Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 34

Cyclogyro discussion

Followup: The IP has commented on the talk page here: Talk:Cyclogyro only to resort to ad hominem attacks. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)Hi there. I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. I see this is your first dispute; I'll give you a bit of advice here. You're doing the right thing by trying to take this to the talk page first and by assuming good faith. First, even though the IP's methods of addressing you might not have been the best, have you taken the time to examine his/her concerns? Sometimes, editors come across as uncivil, but some of the things they say still have merit even though they are uncivil in their presentation. Second, if you have a valid reason for thinking that the information should be removed, your best starting point (if it is not attributed to a source) is to tag the objectionable material with "citation needed" tags. You can do this by adding {{cn|date=June 2012}} where you want to put the tag. If the tag goes for a long period of time without being addressed, the material can then be removed. If your addition of the tags is reverted, then present your case on the article talk page; if that doesn't generate some discussion, then your next option is to come here again. I will leave this case open for now in case the IP editor has additional comments. In any case, your edits are not vandalism - that's just a misunderstanding. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I did as suggested and went through and flagged the problems I saw. Hopefully that will work. Any suggestions for dealing with sections like this:

"Given the rapid progress accomplished in the field lately and the much greater opportunities for further development it can be seen that not only are the cyclogyros (cyclocopters) headed to become the dominant type of the vertical takeoff and landing air vehicle, but they can reasonably be expected to take a substantial market share from the fixed wing aircraft (requiring very costly and usually remote airports) which today still comprise 90% of all aircraft in operation, thereby reshaping the aviation industry."

which clearly has no place, but the IP editor is defending. Or do I just rely on the fact that there are more flags and boxes than words to warn off potential readers? UnclaimedUsername (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)You can request semiprotection which stops ips from editing an article at WP:RFPP.Curb Chain (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that may be the next step if the above doesn't work. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) It seems to me you are removing a lot of material which shouldn't be removed, while the IP is restoring a lot of material that should not be restored. If you instead of just revert warring with the IP, remove things bit by bit, with good edit summaries as to why, and do so slowly and patiently (ie give the IP some time to respond) starting with the most flagrant problems, then this conflict could probably be turned into consensus. A lot of the removed material could stay if reliable sources are found, for example. Some of it, as the quoted text above, should clearly go. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it could be that I'm removing too much at once, I was aiming for "bold" but I may have overshot and landed in "overzealous", not to mention I may have removed some useful information. I'd be happy just leaving it tagged and doing a few small, conservative edits over time, but there's a new issue, which I put on a new line below. As far as turning this into a consensus is concerned, I don't think that's going to happen for two reasons. The first is that it's an obscure article with only two active editors, the IP and me, so any consensus would have to be between us. The second is that the IP now only refers to me as "vandal" in his edits, along with accusing me of working for his rivals, and so is unlikely to listen to anything I have to say. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to just tag the problems and not edit as suggested by Sleddog116, but the IP has decided that even that isn't acceptable ([Diff]). Would I be out of line if I did the following: 1) Removed only the most egregious problems (like the quote above) rather than my larger, earlier edit, 2) Flagged/Tagged the rest of the problems, 3) Requested partial protection since the IP has shown that they won't even allow me to add dispute tags, and 4) Encouraged the IP to make edit suggestions on the talk page for as long as it's protected? UnclaimedUsername (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually like to step into the middle of edit wars, but I have restored the maintenance tags and requested protection for this page. You have committed no vandalism, and if this editor is not willing to discuss the issue with you, he should at least register a username so he can account for his actions. I'm not taking a side in the dispute; the other editor may have legitimate concerns. As far as I am concerned, however, if he/she cannot move past accusations of vandalism and legitimately discuss the issue, then the page should be protected so that edit warring stops. If he reverts the change (the admin may decline my semi request), do not re-revert it. I'll leave this thread open so that we can determine the next step in this process if the page doesn't pass the semi request. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It's a shame it's going this way. I know very little on the subject and was just trying to clean up, I can't really add a lot of substance. On the other hand the IP seems to know quite a bit and would be valuable for making the article better. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Cyclogyro. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: "Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. Another one that might be sockish."

Does anyone object to this being closed as resolved? (If the abuse resumes after two weeks you can contact the blocking admin.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union discussion

Hello everyone, and thanks for bringing this dispute here. I'm a semi-regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, and I thought I'd try and lend a helping hand with this problem. This is quite an interesting dispute as the three editors involved are all regulars at Wikipedia, so we are all familiar with the policies and guidelines, and we have all probably been in a dispute or two before. An upshot of our collective experience is that naturally we all know the neutral point of view policy and have had the opportunity to put it into practice many times. Something seems to be going wrong somewhere in this article, however, as we are all claiming that our edits are neutral, but we are disagreeing about each other's interpretations of what being neutral actually means. So, before we look at any specific content issues, I would just like to throw out a suggestion for a guiding principle of neutrality as it applies to this article. Now, this is only a suggestion, and you are all free to disagree with it - that is absolutely fine. I would like us to discuss it first, though, as I think that once we have agreed about this general idea it will be a lot easier to find a resolution for the specific content issues that we have been having problems with.

My suggestion is simple: I think that, in this article, we should treat rugby league and rugby union as having equal worth. That is to say, we shouldn't imply in any way that one of them is better than the other. Now, one sport may be faster than the other, and one may be more tactical, and mentioning that is no problem, as long as we can back it up with facts and statistics rather than leave it as assertion and opinion. The problems arise when we start to use these differences in the character of each sport to imply a subjective judgement of good or bad about either of them. Now, as far as I know (which is admittedly not very far), there is no way of objectively judging which sport is "better" than the other, and I make this suggestion because I think it would be best not to try. However, I would be interested to hear what you all think of this. If you think I have tripped up in my reasoning somewhere, then please let me know - that would be a great way to kick-start the debate. (Of course, it's ok to agree with me as well. ;) I'll be looking forward to hearing your opinions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the situation. While I'm not a RL man myself I don't consider it to be of less worth than union. Also while I personally feel union is more enjoyable to watch than league I know that that is my opinion, just as I know that it's my opinion that blue is the best colour or it's better to be warm than cold. I am aware of my baggage and I try not let it effect my editing of RL ,colours or what ever else. I've only attempted to tidy this article and remove some pieces of the blatant NPOV.

My reading of the situation is we have 1 user to is blatantly pushing the POV that RL is a superior game and using what ever they can find on the internet as stick to beat union.

I think what we need is an agreement that sources outside of wiki can be biased too and that just because it's printed in a newspaper or the internet doesn't mean we should use it a reference Gnevin (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair I think you both are agreeing really. Treating league and union as equal is the reasonable approach, any other way would be a POV. Even comments around which is faster and which is more tactical is debatable, both can be played at different speeds and both require tactics. If this approach, as suggested by Mr. Stradivarius, is used then I think you end up with the result advocated for by Gnevin; the quote doesn't have a place, and certaintly not in the intro. I don't think you need an overarching "determination" on the validility of sources or anything along those lines to reach this point.

For the record, I am part of the rugby league wikiproject and prefer that sport over the other.

Also, just to make it black and white (because it had me very confused for a while) User Gibson Flying V was known as User Jeff79 at the start of this dispute. Mattlore (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I should have mentioned the Jeff79 = Gibson Flying V fact earlier. As far as I know this board does not necessarily deal with user conduct, but this may be a path we have to go down. I thought this might be a less drama filled alternative and after consensus was agreed (admittedly grudgingly) at the NPOV noticeboard, I hoped it might prove successful here too. As far as the article goes I echo Mattlore in saying that Gnevin and Mr. Stradivarius are on the same page, one that I agree with too. If we can keep opinions out of the article altogether it would make it much easier to manage. AIRcorn (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misread Mr. Stradivarius' comments looks like we are all on the same page Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally I too agree with you, Mr Strativarius. While for most experienced editors it goes without saying, I think it's good for Gnevin and Aircorn to read what you said about avoiding subjective judgement of good or bad. Perhaps you said it because you noticed their use of colourful language such as "pro/anti-league/union"; "which is the better game"; "favour one code over the other"; "say a lot harsher things"; "show RL in a good light"; "horrible quotes"; "a pissing contest"; etc. It's also clear they're having trouble assuming good faith and have become a bit emotional about me personally, attempting to paint me as the villain with dramatic stuff like "fighting tooth and nail against consensus"; "your other slanted edits"; "Your [sic] adopting an entirely hypocritical approach"; "The charges you level"; "blatantly pushing the POV that RL is a superior game"; etc. One thing I'm particularly curious about is what Aircorn is suggesting above when he said regarding my user name: "As far as I know this board does not necessarily deal with user conduct, but this may be a path we have to go down." As (apparently) one of the "400 most active Wikipedians" I'll typically be undertaking more than one little project at a time. That I changed my user name during discussions about this article is purely coincidental. I don't think anyone would begrudge a user the right to change a 5-year-old ID that was comprised of their real name and year of birth, would they? Anyway, I'm pleased that Aircorn has brought more people into this, although I think it will bear as little fruit for him as his last attempt. I'm afraid we do need to get specific though, because the crux of it is this: Gnevin and Aircorn are on a mission to have the dreaded New York Times quote (and possibly other well-sourced content) not merely shifted, but removed from the article altogether. To help them achieve this, they've created some nice big chunks of text between the pair of them on various talk pages to make it appear as though there's a real debate going on (a tactic I'm sure you've seen before). I've done my best to refuse joining the party as most of this "debate" has centred around their intriguing view that a quote from a player who was at the time recently paid to leave rugby league and play rugby union is just as valuable and deserves equal prominence as a quote from a New York Times journalist (who I will go out on a limb and say is completely neutral and disinterested). They appear to be hoping that when the player's quote is rightly removed the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. The article was an unreferenced perma-stub made up of various anonymous IPs' POVs until I came along and started adding referenced content. When I was choosing sources, I set an especially high standard and used, amongst others, a sports science textbook and a reputable American newspaper. I decided that British/Australian/New Zealand newspapers would be unsuitable as even they are too close to the subject. Recently, I attempted to add the use of an article (about rugby union) from a Canadian newspaper, which I thought was another shining example neutrality, but was knee-jerk reverted without discussion. By comparison, when I removed the quote box containing the player's words, I then said on the talk page that it would be fine to use if properly contextualised. An option so far not taken up, apparently in favour of simply expelling all independent sources. Personally, I'd prefer to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Great, it looks like we are all agreeing about the basic need for neutrality in the article. Now, I notice that there have been a fair few personal remarks made about editors in the discussions so far. There has been nothing terribly bad, and I have definitely seen much worse in my experiences mediating. However, it is vital to remember that any remark which focuses on the contributor and not on the content runs the risk of escalating this dispute, and to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction we all need to stop making these kind of remarks, right now. I suggest that for the duration of this dispute, you all make a conscious effort to avoid mentioning the other editors in your posts at all. In the vast majority of situations it is possible to rephrase comments that mention editors into comments that only talk about content. To take an entirely hypothetical example, it is ok to say that a certain passage in the article makes one sport seem "better" than the other; it is not ok to say, or even merely to imply, that the editor who wrote this passage is biased.

  So, on to the content at hand. I think for now, we had better check that we all agree about the basic properties of the New York Times quote. This should be a simple process of observation, but I've learned that you can never be too careful with these things, so I want to make sure that we all agree about this before we move on to more delicate matters. I would summarize the quote as follows:

1. The source it appears in, the New York Times, is top-quality.
2. Ian Thomsen is a respected sports journalist, and this was also true in 1995 when he wrote the article.
3. Thomsen does not have any conflict of interest regarding rugby league or rugby union.
4. The quote is Thomsen's own subjective opinion.
5. The quote portrays rugby league as a better sport than rugby union.

Would you all say that this is a fair characterization? If you have any objections, or any other points you think I have missed, feel free to outline them below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed your list to a numbered list , hope you don't mind Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Would agree with all of the above . I think the key point is 4 it's an opinion
2. I also think it's worth noting that the source is hopelessly outdated . RU has changed in so many ways since that quote was wrote including many affects of becoming professional Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Full quote from the source is Thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code. Rugby union is trying to negotiate its own escape from amateurism, with some officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following; nonetheless, compared to the popularity of rugby union's World Cup in South Africa last June, the rival version this month has disappointed. From a historical perspective 1995 was the year rugby became professional. Thomsen is basically comparing a professional sport to a sport still mostly made up of amateurs (or players that have only just turned professional). Seventeen years is a long time in sport after such a major change. Among other things the laws, which have been mentioned in the quote, have undergone changes since then. Comparing the Ashton quote using the same criteria you get:

1. The source it appears in, the The Independant, is top-quality.
2. Ashton is a respected sportsman, and this was still true in 2011 when he was quoted in the article.
3. Ashton has a conflict of interest regarding rugby league and rugby union, having played both.
4. The quote is Ashton's own subjective opinion.
5. The quote portrays rugby union as a better sport than rugby league.

If the only concern is the conflict of interest then there are other sports journalists out there that could be used. In the end there are strong opinions both ways when it comes to these sports and the only neutral way is to present both or neither. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Mr Stativaruis' analysis. I apologise in advance if I'm jumping ahead here, but I would add regarding point 4 that while it is Thomsen's subjective opinion, it is not a subjective opinion in the same sense as artistic preference or favouring winter over summer. He is commenting on observable, measurable phenomena, and while he has not quantified these, others have. Sources in the article (plus the National Post one inexplicably removed) confirm his observation that rugby league is the faster of the two, making it closer to a fact than an opinion (I would also like to mention that faster does not necessarily equate to better, and it would be a subjective opinion in itself to assume that it does). That rugby league is "more open" can be attributed to the undisputed fact that it has 26 men on the field as opposed to rugby union's 30. In addition to what Aircorn says above about union's amateurism at the time, in the 'Gameplay' section of the article it is confirmed that rugby league is more physically demanding, lending support to the "better athletes" comment. Regarding rugby union being "too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following" you'll all have noticed that he actually assigns this view to "some (rugby union) officials". I've not found other sources for this, but I'm willing to trust in Thomsen's journalistic integrity and assume that this is something he did actually observe. Lending support to the television viewing figures aspect is the fact that Australia's late-night viewing record set by the 1991 rugby union world cup final was subsequently broken by the 1992 rugby league world cup final. I would also add a 6th point or an addendum to the 5th: It portrays rugby league in 1995 in a better light than rugby union in 1995. The good thing about using the quote box as it appears now alongside the part of the 'History' section that deals with the 1990s is that it is "frozen in time" if you like. I don't think the Thomsen quote would be, or is intended to be, taken as contemporary or timeless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference from the National Post mentioned in Gibsons Flying V's last two posts that was removed by myself and Gnevin is not inexplicable, an explanation is provided on the talk page. We have both also invited him to discuss it there. Anyway two, three or more people having the same opinion does not make something a fact. No matter what way it is spun it is someones opinion on how the game was in 1995. I think it could possibly be worked into the text next to where it talks about the switch to professionalism, something like this. It is better editing style in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The lead of the article should not include any quotes, nor should it contain any judgmental material. The reason is that there is not enough room in the lead to give the appropriate context which is needed to help the reader interpret the judgements. On the other hand, the body of the article can and should contain judgements and opinions of important commentators on rugby. The WP:NPOV policy requires that all viewpoints be represented fairly in the article. Generally speaking, editors should put aside their own prejudices and try to make the article as unbiased and objective as possible. Quotes from notable commentators are appropriate for inclusion, however, the quotes should not be hand-selected by editors; instead, any quotes used should be quotes that were selected by secondary sources. In other words, a quote should be included only if a secondary source writing about rugby mentions the quote. --Noleander (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what Noleander said. :) As far as I am aware there is no requirement to stick to quotes that have been selected by secondary sources, but in cases like this where quotes are controversial I think this would be a very good way of keeping all the involved parties honest about what they include. There are a number of points in WP:QUOTE that I was going to bring up as well, but if we can agree to this then it probably won't be necessary to go through all of them. So, would you all be willing to give this principle a try? I'm not sure there are any secondary sources that quote either Ashton or Thomsen, but I bet that there are plenty of other juicy quotes listed in the secondary sources. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions about how to present these, or similar, quotes (box or intext). Personally if we are going with quotes I would like to keep them short According to such and such union is "much slower than league", while Chris Ashton says union has "much more of a tactical side". Also when you say selected by secondary sources do you mean a newspaper quoting someone as opposed to us quoting a newspaper? I ask because if that is the case then the Ashton one could pass as it is sourced by Hugh Godwin. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If the fate of the New York Times quote is to hinge on how controversial it is, I would ask that this question be looked at thoroughly. For reasons I've outlined above I remain to be convinced that the quote is (outside the talk pages of Wikipedia) controversial at all.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I said "controversial" I was specifically talking about that the fact that the quote has been disputed on the talk pages of Wikipedia. So it looks like your answer to my question above is a "no", then. :) For now, let's just bear that solution in mind should we get stuck later on, and move on to the next step. Now, we've agreed that we shouldn't treat rugby league or rugby union as subjectively better or worse than each other, and we have also agreed that the New York Times quote portrays rugby union rugby league as a better sport than rugby league rugby union. So the question now would seem to be how we reconcile these two facts. Here's what WP:QUOTE has to say about it:

1. "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
2. "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote."
3. "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

And here's how I see the quote faring in relation to these three points:

1. We definitely have to be careful here. We have agreed that the quote itself is not neutral (i.e. it favours rugby union), so if we do include it we need to make sure that we present it in a way that preserves the overall neutrality of the article.
2. As it is, the quote stands out prominently, and readers' eyes are drawn towards it. Because of this, WP:QUOTE implies that the prominence of the quote makes it seem as though Wikipedia endorses Thomsen's opinion. With nothing to counteract that prominence, this would indeed seem to create a neutrality problem. Also, the importance of the quote is not explained.
3. Though the quote is indirectly related to the text around it by being made in the historical context of the move to professionalism in 1995, this may not be immediately clear to readers unfamiliar with the subject. For instance, Thomsen is not mentioned in the text, and neither is the speed of the game or the quality of the athletes, both integral parts of the quote.

From this analysis, there do appear to be problems with the way the quote is used in the article, and it seems that something needs to be done to reduce the emphasis on the quote, whether that is by better putting it in context, or by introducing contrasting viewpoints. Gibson Flying V, would you agree with this analysis, and if not do you have any suggestions on how it can be improved? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

portrays rugby union as a better sport than rugby league have you mixed up your codes? Gnevin (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)?

Whoops, yes, I have, d'oh... fixed it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

99.8% Agree :) While it's true we have agreed that the quote portrays mid-90s league in a better light than mid-90s union, we also agreed that the source of the quote is of exceptional neutrality and quality. This inherent neutrality (plus the fact that it is in no way contradicted by any other reliable source) is what makes it deserving of a quote box's prominence. I'd be very surprised if a reader would not want to see what a disinterested observer has to say on the matter (especially if it's a senior Sports Illustrated and New York Times sportswriter). I also don't beleive a quote's use has a neutrality problem if it's simply confirming what all significant views that have been published by reliable sources are about a topic. So, as for what to do to reduce the emphasis on the quote:

a) better putting it in context

Nothing is gained by incorporating the quote into the body text along the lines of "In 1995 Ian Thomsen, sportswriter of the New York Times wrote..." as this is what the quote box already communicates. It would certainly reduce its prominence, but for reasons I've already mentioned, I believe this also reduces the article's informativeness. I'd also like to remind everyone that consensus was already established for the quote appearing in a section lower down in the article. After I moved it to the 'History' section, the issue would have been dead and buried. However the quote was then moved to the 'Gameplay' section alongside a union-contracted player's quote, resulting in the 'controversy' we now have here.

b) introducing contrasting viewpoints

Naturally, I've got no problems with this. Can we all agree that these additional viewpoints' sources be held to a similar standard of neutrality and quality?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

When a quote is in a box, people will not necessarily read the quote along with the rest of the article. What is gained by incorporating it into the text is that the reader has to read it in context. We don't even need to quote it, it could just be paraphrased (which fits in with the general consensus here to use quotes quoted from secondary sources). The only reason to keep it in a quote box is to draw readers attention to it and there needs to be a good reason to do so. This is especially true in an article like this, where that quote could easily be interpretated as promoting one sport over another. I also think it is a stretch to suggest that the previous noticeboard established consensus for the quote to be used, but in any case the one person who said it should be used in a paragraph further down clarified that It should be introduced with something like "in the 1990s one commentator said...", which is not putting it into a quote box. AIRcorn (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Boxes or not? In this situation (I presume) there will be several quotes, say four: two from each "side". The MOS indicates that quote boxes should generally be avoided except for lengthy quotes. A quote box draws the readers' attention to the quote and gives it special prominence, which could be perceived as a way to favor one "side" over the other. A safe approach would be to keep all quotes short-ish and inline. If there is a quote that is long, and therefore must be in a box, parity requires that the other "side" also have a quote that is long-ish and in a box. That tit-for-tat formatting seems childish, I know, but it is a good compromise. Best would be to keep all quotes short and inline to avoid the box-counting. --Noleander (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a second quote from a Current Union player who has switched from League but Gibson Flying V kept removing it Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic. I'm not a fan and know little about the sport. Having read the discussion above, and considering the original request for help (options are no quotes, both quotes or to just have one of the quotes), I would suggest having no quotes. For me, much of this discussion has been on how to present these quotes, rather than on whether to include them in the first place. The struggle with how to handle them stems primarily from the fact that they are non-neutral, rhetorical commentary, i.e., "just one man's opinion". Keep them out of the article altogether. Coastside (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If the quotes were from random persons on the street, then of course they are not important enough for the article. But if there is a major public controversy, and if the quotes are from notable analysts, journalists, athletes, or coaches, then the encylopedia is obligated to provide that information to readers. Without the quotes, the article is not providing a full picture. I agree that quotes should probably be omitted from the lead where they would generate more heat than light; but in the article body they can and should be presented in a neutral fashion. --Noleander (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a new suggestion on how we might compromise on this. How about including a new section on attitudes towards rugby union and rugby league? I think a survey of attitudes towards the two codes amongst fans, athletes, and sports writers would be very useful for a good understanding of the subject, and that it would also be a perfect place to put subjective opinions like Thomsen's. Think of it as a section to document the various stereotypes that have arisen around both of the sports. I note that a similar suggestion was made on the talk page, but that it wasn't pursued very far. I think this would be worth considering seriously, though, as it has the potential to resolve the deadlock here. On the talk page there was a concern that a good section title might be hard to find, and I admit that we may have to choose a fairly long title - perhaps something like "Attitudes toward the two codes". Still, even if we have to go with a long section title, I think it would be worth discussing. Do people think this would be a good idea? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I did float this, but looking back I don't think this is the best idea. It would be a POV nightmare, much like the "controversy" section or "pro and con list" can be in other articles. Also, most if not all, opinions on the two games can be slotted into appropriate sections, and this is generally a better way to structure articles. We could have Thomsen under history, maybe balanced by a mention of the global status of each game, and the Ashton quote under gameplay balanced with a quote from a league player who converted to union and then back again (Sailor springs to mind and I think Rogers said a few things after his switch back). Just take the parts where they say the differences and leave the "rugby league/union is much better" parts out. Ashton talks about the difference in tactics, while Rogers mentioned that he found union more complicated. AIRcorn (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. So no one's willing to answer my question above then?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean can we all agree that these additional viewpoints' sources be held to a similar standard of neutrality and quality? The thing is that the impartiality and reliability of a source is not the only thing that determines neutrality. It is how that source is presented in the article. There is a general agreement here that in its current form the New York Times quote is not presented in a neutral way. AIRcorn (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So that's one 'no' (but we already knew Aircorn is seeking a double standard). Anyone else?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the the Daily Telegraph? I would say it and the New York times are similar in terms of standard of neutrality and quality. So how about  ? Gnevin (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to know if you're being serious or not. Or did you not read it through to the last line? That is a tongue-in-cheek peice written by an automotive classifieds website's deputy editor for a newspaper well known for its rugby league coverage. Amusing as it is, it's clearly not intended to be taken seriously. Any others?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Tongue is in cheek but the point stands. The telegraphy would be considered of a similar standard of neutrality and quality as the NYT but you have to take each article on his merits. Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to consider any of the alternative suggestions mentioned here? AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're on the right track with your reply to Mr Stradivarius on the 10th. But this mooted quote to provide balance to the history section remains to be seen. I only think it's fair that if a second one's to be included, it should have to jump through all the same hoops that the New York Times one has to. Quote boxes for the sake of representing proportionately all significant views that have been published by reliable sources: yes. Quote boxes for the sake of quote boxes: no. Although, as you mentioned, a suitable one regarding rugby union's superior global reach shouldn't be too hard to find.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A dual international perhaps? Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to do that. Thanks for taking the time to look into this. AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy to do this but I would argue it's already been done. We've had the article with 1 quote which is unbalanced , we've had it with no quote which is balanced but Gibson won't accept it , we've have 2 quotes in the quote box but Gibson also won't accept the quote. The only other option I can see is to put the quotes in-line but since Gibson rejects this quote outright I'm not very optimistic this is bare any more fruit Gnevin (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How about we get rid of the 2 quotes and replace with 2 quotes from the same source ? ''Rugby Union is a complex game with certain closed skills like scrummaging and line-out lifting and rugby league requires a higher level of fitness to compete at the highest level.? Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Too be honest I am willing to work with anything. I think we have a consensus here that the current presentation is not right and plenty of ideas have been given on how to fix it. As far as the history section goes ideally I would like to move Thomsen inline, incorporating it in into the 1995 paragraph (it can replace the Shamaturism sentence as that is not really comparing the two sports). The previous, currently one sentence, paragraph can easily be expanded with data about the expansion of the two games worldwide. That would balance out that section adequately for me. I will work on a draft of just those two paragraphs sometime this weekend and present it to the talk page like Stradivarius has suggested. I have not thought too much about the Gameplay section yet, but as long as we keep any quotes from rugby league sources balanced by union ones I think it can be managed. I would prefer data to be presented where posible though. Surely there must be tests in sports journals measuring the V02 MAX, speed, strength etc of athletes from the two codes. Something a bit more scientific than this. AIRcorn (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've adequately justified retaining the New York Times quote in a box and would prefer an additional quote box for the sake of providing "balance". As I said, it shouldn't be too difficult to find an acceptable one. And if it is too difficult, that would suggest that perhaps it is balanced the way it is.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Clash of the Codes was fantastic, leave it alone! ;) The quotes from the article on the amnrl website look good but I can't load the article at the moment for some reason. Heres a couple of others that may or may not be relevant: "The old adage goes that rugby union is a contact sport whereas rugby league is a collision sport." (from superskyrockets.hubpages.com/hub/Rugby-League-vs-Rugby-Union) and the RLWC is "Not in the same league as union's version in terms of national or global profile, admittedly, but still a huge challenge and a decent platform". Mattlore (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Clash did show that the best athletes play the sport of Aerobics. AIRcorn (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gibson, I appreciate that you want to use a quote box, but on purely pragmatic terms, you are not going to be able to do this if there's no consensus for it. So far, four of the editors here - Aircorn, Gnevin, Noleander, and myself - have indicated a preference for inline quotes over quote boxes. The advice in the manual of style also seems to support this. If you're not willing to compromise in your position at all, then we don't have many options. We could hold an RFC on the issue, and ask an uninvolved admin to close it; or we could go to WQA or RFC/U to get feedback on the behaviour of the parties involved. If other uninvolved editors think that the consensus here is clear, then your continuing to argue this point might be seen as a violation of WP:IDHT. I hope we don't have to go this route, however, as it's never nice to have your actions discussed at a conduct dispute noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from. I've been confused because you agreed with my initial suggestion that we need to treat both rugby league and rugby union as being of equal worth. Now that you have made clear that your opinion is that the majority of secondary sources view rugby league more favourably than rugby union, your choice of quote and your actions here make much more sense.

I think we need to examine this claim very carefully, though - the claim you are making here is very strong, and per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To justify treating rugby league more favourably than rugby union in the article, we will need very good evidence that this is also how it is treated in the vast majority of the sources. For this kind of analysis, newspaper articles simply don't cut it - what we need are scholarly books and journal articles, with the most weight given to systematic reviews of the available scholarly literature. There has been an awful lot written about rugby union and rugby league, and we need to trust our judgements on weight to authors who have the time and the resources to go through it all.

I had a look at the sources in the article, and though there are some scholarly sources there, they tend to deal with the historical aspects of the game and not the modern incarnations specifically. Because I was interested in this, I had a brief look through Google Books to see if I could find evidence of league being treated more favourably than union, but I didn't come up with anything. None of the sources I looked at that compared the two codes made that kind of judgement. I'm curious to know what you're basing your claim on here - is it based on a general feel for the sources you have got after doing your research, or did you look through the sources systematically? Or maybe there is some other factor at work here? Let me know what your thoughts are here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I have made a draft of two of the paragraph from the history section, including just a short quote from the NYT and an expanded international section. I do not think Gibsons Flying V's position above is tenable as it is based on opinion pieces. At the least I think we have enough consensus here to provide opinions as inline quotes. I would suggest if he still feels the consensus here over the presentation of quotes is incorrect he launch a WP:RFC to get a wider opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a sneaking suspicion that I was typing all that out for nothing. Sometimes it really stinks being right all the time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What is a diff from nearly a month ago meant to illustrate ? Gnevin (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We are at 8,760 words and 21 days. Are we anywhere near a resolution? Is there anything that we DRN volunteers can do that we haven't done already? Or have we simply created an article with two talk pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I think we've developed a good draft paragraph at Talk:Comparison_of_rugby_league_and_rugby_union#Moving_on. And I think all the editors that have been involved in this discussion are now on the same page, except for Gibson. So some progress, but obviously not there yet. Mattlore (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking it was about time this thread got closed. We have a rough consensus to use inline quotes, and a draft version that looks good. If Gibson Flying V still disagrees with using inline quotes, then I think Aircorn's suggestion that he start an RfC on the matter is the best one we have. Otherwise, the available options are limited to conduct dispute resolution venues. If going down the conduct route becomes necessary, I would say start at WP:WQA and take things from there. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be much more we can do at DRN, so I suggest we close this thread in 24 hours unless there are any objections. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No objections from me. Thanks Mr. Stradivarius, I appreciate that someone with possibly no interest in the topic is willing to help in situations like this. AIRcorn (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family discussion

(Comments about user conduct deleted. This was prior to warning, so no criticism is implied --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

• I am a volunteer Clerk/Mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard ( WP:DRN ). WP:DRN is for discussing disputes over article content, not user conduct. I am going have to ask all of you to stop talking about each other and start talking about specific parts of the article you wish to change or to talk about someone else's changes. If you feel that you must comment on user conduct, do it on that users talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was doing that on the article talk pages. My assertion is basically that:

1. The material is irrelevant to Koch family.
2. If the reference is reliable, the factual (as opposed to opinion) parts of the reference might be distributed to the appropriate sections of Political activities of the Koch family; WP:Criticism#Controversy articles and sections suggests that there should rarely be a section called "controvery".

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

[Personal attack deleted]

(Lengthy comments about other users after having been warned deleted. Don't do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

About the actual edit. The original piece I cited [] was done by The Guardian in London, England. I chose it because, as you'll see, is has no palpable allegations of bias. Arthur Rubin [Personal attack deleted] thought the article itself was written more like an editorial. I agreed in part, and offered to use only the hard data from the editorial. We'd rewrite the conjunctive phrases together. [Personal attack deleted] the section it was going in was a synopsis of the main Political activities of the Koch family. It was recommended from another user that the primary iWatch [] article from which the very neutral The Guardian article was written on, be used. [Personal attack deleted]

Conclusion - I think, as agreed upon, the consensus edit proposed by Arthur Rubin should ultimately find its way, intact in a new "Criticisms" section. Other criticisms throughout the article can be migrated there. The iWatch article which User:AdventurousSquirrel doesn't like was written by a think tank with liberal accusations leveled against it. But that doesn't mean data from it doesn't belong in a criticism section. That's what they're there for. That being said, it's obvious that the neutral The Guardian fact-checking team didn't find the article lacking in its presentation of raw data. Therefore, they published their own article based of the facts presented. Clearly the elements I'm intending to include are not subject to the liberalization of the publication. Any attempts to crush this edit is depriving the Wikipedia reader of the facts. WP rules do not exclude using an editorial as a citation from reliable sources since the journalist is subject to the fact-checking department of said publication according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Again, the facts are the meat of my addition. Using a citation and the existence of the "references" section, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "allows readers and editors to check the source material for themselves."--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

[Personal attack deleted]

XB70Valyrie, if you have a complaint against an administrator, go to WP:AN. This noticeboard is for discussing the content of the article --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

I do not agree that either the iWatch article or the The Guardian article quoting it is reliable; however, if it were, the material for which we do not already have better (and more accurate and more precise sources) should still be distributed to the appropriate sections of this article. You are absolutely wrong that an editorial can be used for anything potentially an opinion, but only for clear facts. Total lobbying and number of lobbyists are verifiable; the specific bills lobbied are verifiable; the context of what the lobbying is about or the company's motive for lobbying may be opinions, and should be attributed solely to the author of the article, only if he/she is a recognized expert journalist, and no WP:BLP considerations are involved. (I don't see any BLP considerations in the material I have agreed to; I'm just pointing out that editorial may not be used if there are BLP considerations.)

I had agreed at, first, that a controversy section would be appropriate, per WP:IAR, but, having read the article more carefully, some of the material is already more precisely included with better sources, and the specific subject lobbying (derivatives, toxics) should be distributed to the appropriate sections. I don't think anyone other than XB70 has expressed an unretracted opinion that there should be a controversy section. As it clearly would violate WP:Criticism#Controversy articles and sections, we would need a clear consensus to include such a section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please write your proposed entry/ies here, Arthur Rubin. If they are too disembodied here, since you said they could be integrated into various sections, then we'll have to find a solution for that. Perhaps using the last word already in the article prior to the entry, in bold, and the first word appearing after the entry, in bold.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Per section 1: Agreed text is "Although still a small fraction of Koch Industries gross revenue (Approx. $100 Billion Ann.), $20. million was spent on lobbying efforts in 2008 and $20.5 was spent over the course of the following two years."

A more precise statement on the totals already is in the second paragraph of the section "Lobbying for oil, gas, and chemical industries"; $20 million in 2008 and $12.9 million in 2009. The total revenue (which I suggested, although XB70 didn't originally like it) might be interpolated there, somewhere.

Per section 2: Agreed text is "In 2010 the firm employed 30 registered lobbyists."

Probably also in that paragraph, if desired. I don't know if it's notable, but it would be OK.

Per section 3: Agreed text is ""Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation."

Probably also in that paragraph.

Per section 4: XB70's proposal is "...including lobbying to loosen regulations on potentially toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."

No objection to it being in that paragraph

Per section 5: Agreed text is - "The Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science."

Existing text is "In an article about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (Chair Richard A. Muller), Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt called the Koch Brothers "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning"." Certainly more specific, but perhaps less reliable. However, The third paragraph is even more specific than the agreed text. Perhaps a note as to IER's goals in the third paragraph.

Per section 6: XB70's text is "Koch interests have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives."

Seems also appropriate for that section, although I can't decide whether it should be a new paragraph or included in the 2nd paragraph.

Is that sufficiently detailed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with verbatim on all counts. I spliced the statements about lobbying on 100 pieces of fed leg and potential toxins and I spliced together the climate change/fossil-fuels. They can be separated again if need be, but I think they make good sense in this form.

• "Although still a small fraction of Koch Industries gross revenue (Approx. $100 Billion Ann.), $20. million was spent on lobbying efforts in 2008 and $20.5 was spent over the course of the following two years."

• "In 2010 the firm employed 30 registered lobbyists."

• "Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation, including lobbying to loosen regulations on potentially toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."

• "The nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning, the Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science."

• "Koch interests have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives."

Placement I'll let you make the additions, allowing for possible critique on placements, but I really don't know where that could go wrong.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have posted earlier but I was visiting my father over the weekend and also decided to take a small break from Wikipedia to cool down since I had a lot of personal attacks thrown at me in the last few days and I want to remain civil. I'll focus only on content as Guy advised. From the very beginning, the only points I was making on the talk page were that it should be discussed before adding and that the source was not reliable for creating a 'Controversy' or 'Criticism' section (my first talk page post on the topic). So I am in agreement with what's being discussed here at the DRN.

Out of the points above, I believe the 4th bullet needs to be revised if it is to be included. This part: "The nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning" is the opinion of Margot Roosevelt and needs to be attributed to her, just as it does in the article currently. So, if we are to keep the "nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", it should start with "According to Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt," Other than that, I'm okay with the additions going into appropriate sections. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since XB70 has posted an defamatory attack on me on YouTube, (and, I'm not convinced his sources are reliable, although I have no doubt the statements are accurate), I'm not going to make the additions. If one of the other participants wants to do so, go for it. We almost have agreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: This noticeboard has since its inception reserved the right to terminate a discussion due to incivility. In light of the effort of XB70Valyrie to manipulate the discussion process by making public accusations against Arthur Rubin via YouTube video and making complaints against him to the Wikimedia Foundation, I intend to take the unprecedented step of closing this thread without further discussion unless XB70Valyrie publicly apologizes to the Wikipedia community and takes down the YouTube video within 24 hours after this posting. I have not studied this dispute and do not know whether the accusations made against Arthur Rubin are true or false, but the means by which XB70Valyrie has pursued this matter are wholly unacceptable and it is my opinion that this noticeboard should not provide any additional assistance to him so long as he maintains this stance. Documentation:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_Admin_Arthur_Rubin_-_Please_help
• User_talk:XB70Valyrie#June_2012

If after examining the documentation any other regular mediator/clerk here at DRN objects to this intervention, please feel free to decline this notice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Update: XB70Valyrie took down the video while I was in the process of posting the foregoing note. I still intend to close the thread if an apology is not forthcoming, however. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the thread stay open. I plan on reading through some of the sources and see if I can provide any input. At first glance, it looks like there is some merit in adding some of the material under discussion. --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I second Noleander's statment. To close this attempt at content dispute resolution because of a matter under discussion in an ANI thread would set an unfortunate precedent. I would note, btw, that comparing the dollars spent on lobbying only to gross revenue seems questionable to me. Lobbying isn't a traditional cost of doing business in the same way paying salaries or leasing office space is. I'm not sure what a more representative comparison basis might be, but simply comparing to gross revenue doesn't tell readers much. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I third that statement. An apology is unlikely to be forthcoming since the user in question is currently under an indefinite block, and it's possible that the thread can still be salvaged and constructive progress made. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see this closed and at the same time a new one opened on the same general topic with a new dispute overview. I just don't see the current dispute overview as being a good place to start from. Some of the material in the current version could be copied over, of course, but the flaming should be left behind. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur that with the indef block that there's not much point (and I doubt that XB70 will be allowed back without some form of contrition, in any event), and I withdraw the closing notice in light of same, though I believe Guy's idea has some merit and deserves some discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you and Guy 100%. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to closing this and letting whoever is interested enough open a new one without the flaming? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do so apace. Collect (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm ... I'm not sure I understand, Guy. I just re-read the thread in its entirety, and it took no more than 10 minutes. I didn't find the (remaining, after the indicated deletions of off-topic nonsense) text hard to follow at all. And given that this was a hair's breadth away from a done deal, I don't see the benefit in shutting it down and re-booting it from scratch, to mix metaphors. I'm not going to be the one to pick up XB70's cause here, but I do agree with what I infer is Noleander's view, from his brief comment.

That is, it's my opinion that the almost-agreement would give readers a fairer and more NPOV presentation than currently exists in the article. Unless XB70's opposing editors were to now rescind their previous agreement or try to stonewall ( behaviour we've no basis to suspect of them ) simply because of his abrupt departure, I see no reason why this can't or shouldn't proceed to a productive conclusion that benefits the project. What do others think? --OhioStandard (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Even after I have deleted such gems as:

"As of yet, I've never threatened to report anyone on Wikipedia, but you. Oh Arthur Rubin. You're so silly. Even if the page were made available to me, I still wouldn't be using it. You truly do live inside what you believe to be an insulated world."

I am sill looking at an entry that says:

[deleting my own quotes of personal attacks]

I object to giving this obvious attack piece by a now-banned user any further attention. The editors of that page in general and [redacted] in particular deserve better. I am sympathetic to the belief that a resolution is near, but it would be just as near after cutting and pasting the one or two sections that are worth saving into a new entry. This is just plain wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

UEFA Euro 2012 Group D discussion

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprendre2.0 discussion

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

Liam Holden discussion

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)

There are no "goal posts", this isn't a battle. I just gave my honest take on the situation. And it is better to let the reader decide if the event constitutes torture; part of that process is letting them decide what actually took place. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, without at all conceding the issue, I do agree it is better to have the heading "Arrest and interrogation" you suggest rather than "Arrest and torture", but the relevant issue is not veracity as you (eventually) characterise it but rather soapboxing. If the contributing editor concedes that and there is no other input here then we can sign off this little drama. However "torture" is entirely WP:V compliant and you had no right to be as intrusive as you were. You should have raised the issue on the user's Talk page. Please do not revert again without first gaining the contributing editor's acceptance and ascertaining her point of view. It is she after all who has researched this article.

And you were confused about the issue, first arguing that the reader should be left to decide for themselves that the abuse Liam Holden received (i.e. waterboarding) amounted to torture and then, forced to retreat and concede waterboarding is torture, as unambiguously declared by NGOs such as Amnesty International and IMAs such the BMA, you retreat into a position which strikes at the very heart of our system of justice, that we should not accept an individual's testimony even when validated by a court of law, an entirely untenable position I frankly wonder at.

You were also quite wrong to characterise it here as a fundamental difference of opinion. You didn't seek to debate it at all, but rather first redefined your position and then simply reiterated it without debating it. Neither did you have the courtesy to await the contributing editor's opinion before bringing the discussion to a forum such as here. You should have waited for her input and if none was forthcoming sought a third opinion on the Talk page itself.

I take it you are a new page patroller or taking upon yourself some sort of policing role. I suggest you should be more discerning and show more good faith. This was a first article start from essentially a newbie and it was a worthy effort that deserved constructive input rather than than an application of the canteen mop.

I specialise in overseeing human rights issues on Wikipedia and you can expect to hear from me again quite frequently if you persist in these sort of edits. 193.150.8.164 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Woah give me a little credit here, I only altered the wording of a heading! I did engage with the you on the talk page, it was you who actually suggested going straight to dispute resolution (see the talk page). You're asking me to assume good faith but you're not exactly assuming a lot on my part, are you? I was never anything less than polite to you, I don't know what else I could've done. Am I missing something? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

India discussion

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

Same issue. Sources? --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 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)

Unfortunately, that won't work for two reasons. First, we need a source that unequivocally states that "India was established in 265 BC". A mere belief that Ashoka's empire covered all of India, or the belief that it identified itself as a nation state is insufficient. Second, and I'm looking at the extent of the empire as drawn in our Ashoka page, that empire is not the same as the modern India. It appears to include all of Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan but excludes southern India. The important takeaway is that India, as it is today, became a nation only in 1947. Any prior date of "establishment" is probably incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 18:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this is still being discussed at Talk:India#Establishment.2FFormation. Could we stick to a single venue, please. --regentspark (comment) 23:26, 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)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler This is a non-issue, mischief created and garbage dumped by an IP, who clearly doesn't have the courage to get a Wikipedia account and be responsible for his actions. As a long-standing contributor to the India page (since 2006), I can say without hesitation, that the Republic of India, the subject of the India page, was established in 1950 after India gained independence in 1947. There are all sorts of archaic and irredentist notions of "India." Hindu nationalists in particular, with their notions of Akhand Bharat ("Undivided India"), not only claim a provenance for their entity that even predates the beginning of recorded history in India, but also typically include many of India's current day neighbors in it. This nonsense should be brought to a speedy close. Like I said, it is mischief making. Productive editors shouldn't be made to waste their time on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia 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)

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

Tomislav Nikolić discussion

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)

It's interesting, and not to mention misleading, how you've chosen to portray the events Wikiwind. The 3O Wikipedian refused to engage in a dialogue per his own rules. He recommended that a 3O request be relisted, but later changed his mind and recommended a DR or RFC be undertaken. I followed his advice. For the record the majority of users support my proposed section title at the Srebrenica massacre talkpage. How discussing the matter at length on the talkpage and seeking user input constitutes "pushing", and how two articles constitutes "several" is beyond me. I'm flabbergasted that you've forcibly pushed in your preferred section title into the Tomislav Nikolić article and at the same time claimed that I'm the one pushing. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for resolving disputes about article content, not user conduct. If you want to complain about another user, don't do it here. Instead ,focus on the content of the article. Our experience is that solving the content dispute often solves the user conduct issues as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Loveland, Ohio discussion

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)

WP:CITEVAR is about whether you should use Harvard style citations or Chicago style, for example. It's not relevant to this - I'm not changing citation styles, just removing superfluous clutter from the citations within the existing style. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're removing an in-use parameter from the established citation format, so you are changing the style. What's more, you're doing it indiscriminately across multiple articles, despite multiple objections. That you "got away with it" in some places does not indicate that your edits are supported by either consensus or policy. (Also, as I've already mentioned to you twice before, the statement you cite above is not from the "closing admin" - the closing admin at the ANI discussion pointed to WT:CITE, where the ensuing discussion did not find consensus for your point of view). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I'm afraid that you are wrong when you conclude, "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." To the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable. Every editor has as much right to edit any article at Wikipedia as any other editor. To say that the regular or active editors at an article have some superior right over other editors violates the ownership policy. Any editor has the right to object to or revert any edit made in any article and unless such objection or reversion in some way violates policy or guidelines then the edit in question cannot be made until the editor wishing to make the edit establishes consensus for the edit. If a consensus against the edit is formed, or if no consensus one way or the other can be reached, the policy set out at WP:CONS#No consensus says that the edit cannot be made. If Nikkimaria objects to a particular edit being made at a particular article, she has the right to do so unless policy either mandates the edit to be made or in some way prohibits her objection, and she has as much right to make such an objection as the editors who customarily edit that article. If you believe that the regular editors of the article would support your position, you should raise the issue on the article talk page as suggested by Hchc2009 and see if they agree. If they do not, you can file a request for comments to bring the attention of the broader community to the edit you would like to make. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The requirement for consensus is not meant to allow a single user to block a change that's in line with policy just because they don't like it. Nikkimaria is claiming that there's a local consensus in favour of the status quo. Perhaps that's true, but I suspect that probably people don't much care either way. Making the change, and letting it stand for a few days, will determine whether there is any substantial objection or just one person's preference. And since Nikkimaria will doubtless object on the talk page, that would be giving a single intransigent person a right of veto over any changes. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is exactly what the requirement for consensus does: It says, in effect, get consensus for your edit or it doesn't go in. That's what Wikipedia is entirely based upon: consensus. Consensus can be presumed, weakly, from silence if no one objects to or reverts, but if someone does object or revert and there is no policy pro or con, then positive consensus must be obtained and that does, indeed, give a single editor the right of veto unless the person desiring the edit takes the necessary steps to invite others to the dance: talk page discussion and, if that fails, an RFP. I realize that when it's a change that might be advisable over a large range of articles that doing so at each article is a great burden, but the alternative to that is to use the methods set out in the policy policy to pass a policy or guideline requiring that the thing always be done that way. If you obtain such a policy or guideline, then when you go to individual articles the burden shifts to those who do not want it to be that way to either change the policy or create an local exception just for that article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan is right. If the edit is as good as you claim, you should have no trouble getting other editors to agree with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 22 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)

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

Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details discussion

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)

Parsecboy's antipathy towards Zh.Mike may be a case of mistaken identity. Parsecboy has written Zh.Mike has been trying for over a year to insert ... The facts appear to be that Zh.Mike opened his account and made his first edit on 27 March 2012 - that is less than 3 months ago. Whoever it was who was trying to insert Soviet propaganda a year ago, it wasn't Zh.Mike. Parsecboy also seems to have missed the point that Zh.Mike's name is a red link so he is probably a newby. When I check Zh.Mike's edit count I see he has made only 35 edits on Wikipedia. If Parsecboy had recognised all of this he would have welcomed Zh.Mike to Wikipedia or at least have made some helpful comments on his Talk page. Instead, all he has done on Zh.Mike's Talk page is try to bite his leg off with THIS edit. Not the sort of approach experienced editors take towards newbies.

Definitely a case of Parsecboy mistaking Zh.Mike for someone else, I think. Dolphin (t) 12:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Mike initially edited as 195.26.84.250, back in April 2011. I don't know why I have to keep having this discussion with you. I do not want to interact with you anywhere. If I need to, I will get an IBAN, because you appear to be unable to follow my simple request to leave me the hell alone. Please leave. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize with Zh.Mike. By any measure he is a newby. It appears he has been on Wikipedia for 3 months as Zh.Mike and less than 15 months from an IP address. English is not his first language so he is at a double disadvantage when interacting with experienced editors. It appears he is promoting information that has no more status than original research on Wikipedia. Looking at Zh.Mike's Talk page I see no-one from the military history fraternity has written to him to welcome him, explain the nature of his transgressions or explain the concept of verifiability. No-one should be surprised that Zh.Mike has come here to notify a dispute. To Zh.Mike's great credit, what he is pursuing is resolution of the dispute. Zh.Mike would benefit from a mentor; preferably someone from the military history fraternity. The fuel on which Wikipedia runs is collaboration and co-operation, not exclusion of those who are new or inexperienced. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We exclude no-one. Dolphin (t) 13:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, WP:MILHIST is a "fraternity" now? Why hasn't anyone told me?! Dolphin, Milhist is a WikiProject, or a group of similarly-interested people. Anyway, no one's surprised that Mike has come here, but the problem is that he isn't right in this instance, as demonstrated by the discussion linked to by Parsecboy. They are not excluding him in any way; on the contrary, they are bending over backwards to respond to him. Your insinuation that Parsec isn't accommodating should, quite frankly, be insulting to him.

Mike, if you'd like to know about Wikipedia's verifiability policy, see WP:V. For the original research policy, see WP:OR. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ed: A picture is worth at least a thousand words. If you are willing to look at a picture that illustrates the welcome, advice and guidance given to Zh.Mike, have a look at User talk:Zh.Mike. But first, a word of warning - this picture contains images that may offend some viewers. Dolphin (t) 14:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the Tirpitz discussion page, where they didn't just simply ignore him. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Zh.Mike is quite alone on his concerns on the article. No one has yet to voice an opinion even partially favorable to te changes he wants to insert. As for my role as an admin, I have also not used the bit in any way in relation to this dispute; check the relevant block and page logs to see for yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I figured that there was no misuse of admin tools, but I had to ask. Also, I felt that I had to raise the flaq at WQA when I saw an uncivil comment on Zh.Mike's user page with no previous user warnings of any kind. That being said, I see that I have made an error of my own. I have gotten sucked into dealing with user conduct when I know full well I should only be discussing article content. I apologize for that, and am now getting back to what I should be talking about.

OK so if this is a case of one lone editor pushing his POV against consensus (and I am sure someone will tell me if it isn't), the next question is, why is this at DRN? shouldn't this be at ANI where the clearly disruptive behavior can be dealt with with blocks? Oh, wait. They sent the case here. Strange. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

List of zombie films discussion

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)

Thank you - just added you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the WQA discussion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing that might help is discussing a list of criteria of inclusion so someone can check the criteria and see whether a particular film is included. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In previous discussions it was decided that for inclusion the film had to be described by a reliable source as a zombie film, or the antagonists/monsters as zombies, as per the wikipedia policy. The discussions about what constituted a zombie film or zombie on the talk page were completely out of place, and almost completely constituted of OR and POV. Unfortunately no matter how this policy was explained to Ronnie, and the rational basis for it, he continues to ignore it and insist the primary source should be the reference, or more accurately his personal interpretation of the films based on his own views about zombies and the genre. The problems of communication with Ronnie make explaining these criteria seemingly impossible.Number36 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the history of the page and talk page. Curb Chain nailed it in his comment above. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree.Number36 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And just to note, there have been no less than three discussions on the topic, all involving Ronnie and all leading to the same conclusion. Can we call this a consensus? --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are dotting every i and crossing every t, I would like to see links to those three previous discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are 4 that may or may not run together. Ronnie actually changed the title of one or two of the discussions so it was difficult to keep track: 1, 2,3,4 --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually strike that - link one shows where Ronnie, for whatever reason, changed the title of a discussion he didn't start, so it looks like there are two right now. It's difficult to tell, because again is 10 or so reverts (see links in lead paragraph) happened over a period of two or so years.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters discussion

• There are several points that I would like to make.

1. In spite of the clear instruction to inform me of this on my talk page this did not occur.
2. While my comments here Talk:Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters#The new film cover my objections to the item in the form it was in I will say again that, other then both films being about Yukio Mishima, no evidence has been provided that Schrader's film not being shown in Japan has anything to do with the Wakamatsu's film.
3. While there could be any number of reasons that this new film has been made and shown in Japan it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to claim that it is connected to the 1985 film.
4. I now gather that the references provided are to show the release dates of the new film (and IMDb cannot be used for that either) but that still does not reveal any connection between the two films.
5. As stated I attempted to compromise by adding a link to the new film in an appropriate "See also" section without stating facts not in evidence.
6. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF the fact that this has been stated on the German WikiP does not mean that it can be, or has to be, included here
7. I was not calling his POV statement nor his conclusions laughable. I was stating that the sources used to support his statement were laughable as they did nothing of the sort.

Since it looks as though this last item has been misinterpreted (perhaps due to the language barrier) I will gladly apologized for using the word laughable. That does not change the fact that the sources provided so far do not support the statement made. MarnetteD | Talk 15:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've got nothing to add at the moment which I haven't said in the dispute overview. I accept the apology; although it was quite clear to me that I hadn't been insulted as a person, to call "the references in my last attempt" to make my point "laughable" was not exactly kind, either. - Robert Kerber (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you two be so kind as to read my comments at the bottom of the India discussion above? That's a more severe case than I am seeing here but the same general principles apply. More later; I am working my way down the list. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Seen and read. Thanks for the info. While both of us have mentioned items of user conduct we have also presented specifics about the edit in question and we look forward to your input about that. MarnetteD | Talk 21:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the history of this content dispute with my comments:

11:57, 22 June Robert Kerber adds some material:
No edit summary.

16:34, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (1RR)
Edit summary: (that has nothing to do with this film unless it is somehow acknowledged in the credits or by an interview with the director and a source will need to be provided verifying this)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: This would have been a good time to follow the procedure at WP:BRD. Either one of you are allowed to open the discussion on the talk page.

21:21, 22, Robert Kerber reverts. (1RR)
Edit summary: (Undid revision 498853570 by MarnetteD (talk) It has because of its connection to the Japanese boycott of Shrader's film.)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: At this point you should have followed the procedure at WP:BRD instead of reverting.

21:42, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (2RR)
Edit summary: (then you need an WP:RS stating this otherwise this is just your WP:OR and also violates WP:POV- surely one of the reviews will mention both film eventually)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: Should have followed WP:BRD instead of reverting.

21:50, 22 June 2012, Robert Kerber adds different material - same basic idea, but reworded and referenced
No edit summary.
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: Clearly in response to edit comment of previous reversion. This is doing the right thing, but you still should be discussing on the talk page.

21:58, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (3RR)
Edit summary: (IMDb cannot be used as a ref and you have still not connected the two films in a notable way-there have been several of films about Queen Victoria but they are not a Legacy of each other)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: Should have followed WP:BRD, getting close to a WP:3RR violation. Still not discussing.

22:37, 22 June 2012, Robert Kerber re-adds previous material with another citation.
Edit summary: (Sorry, but there is a clear connection in the fact that Schrader's film is still unavailable in Japan on one hand and the fact that another film has been made on the subject which IS shown on the other. Added links which should be sufficient.)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: Re-adding previous material alone would have been 1RR, but added citation makes it not a RR. Still not discussing.

00:23, 23 June, MarnetteD reverts. (4RR)
Edit summary: (no there isnt and again IMDb cannot be used as a ref)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: Violation of WP:3RR. OTOH, you received no warnings at 2RR or 3RR, so I would oppose a block without prior warning as being unfair.
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."

00:48, 23, MarnetteD's first talk page comment on this.
Edit summary: (new section attempting to explain WikiP's guidelines regarding this)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: FINALLY someone is discussing this on the talk page!

08:37, 23 June 2012 Robert Kerber first talk page comment (includes misplaced Notice of Dispute resolution discussion).
No edit summary.
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: Next time, notify on user talk page. No harm done, the message got through despite the error.

08:38, 23 June, Robert Kerber files case at WP:DRN
No edit summary.
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: It says right at the top of this page: "What this noticeboard is not: It is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page."

08:42, 23 June, Robert Kerber reverts (1RR)
Edit summary: (Please see discussion and note on dispute resolution board.)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: Just because you are not over the 3RR line, you are still edit warring. Next time, read WP:EDITWAR and follow the procedure found at Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit warring behaviors

15:00, 23 June, MarnetteD reverts (5RR)
Edit summary: (neither reference supports the statement and you cannot use IMDb as a reference-fort the 3rd time - do not restore until dispute resolution has finished)
Dispute resolution volunteer comment: This is the wrong way to handle this. In both of your defenses, nobody warned you, but still, This is the wrong way to handle this. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD.

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)

Dear Guy Macon, first – many thanks for the time you took to oversee this. As I can't see how MarnetteD and I will reach consensus on this, the last state of the mentioned article (at the moment) being his revertion of my addition, I still hope for a moderator who can help (by judging either my contribution or Marette's revert as justified and being d'accord with Wiki rules). Do you have a suggestion how to include or contact a moderator/admin directly? WP:RFM? Sorry for my questions which may sound like a beginner's, but I haven't been in a situation like this on Wiki before. Regards – Robert Kerber (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not having posted here before I need to ask if this is how this board works. Your summary seems to have only looked at the edit history and not what they edits actually were. Per BRD - remembering that BRD is an essay and not a policy or even a guideline (and I have been in favor of making it policy in the past) here is the actual order of events 1) RK added his info "Bold" - I took it our "Revert" - RK put it back in without "Discuss" - that was the first violation of of BRD. Your summary makes no mention of the fact that the sources added did not support the edit that Robert Kerber made. You also do not mention that I made a compromise edit putting in the recent film in a "see also" section with links to the article for the film and its director. I do not know what "substantial" discussion can be added at the talk page. RK asserts that there is some connection between the fact that Schrader's 1985 film never having had a theatrical release in Japan and that Wakamatsu's film was released this year. Yet he has not presented a WP:RS to justify this claim. What else would you have us discuss? I had thought that this board would look at content and that is why I recommended its use. My apologies for taking up your time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:33, 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)

Robert, Please don't assume that you can't reach consensus when you have never tried. If you try to bring this dispute up anywhere on Wikipedia without first making a good-faith effort to put aside your differences and reach a consensus through talk page discussion, it will just be kicked back with instructions to seek consensus on the talk page. If you cannot reach a consensus after making an honest effort to reach a compromise, DRN is the right place to go with the issue. Just open a new discussion here. It is important to look at the areas above where I have identified someone doing it wrong and to do it right this time. Are we all clear on why WP:BRD is good and WP:BRRD and WP:BRDR are bad?

MarnetteD, you are correct that I completely ignored the question of which edits were justified. That's because there has not been substantial discussion on a talk page. You need to try to work it out between yourselfs first and only come to DRN if you made a good-faith effort to reach an agreement and failed.

You are correct that WP:BRD is an essay and not a policy, but it is a useful overview and it is very good advice. If you wish, I can go into exhaustive detail on each and every violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, or I can just point you to the simplified diagram of how consensus is reached on the WP:CONSENSUS page, but the answer will be the same as is summarized in WP:BRD.

Robert, the basic rule about which version to leave up is this: if the disputing editors cannot agree on what version to leave the page at while they discuss, we revert to the last stable version and then re-add any typo fixes or other noncontroversial changes. In this case, the article was stable from 11 March 2012 to 20 May 2012, so we would go with the the 11 march version if you two cannot agree upon another. Seeing as how that version does not have the material you added, I would expect you to be equally unhappy with the 11 March version and the present version, but that is for you to decide. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to reply and to Bzuk for adding their thoughts. As I have said I still do not know what else there is to discuss with RK alone. As a believer in "less is more" I have stated my case and I don't know what I can add to it. That is why I placed the RFC that Bzuk linked to above. If more editors comment I will be happy to go with whatever consensus we come to. Also, I will be fine with reverting to the Mar 11 version but I will point out - once more - that the current version does link to the new film without making assertions not supported by the references provided. On the other hand I would be against Bzuks suggestion of reverting back to that interim version since per WP:V and its subsection WP:BURDEN the assertion needs to be supported at the time of entry for it to remain. Thanks again for keeping things moving. MarnetteD | Talk 17:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MarnettD here and thank him for putting this up at the WikiProject Film talk page. Guy Macon, you're absolutely right, M. and I should have moved to the talk section of Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters earlier instead of exchanging our arguments in the main article. Still, the opposing viewpoints have become clear in the process, which is why I also consider the situation a status quo and would happily hear more viewpoints. Btw reverting back to 11 March 2012 would overdo it as I've added informations in the meantime which have not been opposed to by MarnetteD or anyone else. Thanks again – Robert Kerber (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The reverting to a far earlier stable version rule usually comes into play when we have a couple of first class jerks making the page their personal battleground and fighting over which version stays up while they battle. Clearly this isn't one of those cases. I can see that both of you want what is best for the article and just have a good-faith disagreement about what is best. I am also glad to see that Bzuk is willing to help on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{talk to me} 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)

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)

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

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 Wikipedia policy. I know precedent isn't really considered valid here but for reference from another dispute resolution:

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)

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.

And I have asked five times (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) for other tertiary sources that would make the chart undue weight. The argument seems to be that they know it's not undue weight but are excluding it anyway.

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)

1. Ok, Diablo. Show me the link with the thousends of citatiations? Here some links: sciencedirect; scirus; google cit. counter.
2. 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.
3. Diablo. I have listed another study. -> <- This one. But you overlooked it.
4. 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:

1. (diff, diff).
2. 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?
3. That's a primary source and I have already replied to it in the discussion.
4. 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)

1. Excause me but I check out the google citatiation counter and found 2 cites in french an [scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychotherapy+autor%3Ainserm&btnG=&hl=de&as_sdt=0 not one] 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.
2. 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?
3. Take a look again! It's a tertiary source also. Tertiary! The one you find so perfectly.
4. "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)

1. 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.
2. Glad to hear it.
3. What you gave looks like a primary source (and has no direct access) what secondary sources did it cite?
4. 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)

1. Ok, the whole report reches 121 cits by tricking g. scholar. And now? The Psychotherapy part reaches still 7?
2. I understand your point. Thats dosn't mean I share your opinion.
3. I don't answer that anymore. Please make sure you understand what a secondary tertiary and so on study is.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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

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)

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