of the English-language article speak them. If not, with a little digging on the community portal you will find a place where it is possible to request a translation. I have done one or two there, but I don't have a language that would help you. If I get a chance to do a second pass on the article I may add a specific point or two below to the above comments. HTH Elinruby (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Just got to the diff -- and cough, yeah, changing "sect" to "cult" would seem to be an issue. Assuming it is not a question of familiarity with English, then neutrality would definitely seem rather questionable. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved a chunk of unsourced POV from Common Themes to the Discussion page. In addition to the five issues with the material that I raised there, it does not appear to be a common theme -- even if utterly accurate and completely true, which seems dubious, the statements are about Russian groups only. Don't have time for more right now but the article does appear to need further review. Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pre-existing POV issue on Academy of Achievement article

For anyone who is interested here, I've been asked by an organization called Academy of Achievement to help resolve an ongoing POV (and COI) issue on the article about them. To wit, the organization had edited this page in the past, resulting in far too promotional an article; uninvolved editors began pruning it back, but now I believe they have added too much tangential, negative material, while leaving the warnings in place. I've prepared a proposed replacement version and explained this in more detail on the article's Talk page, and would appreciate any interested editor's participation there. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

I added a PoV template to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as discussed on its talk page; it's been removed, with no attempt to address the issue in question, as were my addition of {{Cn}} and {{dubious}}, in turn, regarding the same issue. While it's not a major issue on the grand scheme of things, the wording in question doesn't sound neutral and I'm not sure how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend dealing with the specific issue rather than trying to put a top level POV tag on the whole article. Something you have also not done in your post here. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment that the query really wasn't specific enough. But based on the Discussion page and the references, I sort of agree with you. Only sort of, mind you, because the other editor on the Discussion page is correct in saying that the LA Times plus Shatner's book, which was published by a large reputable publisher that surely vetted the text with a libel lawyer, does indeed constitute a reliable source.

However, the Times article says nothing about exploding vehicles. That leaves the article accusing the Teamsters of criminal acts, based on a citation that cannot easily be verified. I'd suggest changing "aware that", which implies knowledge, to "worried that" or "concerned that" which is far more easily demonstrated, unless of course you are able to find a quote at that page that says exactly "aware that", in which case you should insert it, in quotes, with inline attribution.

I believe that the other editor is correct in saying that in challenging a RS you carry the burden of making your case. So if you are wondering, really, how to proceed, the thing to do is see whether your local library or bookstore has a copy of the book, and see what it says on the given page. I do also think that you have enough basis, in the meantime, to make the change I suggest above. It's an extraordinary claim. Reliable source or not, if your concern is about the "aware", then I agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely my concern; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps North8000 missed the bit where I said I'd done that, and had been reverted with no with no attempt to address the issue in question; and the pointer to where discussion had taken place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Case at dispute resolution involving article titles

This case at Dispute resolution may be of interest to some of you here. --Ohconfucius 03:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Allan Jones (businessman)

This one reeks of press agentry. The guy runs what is (according to him, anyway) the largest payday loan company in the United States. Whatever you think of that particular form of perfectly-legal activity, the article itself is full of fluff about how he give money to high school wrestling and how he started his own industry trade group and other garbage; and a lot of it is either sourced to his own company's website, or to an adulatory interview he's done with a local radio station (not exactly a reliable source). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indians in Afghanistan

• Indians in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone have a look into the way that User:TopGun has been aggressively adding propoganda to articles on India and Afghanistan, in particular Indians in Afghanistan? Thanks --66.36.243.94 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any "propaganda" in TopGuns edits on the above articles in fact the ip above seems to have been engaging in pov pushing seeing his talk page littered with warnings back to the topic at hand all the information is well sourced its best if users do not bring in nationalistic sentiment into Misplaced Pages and accept well sourced data 109.154.105.168 (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've added it in line with India's refutation and attributed the claims. You are just attempting to censor it because you don't like it. And I've shown no aggressiveness... you haven't even attempted to discuss there as far as I can see, unless you are Darkness Shines commenting here without logging in? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fereydoun Farrokhzad

About two years ago, I got involved in a discussion between 2 editors, Alefbe and Mehrshad123, on the talk page of this article. It ended up as an AN/I thread: , and Mehrshad123 was indef blocked by Atama (more for losing his temper over the course of the discussion and inserting crap into a lot of articles that I had worked on than for what he had been doing on the original article, although that wasn't especially helpful either). I took a look at the edit history of this article recently, and it looks like there has continued to be a slow edit war on this article. I haven't touched the article for over a year and a half, but a recent edit summary includes a personal attack on me, presumably because it's by a sock of the blocked editor, so I'd rather if someone else would take a look at it. It seems that it could use some eyes on it to prevent edits like this on the one hand and this on the other from creeping into the text. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

hehe..."the" is a weasel word? Apparently I missed something; am I really reading that right? I have not had a chance to look at the article though. Will try to do that. Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK well, this is not a BLP, but it *is* an article about a murder victim who apparently was a beloved singer, comedian and activist, and who has living family. I removed statements saying that he mocked Islam as YouTube would not be RS for statements that could be considered defamatory. Suppose he was in fact a devout Muslim? I moved some less inflammatory unsourced material to the Discussion page. Experienced NPOV editors please review and revert if appropriate. I am not normally a deleter, but this seemed a case for it. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't do anything at the moment, but I did have a quick look at the changes from February 2010 to the present (after Elinruby's edits). There are lots of differences, but the only NPOV issue I noticed was that the lead used to say "political opposition figure" where it now says "anti-Islam activist". A quick check did not show a source verifying "anti-Islam" or "activist". Not NPOV, but I'll mention that the article used to say he was born in 1936, but now says 1938, and the infobox and lead include "PhD" which I think is not style. I am watching the article and will try to get involved. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming others agree that the edit summary CordeliaNaismith mentioned was a personal attack, I have welcomed the editor and left them an NPA warning. See here - 220 of 03:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It was. Thanks for doing that. I did not look at the YouTube links I removed, as I do not speak Persian and my sound card is on the fritz -- and no matter what, it's non-RS and OR -- but it might be interesting to compare the links I removed to the YouTube links the editor who was blocked was citing. Maybe this should be referred to Sockpuppets? I don't have a lot of experience with that but there's quite a similarity in editing patterns, based on the links she provided. Elinruby (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and helpful response. IMO, the "anti-Islam activist" phrase and the phrase about how his show was "critical of Islam," which are still in the lede, are defamatory & don't belong in the article. (As far as I can tell, the assertions are based on the fact that Farroukhzad's comedy shows featured edgy humor on religious topics. There's some old discussion on this on the talk page. The source just says that Farroukhzad was also involved in producing a radio broadcast for a political opposition group before his murder). Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking about knocking that out after Johnuniq mentioned it. Guess I will go do that.Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work. As it happens, I was getting ready to do that myself, but was called away. I did a couple of other tweaks which you will see. The UNHCR source says the subject was killed on "3 August" (1992). Search for "Fereydoun" to verify that as they spell the surname differently from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Payvand site says Aug 9, though. I am really not sure which to believe. Payvand isn't exactly neutral (henchmen?) but hey, we're talking murder here. For what it is worth, the details of the DC assassination match up to what I remember of local news coverage. The UN site is more dispassionate but also at one further remove. I wish a Persian speaker would get involved. I can't verify the VOA citation, but maybe this requires more patience/time than I have right now. Elinruby (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lotsa links and a discography at http://fa.wikipedia.org/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D9%87%D9%94_%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%DB%8C, the Farsi page on the man. Google translate struggles to keep up a bit, but there's some meat to the article there if anyone wants to slog through the translation and build the English page a bit. Btw there is a third date of death at http://radiokoocheh.com/article/6385 along with some other fascinating and barely readable text. Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind! That's the main Farsi page. Need to select backwards in Farsi apparently, learn something new every day.... trying again:

http://fa.wikipedia.org/%D9%81%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86_%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF

Other pages that may contain relevant material if someone can get through the POV and the language barrier:

• http://fa.wikipedia.org/%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86
• http://fa.wikipedia.org/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%A8_%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC_%D8%A7%D8%B2_%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1

These may be of most use for finding RS that have written about him. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term "cult" to refer to Aum Shinrikyo

An editor 108.83.242.71 (talk · contribs) went through this article and changed nearly all mentions of "cult" (about 30) to "Aum" /"group" / "organisation" or similar in this edit. They have given no edit summary to say what their rationale is. This seems very NPOV, but is there a consensus to use/not use 'cult'? I am unsure of the exact policy on this.

Aum Shinrikyo is referred to as a cult by reliable sources such as Australias' ABC Radio News (ref #14), Britains BBC (ref #13) and The Japan Times (Online) (ref #25).

I have reverted, but would like to know if my actions are proper, or if the long standing use on this page (back to at least January 2008) of the 'cult' terminology is against policy. I have also mentioned my reasoning at Talk:Aum Shinrikyo#Cult or not ? - 220 of 04:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I took issue with it in an above section and consider it a loaded term. However it may be appropriate for a religious group that engages in terrorism, especially if there are reliable sources for the characterization. I believe there are specific criteria in certain fields for the use of the term. It's generally pejorative though. If there is a policy I would be interested to learn it. My personal opinion is that the IP engaged in excessive political correctness, which I personally would not have bothered to revert. But then, I never hit the revert button for anything but blatant vandalism ;P (Although I sometimes edit drastically...) No, I do not think your actions were improper. Personally. Elinruby (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Elinruby. I thought that 'cult' might be one of those "words to avoid" like terrorist. It is certainly labelled as contentious, see WP:LABEL.
(My POV) A religious group that has murdered opponents, Sakamoto family murder, and then manufactures Sarin-a nerve gas, and then carries out not one but 2 attacks (Matsumoto incident & Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway) with it, certainly seems to meet most peoples perception of a cult! ie. mindless loyalty to the 'leader'.
Even the Centres for Disease Control call Aum Shinrikyo a cult (54 times!) in this article, see "Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?".

 • More views are of course welcome. - 220 of 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Cult is a controversial term, which is why it should often be avoided; but if we were going to use the label for anything, Aum Shinrikyo is surely near the top of the list. It's in line with dictionary definitions, and a wide range of reliable sources describe Aum Shinrikyo as a "cult". I think of "cult" the same way as I do about "criminal", "genoicide", "discredited", and other controversial terms about emotive subjects - sometimes it's deliberately added to articles as a slur (which we should remove), and sometimes it's better to err on the safe side, but sometimes it really is the best word to use... bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur entirely, 'cult' it is. The term has been on the page for at least 4 years (won't be surprised if it was in the original first draft of the page!) and that is huge amount of unspoken consensus. I'll come back if it gets reverted again. (Or the article talk page where I have commented and mentioned this discussion) - 220 of 15:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nod. I realize that I may have sounded as though I was damning with faint praise -- I get lost in my own shades of grey at times, hehe -- so I wanted to add that this sounds like a good plan to me. Elinruby (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

• Right, this thread is about this specific edit TG, we can argue over the other edits once this particular issue is resolved. To the uninvolved editors, please look at the edit and the sources below. All those sources say the same thing, the ISI and Pakistani military helped the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• If my hatting is not done please revert me, I just want to focus on the question which began this threa. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

references

All have quotes and all of these would support what TG removed, Darkness Shines (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well 3, 5, 8 and 9 -- ie the university press books -- have pretty strong presumptions in their favor unless there's some question about the specific author having a bias or personal agenda. I'd need to spend some time with Google before expressing a more specific opinion, or any opinion about the others. Wasn't 10 the one at RSN? The question I have about that is how independent that publisher is of the administration in office. I am not saying it's not RS -- just that that is one thing I would wonder as I was trying to decide what I thought of it. I will try to come back to this but now I really do have to go poof. Elinruby (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the hatnote; I'll leave that to editors with more experience on this board. I have gotten this far with your sources: they all exist and I have verified that where you provide a quote it is on the page listed. I am not yet ready to say what I think about reliability or weight. A couple of specific comments though: a) a partial answer to a question I raise above -- the publisher of #10 disclaims affiliation with the US government and b) #2 #3 does not support your text. The words are there on that page but they summarize what the author calls a conventional wisdom, which she then proceeds to extensively rebut. More later. Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Randal, Jonathan (2005). Osama: The Making of a Terrorist. I.B.Tauris. p. 26. ISBN 9781845111175. Pakistan had all but invented the Taliban, the so-called Koranic students
2. Peiman, Hooman (2003). Falling Terrorism and Rising Conflicts. Greenwood. p. 14. ISBN 978-0275978570. Pakistan was the main supporter of the Taliban since its military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) formed the group in 1994
3. Shaffer, Brenda (2006). The Limits of Culture: Islam and Foreign Policy. MIT Press. p. 267. ISBN 978-0262693219. Pakistani involvement in creating the movement is seen as central
4. Hilali, A. Z. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Ashgate. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-7546-4220-6. Pakistan was the creator, backer and supporter of the Taliban in 1994
5. Felbab-Brow, Vanda (2010). Shooting up: counterinsurgency and the war on drugs. Brookings Institution Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0815703280.
6. Boase, Roger (2010). Islam and Global Dialogue: Religious Pluralism and the Pursuit of Peace. Ashgate. p. 85. ISBN 978-1409403449. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency used the students from these madrassas, the Taliban, to create a favourable regime in Afghanistan
7. Hinnells, John R. (2006). Religion and violence in South Asia: theory and practice. Routledge. p. 154. ISBN 978-0415372909.
8. Giraldo, Jeanne K. (2007). Terrorism Financing and State Responses: A Comparative Perspective. Stanford University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0804755665. Pakistan provided military support, including arms, ammunition, fuel, and military advisers, to the Taliban through its Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)
9. Goodson, Larry P. (2002). Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. University of Washington Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0295981116. Pakistani support for the Taliban included direct and indirect military involvement, logistical support
10. McGrath, Kevin (2011). Confronting Al-Qaeda. Naval Institute Press. p. 138. ISBN 978-1591145035. the Pakistani military's Inter-services Intelligence Directorate (IsI) provided assistance to the taliban regime, to include its military and al Qaeda–related terrorist training camps

The List of oldest universities in continuous operation (again)

• List of oldest universities in continuous operation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

After a previous discussion about this subject (see the extensible box below), a consensus was reached about the fact that excludinf non-European universities is a POV, and nobody opposed the proposed draft text.

However, some users think that this doesn't represent a consensus and that the previous version of the list is still appropriated. I wonder if the discussion should be re-started or continued, or if we can take a decision based on the previous discussion?

Link to the previous discussion: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 29#The University of Al-Karaouine and the List of oldest universities in continuous operation

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah geez. Are they still saying it's not a university because the pope didn't something or other? I just had to check to see if it was even clear who the pope *was* that year, but apparently there was only one in that particular year. Before that and after that - not so clear ;) The idea that this even matters is making me lose my temper ;) The Church may have been the defining factor in such matters in the Dark Ages, but there's been a Renaissance and an Industrial Revolution and like a thousand years since then, thank God. We are allowed to use university to mean a place of higher learning, in general. Yes we are. I don't remember what the draft text was, but anything that doesn't make the Vatican the authority in the matter is fine with me. Elinruby (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the topic of this thread of course, but the term "Dark Ages" is generally frowned upon and has been old fashioned for at least half a century. If you used the term in a university you'd make lecturers cry. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

But appropriate in this instance :P I'll make sure to leave out of the next article I edit about barbarian invasions, ok? I'm fundamentally offended by the notion that nobody was learned in the tenth century but Christians. I mean -- I am sure the *Christians* thought so... but... And you're worried about what to *call* an age like that? How about nasty short and brutish? You've done it now. I'll have to go review a Song of Roland concordance, and make really sure to use the term <g> Yes I am kidding. And yes, you're off-topic :P I agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a cocktail of arrogance and ignorance in the term the "Dark Ages", but why worry about that. Academic sources seem to be quite clear that universities and madrasahs are separate entities. The sources Omar Toons has been peddling have been often poor and usually tangentially related to the subject; the speciailist sources seem quite clear on the issue. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue as I recall was *very* ethnocentric criteria. Sources for the date are a separate problem and as noted above, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't think Misplaced Pages should resort to elaborate constructions like "List of institutions of higher education" over ancient definitions that denigrate learning in other cultures. In fact, Misplaced Pages should abolish lists altogether as they are magnets for this type of silly discussion about what is a "real" country and what is a "real" university. PS - As a small bit of advice, if you are going to throw around words like "arrogance" and "ignorance" it's best to be oneself humble enough to run spellcheck. I will be quiet now and let other people talk. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're making barbed remarks for a typo? Forgive me for being fallible. So far you have contributed little of worth to the conversation regarding universities, it is perhaps a good call on your part to be quiet. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask your opinion. Merely pointed out that calling anyone "ignorant" raises the bar when it comes to one's own posts. Spell-check is good in such cases. Keeps you from looking silly. As for not contributing anything of value, perhaps you mean little that supports your point of view. Look under the hat-note. I was very much involved when this came up before and posted a number of references that are absolutely RS. I thought perhaps you were not involved last time and thus had overlooked them...but I see you did post and therefore knew of the discussion. Why did you not participate then, is my question. In other words, is this same issue back again in hopes of another consensus this time? I don't get it. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, academic sources don't agree on this, as you may see by the several sources cited recently at the University of Al-Karaouine talk page. Remember most of our thinking on this is influenced by a tradition of Western exceptionalism. Seen in the round, as what universities do, there were great overarching similarities between what medieval Western institutions, called universities at the time, did, and what took place in Sung China, and the Islamic world. If your definition of 'university' summarizes what these became in modern Western tradition, then it excludes all other institutional forms of higher learning, but risks being ethnocentric nominalism. 'Nationalism' and 'feudalism' have suffered from the same problem: are we referring to nationalism-qua-Western modernization, or feudalism-qua-medieval Western societies, or do the words have analytic value for non-European historical societies. The academic world has no consensus on these issues, and yes/no varies according to scholars.

Therefore, if several reputable sources describe non-western schools as 'universities', we should leave the conceptual border determination to scholarship, and simply refer what those sources say, case by case. Wiki can't decide these issues, since the academic world itself is conflicted in their regard.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. WP:NPOV requires us to present the scholarly viewpoints that Al-Karaouine was a university founded in the ninth century. NPOV also requires us to present the opposite viewpoint. Completely deleting one viewpoint is a violation of the policy.VR _talk 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is what was previously proposed and on which nobody was opposed. --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, the "inclusionsit" camp has only provided sources that are either not reliable (children's books), not academic (UNESCO, Guiness Book), or generalist in nature. The "exclusionist" camp has provided much higher caliber sources, sources that are scholarly investigations into the history and origin of the modern university. These are presented and discussed in detail at the article talkpage, yet for whatever reason Omar-Toons is avoiding that discussion, instead insisting on coming here. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall posting a list of sources the last time this was up on this board that were not only reliable but scholarly. They included a published doctoral thesis, a couple of academic articles in French and hmm maybe a conference paper... I excluded mentions in passing and anything that mentioned Guinness, and only listed texts that used the word "university." This is well beyond the bar for a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. I suspect that a search on Arabic texts would find many more. Insisting on English-language articles in journals devoted to the history of European educational institutions naturally will skew the results, can you not see that? Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to recall? Well, where are they? Anyway, conference papers and doctoral theses are not on the same level as the sources presented at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation. It's a question of undue weight. The editors agitating for the inclusion of madrasahs in the list of oldest universities want to do so even though the weight of the sources is against that. There is only one table. Either we include the madrasahs or we exclude them. The weight of the evidence indicates that we shouldn't. I will also note that those editors are only interested in adding Karaouine and Al-Azhar, not any of the other many old madrasahs. Why? Because those two are the only two whose date of foundation predates that of the University of Bologna. In other words, they are not interested in the subject per se, or in truly improving the article, but rather only to push the POV that "Muslims invented the University!". Fairly transparent. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Click the link that says "show" on the green bar where it says "Extended content". Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Athenian has been provided with numerous scholarly and academic sources, but has chosen to ignore them because he insists that they do not specialize in the subject of "history of the university". In Athenian's view sources that deal with "higher education" are irrelevant (even though some are authored by professors). Athenian has also been presented with a scholarly work entitled "The Oldest University in the World" (published in the British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no.1745, p.1269). Athenian's criteria of what a reliable source must be seems to have no basis in WP:RS.VR _talk 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is frankly worrying that it's not obvious to you that the British Medical Journal isn't relevant to the article. Nev1 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Nick Foskett, professor of education, writing a book on higher education and making the exact same claim?VR _talk 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but considering the source is about marketing higher education rather than the origin of universities it should still take second place to sources actually focussed on the issue. The sooner you realise that the better. Nev1 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming disruptive how you are repeating the same things over and over. It was explained to you in the article talkpage why a source on the "marketization" of the university is problematic. What do you tihnk you will accomplish by posting it again here? It is also disruptive the way you are pretending that source that refute your POV don't exist. These were provided in the article talkpage, yet you are ignoring them as if they didn't exist. And they are of much higher quality than any of the sources you have provided. Athenean (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation is the exact opposite. I realize that that there is disagreement amongst historians on the oldest university. I have even quoted those sources. I want this disagreement to be reflected in the article. I want the article to acknowledge that the oldest university could be at Fez, Cairo, or Bologna.

You on the other hand want only Bologna to be recognized as the oldest. You want to exclude reliable and scholarly sources. You want to pretend that reliable sources on the university at Fez don't exist. I want to include all the reliable sources and their viewpoints. That is both the spirit and letter of NPOV.VR _talk 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That can be done by means of a footnote in the article. But since the visual impact of the table is greater than that of a footnote, preference for the table should be given to side with the weightier evidence, and that side is clearly the University of Bologna. Would not excluding Karaouine and Al-Azhar from the table, but mentioning them in a footnote be acceptable to you? Athenean (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the evidence for Bologna looks weightier to you because you dismiss so much of the evidence against it? I'd like to see a list of the references pro and con, myself, without having to go hunt them through multiple arguments on two discussion pages. Look at the Taliban post above - whatever the merits of the OP's case, that's an organized presentation. BTW, there also seem to be transliteration issues -- I get about 500 more hits on Google Scholar using "al qarawiyyin". Not all of them will meet the criteria I mentioned above, but they don't have to. If the contention is that the sources need to be not only reliable but also scholarly and beyond that only come from journals devoted to the history of education, then I am sorry; you are simply wrong. Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I think lists of sources for Bologna, Fez and Cairo should be collected and presented. If anyone feel that a source violates WP:RS, then that source will be ignored. This will give us an idea where the scholarly consensus stands.VR _talk 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a few configurations that we can have, but I'm glad that you've decided to at least include reliably sourced viewpoints.

1) put them in the table with the European table, with the notes mentioning that many scholars dispute their status as universities (and many don't). 2) Putting non-European institutions in a separate table and section entitled as such (below the European table, for lesser "visual impact"), with a paragraph detailing the views of historians on this matter.

Regarding footnote: I don't think, given the number and details of viewpoints, that it would be wise to discuss this there.

I would like to hear what sort of creative solutions other users can come up with.VR _talk 03:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note the header saying that (for example) definitions of "university" vary; see sidebar for further details. I don't know what the conventions are on lists but I think that the reader, who may be surprised to find or not find something on a list, deserves to know if appropriate that the terminology is, uh...not agreed upon. I also think that the term "madrassah" is to US ears at least associated with the Taliban at the moment. However unfortunate this may be, it's a fact. So care should be used in using it. I saw a comment saying that a madrassah is more like a lycée than a university; not sure if that's true but if those are its associations in Arabic, that's another reason to use the word cautiously if at all. Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) The weight of the scholarly (a word used by VR above) evidence is clearly that the University of Bologna is the oldest continuously operating university in the world. None of the sources in favor of Karaouine are scholarly. Rather, numerous specialized, scholarly sources have been provided in the article talkpage that clearly state that Bologna is the oldest functioning university. As such, I propose that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be kept out of the table, but a footnote explaining that some non-scholarly sources consider Karaouine to be the oldest functioning university be added to the article. Athenean (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose - Many peer-reviewed journal articles have in fact been provided to support Al-Karaouine. If you wish to prove that Bologna is older, then please meet the same standard in your arguments. Possibly "university" is a term of art in the history of education; but mere mortals consider it a synonym for "institution of higher learning", and easier to pronounce as well. There is more than enough RS to support the 9th-century founding in my opinion; the only question in my mind is what criteria should be used for weight? But I guarantee that the answer is not going to be "we ignore everything that hasn't been published in an English-language journal about the history of higher education," no matter who else chimes in. That position is simply bizarre. Elinruby (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What "many peer-reviewed journal articles"? I only see one, a passing mention in a medical journal, not an education or history of science journal. As for evidence in favor of Bologna, it is presented at the article talkpage. And I've never said that only an "English-language journal about the history of higher education" is an acceptable source, so spare me the straw man argument. Athenean (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

have you clicked the link on the green bar yet? I listed about four journal articles myself in the previous discussion here. None of them cite Guinness. All of them say "university". Pretty sure they are all peer-reviewed. Other editors on this board provided links to numerous reliable sources which look very solid. (Factchk and ItsmeJudith come to mind (sorry if I got someone's camelcase wrong..)) To be clear, I am playing the "scholarly" game with you because I can, but it's a hoop which is not required. A well-written general history text published by a publisher with a reputation for caring about the facts is RS for most historical statements. The more specific and scholarly the reference, naturally, the better. But this is a matter of weight and (imho) only really matters in terms of how and where to discuss the matter in the article. I seem to be the only uninvolved editor here, so what I am saying is subject to review by others. But there is no doubt at all in my mind that it should be discussed. And I will see your "straw man" -- I really wish you would refrain from insulting me btw -- and call you on it: please define an acceptable source then, if I am mis-stating your position. A list of references for Bologna would also be appreciated, if it is your position that it's the oldest university. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have compiled a list of sources List of Reliable Sources that I believe pass the criteria in WP:RS. If any source fails WP:RS correct me and I'll take it off.

Athenean is wrong when he says "a passing mention in a medical journal". The entire entry is dedicated to the "oldest university in the world" (which the publication claims is at Fez).VR _talk 05:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

K. I need to go do other stuff just now, but thanks for this. I will look at it and meanwhile hopefully someone else will come along as well. Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I did click on the green bar, unfortunately I do not see "many peer-reviewed journal articles" (as you put it) anywhere. I do see stuff like Frommer's Morocco though. By the way, that British Medical Journal article is from 1894, which VR seems to have omitted to mention. On the other hand, I can easily find reliable sources that Bologna is the oldest university in the world . And many more such sources are presented in the article talkpage (which for whatever reason you guys simply refuse to look at). These are not generalist, they are not from 1894, and they are not travel guidebooks. So yes, if we are to mention Karaouine and Al-Azhar, we should do so in a footnote and not in the table. Oh and by the way, falsely claiming that I said I would only accept "English-language journal publications" is indeed a straw man (or something very close to it), so I'm not really sure why you "feel insulted". Anyway, it seems the rest of the community has lost interest in this endless debate, so I leave you two to your own devices unless that changes. Athenean (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Golden Domes

Golden Domes is an article about two buildings built for the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect. An editor complains that it is a WP:COATRACK because it contains material on various assemblies and studies that have been conducted in the domes but which could have taken place elsewhere. The material in question directly concerns the domes, or what happens in them, and is not duplicated in other articles. It is not uncommon for articles on buildings to describe noteworthy events or activities which have taken place in them. For example, New Orleans Mint, a featured article, includes a section on the coins produced in the mint. Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome has a long section on the usage of the stadium and The Forum (Inglewood) is mostly about the events that have taken place there. Many buildings are notable because of what happens in them. Must articles on buildings be restricted solely to information about the structures themselves or may they also cover noteworthy activities in the buildings?   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the second discussion on this issue. Will Beback in writing this article suggests the domes were integral to the research and included a research section which is already beyond the scope of an article on a building. The TM Sidhi research whatever its characteristics does not have as a parameter any building. A GE reviewer suggested the article had "fluff" aspects and on the OR notice board an uninvolved editor clearly objected to the way the article extended beyond the scope of an article on a building.

This accusation won't have come as a surprise to you because "coatracking" was raised on the day after you created the article. And the GA reviewer called it "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM. Since the article is about buildings it should contain the info about the buildings. Yes, you can briefly mention things that regularly happen or have happened in the buildings. But also, the article should stick to the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is no concern with the former comments since he now wishes to expand the research section even further. If this is the way we write an encyclopedia, I have no problem with it, but in my mind suggesting research depends on a building when it doesn't is OR.(olive (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

I have not expressed a wish to expand the article further. However an uninvolved editor suggested making some small addition to the "Effects and studies" section for NPOV. Talk:Golden Domes#Pseudoscience.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"However I'll do a search to see if I can find any other responses that were left out before. Will Beback talk 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)"(olive (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

That was in response to a request. In any case, the question here is whether articles on buildings must be limited to the structures themselves, or whether they may include material on events which occur inside them.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments:

• Being mindful of WP:OTHERSTUFF, articles on buildings such as Soldier Field or Madison Square Garden routinely discuss what notable events go on there. But, perhaps more to the point, the Golden Domes were purpose built for Yogic Flying with the intention of generating the Maharishi Effect. They are more like some large scientific apparatus - say like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN or the Tevatron at Fermilab - where the articles at Misplaced Pages discuss the discoveries claimed and research done about the experiments conducted there in great detail. Or, alternatively, they are like some religious sanctuary where devotees go to pray for miracles, like Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes where the articles discuss the claimed miracles as well as skepticism about their authenticity. Either way one may want to look at it, to discuss what goes on within the buildings, the claimed effects of what goes on in the buildings, and criticism of those claims, is hardly what I would call a "coatrack" article. It is perfectly within the scope of what an article about this kind of facility should include. Fladrif (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• WTH The existence and design of the domes is notable, I suppose. And a limited amount of TM-related verbiage. The rest is neither POV nor NPOV - it is simply non-encyclopedic puffery/anti-puffery at this point. And all the excess TM verbiage is simply ArbCom fight fodder at best. Delete all but the bare bones, please, and then only add material which is specific to the domes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all specific to the domes.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you say that material in stadium article not about the stadiums themselves, like games and concerts, should also be removed?   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Where it devolves into endless lists - yes. This article should stop pretty much after it says the domes have been used for other gatherings - if the gathering per se was notable, make an article on it. If the gathering is not notable, it should not be in this article. Simple. Yankee Stadium does not include every gathering ever held there - just notable ones. The White House does not list every state dinner. And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, the Golden Domes article does not list every assembly held there, just the ones reported. Which material are you talking about specifically? It's all sourced.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've left a notice at Talk:Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome about this discussion, though it's just one of perhaps hundreds of articles on buildings which might have to have material removed if we agree that articles on buildings must avoid sections on events and usage.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly read what I wrote. I did not say that buildings should have nothing on their use - but that only notable uses are of any value in an article. If we stick to notabile items we will have few issues - but the problem is the inclusion of material which is not notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If by notable you mean covered in reliable sources then everything in the article qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at the article suggests to me that it is a blatant example of coatracking. As for comparing it to the Large Hadron Collider, or Lordes, have any external reliable sources made such comparisons? And if you are going to claim that scientific research is going on in the building, any claims regarding such research must necessarily fall under WP:FRINGE policy - and in particular WP:ONEWAY: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack". We already have an article on the TM-Sidhi program, and it should not be duplicated here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous sources, including independent reliable sources, for the material.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant regarding the issue of it being coatracking. Are there 'independent reliable sources' comparing the domes to the Collider, or to Lourdes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? No one is suggesting that any article in Misplaced Pages should compare these buildings to the colliders, or Lourdes or Oral Robert's prayer tower.... so asking for sources to support that comparison misses the point entirely. Fladrif (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your issue about FRINGE. Let's say astrology is considered a fringe topic, and lets say we have an article about a purpose built astrological observatory. Why would it be incorrect to review the specific research done on astrology at the observatory? BTW, there are published scientific papers on the effect generated by the domes, and about their construction.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

K Street

You'd think "K Street" would be about Washington's lobbyists. A Google search of "K Street" will come up with lots of hits about lobbying. The WP article K Street gets hundreds of readers a day. What will readers find there? Only two or three lines about lobbying. Rest is traffic patterns. Why? There's one article owner insisting the article should be about the physical street.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The basic shape of the dispute is pretty clear at Talk: K Street under the heading neutrality concerns, but the tl;dr version is that the article as it stands notes that the term K Street is a metonym for the lobbying industry; but it also details the physical roadway in Washington DC. Tomwsulcer wants more weight placed on the lobbying aspect, but I feel that material of that sort would be better placed at lobbying in the United States (to be clear, K Street links to lobbying in the United States prominently in the lead paragraph). I'd appreciate others chiming in, since Tomwsulcer and I haven't been able to come to an agreement on what the article should look like and have been butting heads on the talk page all day. Thanks! Meelar (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution