| Revision as of 02:58, 27 June 2012 editNenpog (talk | contribs)453 edits →X-ray_computed_tomography discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:00, 27 June 2012 edit undoNenpog (talk | contribs)453 edits →X-ray_computed_tomography discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1,937: | Line 1,937: | ||
| I request anyone who has, or will, participate in this discussion to provide a statement declaring if he/she or his/her benefactor(s) have any financial interest in the subject. Financial interest in the subject include profiting from CTs, or from other imaging techniques and devices, or from other devices that emit ionizing radiation that is directed at humans. Benefactors include employer(s), school(s), or other entities to which one is subordinate. | I request anyone who has, or will, participate in this discussion to provide a statement declaring if he/she or his/her benefactor(s) have any financial interest in the subject. Financial interest in the subject include profiting from CTs, or from other imaging techniques and devices, or from other devices that emit ionizing radiation that is directed at humans. Benefactors include employer(s), school(s), or other entities to which one is subordinate. | ||
| I request, that financial interest will be assumed for anyone who would fail to provide said statement. | |||
| I declare, that neither I nor my benefactors have a financial interest in the subject. --] (]) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | I declare, that neither I nor my benefactors have a financial interest in the subject. --] (]) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:00, 27 June 2012
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request dispute resolution
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
Become a volunteer
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Dragon Age: The Veilguard | New | Sariel Xilo (t) | 19 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 13 hours | Sariel Xilo (t) | 1 days, 13 hours |
| Autism | New | Oolong (t) | 5 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 15 hours |
| Sri Lankan Vellalar | New | Kautilyapundit (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | None | n/a | Kautilyapundit (t) | 3 days, 12 hours |
| Kamaria Ahir | Closed | Nlkyair012 (t) | 1 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 15 hours |
| Old Government House, Parramatta | In Progress | Itchycoocoo (t) | 1 days, 11 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, 7 hours | Itchycoocoo (t) | 11 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
BP
| Extended content |
|---|
|
Dispute overview
I am noticing bias on the BP article. There is only one other editor active on the page and we do not see things the same way. He sees my edits as POV pushing and continues to undo them. I see his editing as POV pushing and obviously pro-BP. He is having a hard time refraining from sharing his displeasure with me, which makes discussion a dead-end venture. Here is the discussion: ] Here is the edit in question: ] I took the problem to and received only one reply, which was in complete agreement with my stance. But this did nothing to help the situation. There is an edit war going on as he has reverted my edit 3 times, and I have done the same (not in a 24 hour period though). Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion and POV noticeboard
Please give suggestions for where to go from here. We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing, and perhaps to ban them from editing the page, to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Misplaced Pages article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great. petrarchan47c 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC) BP discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me and . petrarchan47c 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective.Coaster92 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section:
Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: " also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power." 3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." < ie, 4% > The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here. The intro is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines for . This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss.petrarchan47c 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
petrarchan47c 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article: In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident. In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise. In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead. As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning. As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power. Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
{od} |
Dispute resolution volunteer note: Normally we close discussions after a few days with no discussion, but I am temporarily collapsing this one and giving it more time; See the discussion for details. If 10 days go by without activity I will close this. This discussion is still open: anyone who wishes may add comments, and anyone who wishes is free to uncollapse the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Vassula Ryden
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I am editing a highly controversial article which is subject of intense debate. The debate has intensified over the last months following the involvement of a group of 2 or 3 editors who seem to be editing the article in a WP:GAME fashion. One editor in particular, IRWolfie, refuses to allow a WP:BALANCE to develop in the article by allowing edits to remain that are contrary to the edits he is making. The insertion of the material would bring a more WP:NPOV to the topic but by refusing to allow this material to be inserted it leaves it somewhat one sided.
The material I want to insert is based on a book, published by Oxford University Press, written by an theologian of repute and subject matter expert named Hvidt. Furthermore, Hvidt was a primary witness this material which makes him an invaluable source.
Here is a summary of what occurred:
- IRWolfies primary argument to keep the aforementioned material out was that Hvidt was not an WP:RS despite considerable efforts to point out the contrary.
- When it became clear that the discussion to justify that Hvidt was an RS was not going anywhere I went ahead and sought WP:CONS by posting on the WP:RSN to get outside opinion regarding Hvidts work to see if it was in compliance with WP:RS.
- When I attempted to get some outside opinion by posting in the WP:RSN IRWolfie attempted to thwart public opinion about my RS and divert attention before other contributors had a a chance to review it. It was nonetheless subsequently approved as an RS by the commentators involved.
- Despite the approval of Hvidts work as an RS by uninvolved editors, IRWolfie has continued to deny (see comment 13:57, 4 June 2012) that Hvidt was an RS and continues in his efforts to remove it.
- Hvidt not being a RS was used as a primary justification to keep his material out until the RSN process was concluded. Now he has put full focus on the WP:WEIGHT argument since he lost the RS argument regarding Hvidt.
Now that IRWolfie has put full focus on WP:WEIGHT, I remain certain that even if I was to prove WP:WEIGHT regarding Hvidt, IRWolfie and certain other editors would likely resort to consensus to block any text based on Hvidts work as there are at least 2 other editors in the article that share his questionable views. Their prejudice against Hvidts work was also noted by Fifelfoo, who commented that "the treatment of Hvidts work was appalling". I have not included the other editors in this dispute as their activity seems to have subsided ever since the Hvidts source was approved in the RSN about 10 days ago, and it is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text, hence this DR is addressed to him alone.
Furthermore, IRWolfie has inserted material based on a source which he himself criticized (see comment 14:20,3 June 2012) which begs the question if IRWolfie is capable of WP:NPOV on this article or does he have a WP:COI? Either way, this, combined with his continued denial of Hvidt as an RS seems to indicative of tendentious editing.
With IRWolfie being a more experienced wikipedian than myself I would have hoped that WP:DONTBITE would have applied to my being WP:BOLD in editing my first wiki article. The edits I have made to this article had taken it from a rather undeveloped page a couple of years ago to a more comprehensive version which was live until a couple of months ago following which numerous edits performed in a rather WP:GAME fashion resulted in the article being trimmed to this version. During the cdf tlig debate I revealed that I had comparatively in depth knowledge of the Rydens dealings with the Vatican and mentioned that it was necessary to have such knowledge of the subject matter to edit the Church Stance section of the article. When I did so, it was automatically assumed that I was a WP:COI. My points regarding wikipedia guidelines were ignored and instead the WP:SPA card was also played on me (see comment 12:51, 24 May 2012). As a result I went ahead and explained why my wiki contributions have been primarily focused on this article and where my knowledge came from.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Vassula Ryden}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Absolutely. The talk page speaks for itself. The discussion has lasted at least 3 weeks and also involved an RSN post. The steps that were taken to attempt to resolve the dispute can be read in points 1 to 5 in the Dispute Overview section.
- How do you think we can help?
- By arbitrating the dispute and make judgement on the inclusion of the CDF material in the Church Stance section.
- To make sure all editors adhere to wikipedia guidelines by allowing properly sourced material to be inserted in the article and removing any material that is based on primary sources such as this one.
Arkatakor (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Vassula Ryden discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.This whole DRN is phrased as an attack focussing on me and not on the issues. Note that there were a number of other individuals involved in the discussion who appear to have not been informed. Note also that two other SPAs have been pushing this issue, one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- We have a number of sources that say there has been no acceptance by the catholic church of Vassula Ryden, exceptional claims to the contrary require exceptional evidence. Hvidt is an active supporter of Vassula's who has met her on a number of occassions (see "He made specific mention of his apparent heroine, Vassula Rydén, who has made a name for herself " ). : "Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt, a very active Danish supporter of Mrs Ryden. Dr. Hvidt has done much to promote the TLIG messages in Denmark and in the world. ". This was not considered at RSN because comments were not allowed. WP:REDFLAG specifically requires multiple high quality reliable sources.
- The text is phrased to mislead the reader into thinking the catholic church has accepted Vassula even though this is contradicted by other sources (WP:WEIGHT) before and after the event.
- The primary source I have added supplements the points in the rest of the section, I make no analytical claims and have used the source carefully, it is not misleading and this meets WP:PRIMARY. Note also that the arguments raised above are also self defeating, there is mention excluding primary sources above, but Hvidt is a primary source; he was a primary witness according to Arkakator! IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note also I never claimed the source was unreliable at RSN, nor did I refer to it being an unreliable source post RSN for the claim that the meeting occured (that I can see anyway). I suggest other uninvolved editors look at the diffs and links posted above by Arkatakor rather than taking them at face value as there are a number of misrepresentations of my actions. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, I have not included the other editors in this dispute as they have not been involved in editing the article nor have they actively posted in the article's talk page since Hvidt was approved as an RS 10 days ago. It is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text which cited an approved RS and who commented accordingly. As the CDF text is the primary focus of this DR post, this DR was addressed to him alone. However, if the commentators feel its necessary to alert the other users, I will go ahead and do so, though it seems that they have opted out of this article. I will not refer to IRWolfie's other points, rather I will leave that to the commentators. Arkatakor (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- You specifically mentioned that there were other editors in your above statement. There are other reasons why besides reliability that text is rejected. Per WP:BEANS it's good to not mention every issue all at once, just because a source is reliable source for a sentence doesn't mean we should add that sentence. It is not the job of RSN to form a consensus about inserting material, and noone did so. Note that you also misunderstand what noticeboards are for, they pool interested editors together into a single board, they are there to offer a second opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
RE: "one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden" - My text and reference differs substantially from that of Sasanack. This has already been explained to you in the RSN - see my comment dated 14:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Arkatakor (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by involved editor: I am one of the editors mentioned obliquely by Arkatakor above. I agree with IRWolfie that the source, though published by a university press, is not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents. The author of the source is an avid champion of the subject of the article by his own admission, and was not only a witness of secret Vatican talks, but was a partisan participant, as well. His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available. These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN, so I do not hold their opinion as well-informed or binding.
- Furthemore, as IRWolfie says, WEIGHT is a serious problem with the material proposed by Arkatakor, as the addition appears to undermine and misrepresent the official public stance of the Vatican.
- Last of all, consensus is pretty firm about not including this material. The addition has been reverted by several editors, including me, user:IRWolfie-, user:Sgerbic, user:LuckyLouie, user:Eldamorie and user:SkepticalRaptor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Dominus;
RE: "These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN".
- The commentators of the RSN were given the link to the Catholic Stance section so they could check the sources for themselves
- The commentators of the RSN stated that they were aware that Hvidt was a follower of Ryden. One of them even said "I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.". All these comments have been linked in this DR report.
RE: "not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents" and "His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available.". Which other reliable sources? EWTN? The only official Vatican document used to back up the Church section is the 1995 notification. Everything else that discusses the Vatican's views is backed by EWTN, a confirmed primary source, strictly prohibited in BLP's.
It is rather interesting that IRWolfie and Dominus continue to deny that Hvidt is an RS in this discussion. In doing so they have further showed how they refuse to get the point. Yet they seem content with leaving text in the article that uses primary sources like EWTN. Being greater in number does not make you right, nor does it mean that the users that you listed are necessarily adhering to wikipedia guidelines. Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am a regular editor at RSN, and I commented on the original RSN question brought there. I received a note on my talk page, and after looking at the comments here, I have a couple of things to say.
- First of all, I want to be clear, I have nothing to say about WEIGHT or other issues.
- Secondly, the RS value of the source is completely independent from other sources (Other regular editors at RSN aside from myself also found the Hvidt source to be RS). Finding other RS sources that have different conclusions in no way reduces the RS value of the Hvidt source. That argument is incorrect/false/wrong, take your pick, unless there is a multitude of RS sources that directly address the Hvidt source specifically and its conclusions. It is completely possible, and in fact, not uncommon, for RS sources to have different, and even opposing, material. It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN. -- Despayre 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point, and agree about the reliability of the source. The arguments I was using against it fall under WP:WEIGHT, but still support excluding the material and the source from the article, regardless of its reliability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN and I closed the previous discussion about this issue. Let me start by saying that we are not going to discuss COI, SPA, puppetry, failure to get the point, tendentious editing, or other conduct issues here and I will close this discussion if any such discussion continues. Talk about edits, not editors. Next, I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source. I do think, however, that the WP:WEIGHT issue is plausible and, indeed, I raised that issue indirectly in the prior discussion. My comment and the listing editor's response are as follows:
Mostly-rhetorical inquiry: In light of the Vatican's subsequent statement in 2007, I'm not at all certain why this 2004 statement is worth arguing about. What do you, Sasanack, see that it adds to the article? (For reasons I'm about to explain, this is mostly a rhetorical question at this point and place in time, though you are free to answer it if you care to do so.) ... TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It is important to recognize that the 1995 Notification and the 2007 letter are effectively warnings and are not rulings. The Vatican has no jurisdiction over Vassula who is Greek Orthodox. Also, neither document involved any dialogue with Vassula on any level. The ONLY dialogue that has taken place between Vassula and the Vatican is that which took place between 2001 and 2004 and it resulted in the positive letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which is being blocked from Misplaced Pages. And Cardinal Ratzinger is now the present Pope. Hiding this information from the Misplaced Pages page totally destroys the neutrality of the Roman Catholic stance section. ... --Sasanack (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Because my comment was rhetorical at the time, I did not choose to comment on Sasanack's reply, but I must say now that I find it to be unconvincing and would like to hear from Arkatakor what it is that he feels that it adds to the article and why he feels that the section is NPOV without it in light of the 2007 statement. The use of the term "doctrinal judgment" by the 2007 statement could not seem to be any clearer and while its prohibition on participation in Ryden's prayer groups can be seen as a contradiction of Ratzinger's earlier statement about following the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops it is in fact not logically a contradiction of Ratzinger's statement, especially in light of the fact that Ratzinger's response was being sent to (per the desired addition diff'ed above) "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings". In light of that clarification by Hvidt, if the addition is correct in making that clarification, then Ratzinger's 2004 letter would appear to be to be wholly inconsequential and it's inclusion would be to invite a false interpretation of its meaning by incautious readers. In short, it would appear to me that it's inclusion would invite a misreading of the Vatican's position and rather than preventing the section from failing NPOV would instead invite a false NPOV reading. Finally, in accordance with this section of the consensus policy the burden to obtain a consensus for the inclusion of challenged material is on those seeking its introduction. Unless there is a policy which mandates its inclusion, which would not seem to be the case here, challenged material must be supported by a positive consensus and if the foregoing analysis is correct, then there is either a consensus against its inclusion or, at best a no-consensus situation, which gives the same result. (Finally , I would be remiss if I did not note that it would appear that every independent editor who has looked at the question of whether EWTN is a reliable source has opined that it is not and I tend to agree with that evaluation. In light of that, then it is not a reliable source for the Vatican documents being cited from it. The argument that "EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available" is false; a source is a source.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- While EWTN is indeed unreliable for material it itself generates, it is quite reliable for the official Vatican documents it hosts. In any case, the document hosted on EWTN is available on more reliable sites, such as the University of Daytons's site: ], so changing the citation is a trivial matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I've inserted a sentence into the article based on the Oxford Univ Hvidt source, but was careful to present it in Hvidt's voice rather than the encyclopedia's voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. See the article's Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- And I've reverted it because 1) it was premature as the discussion is still going on here; 2) it does not at all address the WEIGHT issue inherent in balancing two high-level Vatican rulings with the opinion of an ardent promoter of Rysen, even if we identify him as such. Please discuss further suggestions here before making changes to the article space. When consensus is reached to include the material, and the final wording is agreed upon, it can be added then. There is no rush. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- The article already includes multiple statements that the Catholic church disavows AV to some extent. If Oxford publishes a book by a professor which says that the church maybe (in his interpretation) backed off from those disavowals, there is no harm in presenting that information to the reader. If Hvidt were a horribly biased partisan, maybe it could be excluded - but is there any evidence of that? --Noleander (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Horribly biased partisan" is exactly what we're talking about. He is her chief advocate and defender, or certainly most visible one, as a cursory perusal of Google hits will confirm, including his own website on which he defends her against her critics ] (in Danish, but it is titled "Niels Christian Hvidt responds to the criticism of the prophet Vassula Rydén", written by himself. Note that "prophet" is unqualified). And he is also very close to the Pope, as well, who wrote the forward to Hvidt's book. He wasn't present at the meeting described in the source as a neutral observer, but to actively intervene with the Pope on behalf of Ryden, something he had been doing so for years. Last of all, the "relaxation" of which he speaks is not documented by any other source, and in particular by any document from the Vatican itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- All 3 uninvolved editors at the RSN agreed that the Hvidt source was acceptable under RS criteria. Then here in this second DRN, the argument shifted to UNDUE WEIGHT, which doesn't hold water since the article already has a lot of "Catholic church doesn't endorse VR" material. Now we are back to "he is her supporter". So what if he is the only source for the relaxation? There is no WP policy which requires multiple sources. So what if he is her supporter? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers that. Just say he is her supporter, and identify the "2004 letter" material as merely his opinion. This is a professor's book from Oxford press ... WP is supposed to present both sides of a debate. --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- In the interests of trying to gain consensus here, how about starting with some draft text and tweaking it:
According to Danish scholar and Ryden supporter Niels Christian Hvidt, between 2000 and 2004 a dialog took place between Ryden and the CDF. These dialogs led to a letter from Ratzinger which Hvidt interpreted as relaxing the Notification by allowing diocesan bishops to permit prayer groups to utilize Ryden's writings.
- In accordance with WP:BALANCE it is much smaller than the "Catholic church does not endorse VR" material already in the article, so it does not violate the UNDUE WEIGHT policy. Thoughts on this proposed text? --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- In the interests of trying to gain consensus here, how about starting with some draft text and tweaking it:
- @Dominus Vobisdu: Yes, Hvidt is actually an admitted biased partisan (although I'd leave out the "horrible" part). According to True Life In God Hvidt introduced Ryden on her 1998 twelve city speaking tour by telling devotees "of the impact that True Life in God (Ryden's writings) has had on his spiritual life" and how he managed to handed the Pope a signed copy of Ryden's latest book during a general audience. He also maintains a personal web page that promotes favorable interpretations of the CDF's dealings with Ryden , and there's even a YouTube of him giving public lectures promoting Ryden's mystical writings. Also, as IRWoflfie mentioned, Hvidt tirelessly lobbied Ratzinger and other Church officials on Ryden's behalf. Saying he's a fan might be putting it lightly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Noleander: The only source we have that there is a debate at all is Hvidt. The Vatican apparently doesn't think so. Without a response from the Vatican side, we cannot even say that a legitimate debate exists, never mind that Hvidt's opinion is part of it. Hvidt can be used as a source on his own opinion about Ryden, but not on the opinions of the Vatican in this matter, in which he has a big fat conflict of interest. The Vatican did indeed subsequently release a second document on Ryden, affirmed the continuing validity of the first document from before the meeting ("no opportunity may be provided in their Dioceses for the dissemination of her ideas") and directly contradicted Hvidt's conclusion about the meeting with the words "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden".
- Sorry, but I still can't see any basis for assigning any weight at all to Hvidt's interpretation of the meeting, especially when he is contradicted by the head of the CDF itself, the supreme and final arbiter in this case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is not up to editors to "assign weight" to a reliable source. The Hvidt source is discussing the relationship betwen AR and the Church, and anything he says on the matter is appropriate to include in the article. If the source is biased, the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy says that his bias must be mentioned. If the material is the author's interpretation of an document, the article can state that. But there is no policy-based reason to exclude material from an Oxford-published source that is directly relevant to the article. Your objections are unreasonable: first this went to RSN, and 3 of 3 uninvolved editors said it was okay; now would you like to take it to WP:NPOVN? Uninvolved editors there will reach the same result. Better would be to simply find some wording that satisfies all editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- All 3 uninvolved editors at the RSN agreed that the Hvidt source was acceptable under RS criteria. Then here in this second DRN, the argument shifted to UNDUE WEIGHT, which doesn't hold water since the article already has a lot of "Catholic church doesn't endorse VR" material. Now we are back to "he is her supporter". So what if he is the only source for the relaxation? There is no WP policy which requires multiple sources. So what if he is her supporter? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers that. Just say he is her supporter, and identify the "2004 letter" material as merely his opinion. This is a professor's book from Oxford press ... WP is supposed to present both sides of a debate. --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Horribly biased partisan" is exactly what we're talking about. He is her chief advocate and defender, or certainly most visible one, as a cursory perusal of Google hits will confirm, including his own website on which he defends her against her critics ] (in Danish, but it is titled "Niels Christian Hvidt responds to the criticism of the prophet Vassula Rydén", written by himself. Note that "prophet" is unqualified). And he is also very close to the Pope, as well, who wrote the forward to Hvidt's book. He wasn't present at the meeting described in the source as a neutral observer, but to actively intervene with the Pope on behalf of Ryden, something he had been doing so for years. Last of all, the "relaxation" of which he speaks is not documented by any other source, and in particular by any document from the Vatican itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- The article already includes multiple statements that the Catholic church disavows AV to some extent. If Oxford publishes a book by a professor which says that the church maybe (in his interpretation) backed off from those disavowals, there is no harm in presenting that information to the reader. If Hvidt were a horribly biased partisan, maybe it could be excluded - but is there any evidence of that? --Noleander (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course we assign weight to reliable sources. That's part of our job. As for the rest of you post, it does not convince me to change my stand. The three editors on RSN most certainly did NOT say that it was OK to include this material. That is a complete misreading of their findings. As far as I'm concerned, better would be to omit the material altogether. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Noleander: Whether Hvidt is biased or not, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply except to "Biased statements of opinion" and says that one way to avoid the issue is to "specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." Based on the diff at issue, this does not appear to me to be a statement of opinion, but a mere recitation of facts which should have been subject to fact-checking by this reliable publisher. Moreover, if the author is biased in favor of Ryden, it seems odd to me that he would specify that the recipients of Ratzinger's letter were "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings" and that Ratzinger clearly says that in the matter of the prayer groups people should follow the instructions of their bishops. Ratzinger's statements that Ryden's clarifications were "useful" is semantically neutral: they could have been useful in identifying her writings as appropriate or in identifying them as inappropriate, the letter does not say one way or the other. It is possible to read the letter as saying virtually nothing or as being negative in approving the negativity of the bishops to which it is being written, but it is not possible to read it as saying anything which contradicts the other statements of the Vatican. Whether neutral or negative, it adds nothing to the section but can be seen as violating WP:OR by inviting a misinterpretation at worst and making the section a prohibited WP:INDISCRIMINATE selection of facts at best. If the Vatican has contradicted itself, a reliable source needs to be found which says so. Inviting unwarranted conclusions is, in part, what WP:WEIGHT would seem to be intended to prevent. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@TransporterMan I was disappointed by your comments here after having expressed my thanks for your previous, constructive comments. You say, regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter (which is being kept from Misplaced Pages readers), "It is possible to read the letter as saying virtually nothing or as being negative in approving the negativity of the bishops to which it is being written, but it is not possible to read it as saying anything which contradicts the other statements of the Vatican." I'm sorry, but the Cardinal's letter is quite short and clear and states, "a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God", in which Mrs. Ryden supplies useful clarifications....". That is a very clear statement giving specific information which includes informing the bishops where the dialogue has been published. To continue to argue that the Cardinal's letter and the dialogue to which it refers is not relevant to the Roman Catholic stance seems bizarre to me.--Sasanack (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I have notified some other users about this ongoing dispute and have updated this discussion accordingly. @TransporterMan; I will get back to you in a later post regarding your points. Arkatakor (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- You only notified the two other SPAs (one of whom has a disclosed conflict of interest related to this) and did not notify any individuals who disagreed with you that were mentioned above. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I received a note on my talk page regarding this DRN, as I read it, is it a fair summary to say the issues are as follows: 1) Hividt is a WP:RS? 2) Regarding insertion of text regarding the Ryden/Ratzinger (CDF) dialogue and subsequent 2004 Letter, is it significant in itself / WEIGHT? 3) Is Hividts opinion on dialogue and letter relevant/WEIGHT and if so is CONS required to put it in? Webwidget (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@IRWolfie: The status or not of another editor as a SPA is a conduct issue not appropriate for this forum. Feel free to issue whatever warnings and make whatever complaints you may feel to be appropriate at other, appropriate, places but do not discuss or mention them further here. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, but this is not the place to raise those allegations. Discuss only edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Being a Single Purpose Account (WP:SPA) is not something that warnings are issued against, it's not negative in itself, but something to note. Being a SPA is not a conduct issue or necessarily an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Webwidget: 3 arguments have been used against Hvidt in this discussion. First it was RS (before Despayre stepped in), then it jumped to WEIGHT, then back to RS (as soon as Despayre stepped out), then back again to WEIGHT and now finally its WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (Transporterman came up with this), the last which is based on the assumption that Ratzingers statement is either neutral, negative or otherwise does not contradict the 2007 letter in any way hence it has been argued that its inclusion could be misleading and Transporterman wants to know how it would contribute to the article. It is Transporterman who has come up with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV based on his interpretation of the CDF dialogue. Transporterman is the only person participating in this dispute who has been consistent and has not hopped from one argument to another, though I disagree with the conclusion he has come up with. I will go through the correspondence with Ratzinger and Ryden in more detail before I come up with an appropriate response and explain why having this text is helpful to the article. Arkatakor (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@Transporterman: I have done some reading on the CDF dialogue topic, hence its taken me a while to get back to your points. RE: "Moreover, if the author is biased in favor of Ryden, it seems odd to me that he would specify that the recipients of Ratzinger's letter were "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings" and that Ratzinger clearly says that in the matter of the prayer groups people should follow the instructions of their bishops.". You made a very accurate observation. It was indeed correct to state that it seemed odd that Hvidt would specify the recipients of Ratzingers letter being negative if he was supportive of Ryden. He actually never stated that. For some reason I overlooked this when I cross referenced the book versus the actual text I was inserting into the article.
Below is an excerpt from paragraph 1 on page 119 of Hvidts book, the source of the CDF dialogue claim that I wish to insert into the diaolgue. Take note that the wording: '"to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén"' which appears in my proposed CDF text actually does not appear in the Hvidts paragraph below. I have taken a look at older versions of the article and it has been there for years yet I am unable to find a reference that specifies the aforementioned information. Here is what Hvidt wrote:
From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Vassula Ryde´n and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Vassula’s answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.374 As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Vassula Ryde´n through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’375 The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Ryde´n in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.
Note that the aforementioned text is exactly identical to the text I pasted in the RSN. I am stating this lest certain users in this discussion accuse me of some sort of manipulation. In my view the aforementioned does not seem as neutral or negative, rather positive, albeit cautiously positive. Being cautiously positive, it actually does contradict Levada's 2007 statement which states "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden.". Ratzinger says, "consult your bishop first", Levada says "Do not pariticipate". Thus according to Noleander, this contradiction warrants the inclusion of my proposed text under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV . At that point the following text: "to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén" would have to be removed and replaced replaced by Hvidts text. This would enable it to fall under WP:NPOV which states that all viewpoints from prominent sources must be included. If you agree with this, we still need to negotiate the text as there may be a couple of more reasons that I will eventually come up with to warrant its inclusion based on further research. Arkatakor (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
@TransporterMan
Inclusion of the CDF Dialogue text demonstrates that whist the 1995 Notification was issued without any prior consultation with Ryden, that the CDF then subsequently did engage in dialogue with Ryden (2000-2004) demonstrates the scope & process of that dialogue.
(Since at the time of the issue of the 1995 Notification there was no consultation with Ryden nor any Catholic/Orthodox Clergy or Theologians of repute who supported Ryden.)
A brief background to this:
In 1995 Ryden was given no hearing/right of reply.
The CDF's issuing of such a Notification regarding an Orthodox Christian breaches the Balamand Declaration *29 (according to Fr. O'Carroll, see below)
“After the appearance of the Notification, I went as president of the Association based on Vassula’s writings, True Life in God, to plead her case in Rome.”
“On 5 December (1995) I saw Patriarch Bartholomew in London. He was aware of what had been done to a member of his Church in violation of the Balamand Declaration.”
Quoting Fr. Michael O’Carroll: “it seems to reject the spirit if not the letter, No. 29, of the Balamand Declaration.”
29. Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. When cooperation becomes necessary for the good of the faithful, it is then required that those responsible to an agreement among themselves, establish for this mutual assistance clear principles which are known to all, and act subsequently with frankness, clarity, and with respect for the sacramental discipline of the other Church. In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts. Webwidget (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Arkatakor:
I have been re-reading the DRN and perceive there to now be 2 issues in dispute; WP:WEIGHT and then depending on if WP:WEIGHT is affirmed how an edit would be worded in accordance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
The previous issue of Hividt being an RS has not been challenged or contested (If I have read correctly) since user:TransporterMan commented: “I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source.”
- @Dominus Vobisdu:
RE: Without a response from the Vatican side… What @Arkatakor quotes from Hividt above is the Vatican response all be it a "low-key" response as described on Hividts site CDF-TLIG
“May 2004 Fr. Grech confirmed that the response to Mrs. Rydén’s answers had indeed been very positive. Despite this, however, the CDF would not issue a "new" Notification that would abolish the first one of 1995. Rather, the positive response would be "kept low-key".” Webwidget (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is waiting for me to say something, let me note that I may be unable to do so due to real world issues for another two or three days. I'll try to jump back in sooner if I can but don't be surprised if I can't. Pretend this is Coffee Talk and talk amongst yourselves. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details.
How close to a resolution are we? What can we at DRN do to help resolve this dispute? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- You can comment as to where you see the WP:DUE weight on the text inserted here: . The statement is sourced to Hvidt an admitted supporter of Vassula's and an observer of the meeting (i.e a primary source), but reliable for saying that the meeting took place. The issue is where it's being inserted and the weight issue as a result: Vassula_Ryden#Roman_Catholic_Church.27s_stance_on_Ryd.C3.A9n, it's being used to counter the two CDF notifications, one before and after the event and only serves to mislead and act as if Vassula Ryden has more acceptance from the Catholic Church than actually exists, this omission is consistent with WP:VALID. I think this is the core of the issue IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- A small but important detail, according to Hvidt's web site he was not just an observer to the meeting(s). He persistently solicited church officials until they agreed to meet Ryden. He then orchestrated the meetings and actively participated in them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I was not aware of that detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- A small but important detail, according to Hvidt's web site he was not just an observer to the meeting(s). He persistently solicited church officials until they agreed to meet Ryden. He then orchestrated the meetings and actively participated in them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- You can comment as to where you see the WP:DUE weight on the text inserted here: . The statement is sourced to Hvidt an admitted supporter of Vassula's and an observer of the meeting (i.e a primary source), but reliable for saying that the meeting took place. The issue is where it's being inserted and the weight issue as a result: Vassula_Ryden#Roman_Catholic_Church.27s_stance_on_Ryd.C3.A9n, it's being used to counter the two CDF notifications, one before and after the event and only serves to mislead and act as if Vassula Ryden has more acceptance from the Catholic Church than actually exists, this omission is consistent with WP:VALID. I think this is the core of the issue IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment by dispute resolution volunteer
The following is my opinion as someone who has never looked at the page before and who has never heard of the Vassula Ryden. Remember, DRN dispute resolution volunteers have no special authority and our opinions do not carry any extra weight.
First, an overview, then on to the specific question asked above
I think the page needs to be reorganized to correct the following "good material, wrong section" problems.
The lead needs to have everything removed that is not an uncontested factual description of who Vassula Ryden is and what she has done. All material that describes someone's opinion of her, reaction to her, etc. should be moved to another section, such as support or criticism. In particular, the "...vouched for the authenticity", "welcomed her", "false prophet" and "con artist" material need to go elsewhere. Make the lead purely factual, like an encyclopedia. The articles on Thomas Merton and Bede Griffiths are good examples.
The biography is short on biographical facts (names of parents, spouses and children, degrees (if any)) and contains details that are not really relevant (religion of parents and spouses). Try digging harder; surely her husband has a name.
The writings section is mostly biographical. Move things like "One day while writing a grocery list, she claims..." into biography, put the name of the book into "she is the author of..." form and move it into the head, and delete this section.
In the Activities section, instead of "In 1998, Ryden initiated the Beth Myriam (Mary's House) project to feed the poor, sponsored by the True Life In God Foundation", write something like "In 1998 she founded of the Beth Myriam (Mary's House) project, an organization that feeds the poor in ." Delete the "made speaking appearances" - not notable; we want to hit the high points. Change "In February 2003, she was invited by the Venerable Suddhananda in his monastery in Dhaka to honor her with the "Peace Gold Award" for for her efforts in propagating peace in the world." to something like "In 2003 she was awarded the Peace Gold Award by for her efforts in propagating peace in the world." (Double check the sources to verify that that is the exact wording of what the award honors.)
Move the "Eastern Orthodox Church's stance" section into the Skeptics section, renaming it "Criticism", and answer the obvious question of why we say she is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church and then say that the Greek Orthodox Church says that her teachings are heretical. Also, in the future watch for errors like a section titled "Eastern Orthodox Church's stance" with text that details the Greek Orthodox Church's stance. They are not the same thing. Every so often you need to read the article one sentence at a time and ask yourself "is this true? Is it in the source we cite?"
Finally, the "Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden" section is far too large. This often happens with disputed sections. Cut it way back, delete non-notable events like the Cathedral of Los Angeles withdrawing an invitation, and merge it with the Criticism (formerly Skeptics) section.
As for the Niels Christian Hvidt material, write it up as Niels Christian Hvidt being a supporter, report his opinions in a neutral tome as opinions, and put it in the supporter section. Do not attempt to portray him as a reliable source for interpteting Ratzinger's positions. He is not a reliable source on that topic, and you are not allowed to use it to cast doubt on what appears to be a well-documented position of the Roman Catholic Church. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- GuyMacon's suggestions seem sensible to me. Regarding the Hvidt material: I think a single sentence (where he is identified as a supporter) is appropriate. The objection raised above that Hvidt should be excluded because his views are fringe per WP:VALID is not right: Hvidt is a scholar and the source book is published by Oxford Univ Press. Even if he is biased, his opinion can be included per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV provided it is identified as an opinion. --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: its good to have another neutral editor in this discussion. I agree with your proposal of the article remake, especially with regard to the introductory paragraph and the eastern orthodox changed to greek orthodox, etc. The article badly needs a makeover. However I am confused by your concluding paragraph. I am frankly irritated by certain editors (I am not referring to you at all but rather those who have been active in the articles talk page) in this dispute, who never miss an occasion to discredit Hvidt wherever they can , despite the fact that his work was published by Oxford University Press and was also confirmed as an RS in the RSN. It is this approved work and this work alone that I intend to base the CDF dialogue text in the article on. I would like to direct you to some of the following statements made by other users in this particular DR regarding Hvidts work:
- Transporterman stated: "Next, I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source."
- Despayre stated that: "It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN."
- Noleander, another uninvolved editor (until about a week ago) tried to insert Hvidts text in the Roman Catholic Church's section (because the dialogue that Ryden had with the RC Church is part of the history between Ryden and the RC Church), until Tansporterman (rightfully at the time) pointed out that such an edit could be a possible WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have pointed out why WP:INDISCRIMINATE would not be an issue in my comment of 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC). Unfortunately this is the time that Transporterman was unable to respond. I would very much like to also hear his feedback on this. Arkatakor (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- The first thing to do is to realize that DRN deals with conflicts over article content and not user conduct. This means that everybody needs to stop talking about other editors and focus on talking about article content. Please don't take this as criticism; it is natural human behavior to describe disputes in the form "...and then he did this, and then I did that, and then she did the other thing..." Natural, but not helpful. Here at DRN we have found that focusing in on the content dispute usually solves any user conduct issues, and if it doesn't we know where to send you to deal with user conduct issues -- but please wait until we either solve the article content issues or give up on solving them.
- Getting back to the content issue, could one or more of you start implementing the things we all agree on such as making the lead purely factual with criticism and support moved to the appropriate sections?
- (Saving my comments so far while I do some study on Hvidt; more on that topic within the hour) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that a single sentence identifying Hvidt as an ardent promoter of Ryden can be included, and that he should not be used in the section pertaining to the Vatican documents. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
@Dominus Vobisdu The section is not about "Vatican Documents" its about the Church's Stance on Ryden. The purpose of that section is to offer a brief summary or history of what has happened between Ryden and the RC Church and what the RC Church has had to say about Ryden, right from the beginning until the present.
@Guy Macon: I am glad that you are taking the time to read up on Hvidt. It can be noteworthy to state that Hvidts book is not about Ryden, rather Ryden is merely an example within a chapter of a larger framework of content that deals with Christian Prophecy. Thus its not exactly a "propaganda leaflet" like some people might have suggested. Here is a direct quote from paragraph 1 of page 119 within Hvidts work that I wish to extrapolate information from:
From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Vassula Ryde´n and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Vassula’s answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.374 As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Vassula Rydeen through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’375 The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Ryde´n in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.
The idea is to insert the content of the aforementioned paragraph in the Church's Stance section as part of the history between Ryden and the Church. The main points I want to bring forward from the above in the Church's Stance section are the following facts:
- From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF in which the CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors and submitted five questions in a letter dated April 4, 2002.
- At the request of Joseph Ratzinger (head of the CDF at the time), Rydens answers to the aforementioned five questions were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.
- Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Ryden through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’.
On top of Hvidts source, there are also letters from both Ratzinger and Levada that support the aforementioned facts.
The following are Hvidts interpretation of the aforementioned facts:
- Interpretation of point 1 above: The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine.
- Interpretation of point 3 above: The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Ryden in their diocese. On the basis of the ‘‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings were allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop (the "follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop's" is also mentioned in Ratzinger's 2004 letter).
Bear in mind that although the aforementioned points are interpretations, as they were part of Hvidts doctoroal dissertation published by Oxford University Press, they would have been subject to scathing peer review and scrutiny for fact checking. Despayre also commented in the RSN that "There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.". So personally I am leaning towards using the above "as is" since this work is a confirmed RS. Having said this, I want to state that I am uncertain about potential WP:WEIGHT issues pertaining to the aforementioned interpretations. Arkatakor (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussions on the use of a doctoral dissertation as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#University_Thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Dissertations.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Dissertations.3F
Hvidt is a reliable source. Everyone should stop pointing out that Hvidt is a reliable source unless you are replying to someone who says Hvidt is not a reliable source. As in "exclude Hvidt from the page; not a reliable source".
Being a reliable source means you can use the source for some purposes, as opposed to not being a reliable source meaning that you cannot use it for any purpose.
Saying that something is not a reliable source on X is not the same as saying that something is not a reliable source. Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Quantum Mechanics, just as Alain Aspect is not a reliable source on Roman Catholic doctrine -- but both are reliable sources.
Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Vassula Ryden.
Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Niels Hvidt.
Vassula Ryden is not a reliable source on Joseph Ratzinger.
Vassula Ryden is not a reliable source on Niels Hvidt.
Niels Hvidt is not a reliable source on Joseph Ratzinger.
Niels Hvidt is not a reliable source on Vassula Ryden.
Anything that we put on Misplaced Pages about any of the three people I just named needs to be supported by reliable sources on those individuals.
For example, we can report the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Vassula Ryden with a citation to Joseph Ratzinger, who is a reliable source on Roman Catholic Church stances (was/is a RS as a professor, cardinal. and pope). We cannot report that Vassula Ryden believes X if the only source we have is Joseph Ratzinger. He isn't a RS on that.
Likewise, we cannot report that the Roman Catholic Church's stance is Y if the only source we have is Niels Hvidt. He isn't a RS on that.
Here is the bottom line. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951006_ryden_en.html is the official position of the church. It has not been retracted or modified.
When Ryden and or her supporter asked for clarification, Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, talked with Ryden, and later with Hvidt. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfryden2007.pdf pretty much sums up the RC church's position after those meetings.
I realize that Ryden's supporters claim that all of this somehow adds up to the RC Church not really meaning what it wrote, but until the RC church prints a retraction or modification and reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject (Not supporter Hvidt) report on same, that claim is not going to make it into any Misplaced Pages article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: There are quite a few points that I would like to clarify which feel you have overlooked, I will get back to you at a later point regarding your latest post in which I will compile a fact sheet based on my re-reading of the discussion here. I feel this dispute needs remain open for another good few days until we have all had the chance to clarify things. Arkatakor (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! I am completely open to the possibility that I completely got it wrong; after all, I am just looking at it for the first time. Take as much time as you need - we want to get this right - but if you see that two or three days have gone by with no discussion, just drop a quick "I am still working on this" note here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've now thought about this for several days and my belief is that the Roman Catholic Church stance section cannot be based upon the four Vatican documents (that is, the 1995 and 1996 Notifications, the 2004 Ratzinger letter, and the 2007 Levada letter). While I believe that sourcing issues for these documents have not been adequately resolved, that issue plays no part in my feeling about this matter. The problem lies in the fact, first, that these are indisputably primary documents under Misplaced Pages policy and under that policy any interpretation or synthesis of them is absolutely forbidden. Second, I have read and re-read these documents, Hvidt's very useful but Wiki-unreliable analysis of them and history of Ryden's relations with the Vatican at cdf-tlig.org, Hvidt's interview with Ratzinger which touched on these issues, and a couple of other sources, and am still uncertain what exactly those four Vatican documents mean. They are extremely vague and, indeed, appear to be self-contradictory even within the same document, and can thus be read in a number of different ways. (Indeed, I keep re-reading them and thinking, "oh, THAT'S what they mean," only to decide a few minutes later that I'm wrong about my conclusion.) In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis. To set them out in their entirety would give this issue undue weight and, even if it did not, the situation is analogous to Misplaced Pages's position on scientific and medical research papers, whose use is disapproved because, among other reasons, they can easily be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreted by non-experts. For that reason I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it. Hvidt's book is one such secondary source, but it makes no reference to the 2007 Levada letter and appears to have been published before that letter could be taken into consideration by Hvidt and its use alone would, I fear, raise neutral point of view issues. It appears from the footnotes in Hvidt's book that there has been, at least in the past, a great deal of secondary writing about Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Those references, like Hvidt's book, may be too outdated and/or non-Wiki-reliable to provide a complete and neutral point of view, but the number of them gives me to believe that there have probably subsequently been at least a number of potential secondary sources written which take into consideration the 2007 letter. My opinion is, therefore, that all use of those four Vatican documents and the Hvidt book as references should be removed and that unless new Wiki-reliable secondary sources can be found for the section that it ought to be removed from the article altogether. The Misplaced Pages verifiability standard is that no information is preferable to inadequately or non-neutral information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- TransporterMan's comments are, as usual, thoughtful and balanced. It has always been my view that if WPrules prevent any reference to the CDF dialogue, then the Roman Catholic stance section should be removed in its entirety. It is certainly the case that the 2007 Levada letter should not be on the WPpage as, apart from the criticisms of its EWTN reference, the letter was never published by the Vatican. It simply 'leaked' on to the internet. But, in truth, I remain puzzled that Misplaced Pages struggles to allow the inclusion of basic FACTS on its pages. This matter of inclusion of the three documents which have come from the Vatican referring to Vassula should not be a problem at all. Their inclusion does not involve anyone's opinion, it is just about facts. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to provide?--Sasanack (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Sasanack: Is not just the 2007 letter leaked onto the internet which uses an inappropriate citation but in particular this:
In November 1996, following a series of declarations from Ryden's supporters affirming that the Notification was not a valid document, the CDF issued a press release, stating that the Notification "retains all its force" and "was approved by the competent authorities and will be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official organ of the Holy See"..
- The aforementioned also uses ETWN - I have made efforts to remove it alongside the CDF dialogue as they were both based on primary sources. My efforts were undone, despite wikipedias obvious rules about excluding material based on primary sources.
- @TransporterMan: I am glad that you took the time to read up on the history between Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, making suggestions or comments about how to improve this article requires quite a bit of background reading and it is clear that you have taken the time to do that. I concur with you that the Vatican documents are vague and self contradictory and that there are very few secondary sources published by subject matter experts to actually interpret them, apart from Hvidt's book. However as you mentioned, his book was published prior to Levada's 2007 letter. There is currently a shortage of recent, secondary reliable sources to interpret the Vatican's documents. For this reason I would like to state my support of your notion of removing the Roman Catholic Church's stance section on Ryden in its entirety until better / more numerous sources can be found to interpret the Vatican documents. Arkatakor (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead Section
- Note that Arkatakor is wiping content from the lede and article and apparently says you said so: (The DRN specifically mentioned removing controversial topics such as support / criticism / reaction / controversy etc from the introduction, read Guy Macon's comment dated 07:59, 23 June 2012 . I've also found extra sources for the 1995 notification: . IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
@IRWolfie:That is correct.
@Guy Macon: I am still in the process of working on my "fact list" regarding the CDF dialogue. I want to try and keep it simple but informative. In the meanwhile I have taken note of Webwidgets many edits and have decided to action your request regarding the lead section as per your comment dated 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC) in which you wrote:
The lead needs to have everything removed that is not an uncontested factual description of who Vassula Ryden is and what she has done. All material that describes someone's opinion of her, reaction to her, etc. should be moved to another section, such as support or criticism.
Thus I would like to propose changing the lead from this (current) version:
Vassula Rydén (born January 18, 1942) is a controversial Christian mystic living in Switzerland who professes to receive messages from Jesus Christ and The Virgin Mary. A member of the Greek Orthodox Church, former tennis champion, and fashion model born in Egypt to Greek parents,
Ryden has attracted a devoted following among some Catholics who follow apparitions of the Virgin Mary.
Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her "messages" andshe travels around the world giving lectures and providing "healing services".Although two Catholic bishops in California welcomed her into their cathedrals, the Roman Catholic Church has issued statement advising Catholics "not to regard the messages of Vassula Ryden as divine revelations, but only as personal meditations",Ryden's writings and handwritten transcriptions have been published as a series of nine volumes, called "True Life In God" and translated into 31 languages by Trinitas, an Independence, Missouri, publishing house and nonprofit organization established to spread her writings in 1991.
To this version:
Vassula Rydén (born January 18, 1942) is a controversial Christian mystic living in Switzerland who professes to receive messages from Jesus Christ and The Virgin Mary. A member of the Greek Orthodox Church, former tennis champion, and fashion model born in Egypt to Greek parents, Ryden has attracted a devoted following among some Catholics who follow apparitions of the Virgin Mary. She travels around the world giving lectures and providing "healing services". Ryden's writings and handwritten transcriptions have been published as a series of nine volumes, called "True Life In God" and translated into 31 languages by Trinitas, an Independence, Missouri, publishing house and nonprofit organization established to spread her writings in 1991.
Let me know if this is consistent with what you had in mind when you made opening comment. Arkatakor (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is the direction I suggested, but keep in mind the following:
- My suggestions are just that, and my opinions should not carry any extra weight. The final decision needs to be made by consensus of the editors working on the page. I hope that the consensus agrees with my suggestions, but if it doesn't, my suggestions should be discarded.
- Make sure that any material removed from the lead is still to be found elsewhere in the article. I suggested moving material, not deleting it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon I thought as much. Here are my comments as to why the following should be removed / shifted.
- The statement "Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her "messages"" adds a positive, non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral.
- The statement "Although two Catholic bishops in California welcomed her into their cathedrals" bears no weight in the light of the fact that Ryden has been to well over 900 meetings (select 'All' for both Select by year AND Select by country in preceding link). Many of those meetings are documented (see 'report' under specific meetings) with photos of clergy higher in rank than these particular 2 bishops. So why should 1 meeting with 2 particular bishops be stand out compared to the 100's of others?
- The 1995 notification is already in the article under Church Stance section. Thus there is no reason to include it in the introduction as, like mentioned for the first point, it adds a non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral.
- I reverted the removal and instead moved the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- No you have not. The paragraph still contains all the 3 non neutral / non contributing points I mentioned above. Arkatakor (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted the removal and instead moved the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Still not encyclopedic
The article still has a lead section that is full of opinion:
"Ryden has attracted a devoted following"
"Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her messages"
One issue I see from looking at the page history is that there is an effort to move material as I suggested alongside a parallel effort to remove material over sourcing issues and to add material which then is questioned on sourcing issues. May i suggest that you all take a brief break from adding and removing material, work together to get the existing material in the right place, and then resume the discussion about what to add/remove? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I concur. Please check my comment after yours on 22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC). I attempted to remove everything that is non neutral or already mentioned in the article from the lead. However, my efforts were undone by the very user that made me initiate this DR. Here is a proposed text for the lead:
Vassula Rydén (born January 18, 1942) is a controversial Christian mystic living in Switzerland who professes to receive messages from Jesus Christ and The Virgin Mary. She is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, former tennis champion, and fashion model born in Egypt to Greek parents. She travels around the world giving lectures and providing "healing services". Ryden's writings and handwritten transcriptions have been published as a series of nine volumes, called "True Life In God" and translated into 31 languages by Trinitas, an Independence, Missouri, publishing house and nonprofit organization established to spread her writings in 1991.
- I am sure most of us can agree that the aforementioned lead is neutral. If the users who have been involved in this discussion do not have specific objections to the aforementioned text, I will go ahead and make the necessary edit to make the lead as per above. Arkatakor (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is a good lead. Please put it back, but as you do, make sure that all removed material is either already in another section or gets put into another section rather than deleted. I want to get the organization right and then go back and see what needs to be added or removed. Other editors; if you think he got it wrong, improve, don't revert. pick one small improvement and propose it on the talk page. Repeat until the article is perfect (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
India
 | No discussion for four days. Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I am requesting that the infobox on the India page have an 'Establishment/Formation' section rather than merely an 'Independence' section. I am including the entire discussion that has happened thus far: Establishment/Formation The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section. The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves. India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
The discussion is ongoing but I believe more people need to get involved.
You could use the same template for the India page as is used for other country pages such as Germany or China or any other. 114.143.116.232 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC) India discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.First this forum is not for "ongoing" discussions and is not a place where you can "get more eyes". Second, are those years used as the formation of the People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Germany? Those dates on those articles need to be changed to match the political formation of those polities, and not India to change the other way around.Curb Chain (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - Of course the InfoBox should include the formation date, if there is one prior to the official indepence events in 1947 and 1950. Multiple other articles set a good precedent: Germany, China, Italy, etc. India should be treated the same. Of course, any pre-1947 "establishment" or "formation" date must be supported by mainstream reliable sources; in other words, it is not sufficient that a WP editor believes that India was unified/established in such-and-such a year: reliable sources must state the year. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I posted this on the India talk page and am re-posting it here --- I am not arguing that the dates for other countries are wrong. Of course there can be different points of view on what constituted the beginning of a nation but those dates are more in keeping with the spirit of what I am saying. Which is that these current entities are merely the latest form of nations that have been around in one form or another for a long time. For India it might be worth considering the time of Ashoka as some sort of establishment date. One need only look at the map of Ashoka's India to understand this. Albeit that too will surely be contested with some saying it should be earlier. If for example it is decided to use 265 BCE (the Maurya Empire at its peak under Ashoka) as the date when the India that we recognize today truly came into being, then that would be the first date in the infobox and the significant subsequent periods could be mentioned under it, such as the Kushan Empire which followed the Maurya Empire, or the various Islamic ocupations, or the Maratha Empire, or the Sikh Empire, or the Company occupation, or the British occupation, etc. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details. It appears to me that perhaps the problem here is trying to shoehorn a complex situation into a limited space infobox. Is it possible to resolve this by adding a few lines to the infobox - two or three different dates with different labels? How about no dates in the infobox and covering it all in the text of the article? I think we all agree that all the well-sourced dates relating to when this or that aspect came too being should be in the article. The question is how to best format the information. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Comment: Reliable sources all state that India became independent in 1947. Failing sources that assert it was established or formed on that date, I don't see this as a useful discussion. --regentspark (comment) 02:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I don't understand why people keep repeating the 1947 date. That the British occupation ended on that date is simple fact beyond dispute. That is not what I am arguing about. I thought I was fairly clear on what I was trying to convey, which is that 1947 does not mark the beginning of the entity known as India. As for the specific point of this article referring to the 'political entity', that is precisely why I have drawn everyone's attention to other country pages, which even though are also about current 'political entities' use ancient dates for establishment/formation. I would like to put forward the date of 265 BCE as my contribution for a possible 'first date' in the infobox. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
We could use the same source(s) that establishes the extent of Ashoka's empire in the year 265 BCE. I don't think there is any doubt that Ashoka's Empire covered all of India at that time is there? 114.143.119.26 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kievan Rus' was a lot smaller than modern Russia. The Holy Roman Empire was a lot larger than modern Germany. Yet anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding of history will recognize that those two entities were precursors to modern day Russia and Germany respectively. The area that is today Pakistan (and Bangladesh) has always been a part of India. Even the Mughal occupation at its peak did not cover the southern tip of India. The notion that Ashoka's India does not qualify as India because it included present-day Pakistan is ludicrous. I have already covered the greater/lesser argument. The logic of what I am saying should be abundantly clear to any unbiased listener. It is fairly evident that what we have here is merely good old-fashioned India hatred. I believe I have sufficiently made my point. I will not press this matter any further. This issue can now be considered closed. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. Fowler&fowler, please read IPs are human too. Everyone, please read Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and Misplaced Pages is not about winning. If anyone wishes to complain about another user, don't do it here. Take it to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the issue, take it to WP:RFC/U, but please wait until the DRN case is closed. It often happens that solving the content dispute solves the user conduct issues as well. If you wish to discuss the article content dispute, we at DRN will be glad to help, but you need to stop talking about other editors now. Just stop. Don't post a last word talking about talking about other editors. Don't say that you agree or that you are sorry. Just start calmly discussing sources and contents as if no fighting had occurred. Further comments about other editors may be deleted with a note saying "try again, but this time only discuss article content." --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Tomislav Nikolić
| No discussion for three days, The Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for resolving disputes about article content, not user conduct. Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a disagreement between which section title should be used for Nikolic's controversial statements in which he denied that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide. The content of that section is also disputed, but to a lesser degree. Please see this section for more information. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
An unsuccessful request for 3rd opinion was attempted. 3O user refused to engage in discussion per his own "standards". It was recommended that the matter be taken to DR or RFC.
Provide assistance on discussion and neutral opinions. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Tomislav Nikolić discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.Comment. My reasons for the current section title can be found on article talk page. PRODUCER has requested a third opinion and when he was not happy with it, he asked again and again. His requests for fourth and fifth opinion are justifiably denied. It should be noted that there is an ongoing similar discussion and RFC at Talk:Srebrenica massacre, also initiated after PRODUCER tried to change section title from Opposition to the description "genocide" to Genocide denial. PRODUCER should probably wait for the outcome of that RFC instead of trying to push his version across several articles. --В и к и T 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Loveland, Ohio
| Stale or resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:Nikkimaria and I are engaged in a dispute about some changes I recently made to this article. Nikkimaria (who has had no previous association with this article), objected to my changes and reverted them, on the grounds that I needed prior permission to make such changes. Over the last few days we have engaged in an unproductive discussion (thread here), which ended with me proposing that I should reinstate my changes and we would wait a few days to see if any of the established editors objected, and that in that eventuality I would self-revert and engage in discussion with them. However, this proposal has not proved acceptable to Nikkimaria, who has simply reverted my changes again. This type of change has already been examined at ANI (in connection with a different article) and found to be consistent with community consensus - here is the statement made by the closing admin:
What's more, I've made similar changes to a number of fairly high-profile articles (e.g. Jared Leto, List of awards and nominations received by Madonna) recently without any adverse comment whatever. My practice is that if the active editors on any article I've changed in this way feel strongly that they prefer the status quo, I'll try to persuade them to my point of view, but ultimately I'll back down if I can't overcome their objections. However, it's not acceptable for an uninvolved editor to prevent my changes being put to the test without his prior approval. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussions as noted above.
Insist that Nikkimaria leave my changes in place for a few days so that we can find out whether any of the established editors have an objection. I think it's important to establish the principle that changes made in accordance with accepted practice (see WP:CITE#Journal_articles) don't require prior permission from anyone - particularly not an editor who has had no previous involvement with this article. It would become impossible to make any large-scale improvements if prior permission had to be sought article by article. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Loveland, Ohio discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.My advice would be to take the issue to the Talk page of the article first; personally, I think WP:Cite on established style grounds applies here (the guidance you link to gives examples of what a typical citation should include, but does not claim to be exhaustive or proscriptive); it would be well worth raising the question on the talk page in the first instance before escalating to dispute resolution. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 25, 2012 at 19:24 (UTC) Reason: Stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details
| No discussion for three days. This appears to be a case of one lone editor pushing his POV against consensus. If the behavior continues, take it to WP:ANI where the disruptive behavior can be dealt with with blocks. Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I've found wrong source' usage in the article concerning of the details of K-21 attack. The initial article text deal with unexpected locution "K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes" and with the authors conclusion "both of which missed" regardless of the sole primary source (K-21 war log Template:Ref-ru, search for 18.01.30 time) deals with 4-torpedoes salvo. It's a perfect example of unreliable secondary source usage. Users involved
Unfortunately in spite of degree in History, Parsecboy is unable to identify the sources' correctness and does not follow the neutral point of view rules - any correction in accordance with the primary source he perceives as Soviet propaganda, and the admin rights allow him to impose his point of view despite the facts. As a result now after his indulgent additions the text of article consists of the unrelated pieces from the three different sources, so it's impossible to receive a clear picture the incident.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
(Moved from Misplaced Pages:ANI after advices to solve the problem in Misplaced Pages:DR) I have tried to resolve the dispute pointing out the discrepancy of the details in the text and the original report of the K-21 commander. Parsecboy cited several sources including Polmar & Noot who cite correctly the K-21 commander's report in English. But Parsecboy categorically opposed to any change, even from his own(!) source, despite the fact that I'm talking about the report, not the attack results.
The article mentioned the K-21 episode and provides the details of the attack, so I think it would be right to cite it properly. All secondary sources can be based only on the K-21 commander Lunin report, because there is no evidence by the Germans (the Germans claim that they did not notice the attack). My suggestion is to correct the report of K-21 attack in accordance with that sole source (I've made bold my corrections): Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired four torpedoes at the ship and reported about two explosions heard by the crew through the hull. Therefore the Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship, although the attack was never noticed by the Germans. (Polmar & Noot, p. 115–116) So, I need help the community to make that changes due to Parsecboy's admin counteraction. Zh.Mike (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.This is a joke. Zh.Mike has been trying for over a year to insert Soviet propaganda and his own original research into the article. Why he has not linked to the discussion where he attempts to read things into the German war logs (such as this gem: "At 15:06 the speed was 24 knots (as Lunin said), at 18:58 it was 24 knots too, but at 18.16 as Murmansk radio said the speed was 10 knots and there is a remark in the log that it is true! Why!? And there are no any other initial records about 10 knots speed by the Tirpitz' officers! This means that the Germans had cut several records off the log (or just hadn't entered).") and other such nonsense I do not know. Another editor (again, I do not know why he was not included here; Zh.Mike apparently saw fit to include him just a week ago) and I vainly attempted to explain the problems with what Zh.Mike has been pushing for over a year now. Soviet war logs are notoriously unreliable; apart from that, they are primary sources, which are generally prohibited from use here. There is one secondary source that says two torpedoes were fired, and there are a couple that say four. Both numbers are included in the article (which is the case for several other things in the article, for instance, casualty figures). All are from reputable naval historians. That the Soviet crewmen claimed to have heard two explosions and claimed to have made two hits on the ship are effectively the same thing, and do not need to be repeated. Besides that, it's patently false. The proposed edit seeks to imply that the ship was hit, which is not something supported by any of the sources on the matter; all categorically reject the possibility of a torpedo hit on the ship. I'll let the personal attacks slide. Along with the insinuation that I have somehow abused my admin tools in this dispute. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Zh.Mike's proposed editing violates reliable sourcing policy in relation to historical articles, and they ought to introspect on why they wish to conduct original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details. The following is an example of a user conduct issue being moved to a more appropriate forum. DRN is for discussion article content not user conduct. I took the liberty of bringing up the "picture that illustrates the welcome, advice and guidance given to Zh.Mike" at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance#Parsecboy I am also concerned by the statement "So, I need help the community to make that changes due to Parsecboy's admin counteraction". Is this just a newbie who doesn't know the right terms to user, or has WP:INVOLVED been violated? If so, we don't deal with that sort of thing here, but I know where to send it. Getting back to the topic at hand - the article content - could one of you give me a rough count of the consensus on this, and maybe someone else confirming the rough count? Are the regular editors evenly split on this? Is it one against everybody else? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
|
List of zombie films
| Consensus is strongly against removing the movies in question. Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This post was made at the suggestion of another user after I posted a note on the Admin noticeboard. A disruptive editor that tends to pop up every couple weeks has a long history of removing two films from this list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. These reverts have been in tandem with several discussions, which he participated in, reaching the consensus that the films belong on the list: 1, 2,3,4. Regardless of how many editors direct him to Wiki policies and explain that his interpretation of the subject matter matters less than notable, reliable, verifiable sources, but he continues to make ridiculous demands and say that the burden of proof is on everyone else, such as in this edit. Users involved
There are other users involved as well, as can plainly be seen in the article discussions linked above, but I don't feel comfortable dragging them into this just yet.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
In addition to the talk page discussions above, Ronnie has also received several warnings and cautions for his behavior there and in other areas.
Based on statements from another user on the Admin Notice Board, I should try to reach a consensus here before moving on. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Williamsburgland (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC) List of zombie films discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.Ronnie42 (talk · contribs): Consensus is against you for removing the movies in question, which I assume is Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2. Editors have provided you with relevant policies/guidelines as to why they should be included. You have not rebutted any of those arguments using wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Stop editwarring or your editing privileges will be revoked in some form.Curb Chain (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC) You can add me to the list of those involved above if you like, I completely concur with your position Williamsburgland. He's completely impossible to communicate with.Number36 (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
| This dispute has been carried out only through edit summaries and has not received substantial discussion on the article talk page. Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I have left a piece of information in the article Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters which is constantly being reverted by user MarnetteD. In short, I opened a new paragraph which a) emphasizes the fact that the film has not been shown in Japan due to an unofficial ban, but that b) a film on the same subject has been released in Japan which premiered regularily. I do see a connection due to the contradiction of one film being banned and the other on exactly the same subject being made available. Yet, I do not regard this as WP:SYNTH as I do not try to create new theories. (MarnetteD made remarks about seeing no connection AND WP:SYNTH, but obviously it can't be both. Also, M. stated: "So are we to infer that if Shrader's film had ever had a theatrical release in Japan that Kōji Wakamatsu would never have made his film." This is clearly not the case if you read carefully.) Also, links have been given to Imdb premiere dates (NOT trivia, I know of Imdb's unreliabilities) and the Cannes festival. MarnetteD disputes this connection, calls it laughable and reverts it constantly. (I am the main author of the German wiki entry of the film which was rewarded a "good article", so I think I know what 'm doing.) The last two or three reverts, MarnetteD left the info on the new film in, but moved it to a new seperate section ("See also") where it makes absolutely no point, because the connection between the two films is only evident when left in one paragraph (which I called "Legacy"). Robert Kerber (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes, in discussion section of film.
Resolving the dispute
Comments left with article reworkings, notes on film's discussion section.
Analyze arguments of users involved, also asking MarnetteD not to call my point of view "laughable" because he doesn't agree (or doesn't understand it). (I believe that M. does what he does out of good faith, though without understanding my point, but I do not accept ridiculing.) Robert Kerber (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Here is the history of this content dispute with my comments: 11:57, 22 June Robert Kerber adds some material:
16:34, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (1RR)
21:21, 22, Robert Kerber reverts. (1RR)
21:42, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (2RR)
21:50, 22 June 2012, Robert Kerber adds different material - same basic idea, but reworded and referenced
21:58, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (3RR)
22:37, 22 June 2012, Robert Kerber re-adds previous material with another citation.
00:23, 23 June, MarnetteD reverts. (4RR)
00:48, 23, MarnetteD's first talk page comment on this.
08:37, 23 June 2012 Robert Kerber first talk page comment (includes misplaced Notice of Dispute resolution discussion).
08:38, 23 June, Robert Kerber files case at WP:DRN
08:42, 23 June, Robert Kerber reverts (1RR)
15:00, 23 June, MarnetteD reverts (5RR)
Dispute resolution volunteer closing comment: Because this was filed concerning a dispute which have been carried out only through edit summaries and which has not received substantial discussion on a talk page, I am going to give you time to read this, then I am closing this. Talk it over on the article talk page and seek consensus, don't edit war, and remember, WP:BRD is not WP:BRRD or WP:BRDR. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Completely uninvolved observer checking in; as a request for assistance was recently made, my recommendation is that this issue is content-related and revolves around the search for authoritative and verifiable sources. Can this issue be reverted back to a point where the original statement was submitted, to be tagged for further clarification or additional sources? FWiW, the continuation of the discourse on sources has mainly been polite and to-the-point, and should remain as a courteous exchange between two editors attempting to seek a resolution to a contentious issue. The discussion could remain on the article talk page but if only two contributors are involved, it could migrate to a user talk page. Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Beatles
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Sorry to bother busy clerks, however I need some outside input. I may well be wrong, overreacting or both, however I am having an issue with User:DocKino at The Beatles. I believe said user is inappropriately "rolling-back" sections of the article to one of their preferred versions, perhaps here, from 2009 or here, from 2011, or some version in between. DocKino has made these edits without any prior discussion at the talk page or regard for the numerous hours of work that had been put into the material by several editors since the last incarnation they endorsed. Disclosure: During my extensive copyedit of the article (approximately November 2011-April 2012), I did in fact make several undiscussed deletions for the sake of brevity and accuracy, however, to my knowledge no one ever reverted any of them of any substance, objected to or even discussed anything in that regard with me while I was devoting numerous hours copyediting the article. Indeed, I have over 11,000 edits to my credit including over 1,000 at the Beatles article and in 2.5 years on wikipedia only 47 of my edits have been deleted. I would have been more than willing to discuss any of my edits, as they were occuring, however I do not think rolling them back two months later, without any discussion is appropriate. Are these "restorations" of content or the use of sub rosa "rollbacks" in a content dispute? Clarification: I am well aware that DocKino does not actually have rollbacker rights, nor do these edits in the strickest sense constitute technical rollbacks, however, my point here is that DocKino's edits are de facto rollbacks, achieved manually via copy-paste from previous versions. In other words, one can rollback graphs, sections, or entire articles, in one edit, or in several, piece by piece, without ever actually using a rollback in the technical sense.
Examples:
- a sub rosa "rollback"
- another rollback, with a possibly deceptive edit summary
- rollback
- edit summary says restore, but seems more like a rollback to me
- a rollback with no edit summary
- rollback
- rollback
- rollback
I've omitted several examples that if taken alone, look like perfectly good content work, however, if you study the edits carefully, in their totality, you'll notice that 80-90% or more of the restored material is included nearly verbatim in either the FA version from nearly three years ago or this version from November 2011.
I've made numerous attempts to resolve issues with them at Talk:The Beatles, as well as at DocKino's talk page, to which I received no reply. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Beatles}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have made attempts on the user and article talk pages.
- How do you think we can help?
By determining if this type of restoration/reversion/rollback was used appropriately.
— GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The Beatles discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.You may see some delays in getting to this issue. Please be patient. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, no hurries, thanks for the update. — GabeMc (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Clerk Comment: Hello. I am a volunteer/clerk here at DRN. This is not meant to imply that I have any sort of authority or enforcement rights; I'm just an editor (with some experience resolving disputes) who is working here to help establish consensus. First, a couple "rules of order": this appears to be a rather complex issue, so patience will be important from everyone involved - just remember that we're not in a hurry. Also, try to keep your comments short and sweet - long responses are going to cause the discussion to string out.
Okay, GabeMc - I see you've also filed a thread about this issue at WP:WQA. That is, of course, up to you (and DRN is for addressing content, not conduct), but after looking at all of the talk pages involved, and I have to wonder if a WQA is really necessary. I don't see signs of incivility or "bullying" (as you put it). Yes, you have the option of carrying out the WQA, and I wouldn't try to stop you if you really think it's necessary; the only reason I'm bringing it up is because I think this will be easier for everyone if we keep all of this discussion in one place. Now, on to the matter at hand. You contend that DocKino is performing de facto "rollbacks". What is the contentious content that is being "rolled back"? I need both sides here - first, DocKino, since you are the one performing the reverts, the onus is on you to explain why. What part of GabeMc's additions/changes to the article do you object to, and why? Sleddog116 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Just dropping in to say I'm aware of this thread and intend to respond to the request for information you've posed, Sleddog. This is a very busy week for me in the real world, so I just want to hold off until I can focus and respond in the appropriate spirit--probably Friday or Saturday. Thanks, DocKino (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know - we'll leave the thread open then. WP's not going anywhere. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Liam Holden
| Both editors agree that "Arrest and interrogation" is the better heading. All that remains are conduct issues and questions and this noticeboard is only for content issues. If you really want some advice or comment upon the conduct issues, then WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U is the proper venue, but it appears to me that both of you have made your point and that it might be better to just drop the stick. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is an article about a man who was arrested for murder in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and who underwent some degree of abuse whilst in custody. Specifically, he claims to have been waterboarded. The article contains a section heading "Arrest and torture". I feel it is somewhat jumping the gun to include the word "torture" in a section heading as, though I of course don't contest that waterboarding is torture, the only evidence that it occurred is the subject's own testimony. I'm not saying that we should completely discount it; it should be presented as one version of events, but we shouldn't portray it as irrefutable fact because he could easily have lied about it (and would have a clear motive to in his subsequent appeals against his murder conviction). What does everyone think? Users involved
The first user is the article author, the IP I believe to be him logged out.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on talk page but it's a fundamental difference of opinion.
We need to decide whether it's appropriate to use the word "torture" in a heading (which gives it an air of infallibility), when the only evidence torture occurred is the testimony of the supposed victim, who would have had motive to lie about it. Basalisk ⁄berate 23:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Liam Holden discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.As I remarked on the Talk page there are multiple sources attesting that he was tortured. The heading is entirely WP:V compliant. Futhermore the basis of his conviction being quashed by the Court of Appeal was that he was indeed tortured. The court accepted his testimony. The basis of the original revert was "this is controversial and divisive - best to leave it to the reader to decide whether his treatment constitutes "torture"" i.e. to say the editor was querying not the validity of his testimony but whether the abuse he received was "torture". But the court did accept it was torture and the editor start his comments on the talk page by saying that he accepts that i.e. to say he flip-flops on the issue and shift the goal posts. 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis
- Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The main dispute is whether or not to include a chart on the effectiveness of various therapy treatments including psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioral therapy. For reference here is the chart and here is the study.
The chart is based on the largest study of the subject and used 45 meta-analyses (secondary sources) and 66 of it's own trials. It is also the only tertiary source on the subject that I can find. As well it has over a thousand citations (diff, diff).
The main argument for excluding the chart (that has any kind of validity anyway) is that it would constitute Undue weight. I think it's the proper weight because it's the largest and most authoritative study on the subject.
I have also asked repeatedly (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) for an(other) tertiary source(s) that would make it undue weight to use that single study for the chart alone.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
- Maunus (talk · contribs)
- Widescreen (talk · contribs)
- Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs)
Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I discussed it in the two talk pages of articles.
- How do you think we can help?
Deciding whether or not the chart can be used in the two articles per Weight etc.
CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis discussion
You may see some delays in getting to this issue. Please be patient. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You shouldn't even waste time on this, CartoonDiablo is trying to insert a table into several articles and 4 editors have told him that that is a bad idea. Now he thinks that by going to this venue he can force an alternate consensus in his favor. I think he simply needs an explanation of what consensus is and that dispute resolution is not a mechanism that overrides local consensus. He/she also didn't notify User:Polisher of Cobwebs who has also participated in the discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- My bad with regard to Polisher. That aside, you can't use consensus to exclude material and violate Misplaced Pages policy. I know precedent isn't really considered valid here but for reference from another dispute resolution:
- Comments about consensus Based on the article's talk page, the biggest problem that I see is a misunderstanding of consensus by both sides of the debate. I saw a number of comments on the talk page about consensus that were wrong. A few things about Misplaced Pages and consensus: (1) Consensus cannot trump Misplaced Pages policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; (3) Consensus can change over time -- a consensus from a year ago can be changed; (4) Misplaced Pages's "Don't revert solely due to non-consensus" disallows the use of "no consensus" as grounds for preventing change to an article. Debbie W. 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands, there is not a single reason to justify undue weight which is evident from the lack of reply after asking five times for other tertiary sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are the one who fails to understand consensus. WP:DRNC is not a policy but an essay. Consensus is not "from a year ago" - it is from right now - four editors have told Diablo that the table is not suitable. Contested material may be removed at any point if there is a consensus to do so. No individual editor has the right to include material if a group of other editors find that it is not suitable. Whether to include a large table is subject to an editorial decision and the onbly way we make editorial decisioin at wikipedia is by consensus. A neutral third party is not needed when 4 editors is arguing against one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Maunus: The whole point of the WP:DRN and WP:RFC processes are to gather input from additional, uninvolved editors. Quite often in WP content disputes, there are only a few editors involved, and there is a 1-to-4 vote or a 1-to-3 vote. Is that consensus? Often the answer is "no" because the sample size is very small, and the editors monitoring Talk pages tend to be partisans (thus, sometimes the majority is "wrong"). In situations like that, the minority ("1") editor is supposed to utilize the WP:Dispute resolution process, and go to DRN or RFC to solicit more input. If the minority is "in the wrong" they'll find out soon enough in DRN or RFC. But we should not be discouraging editors from following the WP:Dispute resolution process. --Noleander (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are the one who fails to understand consensus. WP:DRNC is not a policy but an essay. Consensus is not "from a year ago" - it is from right now - four editors have told Diablo that the table is not suitable. Contested material may be removed at any point if there is a consensus to do so. No individual editor has the right to include material if a group of other editors find that it is not suitable. Whether to include a large table is subject to an editorial decision and the onbly way we make editorial decisioin at wikipedia is by consensus. A neutral third party is not needed when 4 editors is arguing against one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands, there is not a single reason to justify undue weight which is evident from the lack of reply after asking five times for other tertiary sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not see myself as being involved of any "dispute" of any kind over this subject. I made a comment on the article's talk page - that was all. Sorry to disappoint, but I want nothing more to do with this issue. I have accordingly struck through my name. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am involed in this discussion. My point is, theres no necessary for an consensus. We see an a compelling case. You can't describe the effecitvness of a treatment by only one study. It don't matter if this study is an secondary oder tertiary source And of course not by cite only one table selected by only one study. Thats nonserious. The study itself, CartoonDiablo trys to push in the Articles, obtaint minor attention at the proffesionel circles. That doesn't mean the study should not be cited at the articles. But CartoonDiable got to accept this little public health overview is not the last result and explain everything in this wide field. Fine it would be as easy as Diabolo thinks. But it ain't.
- My second Point is, that I couln't fount thousends of citatiations. Because of the tenacity Diabolog trys to push his POV I reserch over the study and found, of course, a lot of criticism. For example Perron, Brusset, Baruch and Emmanuelli, how attac the methodology of the study and a lots more. Diabolos approch is highly superficial and non scientific. So my proposal is: Diabolo should expose the fiel much deeper. --WSC 11:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I want to make clear again, that not the consensus is the way to decide what should be included in the article but whats right. If Diabolo is right, his view should be included against houndreds of authors. The Problem is, Diabolo haven't a clue what he's talking about. He found a table in a french public health survey. That's all. --WSC 12:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think Widescreen's argument works because (1) the study has over a thousand citations which is much more than "minor attention at the proffesionel circles" and (2) it's based on quantity and not quality. For instance, it would be ridiculous to have a chart based on a dozen secondary studies but ignore a tertiary source as just "one study" even if the dozen sources are a tiny fraction of the research in the tertiary source. What matters is academic weight, not number of sources.
- Regarding consensus I would advise everyone to re-read the comment and especially (1) and (4). This seems to be an attempt at POV exclusion since no one can list a legitimate reason for why it's undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also as a side note to the supposed criticism by Perron, et al. the only RS I could find was a rebuttal on Pubmed. If Widescreen could show a link to a reliable source of the critique it would be appreciated. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, Diablo. Show me the link with the thousends of citatiations? Here some links: sciencedirect; scirus; google cit. counter.
- Diablo. It's just one study. Don't matter if they analyse thousends of secondary sources. It is and shall remain only ONE study. One study of thousends of others. If the authors of the study analyse them sloppy, the study would be poor.
- Diablo. I have listed another study. -> <- This one. But you overlooked it.
- Diablo. Also a tertiary source can be a bad source. I don't think in this case. But just the fact, this survey is a tertiary source don't make them absolutley safe. Not in this wide field of research.
- --WSC 05:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
From How do we see the methodological problems in evaluating psychotherapies? section of the report holds the key "In practice, these two constraints are often difficult to reconcile: the diagnosis categories constructed from an optimal reproducibility basis such as the DSM (American association of psychiatry) or CIM (World Health Organisation) are not necessarily those that are most widely used in everyday clinical practice, particularly in France." This report set out to provide clinical guidelines for clinicians in France in 2003. From a research perspective there is no continuity as to how the various conditions are defined and diagnosed internationally as compared to how the conditions are defined and diagnosed in France. So this report can only be taken as a guide for France in 2003, there too many variations in research trial design and structure, and very few Randomised Control Trials the gold standard for this type of research. dolfrog (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- To Widescreen:
- (diff, diff).
- That's not just not a wikipedia policy but a bad policy. Even if you argued that it's better to use 12 secondary sources than one tertiary source that uses a thousand secondary studies (which is prima facie wrong) it would border on WP:SYNTH. So here's my question: how would a proper medical chart be cited?
- That's a primary source and I have already replied to it in the discussion.
- If it's not a bad source and there's no other tertiary source why would it be undue weight?
- To Dolfrog:
- I don't want to come off as aggressive but it's clearly not a guideline nor just for France as the secondary sources are not exclusively French. It's an evaluation as the title and abstract suggest:
This document presents a review of the work of the expert group convened by INSERM through the collective expert evaluation procedure to answer the questions raised by the Direction générale de la santé (DGS; general directorate of health) on the evaluation of psychotherapies....
An evaluation of the effects of the psychotherapies appears to be required to guide public health decisions (i.e. laws) and fulfil the wishes of patients who want to know how effective the treatments offered are (the i.e. was added by me).
The expert group has analysed three psychotherapy approaches from the work available in the literature providing the basis for a scientific evaluation of their efficacy....
- In fact, the word "guideline" nor any suggestion that it's done to directly assist therapists (outside of knowing how effective their treatment is) doesn't appear anywhere in the study. The problem with methodology is that few people in France use the DSM or CIM so it doesn't work perfectly as a comparison inside the country. If anything, it works better in places that do use the DSM like the US. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Excause me but I check out the google citatiation counter and found 2 cites in french an in english. Are you sure you search for the study itself or rather INSERM? The Diffs you presenting are just the discussion due you've made.
- Yes, one tertiary source (don't matter how lousy it is) is much better than an high cited secondary source. I think I have understand your point. Can we now talk about the articles?
- Take a look again! It's a tertiary source also. Tertiary! The one you find so perfectly.
- "If it's not a bad source and there's no other tertiary source why would it be undue weight?" - I'll take you up on that.
- --WSC 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, one additional: When you fiddel a bit with tha google scholar you find 7 (in Words: seven) citatiations. I have to revise myself! There are 7 citatiations. I'am sorry about that. --WSC 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's probably because the report was part of a larger government report making it difficult to cite by title, meaning people are citing it but they aren't citing it as "Three approaches evaluated" etc. For the citation counter I got 1095 citations, 57 publications and an H-Index of 16. The reason why I posted me saying that is because I already said that.
- Glad to hear it.
- What you gave looks like a primary source (and has no direct access) what secondary sources did it cite?
- You mean you'll accept the position or try to find a way to justify why it would be undue? The point with me asking is there so no way that I can see that a chart based on the largest, valid and unique tertiary source would be undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, the whole report reches 121 cits by tricking g. scholar. And now? The Psychotherapy part reaches still 7?
- I understand your point. Thats dosn't mean I share your opinion.
- I don't answer that anymore. Please make sure you understand what a secondary tertiary and so on study is.
- Ok, I'll try once again. When this little and technical superficial study is so substantial, why such a small number of reserchers cite it? Wouldn't such a weighty tertiary source create much more sensation? I mean more than 7 (in words: seven) cites? For comparison only: My exemplarily study reaches 229 cites. And another approach to psychotherapyreserch reaches 1735 cites. And don't get me wrong: Cites are just a indication.
--WSC 19:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Clearly the source of the table is a reliable source, and it contains information that could be useful to readers. The problem is that the table format - because it is so large, colorful, and official-looking - gives the impression to readers that the table's contents are the officially adopted view of the majority of researchers. (Another problem is that it seems to be promoting one form of therapy over others ... I'm sure proponents of the other two columns in the table would disagree with the assessment, no?). On the other hand, if the table's contents were summarized in simple text (prose) there would not be as much of a problem. I would say the table could be included if there were 3 or more reliable sources that endorsed the table and if there were no major sources that dissented from the table. But, if there is only the one source that endorses the table, then I think it is a bit misleading to include the table in the article. However, the contents could be summarized in prose/text form in the article (but see WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which indicate that any dissent from the table's message should also be included). --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I generally agree but it seems that:
- It is the mainstream view of science, the study was done by dozens of researchers using 100+ meta-studies etc. and no similar undertaking by groups like the APA was done leaving it as the consensus for now. My assumption is if the APA made a similar review it wouldn't even be discussed here.
- While I'm not against adding more sources in addition to the study per se, it leaves the problem of what would count as a reliable source, (secondary, tertiary etc.) how the sources would be factored along with the secondary studies used in the French study and whether or not it would border on WP:SYNTH. My general feeling was there needed to be another tertiary source but I suppose you can take secondary sources and evaluate them. For instance here are the different standards for proven or presumed effectiveness:
- Psychoanalytic:
- Proven: established by a meta-analysis and randomised controlled trials
- Presumed: established by randomised controlled trials.
- CBT:
- Proven: established by one or more meta-analyses or consistent, high statistical power, randomised trials.
- Presumed: established by meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, reviews
- Family therapy:
- Proven: established by one or more meta-analyses and consistent, high statistical power, randomised controlled trials.
- Presumed: established by meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, reviews
- Psychoanalytic:
- The other concern is whether or not it even needs another reliable source. Each evaluation for a disease needed one or more secondary source which includes dozens if not hundreds of reliable sources by itself. And for reference other articles get by with similar charts with much less evidence. As to the concerns that it makes it seem like its "promoting" CBT, I don't see how that would apply to science anymore then the scientific consensus "promoting" climate change. Anyways sorry for the long response but that's just my opinion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- You talking such a nonsense. That's not bearable. --WSC 23:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would advise Widescreen to abide by WP:DISENGAGE but that aside let me briefly reply. First of all it's not 2 and it's not 7 and it's not 121, but well over a thousand citations (and just for reference the 121 figure doesn't even correctly search for the authors). And it's a non-point, even if it did only have 2 citations (as opposed to the over a thousand) it would still be upheld as a good source.
- And no J. Shedler is a primary source. Just for sake of reference, a primary source is one study. A secondary source is a review of individual studies and tertiary source is a review of secondary sources or meta-studies. Shedler is an individual study. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this dispute can't be resolved, because it's not a dispute among different authors. It's a dispute among CartoonDiablo and reality. --WSC 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above comment violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Please retract and apologize. This noticeboard is a place for a calm, reasoned discussion, not a flame war. And no, I don't care what the other fellow did first. If I notice him violating WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA he will be warned as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- So what secondary sources does Shedler cite? CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- At the end let me sum up: Diabolo trys to push a table into two articles. He found that table in a french govermental survey made for practitioners. This survey received marginal response from scientific circles. No matter what Diabolo trys to present there are not more than 7 cites in scientific publications. However, psychotherapy reserch is an wide and embatteled field. It's nonserious to describe this field with thousends of studys an opinions with only one table taken from a subprime study without any explanations. Futhermore Diablos way to led a discussion and his argumentation is unacceptable. --WSC 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- So what secondary sources does Shedler cite? CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
American Staffordshire Terrier
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Last fall, the American Temperament Test Society (ATTS) test summary statistics were attempted to be added to the temperament section of the American Staffordshire Terrier entry. I initiated a movement to have them removed because they were primary statistics from the ATTS corporation themselves or from a self-published source. The section has been re-instated by an anonymous editor who is the same person, I believe, I had the dispute with earlier. The source now is a law professor who wrote a book about animal law that was published by the American Bar Association. My contention is that this author has not demonstrated the ability to analyze statistical information and it is unclear if the publisher of the book would be stringent in that regard. Other sources that point to ATTS test summaries are usually dog advocacy groups with the same issue. There are obvious problems with the claims made based upon ATTS test summaries by breed that are not addressed by the author, and so her credibility in this regard is dubious. Namely, the sampling frame for the summaries are those dogs with owners that will know of the test, voluntarily bring their dogs in, and then pay for the test. Even among the sampling frames of various breeds, there is no guarantee of a random sample. Therefore, interbreed comparisons are worthless from a statistical standpoint, and the test results only hold for individual dogs as the population being sampled is not the breed itself but an unknown subset.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
89.123.208.58 is likely k84m97 but is not signing their changes with their username.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=American Staffordshire Terrier}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
removed the edits, got accused of deceiving the public by the anonymous user in the talk page, anonymous user reinstated entry, I removed it again
- How do you think we can help?
provide a perspective, objective voice in analyzing whether sources are credible for the page at hand
Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
American Staffordshire Terrier discussion
I was the one who inserted the new text. I read up the talk page where it was agreed that a reliable second source can be used on the subject. This second source is a work published by the American Bar Association which we all can agree is a trustworthy source. User Wvguy8258 posted on the article's talk page links about pit bull attacks from the news as a reason why the information about temperament tests shouldn't be included. As I know "the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" or what others perceive as truth.89.123.208.58 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Temperament Tests are widely used in the US by state authorities, canine organizations, city councils and layers. In some towns you can keep a bigger dog if the dog passed the Temperament Test. Since it is a research it can't be published here from the primary source therefore I looked for a trustworthy secondary source. It is also mentioned and used in many dog fancy journal, American Kennel Club, Dogs in Canada, American Veterinary Medical Association and so on but its use in a work of a reputable organization as the American Bar Association can be accepted as a reputable source beyond any doubt. Furthermore the work published by ABA extensively analyzes the issue using the results in the court. 89.123.208.58 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- To answer the use of temperament tests being used by state authorities etc...A test can be perfectly valid to evaluate a specific dog, yet summaries by group may be inappropriate to describe group differences. So, a state humane org using the ATTS to evaluate a particular dog means little to this discussion. For example, we put out fliers to examine the thickness of men's hair in two states. Each male that shows up gets an accurate examine, yet you cannot describe the difference in means for the general population of two states with the samples. Why because guys with thinning hair in both states do not show up. If a state has more bald guys per capita, they will simply have a smaller per capita sample size, and the means of the two states will be remarkably similar and hold no information. Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Anonymous poster is misrepresenting my case against including the ATTS test summaries. It was based upon: 1. statistical argument which is obvious to anyone experienced in data analysis (that the sampling frame and sample generation mechanism for these test summaries by breed are not reliable to generate the information many purport) and 2. that the sources of the ATTS test summaries is not reliable. So, I will ask this as a thought question, is the American Bar Association (ABA) a reliable publishing house in terms of sifting through truth claims made by pharmaceutical companies based upon data in order to determine a particular drug's effectiveness? Is a law professor published by the ABA a reliable analyst for biomedical claims like this? Where are the bounds of law professor and the ABA's expertise?
- Is the American Temperament Test Society Inc. a trustworthy group to come up with a sampling design to compare breeds when in fact comparing breeds is not their aim at all? Is the reporting of their findings by a lawyer germane?
- You know what? I give up. I just google scholar'd the ATTS test and it seems that many people with no expertise in judging numbers are using it to prop up a PC agenda in regards to animals. So, anonymous use can find poor research to back up their claims. By the way, this is why wikipedia is often so unreliable when it comes controversial issues. A democratic approach to sifting truth doesn't work when people insist on discussing things beyond their competency.
- I'll try to post on the talk page a brief mathematical description of what the "dog experts" and lawyers are missing.
Wvguy8258 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - In controversial topics like this, it is often best to try to present both sides of the story, rather than eliminate the material and leave the reader with ... nothing. See WP:BALANCE. I would recommend including the ABA material described above, but doing the following: (1) make sure it states exactly what is in the ABA publication ... no added interpretations by the editor; (2) make sure the article identifies the ABA as the source (in the prose, not buried in a footnote); (3) include any sources that critique the ABA's material (provided they meet the WP:RS requirement); and (4) include material that present the opposing point of view about Temperament Tests (in a general way, without reference to ABA) for instance, claiming that the tests are flawed or unreliable. As long as everything is well sourced, and any biases are identified, that will give readers the full picture. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems fair to me what Noleander wrote. I agree with all of them but of course point 3 and point 4 also should be based on a reliable source.92.82.24.232 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It likely doesn't exist. There is not much call for the deconstruction of the incorrect claims and reasoning made by folks in journals related to animal rights and advocacy. I would have to direct folks to information about the ATTS test and sampling design in statistics, which would likely be cumbersome and partly based upon mathematical common sense (since I would have to indicate what stats principles are violated since someone hasn't likely published this exact breakdown of the ATTS summaries). There are many mentions of these stats by folks in 3rd rate journals, so anonymous users can wear me down and end up getting their way by finding at least one cited sources. SO, I formally withdraw this dispute. There are simply too many people lying or passing on lies around the world in print in order to clean up the image of pit bull breeds, and so wikipedias policies will be exploited to include incorrect information. I'm guessing the claim that pit bulls were nanny dogs and were used as baby sitters is coming next (yes people actually say this).Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- But the aim of Misplaced Pages is not to publish information perceived as "truth" by some, instead it is verifiability of the information included, by a reliable source, a respected publisher. You are arguing against the inclusion of the ATTS with your own work which was published by yourself (copy/paste) on the article's talkpage. Your work isn't reliable nor was it published therefore it can't be used.92.82.24.232 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- You will see that I have conceded. I know you will find some source that have these ATTS stats cited and be able to get it in. No one to my knowledge has published a critique of those that use the ATTS summaries inappropriately, however it is common statistical sense. But I cannot simply put links to self-selection bias on the page because the suggestion that it is a problem would be my own work. You will notice I likely cannot find any literature stating that umbrellas are not dessert toppings either, so I suppose the insistence that they are not is off limits per wiki rules so long as someone has published it in earnest. I expressed clearly that I wanted to at least show you the problem with what you are doing mathematically. You have no personal page, so I posted that in the talk section with qualification. That's all. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes you can.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I tried and anonymous user that is here removed it. Wvguy8258 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I removed your un-sourced edits. You are more than welcome to insert new information in the article until you are respecting Wikirules. Materials inserted must be sourced, primary research can't be used directly just from a secondary source if that source is published by a reputable publisher. You inserted your own work which can't be used in Misplaced Pages. As I said you are more than welcome to edit, just use a reliable source and respect Wikirules89.123.229.29 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I tried and anonymous user that is here removed it. Wvguy8258 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes you can.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You will see that I have conceded. I know you will find some source that have these ATTS stats cited and be able to get it in. No one to my knowledge has published a critique of those that use the ATTS summaries inappropriately, however it is common statistical sense. But I cannot simply put links to self-selection bias on the page because the suggestion that it is a problem would be my own work. You will notice I likely cannot find any literature stating that umbrellas are not dessert toppings either, so I suppose the insistence that they are not is off limits per wiki rules so long as someone has published it in earnest. I expressed clearly that I wanted to at least show you the problem with what you are doing mathematically. You have no personal page, so I posted that in the talk section with qualification. That's all. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- But the aim of Misplaced Pages is not to publish information perceived as "truth" by some, instead it is verifiability of the information included, by a reliable source, a respected publisher. You are arguing against the inclusion of the ATTS with your own work which was published by yourself (copy/paste) on the article's talkpage. Your work isn't reliable nor was it published therefore it can't be used.92.82.24.232 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It likely doesn't exist. There is not much call for the deconstruction of the incorrect claims and reasoning made by folks in journals related to animal rights and advocacy. I would have to direct folks to information about the ATTS test and sampling design in statistics, which would likely be cumbersome and partly based upon mathematical common sense (since I would have to indicate what stats principles are violated since someone hasn't likely published this exact breakdown of the ATTS summaries). There are many mentions of these stats by folks in 3rd rate journals, so anonymous users can wear me down and end up getting their way by finding at least one cited sources. SO, I formally withdraw this dispute. There are simply too many people lying or passing on lies around the world in print in order to clean up the image of pit bull breeds, and so wikipedias policies will be exploited to include incorrect information. I'm guessing the claim that pit bulls were nanny dogs and were used as baby sitters is coming next (yes people actually say this).Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
User Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah put some sourced material on the pages above but delete the others which are also sourced. Then I wrote on his talkpage a note asking not to delete the other info. Then he put a message on my talkpage without a sign but signed by a bot stating that I put nonsense to Misplaced Pages and it is vandalism.Egeymi (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.Egeymi (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I tried to communicate with him on his talkpage.Egeymi (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- How do you think we can help?
You may allow to put the other sourced material that is described by him as nonsense although it is not.Egeymi (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Egeymi (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia discussion
So user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah he claims that you, user:Egeymi, put nonsense and vandalism in the article. How do you address these accusations? You didn't address this on his talk page; all you did was give him warnings.Curb Chain (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- After he accused me on my talkpage with an unsigned message I wrote here. I did not write anything on his talkpage because the message he put on my talkpage was unsigned by him, but identified by a bot. So what should I do? Should I write smt on his talk page? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is this pertinent to your file? Your dispute is that it is not fair he added sourced information but removed the sourced information you added. So he claimed that the information you added was nonsense/vandalism. How do you address these charges?Curb Chain (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I have trouble to understand your remarks. How can my additions be regarded as vandalism/nonsense? In fact, the user put some info from an Arabic blog containing real vandalism about King Abdullah. If you or other persons accept his claims as vandalism, then block me? What can I further say? Is there any rule that prevents users from making such real vandalism to other users like me? If no, then what do you expect me to do smt? Furthermore, he deleted the sourced info? If I did any vandalism, then I myself inform the Misplaced Pages about my "vandalism".Egeymi (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is starting to look bad for you. user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah made no edits to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Why did you include it in this dispute.Curb Chain (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Really! Can you review his edits yesterday? I cannot understand why it is bad for me? How do you say so? I did not put any unsigned warning on anywhere. Is there any other person who can involve this issue? Egeymi (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes really. Check his contributions. He did not edit King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia so I do not know why you are bringing the article into a dispute. What does the article have to do with your grievance?
. except that I surmise you are forumshopping.I retract the struck through comment. Bad faith on my part.Curb Chain (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)- Curb Chain, although Egeymi has made a lot of content contributions, he's still fairly new to Misplaced Pages and goes to noticeboards when he needs help. Egeymi, Curb Chain is right, user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah has made no edits to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. You can check yourself by going here or here. As for the other article, I've already told user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah not to call your edits vandalism. As for your content dispute, use Talk:Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim to say why you're making your changes. --NeilN 04:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay NeinN. From now on I will write my reasons for changes on talkpage of the article. I thank both for spending time for this issue. Yes, the other editor made no edit to King Abdullah. I admit it was my mistake without any specific intention. Sorry about it. Egeymi (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Curb Chain, although Egeymi has made a lot of content contributions, he's still fairly new to Misplaced Pages and goes to noticeboards when he needs help. Egeymi, Curb Chain is right, user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah has made no edits to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. You can check yourself by going here or here. As for the other article, I've already told user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah not to call your edits vandalism. As for your content dispute, use Talk:Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim to say why you're making your changes. --NeilN 04:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes really. Check his contributions. He did not edit King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia so I do not know why you are bringing the article into a dispute. What does the article have to do with your grievance?
- Really! Can you review his edits yesterday? I cannot understand why it is bad for me? How do you say so? I did not put any unsigned warning on anywhere. Is there any other person who can involve this issue? Egeymi (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is starting to look bad for you. user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah made no edits to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Why did you include it in this dispute.Curb Chain (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I have trouble to understand your remarks. How can my additions be regarded as vandalism/nonsense? In fact, the user put some info from an Arabic blog containing real vandalism about King Abdullah. If you or other persons accept his claims as vandalism, then block me? What can I further say? Is there any rule that prevents users from making such real vandalism to other users like me? If no, then what do you expect me to do smt? Furthermore, he deleted the sourced info? If I did any vandalism, then I myself inform the Misplaced Pages about my "vandalism".Egeymi (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is this pertinent to your file? Your dispute is that it is not fair he added sourced information but removed the sourced information you added. So he claimed that the information you added was nonsense/vandalism. How do you address these charges?Curb Chain (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 26, 2012 at 15:22 (UTC) Reason: This appears to be resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangers FC club dead or not
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
On the 14th June 2012 Rangers FC where officially confirmed as to be liquidated. Since then there have been a lot of POV pushing from both sides ie rival fans making a mockery of the situation, and supports not wanting to admit the demise of there club which was a very big club. However at the moment no one can agree on what to do with the article because of POV and conflicting sources saying different things. The biggest problem is are the club are company serperate as a lot of sources suggest or is the company the club as some other sources suggest. Also how the article should be as there is two ways similar clubs have had there articles done, one for new club or club page and a page about the liquidation process. There is also a problem with how people interrupt the sources.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Andrewcrawford (talk · contribs)
- Superbhoy1888 (talk · contribs)
- Adam4267 (talk · contribs)
- Edinburgh Wanderer (talk · contribs)
- Johnelwaq (talk · contribs)
- Monkeymanman (talk · contribs)
- Escape Orbit (talk · contribs)
- Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)
- thumperward (talk · contribs)
- Seery234 (talk · contribs)
- Fishiehelper2 (talk · contribs)
- Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs)
- Dingowasher (talk · contribs)
- TerriersFan (talk · contribs)
- BadSynergy (talk · contribs)
- Various ip users to many to list (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes apart from various ip users as there not listed what ips
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rangers FC club dead or not}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
There is loads and loads of discussion on the talk pages and at various users talk pages, the problems is there is users pushing pov and also taking advantage of the club demise to make a mockery of it, there is fans who dnt want to accept there club might be gone, there is problem with sources conflicting themselves, there is also user who contact sources and complainant there publish stuff wrongly so making source conflict even further. we had agreed back about 14th june to wait and see what happens and not to create a new page for the new company as no one knows the final outcome and what is truly happen, someone created it and now that is in afd, whoever created went against consensus and made the page and now the old page got constant abuse the admin have fully protected it and forcing discussion on the talk pages. There has also been discussion at the project page but most editors seem not to want to get involved because it such a sensitive issue and they do not want fans of the club or opposing fans say there taking sides.
- How do you think we can help?
hopefully by having someone neutral look at the sources and the arguments and hopefully not got much knowledge in football (soccer) that a cones-us can be reached and agreed on, as then no one can say that it is conflict of interest or pov pushing and who can read the sources and determine what they might be saying
Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangers FC club dead or not discussion
- Here is what I think. The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers as we have always known them. They have went through 2 name changes, they started as The Rangers Football Club in 1872, they then became a Ltd Company in 1899, changed their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, in 1995 they became a PLC and changed their name again to The Rangers Football Club PLC, who as we know are currently in Administration/Liquidation and soon to be dissolved. That is the long and short of it. Sevco Scotland(new Rangers) could basically be anyone, technically a Hearts fan could have went to Rangers administrators instead of Charles Green and bought all the assets to a new Club called Hearts of Scotland. Just to finish off, technically they are not dead yet they are still alive but about to be dissolved(dead). I would also like to add anyone who believes Rangers still exist would need to provide proof that Rangers FC are basically a Fictional Non-entity that only exists in the mind, because those people refuse to accept that The Rangers Football Club PLC is Rangers and claim that The Rangers Football Club PLC were just the owners of Rangers, however if they were just the owners then the "club" would be an asset of The Rangers Football Club PLC which would mean they exist in The Rangers Football Club PLC's annual accounts but obviously they do not as The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers. So there is two options - (1) The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers and Sevco Scotland Limited are new Rangers or (2) Rangers FC are a Fictional non-entity that only exist as people say they exist and they can be whatever people want them to be.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I plan to put both sides of the argument and my own opinions later, my problem realtes to what the sources say and as wikipedia editor i cant use my POV against what sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invite to this. Not really my specialism but if pushed it looks, on the face of it, more of a Darlington/Halifax scenario than a Leeds United one. That's because - by hook or by crook - Leeds got a creditor agreement. As such I'd say two articles would be better in this case. Ie. a separate one for the phoenix club/NewCo type thingy which will apparently start in the lower leagues, if it gets off the ground at all. I have some sympathy with the contributors who want to "wait and see" how it all pans out but the problem with that is that it could take years. Meanwhile the existing articles remain in a misleading or innacurate state. I found my way to the discussion after checking the Rangers L.F.C. article and was shocked and surprised that basically NONE of all this stuff was on the main Rangers FC page. That situation has improved now and I'm sure that by working together you guys will get things right whether you decide to have one big article or two. Good luck! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The decision on the entry point of the newco into the Scottish football structure is likely within 2 weeks. Leaky Caldron 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The comment about Leeds United is exactly the point - while Leeds United managed to escape liquidation at the last minute, Rangers are going to be liquidated. Liquidated clubs do sometimes lead to new clubs that claim to be a continuation, but they are new clubs with new articles. Airdrieonians and Airdrie United sees itself as the successor club. Halifax Town A.F.C. was liquidated and FC Halifax Town is the successor club. Chester City FC was liquidated and Chester FC sees itself as the successor club. Rangers FC should be no different just because it was so huge - it is being liquidated and the successor club is in process of getting established. By the way, I think it is significant that the advert on the Rangers website promoting the Rangers strip for 2012/13 speaks about "The Spirit lives on" - an acknowledgement that it is a new club. It also speaks about getting the 'new Rangers strip' but the word new is in red to stand in contrast to the rest of the statement - again, an acknowledgement that the old Rangers is finished. I realise that Rangers fans find this hard, but Misplaced Pages has to take a NPOV approach to these matter: Rangers FC should be about the club until 2012, and a separate article is needed for the new entity. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- but that is your pov and interposition of what it says on the site, i agree with you the club is dead, but we cant refute the source saying it is alive i agree some have a vested interest to make sure it is, but we cant say we ignore one source because it doesn't suit what we want on wikipeida, we have to be neutral. ill reply later tonight or tomorrow with my onion and views, so it is clear what my pov is, but then ill put my argument which supports both dies of the argument as i believe both are correctAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Im going to ignore the sentiment of your statement re new strip because that is your point of view and should not be taken into consideration. However originally (still do) i felt that eventually we should go down the new club route however as long as there is equal sources disagreeing then we should of stayed with one article until we could factually state one way or another. Some sources link club and company as one and others don't. The way the main article was before Superbhoy and a few others edit warred rather than actually spending time to gain a consensus was as neutral as it could be for now and had stopped edit warring. Superbhoy ignored the consensus on the talk page and pushed ahead creating a new article and editing the main page against that. Im not saying he is right or wrong just that he won't listen to anyone unless its his version of events. In the form of the new entity they have set that up so that club and company will not be the same as they will have two boards and operate separately this is so they cant bring each other down so Sevco and club aren't one in the same. In regards to Airdrieonians F.C. they purchased another club Clydebank F.C. so thats a different situation. At this time we have two articles neither of which are either accurate or neutral. A draft article should be drawn up for the main page and be worked on to make it accurate and neutral and form a consensus. My opinion is the new article is factually wrong and cannot be deemed accurate until all the events have actually happened and we know more, that will gradually come out over the coming weeks. I think that should be redirected to Rangers F.C. or a brand new article Liqudation of Rangers where the content probably belongs, and then once we have sources that agree they are separate and have proof of the name of the new club not just the company name then we can recreate it. Wouldn't have any objection whatsoever to that but for now its unclear.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just an idea why don't we create here a list of sources that state club and company are the same and equally a list of ones that don't define them as the same and then get outside opinion on which way to go that is what Dispute res is for after all.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Im going to ignore the sentiment of your statement re new strip because that is your point of view and should not be taken into consideration. However originally (still do) i felt that eventually we should go down the new club route however as long as there is equal sources disagreeing then we should of stayed with one article until we could factually state one way or another. Some sources link club and company as one and others don't. The way the main article was before Superbhoy and a few others edit warred rather than actually spending time to gain a consensus was as neutral as it could be for now and had stopped edit warring. Superbhoy ignored the consensus on the talk page and pushed ahead creating a new article and editing the main page against that. Im not saying he is right or wrong just that he won't listen to anyone unless its his version of events. In the form of the new entity they have set that up so that club and company will not be the same as they will have two boards and operate separately this is so they cant bring each other down so Sevco and club aren't one in the same. In regards to Airdrieonians F.C. they purchased another club Clydebank F.C. so thats a different situation. At this time we have two articles neither of which are either accurate or neutral. A draft article should be drawn up for the main page and be worked on to make it accurate and neutral and form a consensus. My opinion is the new article is factually wrong and cannot be deemed accurate until all the events have actually happened and we know more, that will gradually come out over the coming weeks. I think that should be redirected to Rangers F.C. or a brand new article Liqudation of Rangers where the content probably belongs, and then once we have sources that agree they are separate and have proof of the name of the new club not just the company name then we can recreate it. Wouldn't have any objection whatsoever to that but for now its unclear.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- but that is your pov and interposition of what it says on the site, i agree with you the club is dead, but we cant refute the source saying it is alive i agree some have a vested interest to make sure it is, but we cant say we ignore one source because it doesn't suit what we want on wikipeida, we have to be neutral. ill reply later tonight or tomorrow with my onion and views, so it is clear what my pov is, but then ill put my argument which supports both dies of the argument as i believe both are correctAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The comment about Leeds United is exactly the point - while Leeds United managed to escape liquidation at the last minute, Rangers are going to be liquidated. Liquidated clubs do sometimes lead to new clubs that claim to be a continuation, but they are new clubs with new articles. Airdrieonians and Airdrie United sees itself as the successor club. Halifax Town A.F.C. was liquidated and FC Halifax Town is the successor club. Chester City FC was liquidated and Chester FC sees itself as the successor club. Rangers FC should be no different just because it was so huge - it is being liquidated and the successor club is in process of getting established. By the way, I think it is significant that the advert on the Rangers website promoting the Rangers strip for 2012/13 speaks about "The Spirit lives on" - an acknowledgement that it is a new club. It also speaks about getting the 'new Rangers strip' but the word new is in red to stand in contrast to the rest of the statement - again, an acknowledgement that the old Rangers is finished. I realise that Rangers fans find this hard, but Misplaced Pages has to take a NPOV approach to these matter: Rangers FC should be about the club until 2012, and a separate article is needed for the new entity. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The decision on the entry point of the newco into the Scottish football structure is likely within 2 weeks. Leaky Caldron 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invite to this. Not really my specialism but if pushed it looks, on the face of it, more of a Darlington/Halifax scenario than a Leeds United one. That's because - by hook or by crook - Leeds got a creditor agreement. As such I'd say two articles would be better in this case. Ie. a separate one for the phoenix club/NewCo type thingy which will apparently start in the lower leagues, if it gets off the ground at all. I have some sympathy with the contributors who want to "wait and see" how it all pans out but the problem with that is that it could take years. Meanwhile the existing articles remain in a misleading or innacurate state. I found my way to the discussion after checking the Rangers L.F.C. article and was shocked and surprised that basically NONE of all this stuff was on the main Rangers FC page. That situation has improved now and I'm sure that by working together you guys will get things right whether you decide to have one big article or two. Good luck! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I plan to put both sides of the argument and my own opinions later, my problem realtes to what the sources say and as wikipedia editor i cant use my POV against what sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I plan to edinburgh and my opinion is the same as your eh club is getting liquidated but sources are saying there serpentine and we should wait and see how it unfolds then create articles move articles etc and that was the cones-us we all agreed on. Bit busy just now but i am hoping to write up my statement and then write up argument for it be a new club with sources i can find people are welcome to add to what i get, and argument for the club and company are serpentine with sources i can find again people are welcome to edit. I just wish we could have all agreed on the talk page but i dnt think it will happen because of POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Andrewcrawford for creating this talk page. Right now I see that the oldco is the club that holds the history but no assets that'll not play again. newco is a company that owns all the assets but not the history and holds no permit to play so is barely a football club. I think that we should keep the two articles like this until it becomes clear whether newco gains a permit to play in a league at which point we can discuss whether that should be in a separate article from the old Rangers FC.--Dingowasher (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Until such point as the "newco" is even confirmed as a footballing entity it makes little sense for us to declare it to be "Rangers", and even then our precedent for recent phoenix clubs is to assign them new articles even if they are regarded as spiritual successors to defunct entities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- All this arguing is because people think they understand what is meant by "Misplaced Pages is not a news service" but they don't. It means among other things that if we wait until the fourth of July meeting to find whether the new company becomes a "footballing entity" then it doesn't matter. It means we don't have to comment on this metamorphosis on a day by day basis. It means we don't have to do anything for the sake of doing it. Personally I think that the new company will be treated as the old club when the other clubs vote them back into the Premier League, because voting for the loss of the Rangers' support would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I could be wrong: but there's no point in rushing. Just because you can do things instantly doesn't mean you should. Britmax (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Britmax with Inverness and Aberdeen joining Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd in saying no to the New Club being promoted from the wilderness to the SPL then they won't be promoted.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Aberdeen have said the statement published the other day isn't theirs and until the vote is done we cant take a press release for granted they could change there mind episcopally if they get pressure from a bank manager dent forget that why david murrey sold rangers because of the bank and the bank will have far great say than supporter, if any of those club have any sort of debt that a reduction in income might mean they wont repay the bank will force there hands so let not jump the gun, but i dent think they will get back in i hope they dint. secondly they wouldn't have been promoted if they do get accepted they be replacing the old one ie like for likeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- ingore mt statement on aberdeen just seen the news rangers will be voite no by aberdeenAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well it certainly would appear turkeys are voting for Christmas as Britmax put it. That's five announced they will vote against. Aberdeen, Inverness, Hibernian, Hearts and Dundee United. Love the analogy though. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- ingore mt statement on aberdeen just seen the news rangers will be voite no by aberdeenAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Aberdeen have said the statement published the other day isn't theirs and until the vote is done we cant take a press release for granted they could change there mind episcopally if they get pressure from a bank manager dent forget that why david murrey sold rangers because of the bank and the bank will have far great say than supporter, if any of those club have any sort of debt that a reduction in income might mean they wont repay the bank will force there hands so let not jump the gun, but i dent think they will get back in i hope they dint. secondly they wouldn't have been promoted if they do get accepted they be replacing the old one ie like for likeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Britmax with Inverness and Aberdeen joining Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd in saying no to the New Club being promoted from the wilderness to the SPL then they won't be promoted.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- All this arguing is because people think they understand what is meant by "Misplaced Pages is not a news service" but they don't. It means among other things that if we wait until the fourth of July meeting to find whether the new company becomes a "footballing entity" then it doesn't matter. It means we don't have to comment on this metamorphosis on a day by day basis. It means we don't have to do anything for the sake of doing it. Personally I think that the new company will be treated as the old club when the other clubs vote them back into the Premier League, because voting for the loss of the Rangers' support would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I could be wrong: but there's no point in rushing. Just because you can do things instantly doesn't mean you should. Britmax (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Until such point as the "newco" is even confirmed as a footballing entity it makes little sense for us to declare it to be "Rangers", and even then our precedent for recent phoenix clubs is to assign them new articles even if they are regarded as spiritual successors to defunct entities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well that surprises me but not as much as you might think. I've been wrong before and I'm still breathing. Excuse me, however, if I reserve judgement until we see how the turkeys actually vote. None of this, incidentally, reflects what I think should happen. It's just my view on what probably will happen. Britmax (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is the conclusive proof by Rangers, SFA and UEFA that Rangers are dying, the pictures are of the important bits, the websites are the sources of the pictures:-
- Rangers Football Club PLC aka the Club
As can be gathered from a lot of the above, the precise situation Rangers Football Club finds itself in is currently uncertain. Much of what has been discussed depends on how you chose to define the club, as opposed to the company that owns and controls it, as opposed to the team, as opposed to the position held within the league, as opposed to the fans, as opposed to its history. Current guidelines in Misplaced Pages regarding football clubs are not clear on the situation, simply because it is an unusual situation that only has a few, similar to some extent, precedents. Sources are also unclear, with much disagreement, conflicting interpretation and speculation. However, things are slowly clarifying.
But this hasn't stopped some editors straining to implement sweeping changes based on their own preferred interpretation of events and indulging in synthesis. My position is that nothing radical should be done at this stage until the dust settles. That isn't going to happen for a few weeks at best. Misplaced Pages is not a newsfeed. It doesn't need to be a constant stream of the latest guesses, speculation and theories. It shouldn't be attempting to establish facts, it should be collating them, after they are established.
If, after suitable time, it appears that reliable sources are generally reporting that the new owning company is a continuation of the club, then I see no no reason to break Misplaced Pages into separate articles. If it is generally being reported as a new club, then it should be divided suitably, according to consensus. Personally, I see a football club as being somewhat more than a company and it is a mistake simply to regard the situation as an acquisition of assets from a liquidated company and establishment of a new. Football clubs are as much a social and cultural entity, consisting of things that cannot be made bankrupt and sold.--Escape Orbit 22:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I take it your a Rangers fan with their head in the sand? I have a shovel you can use to dig yourself out, if you want to smell the coffee any time soon. Football Club's are not Fictional Entities that only exist in the mind. They are Real Life, they can die and they can begin. As The Rangers Football Club and Sevco Scotland prove. One is dying, the other has been born. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- superbhoy please keep the discussion niceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Having made clear your allegiances so prominently, I suppose you would have difficulty with the idea that not everyone here has an agenda. Your opinion is noted, please do not confuse it with fact. --Escape Orbit 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok here is my POV and opinions on the subject they are bold because it what i believe not what i am [pushing. It is my belief that Rangers F.C. the club is gone and once liquidation is complete no longer exist just like Third Lanark and Gretna.
Ok arguments for the club and company being serperate so the history carries on, a lot of sources say that the history continues on and that club and company are serperate entities.
Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." suggests that it is the same club, as if it was a new club you could not put it back into administration
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312#asset
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18496571
http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity."
http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.co.uk/p/live-event-page.html "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club?
A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18417120 "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/uk-soccer-rangers-idUKBRE85O0WP20120625?feedType=RSS&feedName=sportsNews "this is talking about the parent company being liquidated but not the club"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18560798 "this is a interesting one it says early in the article the club and history does not exist, but later on says '"The formation of a new company is not the issue. The players would be playing for the same club - Rangers - in front of the same fans.' so saying the club still exist in it current form"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18592410 "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player." if it is a new club they would not owe the club anything as there be no debts, uefa or fifa rules state that football debt transfer to the new company but a club who is only related to a old club by name does not bear the old club debt owned
http://www.football.co.uk/rangers/green_aiming_as_high_as_possible_for_rangers_rss2446203.shtml "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business."There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play," Green said. "Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come."" if it was new club they would not face sanction for a club that is not them, ie the new club only shares a name with another club so can not face sanctions from another club but if the club counties then they can
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18418513 " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too."
Now i will present agruments for it being the club and company are the same so club is liquidated
http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/rangers-administration-timeline-19732/ "June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid."
http://www.clyde2.com/news/local/rangers-pair-reject-contract-transfer2012-06-24T06-06-25/
http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/newco-rangers-set-for-spl-rejection-11233/ "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season."
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7812988/Newco-will-be-The-Rangers-FC- "The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2163893/Steven-Naismith-Steven-Whittaker-reject-transfer-new-Rangers.htmlRangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company "Whittaker remarked that: "We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18603617 " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. "
Now as can be seen there is realible sources pointing to it be the club and the company getting liquidated, but there is also realible sources pointing to the PLC getting liquidated and not the company and the club are a serperate entity and has been tranfer to the newco, this is wher ehte problems stems no one really knows and until it is made clear we cant say the club is dead.
I am goign to try summerise what is disputed.
- Rangers FC PLC (this is not dispute as far as i can tell by anyone)
- Rangers FC and Rangers FC PLC are sereperate entites as source can confirm
- Rangers FC PLC is the club so not serperate entities so the club is liquidated sources can confirm this to
- Rangers History is transfer to the new club if it is deemed a new club
- The Rangers Football Club LTD is a new club
- Who is teh owner of Rangers FC PLC Craig Whyte or Charles Green conflicting sources say one and the other
- Playing squad should it be empty since the players have been trasnfer to the newco via TUPE again this matter after a decision on the article ie is the club dead or not
If i have missed anything please post, post any sources for either side of the arguement witha quote if possible ill add ot the list, can everyone involve say there thoughts on my opinions and my summary and soruces please :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Far too much info here for genuinely uninvolved, non-partisan editors to comprehend the arguments, WP:TL;DR. In my opinion the Administration & insolvency material should be the subject of a separate article, written from a neutral point of view. That article will form a bridge between the existing article and the new or between old & new sections of an extended single Rangers article. Leaky Caldron 16:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- i agree that article on adminsitration liquidation etc is required, but that doe snto solve the underlying problem that pov pusher are trying to amke the article one way or the other, the problem is we cant say for one way or another if it a new club or not the osurces are conflicting--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
@STVGrant: It's Sevco 5088 because Green isn't operating a football club at present. If/when he gets Rangers' SFA membership, he's operating Rangers FC. There appears to be a growing consensus in the media that it is the same club IF Green can get Rangers share back — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)--BadSynergy (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Andrew. I've told you before but it's worth repeating, there is no need to rush. If the article is a bit flaky for a while, so what? Stick a non-neutral tag on it until the dust settles. Leaky Caldron 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- i know there no point in rushing and that is what i and others agreed early in the discussion on the talk page but POV pushers from both sides have made this debate so for now i want to get the cheapness to wait and that until we know for sure we cant make claims im in agreness with you but POV will not stop so by forcing this to weird discussion then a conesus hopefully can be reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Andrew see your very first BBC link source thing up there, its a contradition on what your trying to say from the off. Your trying to say the Club has never even been in administration or is in liquidation because its only a company that is so how could a club go "back into administration" if it has never been in administration to start with, because its never come out of administration which means its now in liquidation. I haven't hid my allegiances, as you see from my name im a Celtic fan and am still dancing and consuming Jelly and Ice Cream at their death. PS. The only source that the club isnt part of the company is that there would be an asset called "the club" or whatever in Rangers accounts but there isnt... oh and take a swatch at this:- http://i48.tinypic.com/afemhv.jpg "SALE OF THE CLUBS BUSINESS AND ASSETS"--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- i know there no point in rushing and that is what i and others agreed early in the discussion on the talk page but POV pushers from both sides have made this debate so for now i want to get the cheapness to wait and that until we know for sure we cant make claims im in agreness with you but POV will not stop so by forcing this to weird discussion then a conesus hopefully can be reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Charles Green has his say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qlOISpN_4&feature=youtu.be --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- i dnt take green comment with more than a pinch of salt or should that be a heap ;) no what i am trying to say with the first bbc one is for a club to go back into administration ie i think like Motherwell the club has to exist but if it is a new club then it is impossible to go back into administration do you understand what i mean now. the point i am making is there is conflicting information out there so we cant call it in Misplaced Pages sense that the club is dead until we have sources all more a less saying the same thing we cat make Misplaced Pages take sides and the way we have 2 articles and they have people pov means the article dnt comply with Misplaced Pages policies. now on personal note i agree with you completely rangers are dead or my opinion is the newco/club cause in my opinion it is a new club i wont follow it aint rangers in my books should be booted out the spl and go to div3 or lower if they introduce feeder league into div3 with this restructuring i email all the chairmen of the spl clubs and gave my vote for them voting noAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
List of CBS television affiliates (table), List of ABC television affiliates (table)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
My dispute is about the following: The user I'm involved with (User:DreamMcQueen) currently says NO to my helpful edits. I have placed links to lists of other O&O linked station where needed on the CBS list. For example, I offered a link to CBS Television Stations where it said "This list does not include CBS-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with the CW Television Network." http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_CBS_television_affiliates_%28table%29&diff=498671924&oldid=495704466. I done so for the NBC (Telemundo) and FOX (FTSG) ones. This DreamMcQueen said "NOOOOOOOO!" and removed it. I don't like this. Imagine having to run a search for such topics instead of having a simple link to the article in question; of so excruciating! (You can already experience such a case scenario: the network names are NOT linked.)
Second issue is that the keeps removing the DMA numbers from the ABC table when I add it on. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_ABC_television_affiliates_%28table%29&diff=498244793&oldid=498050818 The reason why this is an issue is that ONLY THE O&O list is stripped of DMAs, not the affiliate DMAs. I think this may cause some issues to the user, since the DMA can be considered useful in considering the O&O's status. I have re added the DMA numbers, but did not change the placement of the O&Os. Guess what: he removes it. ALSO THE NBC AND FOX LISTS STILL HAVE THE DMA NUMBERS ON THE O&O LISTS AS WELL. He directed me to this as his alibi issue on DMAs. I'm not sure if this SHOULD apply to the ABC and CBS tables as well, because it said it only applied to the North American lists, not the affiliate lists as well.
I am hoping that the conflict will be resolved ASAP. Thank you!
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
ATTN: DreamMcQueen- Please be respectful to me and I will respect you. I am not trying to be a "bitch" and ruin your life (see:Misplaced Pages:Let it go). YOU KNOW I don't like the dispute either..... In addition, please give a summary to each of your edits. Thank you.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of CBS television affiliates (table), List of ABC television affiliates (table)}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have attempted to talk to him, but he did not respond, only if it was harsh. I have also tried to clarify my actions in the edit summaries., but he makes rather vague explanations to why he removed my edits, e.g. "your edits are not helpful, please stop" and uses "redundancy" as his backing alibi.The preceding example was on the CBS table. Even worse, he sometimes never even left a summary, even if it is considered good manners here to do so. (For proof, see the respective talk pages.) I have also tried to advise him on edit warring and the 3R rule, but he hasn't complied and set up a compromise.
- How do you think we can help?
You can tell him that the links on the article to the O&O groups are there for EASY REFERENCE. You can also tell me if there are new rules implemented on the tables due to the apparent issue on DMAs.
Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
List of CBS television affiliates (table), List of ABC television affiliates (table) discussion
Clerkish note: I closed this discussion for the reasons set out here, but another DRN volunteer has objected to the close and I am therefore reopening the listing and notifying the parties. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
This subject is about a dispute concerning a certain sentence which appears in Soka Gakkai page - section: Perception and Criticism- posted by editor Catflap08 and discussed with Misplaced Pages editor John Carter on the Talk page at my (SafwanZabalawi) request without a resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:S%C5%8Dka_Gakkai
The sentence in dispute is the following: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance and proselytizing practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members.”
/1/ The dispute is about using unreliable sources and also making a misleading accusation about unspecified number of Soka Gakkai (and SG International membership of 12 million) members –in a negative defaming way, without any valid evidence. I’ll focus on the discussed in Talk page example of relying on unreliable references : http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html This reference is a blog which published a report in a tabloid style about a local disagreement between the parent’s association of a certain school (PS24) and a teacher (Mr. Scharper) - as the blog reports: “after weeks of rumors that he crossed the line between church and state with Buddhist prayer meetings in his office and attempts to recruit school staff for a “prayer circle.”
/2/ Misplaced Pages guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source is a blog, with a defaming accusation involving a living person (the teacher).
/3/ The source does not report a final fact but rumors and multiple conflicting stories about the alleged matter. The storytelling style based on rumors are not a reliable source in Misplaced Pages performance.
/4/ The source itself states that there are equal contra-claims about the reported rumors: “Not everyone at the school gives much credence to the accusations, including some people who work closely with the principal every day. They say they have never been offered a card nor have they been approached to join him for prayers”.
/5/ The blog mentions that Ms Trebach (an accuser of the Mr. Scharper, the Buddhist teacher): maintained “that she could not confirm or deny allegations of proselytizing or a hate list.” This is a source destabilizing its own credibility where the accuser cannot confirm or deny the accusations.
/6/ The blog also makes a hint to a bullying atmosphere in that school: “One staff member, who did not want to be named, said it was a small group of teachers and parents who wanted Mr. Scharper removed because they are now unable to exert as much influence as under the previous administration. Rumors that speak against Mr. Scharper are matched by others that say the allegations are part of a vendetta started by a disgruntled staffer at the school”.
/7/ Another source repeating the same tabloid and unconfirmed story was also used by the editor involved. My question to Misplaced Pages is whether a source based on: “rumors, did not want to be named, could not confirm or deny, vendetta, accusation of no credence... administration influence, allegations...” is acceptable in Articles.
/8/ These sources were used as the ground for a sentence generalizing this alleged (and probably fabricated) incident to defame an unknown number of an organization, SGI, which firmly opposes rumored in the blog wrong behavior. The editors’ claim that “some” of the 12 million members also follow the blog’s example (of alleged proselytizing) is lacking substance and has no validity nor any proof in reality.
/9/ This subject brings this dispute to another source (mentioned in the disputed sentence), being: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ and which the editor used to accuse SGI of lack of religious tolerance. The mentioned source claims that a teacher at the University ( Ms Christoffersenat) was discriminated at because of her age and religion. The Court however dismissed that claim as the following source reveals: http://www.rickross.com/reference/gakkai/gakkai56.html and this means that the source provided by the editor was misleading and incorrect.
/10/ The claim in the disputed sentence that an unknown number (of the 12 million members organization) allegedly practice proselytizing is not supported by any factual incident or source including the last source of that sentence, which is: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php. This is a rumor spreading source, which has no endorsement of any professional side and I am also questioning the validity of that source as a Misplaced Pages approved reference. Thank you for your attention.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- John Carter (talk · contribs)
- Catflap08 (talk · contribs)
- SafwanZabalawi (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
"Yes"
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Soka Gakkai Talk page
- How do you think we can help?
Clarify validity of disputed sentence and sources.
SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page discussion
- blogspot.de (or any other blog) is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Delete anything in the article that is only backed up by a citation to a blog and delete the ref to the blog. Double check to make sure the statement in the article isn't found in a blog and a reliable source. It is easy to remove those by accident.
- For those who are wondering why blogs are not reliable sources, consider this; I could write on a blog that Betty White invented the telephone, then I could put it in her Misplaced Pages article with a citation to the blog. (and we all know that Betty White invented the telegraph...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest all that had to be said about the issue has been raised in the articles’ talk section already. Authors like Montgomery, McLaughlin also used as reference bringing up the issue. An issue that is not even new, two EXAMPLES of WHERE proselytising has occurred and have been reported on were entered. Even the court ruling on the Soka University case is weak, as it deals with grounds on which the woman got sacked … it was not said that proselytising does not occur. Other editors have also informed Safwan on the issue of sources and references. To my mind the editor would just like not to see the issue being mentioned at all. By defaming sources arguing on the basis of Misplaced Pages guidelines the editor has actually proved he has no real knowledge of the guidelines. And finally as the author seems to be going on about the issue – nowhere does it say that all alleged 12 million members proselytise … the sentence is a summary of sources and references critical/sceptical of Soka Gakkai. I suggest to you to get familiar to why references are used in general.
- To my mind the author has actually shown WHY Soka Gakkai is often criticised – its inability to face criticism. Rather than to deal with issues raised the messenger is being ‘attacked’. Typically those issues are then branded rumours originating form tabloids, same old story. And ... the Riverdale Press is not a blog. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please comment on article content, not on user conduct. Talking about other editors is not helpful. Criticizing other people is not a good way to resolve a content dispute. Please talk only about what should and should not be in the article and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Streisand effect
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
This is a dispute between me and two other editors. Streisand effect documents "a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely". The article is a short blurb and a list of notable examples.
In early June 3 IPs and one editor (myself) attempted to add/restore a particular example of the Streisand effect. This example is about a beer company which threatened legal action against a newspaper which published a photo of suspected-killer Luka Magnotta holding a beer. The newspaper refused to censor the photo, which resulted in a public relations blunder for the company. The photo ended up being copied thousands of times, and the company caved in the end. Text-book Streisand effect. Magnotta was the subject of an international man-hunt. Labatt is Canada's largest brewer. The newspaper is the Montreal Gazette. So none of the parties are unknown.
However every contribution was reverted. The reasons for the reverts are contained in four edit summaries: "recent example; more like news", "more of a news story and the sourcing does not mention the Streisand effect", "Rv unexplained, undiscussed change", and "get a consensus on talk page to include this recent event". So basically, WP:NOTNEWS.
I started the discussion on the talkpage. I showed that many of the listed-examples are recent, and that every example is referenced by news coverage when the said events took place. I also showed how the censored-example has superior sources to the others, as it has been commented on and identified with the Streisand effect internationally in the media, and noted by professionals in the public relations, marketing, and legal fields: IMO the best source, , , , , , .
User:Glrx responded to me with WP:OTHERSTUFF, and User:Ianmacm with NOTNEWS. IMO, both are unsupportable. The most recent examples in the article—which neither editor has a problem with—date to about a week before and a week after the censored-example (late-May and mid-June). I noted that NOTNEWS and OTHERSTUFF have been selectively applied to the censored-example.
The validity of contributions are supposed to judged by the content and reliability of supporting sources—but that is not happening here. Personal opinions such as "this does not seem to be a disaster for Labatt's", and "no real sign of a lawsuit, only a threat", are not only wrong, but also totally irrelevant. The only relevant opinions are those given in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKE is not grounds for blocking or removing of well-sourced content.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Streisand effect}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I asked for input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Internet_culture. I started the discussion on the talkpage to counter NOTNEWS (used in the edit summaries). There only responses so far have been by me and the other two involved editors.
- How do you think we can help?
We're deadlocked 2-1 on the talkpage. I'm hoping that some people will look over this and offer outside-opinions. The censored-example and sources can be seen on the talkpage. No one has raised any concerns over the reliability of the sources, or has shown why this example should be singled-out from any other example currently in the article.
Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Streisand effect discussion
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. We need more volunteers; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details.
I noticed something about this entry. The section that starts with "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" contains a paragraph (the one starting with "The validity of contributions are supposed to judged by...") that doesn't even come close to being a "step you have taken." Much of the rest of that section isn't a description of the steps you have taken, but rather criticism of the steps others have taken. In the interest of making it more likely that we will be able to resolve this issue, could you please go back and edit that section along with the "Dispute overview" to be less like advocacy and more like an unbiased description? You will still be able to make any points that meet our requirements (the rule about discussing article content and not user conduct still applies) in the "Discussion about the issues listed above" section. Our goal here is to try to reach an agreement, not to pick a winner. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I removed the commentary, and kept the points I wanted to raise.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted this on one occasion because of doubts about whether it had enough long term notability. There is a tendency to add news stories to this section and to say that they are examples of the Streisand Effect, which contains an element of WP:OR. Overall, there should be stricter rules for adding new examples to this section.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - That first source (The Globe and Mail) looks like it meets WP:RS requirements; and it explicitly talks about the "Streisand effect". Granted, it is a recent event, and we should guard against WP:RECENTISM, but given the nature of this topic, recent events are to be expected for the S. E. I see no reason to exclude it. The "not news" guideline applies more to the appropriateness of new articles, not to material within an article. --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I disagree with some of the characterization of this dispute.
The inclusion of this entry is a consensus issue. WP:BRD says discuss it on the talk page. It took a few trips, but BMA brought the issue. Glrx and Ianmacm opposed. BMA disputes the discussion there and brought it here. That's his right. If a consensus wants it in, it goes in.
The SE article has a list of examples. Some are good, and some are bad. The notion that I or other editors accept all the existing examples is unwarranted. Three editors have, however, reverted the Labatt's example: Glrx, Ianmacm, and UncleBubba. The issue is whether the Labatt's example, as it stands now, belongs in the article.
The notion that Labatt's should be included because it is better than some of the other examples isn't directly on point. It might mean that the other SE examples should be removed. The question is whether it is a good example for the SE article. I don't think it is a good example right now. It's not the typical SE scenario, and we don't know its impact on Labatt's yet.
I do not believe that any article is required to give an exhaustive list of examples. That means that even strong examples may be tossed. Which examples are included lies in consensus. If other editors want the Labatt's example included, then I'm OK with that.
Part of BMA's argument appears to be that if an entry has some sources, then it must be included. I don't buy that argument. I think editors can look at the events and their sources and make judgments about whether it should be covered. BMA casts the exercise of that judgment as WP:OR, but that policy is for the article page and not the talk page. Editors may not put OR on the article page, but that says nothing about what content from RS to include in an article. The example is not trying to provide some minority viewpoint that would fall under a WP:NPOV umbrella.
Yes, Globe and Mail is outwardly a good source; it is probably the paper of record for Canada. In the the first G&M article, SE is mentioned in one paragraph. The article gives some facts such as first day hashtag count at 1718 falling at second day to 500 and continuing to fall. Even given those falling figures, the article quotes a Mat Wilcox questioning Labatt's choice of keeping a low profile while the hashtags decline. Who is right? Wilcox or Labatt's? We don't know yet because the whole episode is recent. That the point of the recent/WP:NOT#NEWS comments. Is this is durable event? I think it is appropriate to wait and see if there are subsequent articles that actually assess the damage to Labatt's. Is the Labatt's example a flash in the pan or will it have some staying power? If marketing textbooks start including it as an example, then it probably should go in our article. The G&M article does not describe how the Labatt's episode plays out because that is not known yet. Speculation before the resolution.
Most of the G&M article is about how fast social media spreads information rather than the SE. Bad news can travel quickly. The article offers some observations about how earlier social media disasters with Dominos and MacDonalds were handled. It is, after all, a business article. But those disasters are tangential to our interests. The MacDonalds incident was not SE; it was a corporate twitter campaign that backfired. The Dominos incident was not SE; it was an employee's youtube video that went viral.
The Die Welt article is similar. It mentions the Streisand effect as directing attention to the image that was trying to be suppressed. Labatt's certainly matches that pattern. But the article also characterizes the SE as arising from the threat of a lawsuit. That is not what most SE examples entail. The bad guy usually does some public act beyond sending a single letter: there are actual lawsuits, super injunctions, shutting down networks, or denial of service attacks. I don't see Labatt's stepping over a line. There's no bludgeon applied to an insignificant issue.
The other references given above are less compelling. MarketingMag appears to be a narrow trade publication. The second G&M article does not mention SE and is more focused on how advertisers should respond to social media incidents (PR Lessons). The WorldCrunch is a recycled Die Welt. JDSupra is a legal blog. BaskinBrand appears to be a tech blog. There aren't a lot of strong, general, sources taking notice of the incident.
Two sources mention SE, but I disagree with parts of their assessment. It's a nice tag to attach, but that does not mean it's used correctly. In the original SE, a wealthy actress tried to intimidate a poor photographer by suing for $50M(!) over a trivial photograph that only six people had viewed. That is a crushing maneuver. Instead, the actress suffers an enormous and righteous public blowback, hundreds of thousands view the picture she wanted suppressed, she loses the case, and she pays out over $100K to the defense. Here, we have two wealthy corporations. The Montreal Gazette has a competent legal staff; it is not a Goliath v. David story. There's no little guy who is going to get crushed. In the original SE, Streisand did a public act and actually filed the lawsuit. Here, it is not clear that Labatt's did any public act; it sent a demand letter to the MG, but who published that letter to the public? That little gem is not stated. The Labatt's incident seems to be more of a political play by a powerful press. Even one of BMA's sources, BaskinBrand, said Labatt's "had a legitimate gripe with the photo". Hey, can't you guys find another photograph that doesn't include our beer? Labatt's had nothing to do with the accused murderer; its product just happened to be in his photo. The demand letter was probably heavy handed, but not detestable.
I don't like the Martha Payne example, but it has a powerful school prohibiting its 9-year old student from photographing her meals. That fits the Goliath v David pattern, and the age adds some human interest. There was public blowback. The school publicly capitulated to its student. There's further quantification of the impact as increased awareness, hits, and donations for the student's blog and its cause.
If the sales of Labatt's Blue plummet, then it would be good to revisit the example. But today the sources are limited, the reaction appears to be short-lived Twitter spike, and the dispute isn't all that interesting. It's a savvy newspaper stepping on a naive brewer for political gain. The newspaper could have just replied "No" to the letter, switched photos, cropped the photo, or photoshopped the bottle. It doesn't do that. Instead it wants to crush Labatt's. There are no sympathetic players here. MG is neither a conservation-minded photographer or a 9-year old girl.
To me, right now, the Labatt's incident should just be a footnote in the murder case. My arguments for excluding the Labatt's example do not include that it would continue to celebrate the photo of an accused murder. I am not trying to censor that elephant. I just think it is a poor illustration of SE.
Glrx (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
X-ray_computed_tomography
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The issue is regarding the quality, and applicability to CT, of the sources used.
Here is a diff of the removal of the matter.
The pages of the ICRP describing the first source and the second source.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
-
- 79.179.224.214 (talk · contribs)
- 79.182.199.172 (talk · contribs)
- 79.182.215.205 (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=X-ray_computed_tomography}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have discussed the issue on the talk page, where other editors wrote that my sources were not good enough, and didn't explain why. I have opened a DRN case. I got back to the talk page. I found sources that qualify to the demands of the other editors. The other editor Yobol still deleted my edit, and said that the sources are not good. I talked about it in the talk page. I think that the other editors are wrong.
- The previous DRN case is Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_32#X-ray_computed_tomography. User:Nenpog identifies himself as the User:79.179.224.214 who opened that previous case. --Yannick (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Other relevant diffs in which content was removed: diff1 see DNA damage subsection, diff2 see cognitive effects subsection. --Nenpog (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- How do you think we can help?
Determine if the sources are as good as any other source used in the article. Determine if the statement taken from the source apply to radiation absorbed from CT.
Nenpog (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
X-ray_computed_tomography discussion
- The first source is a draft. The second doesn't mention CT scans. Neither are appropriate sources for the CT scan page. Yobol (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Yobol. Sources need to refer to the subject matter at hand and they need to be of high quality. A draft is not of high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- The first source is a published "Draft report" of the ICRP. It is an extensive review, by experts, with expert conclusions, and which is only a step from being approved by the ICRP, which is more than can be said on any other review that is used as a source in the Misplaced Pages article. It is of a high quality.
- The second source is an approval stamp of the ICRP of some of the conclusions of the first source. It is mentioned that the two documents will be released as a single document, and thus the context of the second source should be considered with regard to the first source.
- The first source mention CT as a source for significant radiation exposure, and list adverse effect that can occur from exposure to an accumulated absorbed dose of radiation. This accumulation of absorbed dose can result from CTs.
- The second source doesn't mention CTs, but is written with reference to the first source, which do mention CT.
- The second source does mention adverse effects of absorbed dose. CTs cause the patients to receive an absorbed dose. It is obvious that that document consider the absorbed dose caused by CTs as an absorbed dose for which the warnings are relevant.--Nenpog (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The report looks like a very high quality, very reliable source. The mere fact that the title includes the word "draft" is no reason to dismiss it, given the depth & detail in the report. But, still there are a couple of more things that could be useful: (1) which parts of the document are specific to CT? The title indicates that it is about radiation in general ... only portions that are specific to CT should be used for this article; and (2) The report cites many other studies: editors should get copies of those studies (which are relevant to CT adverse effects) and read those sources also ... they may shed some light on this, and could be used as sources for the article. --Noleander (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to (1) - The source describe CTs as a major source of significant radiation exposure (lines 3522-3526). Radiation dose from CTs is measured in absorbed dose. The source describe the adverse effects predicted for a certain accumulated absorbed dose of ionizing radiation. The absorbed dose caused by one or more CT scan can accumulate to the absorbed dose for which the source predict the adverse effects. From the source perspective, the cause for the adverse effects is the accumulated absorbed dose, which can come from CTs, or from an other origin, or from a mix of CTs and other origins. Thus, everything that is written in that document is relevant for CTs, provided that the described accumulated absorbed dose is reached. In X-ray_computed_tomography we have described the absorbed dose for several CT scanning protocols, from which one can see that the accumulated absorbed dose of several CT scans can reach the source's threshold. Furthermore, variation in the absorbed dose of CT scans exist, which cause grater absorbed dose to be caused, therefor the threshold dose of the source could be exceeded in one or two visits to the CT room. E.g. page 94 of this document present finding several CT machines that caused absorbed dose of 140 mGy in routine head scan. It is customary to perform two scans on a single visit to the CT once with plus once without contrast, thus doubling the dose to 280 mGy. Thus two such visits to the CT room would total in 560 mGy, well beyond the source's threshold dose for eye cataracts, and circulatory diseases.--Nenpog (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Nenpog's version that was reverted a couple of things stand out. He wants to put this in:
"Eye cataracts: An accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy can cause cataracts, and opacity of the eye lens"
With a citation to:
http://www.icrp.org/docs/Tissue%20Reactions%20Report%20Draft%20for%20Consultation.pdf
(Note: 500 mGy and 0.5 Gy are the same dose)
Seaching the above PDF for "500 mGy" brings up some rat studies and then this:
Number of individuals: 234 radiation-exposed, 232 unexposed
Dose: Eye dose ~500 mGy
Description of results: Exposed vs. nonexposed: No difference for abnormal luminescence or non-PSC (posterior subcapsular) opacities. PSC opacities: 13 irradiated & 2 control cases ...PSC opacities were "very mild"
So, 5.55% of those who got a 500 mGy dose in the eye had very mild PSC opacities vs. 0.86% of the control group. And PSC opacities are not what most people are talking about when they say "cataracts." Posterior Subcapsular Opacity (also known as Posterior Capsular Haze or Secondary Cataract) does not require surgery. It is treated with YAG laser capsulotomy, an in-office procedure that does not involve touching the eye. See http://salemretina.com/info/disease/Posterior%20Capsular%20Opacity/index.php
The first problem that this highlights is the problem with WP:SYNTHESIS. Clearly Nenpog read the same part of that study that I did, but just assumed that Posterior Subcapsular Opacity is "opacity of the eye lens." It is not. It is a haziness of the thin membrane just behind the lens.
The second problem is that the study is about a 500 mGy dose to the eye -- the most radiosensitive part of the human body. Where does the article say that CT scans of the eye are at 500 mGy? The closest it comes is head CTs, at 1/10 that dose. Where does the statement "An accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy can cause cataracts, and opacity of the eye lens" explain that an abdomen CT, chest CT, CT colonograph or a cardiac CT angiogram deliver a negligible does to the eye?
I am concerned over one particular editor who only wants to insert material about the dangers of CT, and who first writes up the negative effect and then goes searching for sources to support what he already decided to be true. Even if the sources do back up the statement, there will be a strong confirmation bias -- sources that conclude that CT is safe never get searched for. I am also concerned with the wide vareity of alleged harm he has tried to insert: Cataracts, Cognitive impairment, Heart disease, DNA damage -- the list goes on and on. I must ask myself whether there in a non-neutral point of view or even a conflict of interest at work here.
So what happens if I look at the same source looking for the author's conclusions instead of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion? I get this:
"From current evidence, a judgement can be made of a threshold acute dose of about 0.5 Gy (or 500 mSv) for both cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease. On that basis, 0.5 Gy may lead to approximately 1% of exposed individuals developing the disease in question, more than 10 years after exposure. This is in addition to the high natural incidence rate (circulatory diseases account for 30-50% of all deaths in most developed countries). The value of 0.5 Gy to the heart and cerebrovascular system could be reached during some complex interventional procedures. Hence, medical practitioners need to be aware of this new threshold"
...A completely different story than the story told in the reverted material. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I based my statements on the executive summary, which start at line 161, and include the experts' summary and conclusions. Lines 245-264 for circulatory disease. Lines 265-280 with regard to cataract and eye opacity. Lines 332-334 for cognitive impairment. Lines 359-362. Note the mentioning of fractionated or protracted exposure and accumulated dose.--Nenpog (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no opinion as to which way this dispute should be resolved, but I would like to offer some clarifications in the hope of speeding up this process.
- First, I would suggest that searching a 300 page PDF for a number does not reveal the most important passages in this case. I would guess that the most important point that Nenpog was referring to is paragraph 678, though there is also other data that is more relevant than the passage that Guy Macon has pointed out. Paragraph 678 states:
- Overall, the general consistency of the collective results for both early lens opacities and advanced cataracts makes a compelling “weight of evidence” judgement that the recommended acute dose threshold for the purposes of radiation protection should be lowered from its current value to a nominal value of 500 mSv. This is subject to the caveats that the progressive nature of assessed opacities into cataracts, and the likely greater sensitivity of the lens in children compared to post-adolescents, both require further characterisation.
- From context, this 500 mSv limit is no doubt meant to be applied to eye organ dose, which is a type of equivalent dose. In the context of CT scans, equivalent dose is equal to absorbed dose, so there's nothing really wrong with saying 500 mGy instead of mSv. And there is data to show that someone could potentially receive enough CT scans over their lifetime to go over that threshold, or that CT scans on top of other exposures could push them over that threshold. As far as I can tell, the informed editors seem to allow that Nenpog may be technically correct. They have not taken a contrary position that these effects do not occur, or occur at a different threshold.
- From what I understand, the real problem that other editors have brought forward is one of undue weight, not accuracy. We are talking about thresholds that are not normally attained by CT scanning, and being just above the threshold only produces a low probability of having mild forms of the condition. No secondary source has been brought forward specifically linking CT scans to these effects, which may indicate that they are not normally a concern in CT scanning. The debates over what constitutes a reliable source and what is synthesis seem to have been surrogate arguments for the underlying issue of undue weight.--Yannick (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have already demonstrated above, in my reply to Comment, that the 500 mGy threshold can be exceeded, even by two visitations to the CT. The first source is a secondary source linking every mean of causing an accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy, including CTs, to the above problems. 1% is not a low probability when it comes to adverse effects. --Nenpog (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I request anyone who has, or will, participate in this discussion to provide a statement declaring if he/she or his/her benefactor(s) have any financial interest in the subject. Financial interest in the subject include profiting from CTs, or from other imaging techniques and devices, or from other devices that emit ionizing radiation that is directed at humans. Benefactors include employer(s), school(s), or other entities to which one is subordinate.
I request, that financial interest will be assumed for anyone who would fail to provide said statement.
I declare, that neither I nor my benefactors have a financial interest in the subject. --Nenpog (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
C++
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Innocuous line breaks were added to the article in order to reduce the output of diffs involving subsequent edits, so that they don't overwhelm the user with walls of text. These line breaks are innocuous in the sense that they don't change rigorously anything in the structure of the article and even how it is presented to the user. In spite of this, it appears that a user opposes them, and refuses to accept that some line breaks are added to the article, even when it is between fields of a template.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=C++}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
A discussion was started in the article's talk page (Talk:C++#Line breaks) in order to gather opinions on the pros and cons of introducing line breaks to an article.
- How do you think we can help?
The discussion is limited to two participants. It would be important if someone else gave their opinion on the subject of adding line breaks to an article.
Mecanismo | Talk 23:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
C++ discussion
The issue is not suitable for dispute resolution, although I was thinking of gently letting Mecanismo know about WP:3RR but decided against it as I was the one who initially reverted their introduction of superfluous line breaks in the article, and the reaction was a little excited for such a minor matter. I was planning to ask for thoughts at WP:VPR by posing the proposal that editors should be encouraged to insert line breaks into paragraphs consisting of one long line (I oppose that, but some kind of central discussion should occur before changing the style of established articles). Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Were you the one commenting on the article under the 74.74.150.139 (talk · contribs) account? -- Mecanismo | Talk 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Gilstrap P (1996-12-05). "When God Talks Vassula Listens". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2012-03-23.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Lattin, Don (December 14, 1996). "Mystic Called Divine Prophet Or Con Artist Catholic churches issue warning before S.F. visit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
- ^ Stammer, Larry B. (April 29, 1995). "A Divided Message : Spirituality: To her followers worldwide, Vassula Ryden is a faithful purveyor of communications from Jesus and Mary. But theologians question credibility". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
- ^ Stammer, Larry B. "L.A. Cathedral Disinvites Christian Unity Event: Pastor decides not to allow conference after realizing the role of a self-proclaimed mystic". January 10, 2006. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 March 2012.