Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 76
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
Istanbul
| Given that the two other editors are declining to participate I'm closing this as futile. In any case, I read over the extensive discussion at would suggest the filing editor stop and listen to what everyone else is saying. The arguments presented have been rebuked multiple times. Nearly 4 months ago Alex2006 presented a comment here from a detailed paper source. He was the closest supporter and even he was swayed by his own sources. Their is no definate proof that the neolithic villages are temporally contiguous with Istanbul. The fact is this article is about Istanbul and its history. The previous names for the city during other eras (i.e. Constantinople and Byzantium) are vastly more important and relevant than scattered fishing villages that just so happened to be in the same location. They can be mentioned but shouldn't be given that much weight in an article about Istanbul. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview 2nd time I'm requesting this. First time was rejected because of ongoing RFC . The RFC, unfortunately, did not attract any uninvolved editors and did not lead to a solution () The dispute is as follows: 1) Lead: There are currently 482 words in the lead. More than half (245 words), 2 entire paragraphs, deal with history. Yet, despite this extensive focus, pre-Byzantine history is completely ignored despite the notability. The current sentence "Founded on the Sarayburnu promontory around 660 BC as Byzantium..." also does not comply with WP:NPOV, as multiple reliable sources contradict it (see sources here: Talk:Istanbul#Toponymy_and_Lead) 2) Toponymy section: Other names as part of history of the city is completely ignored. This edit was reverted despite reliable sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive talk page discussions starting in April (Talk:Istanbul/Archive_8#Pre-Byzantine_history_in_the_lead). One RFC (Talk:Istanbul/Archive_8#RFC). Then I temporarily left this issue to focus on other articles. Even despite the long cool down period, the current discussion also does not seem like it will help (Talk:Istanbul#Toponymy_and_Lead). A mediator would help. How do you think we can help? Please clarify issues with respect to WP:NPOV. Summary of dispute by TariqabjotuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The aim of this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes. As far as everyone except Cavann is concerned, this content dispute has already been resolved. Therefore, I see no reason to offer any sort of statement or participate in this. Again. The only remaining issue related to this dispute is Cavann's willingness to exploit every possible avenue (including holding TFA over his adversaries) until he gets his way; however, that is an issue best reserved for another forum. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dr.K.I am here to basically support Tariq's version of events. There have been lengthy discussions all of which have conclusively and systematically refuted Cavann's positions. Cavann's RFC(s) went nowhere and he is still the only one arguing about these points. As far as his claims that we are "involved", that of course is nonsense. Anyone taking part in a discussion is automatically "involved" in that discussion. One more comment I would like to make is to note the frequent personal attacks Cavann is engaging in, both with his comments on the talkpage of Istanbul and in his edit-summaries. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Istanbul discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
"As far as everyone except Cavann is concerned"..."Everyone" meaning few involved editors. Tariqabjotu's unilateral closures of RFC's was rebuked before, but I guess that is also an issue best reserved for another forum. Cavann (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War
| No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. Consider asking for an opinion at NPOV or, since you have clearly asked at both the article talk page and the other editor's page for discussion, try restoring the material and if the user reverts then file a report at ANI for disputatious editing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Pluto deleted my conribution, as described here: . The Diff page is . I have asked him to un delete it, but he has not replied.
I have asked few times him to un delete it (including in his talk page), but he has not replied. How do you think we can help? either to explain me if I am wrong, or convince him to return this important sentence. Summary of dispute by pluto2012Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Chennai Express
| Stale. Consider Request for Comments for additional dispute resolution or Reliable Sources Noticeboard, just for advice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview the movie cheenai express has grossed around 33.12 cr according to reliable sources and tv channels but the wiki page shows 29 cr as it follows BOI fig .my point is if there is conflict in fig one should mention that too Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have requested it in the edit sorce page How do you think we can help? one can simply mention the other figures too Talk:Chennai Express#Article_protected discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
No acquisitions here please. I am just putting forward my point in this discussion that, there are many cases like SOS, Bol Bachan, Rowdy Rathore etc which were released after JTHJ (i.e the so called consensus to use only BOI figures) and yet they are present in article :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood_100_Crore_Club even though BOI figures are different. In this case, since it seems that box office india is the only site that is showing a different figure and every other source or official statement is showing 33.12 crore, hence this must be changed because if the movie had achieved something it shouldn't be denied recognition just because of one particular source denying it. Why be unfair only to this? Sources: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chennai-express-vs-ek-tha-tiger-who-will-be-the-ultimate-winner/413373-8-66.html http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/chennai-express-mints-rs-33-12-crore-on-opening-day-403904?pfrom=home-latest http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/box-office-chennai-express-breaks-salmans-ek-tha-tiger-opening-day-record/1/298947.html [User:Pmnikhil|Pmnikhil] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmnikhil (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If Komal Nahta too has mentioned 29cr, but how can you assume that Taran Adarsh, Koimoi, Joginder Tuneja etc. are not true? Mention both on the official page. Pmnikhil So mention both sets! Why ignoring Taran Adarsh and Tuneja? Unless you are anti srk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
And the correct figures will be the official ones or by BOI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice: This has been listed for nine days without any volunteer being willing to take it. Unless a volunteer takes the case by 15:00 UTC on August 21, 2013, it will be closed as stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Kurdish separatism in Iran
| Stale. Consider Request for Comments for additional dispute resolution or Reliable Sources Noticeboard, just for advice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Kurdish separatism in Iran is article title from 18 August 2012 until 5 August 2013, when it was moved by user HistorNE to new title and boldly reshaped to a new meaning. My revert and requests to issue WP:RM were in vein, until involvement of an administrator, returning original name to the article . While finally issuing a WP:RM move request, HistorNE still performs disruptive edits on the article - insisting to radically alter the content of that page and topic related articles (, , ) in accordance with the desired result of his requested move, even though the move is in process. In general, he is also particularly unfair with WP:RS, removing credible historians who don't fit his world view (like removing McDowall ) and misusing others, as well as trying to stalk his edits (, ). I don't think this is helpful for the Kurdish and Iranian topics, and considering his general disruptive behavior for the last 2 months and suspiciously bold and professional edits, i'm thinking of asking an investigation on this user in general. In the meanwhile, i would like a suggestion how to pause his aggressive edits and forcing him into standard procedure of WP:RM. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asking user HistorNE to backoff renaming the article and changing its content unless WP:RM is closed in support with his opinion at the talk page; HistorNE was also explained so by an uninvolved administrator , but refused to fully cooperate, even when forced to WP:RM by title protection. How do you think we can help? HistorNE should be made clear that articles don't "move" without consensus and radical change of topic should be first discussed anytime when there is an opposition. Consensus should be achieved via WP:RM discussion and until the process is finalized it is fine to add sources, but not to make radical edits to change the content of article in accordance with desired result. Kurdish separatism in Iran discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Response: Fist of all, when I moved article for the first time I left comment on talkpage where I explained factual errors. Prior to that I also left template "disputed", but Greyshark not just restored name but also removed academic sources and template without leaving any explanation to talkpage. In next three days we both participated in move/edit war and he still didn't discuss anything. When he is discussing, he's doing it with very aggressive and arrogant attitude (baseless accusations and threats, insulting mockery, etc.). Move war has been stopped by administrator JHunterJ and from his talkpage is more then obvious that problem with move war has been fully understood from my side (I thanked him for kind action in the name of both). This also implies all of this complain about WP:RM is no more then burlesque, because Greyshark has misunderstood stopping move war as approval to removing sources which he don't like and restore his version which misused sources. I've explained his misuse of sources one by one on talkpage, but he's avoiding to repond. Instead of it, he has started with baseless snitching on JHunterJ's talkpage falsely acusing me for misusing sources. He did the same here on DRN. Article Kurdish separatism in Iran isn't sole case of misusing sources, he also misused it in this article (see talkpage). Despite clear explanation, he restored his version seven times without any response on talkpage. There are numerous of other examples: when I find some POV-pushing in articles I correct it and I leave explanation on talkpage by refering to academic works (examples: ). In all given cases, Greyshark simple undone my edits without any discussion. He also isn't able to recognize reliable sources so above he complains about removal of claims by David McDowall who isn't "credible historian" but narrative writer, and I refuted his claims by using quotes by Ervand Abrahamian who is one of most eminent Iranologist of Modern Iranian history. For someone with extensive expertise about subject like me, it's more then obvious Greyshark is pushing anti-Iranian and pro-irredentist POV. After he realized he can't challenge attached academic sources which I posted (I'm in possesion of all major academic works about subject), he got angry and started with this baseless aggresive accusations. --HistorNE (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 24-hour closing notice: This has been listed for eight days without any volunteer being willing to take it. Unless a volunteer takes the case by 15:00 UTC on August 21, 2013, it will be closed as stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Haredi Judaism
| Stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
Over the past 3 weeks, there has been an Edit War going on between us on the abovementioned article. It began with many additions I had made, especially to two segments in the article, under the main headline 'In Israel': "Military", and "Views on 'immodest female exposure', male-female segregation and associated public controversies".
1. That the article is too long, and should not cover these issues and many others in depth (that these issues should be covered in different pages). 2. That most of my references are flawed and should be deleted. 3. That most of what I've added is Original Research and has no validity.
1. That the contents of the article are already short summaries of much broader issues. 2. That all of my references are legit. 3. That everything I've written of is common knowledge in Israel, and has also been well-documented.
- I'd add new materials and references. - Chesdovi would promptly delete all of them. - I'd re-add them and ask him to discuss things on the talk page. - He'd delete them and only then attack SOME of them on the talk page. - We'd delete and undelete the materials over and over while discussing them on the talk page as this was going on. - Process repeats itself. No editor makes further serious intervention =\
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk this out on the Talk Page. Chesdovi has also tried asking for help from other editors before, but no one made a serious intervention so far. How do you think we can help? I think the talk page pretty much speaks for itself. It reveals that Chesdovi possesses a very strong pro-Haredi agenda, and would do anything to keep deleting materials which portray Haredim in a bad light - making up any sort of false argument he can possibly think of. There is an urgent need for native Hebrew speaking editors, preferably Israelis, to intervene in this dispute. I believe that any Israeli who reads and checks my sources will attest to their validity, and to Chesdovi's agendas. Haredi Judaism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The edits made by Jonathan.bluestein speak for themselves. He jumped in with hardly any editing experience and has not cared to adhere to basic policy or guidelines. In an attempt to satisfy the need for RS, he has simply added more and more inadequate material which indicates he has misunderstood core editing requirements, these include repeated violations of PRIMARY and CIRCULAR and the addition of references which do not support the text. He came to Haredi Judaism to add a section about violence and abuse relating to the enforcement of modesty by ultra-Orthodox vigilantes and about the censorship of women in the Haredi press. To me, his poorly written additions seem to unbalance the page, giving too much weight to these issues. I have attempted to merge some of his points into other sections, but this has been deemed unsatisfactory. Yesterday, after a week of no correspondence at talk, I proceeded to make some further alterations, to which Mr Bluestien responded with DRN. I have no real "dispute" here. All I request is that basic editing standards and style are employed. I could also do without Mr Bluestien's tendency to add elongated posts about his personal circumstances and his amusing, if not annoying, original interpretations on various events. His gratuitous use of vulgarities is repulsive. Mr Bluestein has a lot to learn and I am not going to waste more of my time "teaching" him – (he takes no notice anyhow!) Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 24-hour closing notice:
|
College Football_Playoff
| No article talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have been trying to edit the references of "Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl" to simply "Peach Bowl" after citing the official name in the section header. This is an effort to keep the names of the bowls uniform and parallel with an overall more pleasant look to the table. I am being constantly undone or revised by a user BilCat, which I believe to be harassment. I asked politely to compromise and he made fun of my "compromise." Have you tried to resolve this previously? I provided my reasoning and asked to make the change politely. How do you think we can help? Warn BilCat to quit harrasing me and undoing my posts, which he claims to be vandalism. Summary of dispute by BilCatPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
College Football_Playoff discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Kerala
| Not a dispute. Another editor has, since your posting here, reverted your edit. If you disagree, discuss it with that editor on the article talk page and if after extensive discussion you cannot come to an agreement consider relisting here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview in wikipedia page 'kerala', under 'Post colonial period', it was mentioned that "In 1957, elections for thenew Kerala Legislative Assembly were held, and a reformist,Communist-led government came to power, under E. M. S. Namboodiripad.It was the first time a Communist government was democratically elected to power any where in the world." Its a wrong fact. Please check the wikipage 'San Marino'. Under History title you can see "San Marino had the world's first democratically elected communist government, which held office between 1945 and 1957." I edited this content myself. Hope you will agree with me. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I already edited this How do you think we can help? Please acknowledge the editors of this page. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kerala discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Mary Landrieu
| Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I've made edits to the articles on Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich in which I added appropriately sourced content and removed content that was unsourced or inaccurately sourced. I've consciously made my edits in discrete chunks to facilitate discussion in case someone disputes my changes. J is making the claim that my edits are biased and is using his rollback authority to make blanket reversions of my edits. My goal is to balance the perspective of the articles by providing fact-based, properly sourced content and remove content that is subjective or inaccurate and improperly sourced. In my opinion, J has adopted a hostile tone from the beginning of our dialog and is abusing his rollback privileges. Have you tried to resolve this previously? J and I have had some discussion on my Talk page. In addition, I've attempted to engage NeilN as a 3rd party to help mediate the dispute. However I've not received a response from NeilN. How do you think we can help? I'd like an objective 3rd party to take the time to read my edits and provide an opinion on whether they're valid. Mary Landrieu discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi Theodore, Thanks for your help here. I could find no reference to the Common Ground Coalition in the source provided, or elsewhere online other than Landrieu's own web site. On the health care discussion, the original version is somewhat repetitive and to me doesn't seem quite coherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Theodore: Can you articulate her position on health care based on the existing commentary? I definitely cannot. The fact that it never mentions the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes it appear to me that someone is trying to obfuscate the issue. At the same time, I don't think the quote about her being a "high priced prostitute" is appropriate either. I would support removing it, even though it is properly sourced.CFredkin (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Closing notice: This appears to be resolved. Unless someone expresses an interest in keeping it open, it will be closed as such after 16:00 UTC on August 27, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Mark Begich
| Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I've made edits to the articles on Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich in which I added appropriately sourced content and removed content that was unsourced or inaccurately sourced. J is making the claim that my edits are biased. The only evidence he has provided for that is a claim that I changed a source on Mark Begich's article in order to make the claim that he is a "rank-and-file" Democrat. I have changed NO sources. The existing source made no mention of Begich being "moderate". I updated the statement in the article to be consistent with the existing source. I'm definitely fine with removing the statement altogether. However there is no basis in the sourced material for making a "moderate" claim. I made a previous request for dispute resolution which was closed. I've now removed any references to the other editor's behavior. There was a reference in the other request to an RFC already being in progress. I'm trying to follow the guidelines for dispute resolution here, but I don't know what an RFC is or what that RFC would be. My goal is to balance the perspective of the articles by providing fact-based, properly sourced content and remove content that is subjective or inaccurate and improperly sourced. Have you tried to resolve this previously? J and I have had some discussion on my Talk page. In addition, I've attempted to engage NeilN as a 3rd party to help mediate the dispute. However I've not received a response from NeilN. How do you think we can help? I'd like an objective 3rd party to take the time to read my edits and provide an opinion on whether they're valid. Mark Begich discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
J: To be honest, the reason I created the second DRN entry (Mark Begich) is that I saw the notice for Talk:Yuilop above it and mistakenly thought it applied to the DRN for Mary Landrieu. I didn't realize my mistake until after I created the second DRN (for Mark Begich). At that point I wasn't sure how to close the original (Mary Landrieu) DRN, or whether it would be appropriate for me to do so. In any case, according to the NPOV FAQ: It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. I believe the content I added on both articles is properly sourced, regardless of whether it might be considered to be biased. I also believe that both articles already included content that might be considered biased. Regardless, I did not remove any existing content that was properly sourced. In some cases, it appears that the information in the sources may have changed based on more recent voting information. In those cases I updated the content in the article to reflect the current information in the source. However I did not change any existing sources. As I said, I'm happy to remove that content. But I don't think it's appropriate for that content to remain unchanged if it is no longer reflected in the sources.CFredkin (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Theodore: I agree with you here. The problem is that the claims I deleted (including the moderate label) were not sourced. In addition, in my opinion, the claims listed might as well have been compiled by Begich's campaign staff. In my second round of edits, I left in the unsourced claims in the intro and added one regarding his vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However that was deleted as well.CFredkin (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thus far J has limited his contributions to hostile statements impugning my motives and my methods, without providing any examples to back up his claims. I've definitely made mistakes during my time here on Wikipedia. But I don't believe that's true in this case. I'm happy to point out specific instances in the past where I've collaborated with other editors to find mutually acceptable language, as well as instances where I've pro-actively removed my own edits after discovering new information that contradicts them. J's behavior here which seems to entail unilaterally blocking updates that are counter to his own biases, making blanket statements without providing specific examples, refusing to engage in this process, and utilizing hostile/provocative language all look a lot like bullying to me.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If you're so concerned about maintaining NPOV, why don't you spend a few minutes cleaning up all the unsourced/inaccurately sourced content that's currently on the articles (which interestingly all seems to be favorable to the candidates)?CFredkin (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Also, as I've said repeatedly, I did NOT add the source for the "rank and file" description. I updated the claim to reflect the source. The current language is not consistent with the source. I'll say again, I'm happy to delete the claim altogether.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of getting to a reasonable outcome here, I'll make the following proposal: I'll limit my immediate edits on both articles to just removing unsourced/inaccurately sourced claims. I'll then post any additions I'd like to make to the Talk pages, before making the edits. Does that work?CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Theodore!: Thanks for your help facilitating the discussion.CFredkin (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Closing notice: This appears to be resolved. Unless someone expresses an interest in keeping it open, it will be closed as such after 16:00 UTC on August 27, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Ghost in the Shell, List of Ghost in the Shell chapters
| Volunteer coordinating this discussion has gone walkabout. Options are to return back to the talk page for more discussion or to enter into Formal Mediation. It is strongly suggested that no discussion or action take place until all editors are able to discuss the problem (i.e. Topic bans have expired). Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Filed by ChrisGualtieri.
26 July 2013 Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview A page titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" existed for years. Ultimately, Lucia Black improved the page, merged it without discussion and changed the long standing topic page to be about the manga. It culminated in this. I opposed. The problem was resolved until April when Ryulong decided to join in and redo the merge without discussion and eliminate the page without AFD. 6 different editors chimed in, even recently some have expressed a favor for two different pages. *Note - Removed comments about those involved, focus is on content - Have you tried to resolve this previously? 7 months on talk pages, RFCs, and once at DRN which ballooned to such a size no one would take it so I had to close it for another discussion which ended when Lucia Black started a deletion campaign that I had to bring to the WP:VPP to stop. Other arguments they made had gone to VPP, notably removing the Manual of Style's "guideline" which says not to create different topics on different media regardless of their notability or size. How do you think we can help? Resolve this by adhering to policy and not "rhetoric". The Ghost in the Shell mangas, each individual one qualifies for their own article. Enough material exists do to three such pages, but I am asking for a single page to cover the three works produced by Masamune Shirow. Per N, per SPLIT, and per DETAIL. This is the burden for inclusion for which neither Lucia Black or Ryulong will argue. If it helps, I've begun working on a sandboxed version to show how such an article will appear.
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
ChrisGualtieri's summary of this dispute has once again devolved into a "me vs. them" approach. I had tried to reach a consensus or compromise with him, but he refused at all stages unless his "franchise page"/"top level subject page" approach was the one we went with. Not even the creation of List of Ghost in the Shell chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from Ghost in the Shell (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a compromise is good enough, it seems. As it stands, Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) resembles other manga and anime articles in that it is about the original work of fiction (the graphic novels) and details on the various animated and video game adaptations are relegated to their own articles. There is no article on this project that closely resembles his proposed concept. And once again, ChrisGualtieri is resorting to his tactic of mis-citing Wikipedia shortcuts as evidence that he is right and everyone else is wrong because they don't cite anything and they should not be allowed to argue their point without abbreviations. WP:AFD is no way a requirement when merging pages. WP:N says nothing about the creation of two separate pages on similar topics, and certainly not "move everything about the main aspect of a topic off of one page to make a page identical to the first but lacking all information about related topics". WP:SPLIT isn't a policy or guideline so it does not govern anything. WP:DETAIL would only work in his proposed "franchise page" format, and anyway most of the details are on the chapter list page so I don't see the problem. If anything, ChrisGualieri should read WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:CFORK to see why his proposal is an issue. On Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters#Rework, ChrisGualtieri has proposed several new aspects to cover and those would gladly be welcomed. But he is refusing to write about them because he wants his way in the article set up first.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Must i be dragged here every time this editor wants his way? Splitting the main article from the original media is pointless and unnecessary. What the franchise page will really be about is a glorified compilation of all the works that have been done. And there is no need for one. The main reason why we wouldn't need one is because there are multi-media series within said "franchise". for example: Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex encompasses TV series (original), OVA adaptation, video game spin offs, novel spin offs, and manga adaptation while Ghost in the Shell: Arise encompasses OVA (original) and manga adaptation. They all share the same media range but in different series, it would be too difficult to encompass those multi-media series without focusing on the original media that started it all, because if it didn't, all media would be merged indiscriminately rather than focusing on the media that influenced from the original work the most. Not only that but splitting them will only be too redundant and similar between Ghost in the Shell (manga) and the Ghost in the Shell franchise. Ghost in the Shell manga article will still have to cover its film adaptations, it's alternate retelling TV series (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex) and it's prequel (Ghost in the Shell: Arise). The only minor difference is the franchise page will be a glorified compilation of info we already have in other articles "except" with less manga, while the manga will have more. But the differences are too small to split. They all share the same characters, and some even the same plot. A good example of this is Blood: The Last Vampire being the original work that spunned out Blood+ and Blood-C but doesn't have it's own Blood (series) article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Ghost in the Shell discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Ryulong, what are the proposed several new aspects to cover and those would gladly be welcomed that ChrisGualtieri made? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to recuse myself, I think, due to past interactions with the editors involved, but I will say that I think that Lucia Black's 3-month topic/interaction ban starting August 1 has made this temporarily more complicated rather than less. The problem is that any resolution which might be worked out during that time could very easily be challenged by Lucia when and if she returns. My recommendation, though I'll defer to Ebe123 as the lead volunteer in this matter for a final recommendation, would be for everyone to drop the stick until that ban has passed and until we can see if Lucia comes back (or has continued editing in the interim) and then to file an application for mediation at the Mediation Committee. That forum is particularly well suited for working out complex issues such as this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This is really simple. It meets N or GNG, it can have its own article. A franchise is: "A brand name under which a series of products is released." I pointed to multiple reliable sources which list them as a franchise; the material is all related to Shirow's original idea and under Japanese law, Shirow has the right to control the works and a collection of other artists and writers have made sanctioned derivative works and published them as official GITS media. As noted in comments about FMA, that page is horrendous and does nothing for FMA's anime counterparts. I advance the argument that it meets inclusion and the material deserves a place on Wikipedia. The merge was contested and had no consensus; it should not ever have been done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Its as transporterman said, this should be dropped until the topic-ban is over. as in, no controversial edits related to this DRN as i was already involved prior to the topic-ban. that is all i'm saying on the subject.Lucia Black (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Some improvements that might be made:
--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Coming "first" does not mean it is the primary topic, and it is not related to the majority of works and it is not of greatest interest. I do not see it as the PTOPIC material for those reasons. The layout format of MOS-AM makes it confusing for readers to access relevant material and encourages limiting content which should have its own pages. Bleach (anime) does not exist, but it is profoundly different from the manga. This is also true for Fullmetal Alchemist, Claymore, Soul Eater, and a range of other topics including Ghost in the Shell and Neon Genesis Evangelion. Take the Dragon Ball argument, Dragon Ball Z is a defining work, it should have always had its own page. MOS-AM was used to limit it, and you advocated it remaining merged per MOS-AM. I argued WP:SS (Detail), Split and a range of other policies which advocated its recreation only to have MOS-AM and not-notable be advanced as your arguments to prevent its recreation. The same sort of argument is being advanced here, where "layout" and "MOS-AM" are used to limit the number of stand-alone pages and, by extension, their content. I prefer highly-focused single topic pages where production, casting and reception and so forth can exist for a complete and useful encyclopedic reference on said subject. MOS-AM is a threat to our coverage and makes Wikipedia a second or third source for even the most basic information because MOS-AM encourages combining adaptations of notable works. There is an issue with redundancy in the topic, I acknowledge that, but it should not prevent detailed articles on those adaptations. Dragon Ball Z was a strong case. Ghost in the Shell is a strong case. Watamote is not able to do this, like a majority of the topics, but Death note could be and Fullmetal Alchemist definitely is ready and capable of splitting. The key problem is how to do it and would you be open to such changes? I'd like to start with Ghost in the Shell and see how it goes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, folks, aren't you just continuing discussion that you've been having elsewhere? How did that go so far? ;-) The objective on wikipedia talk pages is not to discuss what you think or want so much as figure out how to reach consensus with the other party. Let's work towards that systematically. It's often useful to start out by finding (small?) points we *agree* on, if possible. Could you each see if you can list one or two things that you would *not* mind the other person doing? No policy links here, just raw thoughts. Beware of "only if" at this stage: If you have things that you'd be ok with only if something else happens first, -well- don't write those down yet, but do remember them, we can try to tackle those after. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
General plan: step 1 In general: first step, we're trying to figure out our frame
I don't want to establish some kind of complex local policy out of this - that's overkill :-P. We're just trying to sketch the outlines of what is allowed . This is known as the 'frame' we are working in. It's a concept used in many large organizations to figure out what you can and cannot do at any point in time. What we're doing now is trying to figure the smallest/simplest frame that could actually allow edits. Once we have the framework in the back of our head, we can make certain edits to the articles already without getting reverted. But the frame will likely be somewhat claustrophobic at first; there are large areas we don't agree on yet . The idea going forward is to negotiate a wider frame to allow more kinds of changes until everyone is happy, or at least as happy as possible. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Section break
So ChrisGualtiere can add anything he said to Ryulong (in the diff Ryulong provided), and Ryulong is not allowed to remove content for now. I'm sure you're thinking "But I could ignore that entirely, right?". That's true, but the odds of getting reverted are high, so it's not worth the effort to do something else yet :-)
Now next step is to try and expand that frame; though there's no point going for things that you don't want anyway. So let's check:
If someone doesn't actually intend to do one of the above anytime soon, then awesome, that person is sorted for now and can just edit. After that, if you want to do something that falls outside that frame, you'll have to put forward an argument why it's a good idea. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC) General plan: step 2
Very well. I will begin working and will stick to the Shirow works first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Alright, and do come back here before you try something outside the current frame! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) ChrisGualtieri just restored his preferred set up of the articles. I will not abide by this. I have reverted his edits to Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga). There is no reason to take all of the material that essentially supports the notability of Ghost in the Shell and shunt it off to a page dedicated solely to the manga, weakening the notability of the main article. I will not agree to any resolution that allows the restoration of a page titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". The only reason it has taken me two days to notice this is because he did not perform the split from Ghost in the Shell until today.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC) In addition, all of the content he added to the page I will consider WP:OR because he directly sourced the "Design and philosophy" section directly to the manga, without pointing out any chapters, and it seems to be an interpretation rather than a direct description.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This was one of the possible scenario's we expected might occur in the general plan step 2. At this point there's no reason to lose faith yet, because what happened is what we expected. It's also not the place to make hard statements about what we may or may not agree to later. Both of you seem to want to hurry hurry hurry! The ironic consequence is that things take much longer than if we aim at maintaining a steady systematic step-by-step pace. We're currently on the "we have a misunderstanding" branch. :
--Kim Bruning (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me ponder these posts for a little while. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Kim Bruning, Only in death (talk · contribs) came along and restored the states of Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) to where ChrisGualtieri had put them in due to the misunderstanding a few days ago as seen here and here. According to him and Chris, this means that the dispute has been resolved because it's now 2 against 1, when in reality it is 2 against 2 because Lucia Black still very likely holds the same opinions she had before she was topic banned but now cannot participate in the discussion. This is unacceptable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
We've stated, many times how the "glorified disamb" can be resolved, on the talks and even below us, a solution exists. A list page is a list, not a full article. You wouldn't accept it even if it were not to be retitled. Even minor improvements proved to cause too much drama. It is time to improve, not remove. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I am still not satisfied with this outcome. Yes, everything is back to the way it was before Lucia or I touched the page, but this still leaves us with the franchise page which in my opinion has no purpose. The arguments that MOS:AM#Page layout should be followed are ignored because "the manga is notable on its own". No one has ever given me a straight answer as to why the article on the manga cannot be Ghost in the Shell and why it must be separate at Ghost in the Shell (manga). ChrisGualtieri constantly stated he had all these grand ideas in mind for expanding the article but he refused to do it until the pages were the way he saw fit. And anything that he did add to the pages in the interrim were redundant expansions and my reversions were taken as "not letting him edit the page". Now we're back to square -1. There's an article titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" that mentions absolutely nothing other than the manga despite originating everything else known as "Ghost in the Shell" and there's a "franchise page" that is not be independently notable from the other topics but it apparently cannot be merged into the manga article as both Lucia Black and myself had independently done earlier in the year. Only in death's Gordian Knot approach only solves Chris's problems in that everything's back to where he has wanted it since April. And my arguments are invalidated because I can't pick a Wikipedia policy or guideline that covers them outside of MOS:AM#Page layout, but the guideline is allegedly crap because it stifles the creation of new pages on notable topics. Where does this leave my well intentioned suggestions for the pages?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Break 2Okay. I can't even have a meal without you reverting and removing content that would be fine under RELART. Two sentences on a work, no matter the location, should be on the topic level/franchise/overview article. Also explained on the talk page. The PTOPIC argument doesn't even meet the most basic of criteria as is defined. You are not objective, so this discussion and DRN is pointless as OID stated. I will not participate in unmediated drama any longer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion for Disambiguation pageI retain (from another similar discussion) that a disambiguation page would be a good compromise to such problems as the one discussed here. Clearly it is a common problem with anime/manga related content that has spin-offs. People looking for information on "Ghost in the Shell" may wish for specific info on movies, the anime, manga, games, the franchise, etc but any page BUT such a disambiguation page may end up frustrating them. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright this is pointless. Your agenda is obvious and you simply do not understand basic policy. You removed the correct stance to push your POV even after acknowledging it should get its own page. There are no concessions to be made here because existence is what we are dealing with. We need a binding resolution because you refuse to acknowledge your peers and policy. Continuing on really only wastes time. Close this and move to formal and binding mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer's note: It's been 10 days since Kim last edited Wikipedia and this listing passed it's usual DRN expiry date long before that (on August 9). Had it not been listed during our now-failed experiment with subpaging, it would have been autoclosed several times since then. I'm going to leave it open for another 24 hours, until 17:00 UTC on August 27. If Kim has not weighed back in by then, a volunteer will close it as a dispute which ought to either move back to the article talk page or on to formal mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer's note: I've watched this from the sidelines (and recalling the multiple previous times both ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and others have conflicted over this locus of dispute). Seriously, at least one (possibly all) need to 100% walk away from this article. Stop calling the exact same question and making the area such a nuisince that people refuse to have anything to do with the area lest the communities patience be so worn out that they authorize General Sanctions for the set of pages. Once general sacntions are issued, nobody wins, and everyone looses. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
|
psmithpr talk
| Conduct dispute. This noticeboard does not handle conduct disputes or questions for which other noticeboards are designed. For conduct matters use WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. To question an article deletion, use WP:DRV. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Your administrator "Orange Mike" is practically harassing my article when there is nothing wrong with it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? He has very terrible communication and gave me no reason as to why he deleted the article. How do you think we can help? Block him from contacting me or my article Summary of dispute by Orange MikePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
psmithpr talk discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Ectaco
| Procedural close. Please do not expect DRN volunteers to figure out, list, and notify the other participants in this dispute. Feel free to relist with the other editors specified. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview It has been discussed on the Ectaco talk page. The issue is whether mobileread is a reliable source for the proposed controversy section. It keeps getting reverted. I personally don't think that they are a reliable source as they are the accusers in the controversy. There are no other news covered sources that I can find on this subject. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to resolve with discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? By confirming my thought that mobileread is not a reliable source and this section does not belong in the article. or saying that it is a reliable source and placing the information back into the article. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ectaco discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Natalee Holloway
| No room for compromise on either side, arguments are merely being repeated. With no consensus in favor of inclusion of the conviction and conviction information — and a near-consensus against it — and no policy or guideline mandating the inclusion, the proponent of the material either needs to seek the consensus of the greater community through a request for comments or drop the stick. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Van Der Sloot, suspected of murder in Aruga in the Holloway case but never tried, was convicted on a charge of a separate murder 5 years later in Peru. In the Natalee Holloway article the only info about the outcome of his murder trial in Peru is that he pleaded guilty to the charge. I think the the article should be changed so the subsequent conviction and sentence should be included. The lede doesn't mention anything about Van Der Sloot in Peru Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extended discussion for weeks. How do you think we can help? I'd like an opinion if, as an attribution of crime is made by saying Van Der Sloot pled guilty to the Peru murder, the conviction and sentenceon that charge should be included in the article, and the lede. Summary of dispute by WehwaltPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Adds nothing about Natalee Holloway, and think that including it in the lede would imply a connection between the Flores and Holloway deaths. Plainly Overagainst thinks so too, that's why he's fighting so hard for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by KwwPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The proposed addition is redundant in terms of the conviction, because pleading guilty is sufficient. I don't know why the jail term imposed for a tangentially related crime would go in the lede of this article.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MontanabwPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Here are the problems:
That's all I have to say for now. Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Talk:Natalee Holloway discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. I've looked at the talk page, and I'm afraid that I cannot find any consensus for the inclusion of the material in question. The Consensus Policy says here that, "Some discussions result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context: ... In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." If anything here there is some degree of consensus against the inclusion of the material, so unless the editor who wishes to include the material can obtain consensus for its inclusion it must be excluded. Having said that, however, I wonder if there is not room for a compromise which could improve the article: What if the text of the article was left as it is, but the source for the sentence which reads, "Van der Sloot pled guilty to murdering Ramirez on January 11, 2012." was changed from this one[1] to this one[2].References
@Overagainst: I see nothing in either WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BLPCRIME which mandates the inclusion of anything. Would you please specifically quote the language from those rules which you feel has that effect? Please do not quote the entire rule, just the part that you believe has that effect. (Being a lawyer with over 30 years practice, I'm pretty good at reading rules and interpreting them.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The current article reads: "...Van der Sloot pled guilty to murdering Ramirez on January 11, 2012.[18].." I don't think KWW or Wehwalt have a strong opinion about adding one more full or partial phrase stating the length of his sentence. I certainly don't. But the crux of this whole spat is that Overagainst wanted this stuff in the lede, and no one else does. Overagainst also wanted to add a redundant phrase that Van der Sloot was "convicted" to the body text (and possibly the lede). The rest of us think to say "pled guilty and was convicted" is redundant and unneeded - like my "jumping off a cliff and was pushed off a cliff" example above. A guilty plea IS a conviction. I am so frustrated that Overagainst fails to get this and seems to be making arguments for the sake of argument as far as sentencing goes.. Montanabw(talk) 19:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Sri Lanka
| No talk page discussion. This noticeboard requires extensive discussion at the talk page of the article before requesting help here. See here for policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview For months the pro-Sri Lankan state editors have been consistently working to white wash the genocide [it's the word to refer the killing of 40,000 civilians by a state or at least I believe it's the word]of Eelam Tamils .At first they made issues regarding the war crimes section.Then it was removed. Then they started issue regarding the CIVIL WAR section and removed it. Now in the independence there are references to the post-civil war stand of the prominent Tamil political party on the political solution. But Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) reverted it back. I just reverted his revert.Now Administrator Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) is ABUSING his power and pushing {{User|user:Obi2canibe}'s version though my edits were sourced.Though I see no recent discussion in the talk page about having the post-war position of the Sri Lankan state or not,Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) is reverting my edits continuously saying that there is consensus not to have it and harassing me and warning me that he would ban me. I need your suggestions Have you tried to resolve this previously? Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) has asked to go to DRNB How do you think we can help? I think the following editors can help to resolve this issue Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs) HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) Adamrce (talk · contribs) kanatonian (talk · contribs) AdvertAdam (talk · contribs)
Summary of dispute by Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sri Lanka article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire
| Conduct dispute, at least at its root; this noticeboard only handles content disputes. Consider using WP:ANI for conduct disputes, but let me suggest that you might be better off asking this question at the Teahouse first. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am Vincent Morley. The page at Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire contains a section entitled "Who is Vincent Morley?" which was posted by a pseudonymous contributor on 3 December 2012, although I only became aware of this fact a few days ago. I have tried to reply three times, giving links to my personal website and blog where details of my publications, qualifications and background are available. Each time, my response was immediately deleted: first by Favonian and twice by Eyesnore, who has now given me a "last warning" and said that I will be blocked if I try to reply again. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted on Favonian's talk page but have not received a response. I cannot post to Eyesnore's talk page which is "awaiting review". How do you think we can help? Either delete the section headed "Who is Vincent Morley?" (if the question is irrelevant) or allow me to answer the question (if it is relevant). I would be happy with either outcome, but it is not acceptable that doubt should be cast on my credibility on a public website and that I should be blocked when I try to respond. Summary of dispute by FavonianIt does indeed look like the message was a followup to an older one—from December last year. The fact that it wasn't formatted like a reply, but rather as a new message, combined with its slightly aggressive tone caused me to refrain from further research before reverting. For that I apologize, but not for what Mr. Morley seems to consider a tardy reply. Some of us a) sleep at night, and b) work for a living, so this recourse to DRN is a bit precipitous. Favonian (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by EyesnorePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Yeakley's Research on the Boston Church of Christ
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:International Churches of Christ#Continuing Discussion on Yeakley Research (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs)
- Nietzsche123 (talk · contribs)
- JamesLappeman (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Dr Flavil Yeakley conducted research in 1985 on the Boston Church of Christ. He had his book published by 'Gospel Adovocate'. There was some dispute over Gospel Advocate as a reliable source and the DRN ruled here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73#International Churches of Christ that: (1) that Yeakley's publisher, The Gospel Advocate Company, is not a high quality source, because there is no evidence of fact checking, (2) that Yeakley's research may be cited in the article because it's referred to by other high quality secondary sources, (3) that it's preferable to cite the secondary sources to refer to the aforementioned material if they cover enough ground. Discussion has deadlocked with whether the reliable secondary sources "cover enough ground".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive debate on the Talk page over a number of weeks.
How do you think we can help?
Can you guide us to resolve whether the secondary reliable sources cover enough ground or whether material from 'Gospel Advocate' needs to included in the article?
Do the reliable secondary sources cover enough ground on Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ
- Have you considered that taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard might be a more appropriate course of action? My first instinct is to close this with that recommendation but I'd like another volunteers opinion. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- The issue might be a little more complex as 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as an unreliable source but Yeakley's research as admissible because it was referred to in reliable secondary sources. Two editors are happy to use the secondary sources and one is insisting in keeping the 'Gospel Advocate' material in the article, his assessment is the reliable secondary sources "don't cover enough ground" hence the deadlock. Guidance would be appreciated.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@JamieBrown2011, Nietzsche123, and JamesLappeman: Ok in 200 words or less, those stating the seconady sources don't cover enough ground: please explain your rational behind it. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I've read over the material again. It seems to me that Gospel Advocate is an unreliable primary source (something seemingly agreed upon) however the material has been cited by reliable secondary sources. In Wikipedia we much prefer secondary sources because they do the analysis for us. The policy on primary sources states: be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]. It looks like the Yeakley source contains some fairly big claims ("highly manipulative" sects) which are not covered in secondary sources. This is the primary source drawing conclusions from its own statements. Generally we prefer a secondary source to cover these and do the analysis of the data presented by the primary source. Would I be correct in saying that there is no secondary analysis that makes the same claims (e.g. the bit about the sects, unhealthy ways)? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cabe Yes, to my knowledge, that is correct. On the Talk page I have asked @Nietzsche to provide any secondary sources we are unaware of, to date he has not. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- My gut feeling is that those claims shouldn't be included as their is no reliable source for those parts explicitly. Considering the weight of what is being said I would say not to cite the GA source and remove those statements. In the interest of fairness I'll wait and see what the remaining editors opinions on the matter are. I am open to having my opinion changed. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cabe Yes, to my knowledge, that is correct. On the Talk page I have asked @Nietzsche to provide any secondary sources we are unaware of, to date he has not. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I agree that the strength and nature of the Gospel Advocate claims are not in line with RS and BLP policy. The secondary sources definitely cover the gist of Yeakley's research (although as you know from the talk page I still find the quality of these secondary sources questionable if they choose to see Gospel Advocate as reliable enough for their use). My opinion is that Yeakley is not relaible enough for the article since the primary data is so unreliable but, should it be kept by consensus, the secondary sources are preferable and adequate if used properly. I have been querying @Nietzsche's constant push to have such inflammatory (almost tabloid like) data included but other than continual reverts am still not sure why this is so. I would also like to propose that the title be changed to "Flavil Yeakley's 1985 Research on the Boston Church of Christ" as Yeakley's book is given a separate section (as opposed to being contained in the "history"). Since it was nearly 30 years ago and only in a single congregation of what is today around 430 congregations in 170 countries it is misleading to indirectly project these findings on the current entire ICOC. By qualifying it as much as possible in the title it would be better reflected. JamesLappeman (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize for the length of what follows; I tried to keep it as short as possible. If my understanding is correct, TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources. This is why the previous ruling of the board was that we may cite Yeakley directly. I understand that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary (and even more specifically that the high quality Norton secondary sources are to be preferred to other secondary sources); but the previous ruling permitted citing Yeakley directly, especially when the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Specifically, while the secondary sources state that BCC members' personality types changed to match its leaders' types, the secondary sources leave out Yeakley's specific normative claims that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and the bit about "highly manipulative sects" already mentioned (see Norton p. 39). JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011 have been trying to word the summation as: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm". My problems with this is that it's misleading since it's only a clarification Yeakley makes of his conclusion stated earlier. Moreover, JamieBrown2011 takes the bit from The Boston Movement, which quotes it right from the Yeakley text; so if you have a problem directly citing the Yeakley text, this bit shouldn't be included, either. The secondary sources also leave out Yeakley's claims regarding how the BCC operates three years after his study was completed: "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult". I take offense to the above suggestion that these observations are almost tabloid-like. These are serious charges that come from a reputable source. The question is: is the Yeakley text reputable enough? As far as articulating the section on Yeakley to be mindful that his 1985 research is limited to the BCC (not necessarily the ICOC as a whole), the WP article is already written in this way. What specifically, JamesLappeman, were you wanting to change? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think this sums up the difficulty we have been having over at the Talk page. Nietzsche is determined to keep using the 'Gospel Advocate' material to the point of being "offended" when it is pointed out that making big claims from low quality sources is not really within the scope of Wikipedia or consistent with it's policies (but more akin to a tabloid). When an attempt is made to rather use the secondary sources (as per the previous DRN ruling by TransporterMan) and their summation of Yeakley's research, the repeated response is reject and revert back to the primary GA material. The high quality secondary sources describe the research Yeakley did, give an analysis of what his research revealed and quote from his writings the sections they endorse. (that is why I included those quotes in my suggested edit). None of them quote from Yeakley's appendix in the GA book, which Nietzsche insists should be included in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- JamieBrown2011's above summation is incorrect on many points, of which one point is particularly pertinent: the bit he suggested to include (previously mentioned in my edit above) comes directly from Yeakley's text. The editors of The Boston Movement (where Jaime gets his quote) included an entire chapter from Yeakley's text in their book. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is the point isn't it, where the reliable secondary sources reference or quote Yeakley, that material is preferred to using a primary source on Wikipedia, especially a low quality one. Since Cabe's request is for the editors who feel the secondary sources don't cover enough ground to fully explain their rationale, I wont interrupt again until that is complete.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- JamieBrown2011's above summation is incorrect on many points, of which one point is particularly pertinent: the bit he suggested to include (previously mentioned in my edit above) comes directly from Yeakley's text. The editors of The Boston Movement (where Jaime gets his quote) included an entire chapter from Yeakley's text in their book. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think this sums up the difficulty we have been having over at the Talk page. Nietzsche is determined to keep using the 'Gospel Advocate' material to the point of being "offended" when it is pointed out that making big claims from low quality sources is not really within the scope of Wikipedia or consistent with it's policies (but more akin to a tabloid). When an attempt is made to rather use the secondary sources (as per the previous DRN ruling by TransporterMan) and their summation of Yeakley's research, the repeated response is reject and revert back to the primary GA material. The high quality secondary sources describe the research Yeakley did, give an analysis of what his research revealed and quote from his writings the sections they endorse. (that is why I included those quotes in my suggested edit). None of them quote from Yeakley's appendix in the GA book, which Nietzsche insists should be included in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize for the length of what follows; I tried to keep it as short as possible. If my understanding is correct, TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources. This is why the previous ruling of the board was that we may cite Yeakley directly. I understand that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary (and even more specifically that the high quality Norton secondary sources are to be preferred to other secondary sources); but the previous ruling permitted citing Yeakley directly, especially when the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Specifically, while the secondary sources state that BCC members' personality types changed to match its leaders' types, the secondary sources leave out Yeakley's specific normative claims that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and the bit about "highly manipulative sects" already mentioned (see Norton p. 39). JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011 have been trying to word the summation as: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm". My problems with this is that it's misleading since it's only a clarification Yeakley makes of his conclusion stated earlier. Moreover, JamieBrown2011 takes the bit from The Boston Movement, which quotes it right from the Yeakley text; so if you have a problem directly citing the Yeakley text, this bit shouldn't be included, either. The secondary sources also leave out Yeakley's claims regarding how the BCC operates three years after his study was completed: "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult". I take offense to the above suggestion that these observations are almost tabloid-like. These are serious charges that come from a reputable source. The question is: is the Yeakley text reputable enough? As far as articulating the section on Yeakley to be mindful that his 1985 research is limited to the BCC (not necessarily the ICOC as a whole), the WP article is already written in this way. What specifically, JamesLappeman, were you wanting to change? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- "TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources." No. As volunteers we speak only for ourselves and not the entire board. It isn't a ruling. It is simply the opinion of one volunteer and has no authority. Having said that, it might be advisable to put a good deal of weight on Transportationman's opinion as they do know what they are talking about. But, this is an informal process at DR/N.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Mark and Cabe6403 thanks again for your input. As you can see we have struggled to find consensus. I still find it strange that a source can be seen as unreliable according to WP guidelines but then legitimised because it is quoted in a few secondary sources. I guess I'm not convinced that because a few niche journals chose to include material from a family business publisher it means that it is of encyclopaedia quality. It is such a minute and debatable slice of research that seems to take up a large amount of space (more space than some other more significant and relevant sections). I think that Gospel Advocate is not a reliable source and should be removed BUT if we decide to keep it then a few short measured sentences from secondary sources would be the most balanced option. JamesLappeman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- The primary source isn't "legitimised" by being quoted in reliable secondary sources, rather because the secondary sources are reliable we can use their commentary on the primary source. Basically, the bits of GA that have received critical commentary can be cited in the article. My own feeling is that you are able to make claims in the article if they can be cited by the secondary sources. If a claim you wish to make is only covered by the primary source then it wouldn't be appropriate to cover it. The only time its appropriate to cite the primary source is when directly quoting it to clarify a claim made by a secondary source. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that for me. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cabe & Mark Thanks. This has provided a lot of help on how to move forward. With the clarity to use the secondary source material and not the primary GA stuff, we can go back to the talk page and work out the details of what that wording should be.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do JamieBrown2011 and Nietzsche123 agree?--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I must confess that I'm a little confused. On June 14th (DRN archive 73) TransporterMan wrote that "with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". From this and more statements he wrote I gather that it is TransporterMan's opinion that (1) Yeakley is a reliable source, that (2) Yeakley may be directly referred to in the WP article, and that (3) secondary sources are preferable to directly citing Yeakley if they cover enough ground. I concur with this opinion. While The Gospel Advocate Company doesn't seem to be reliable source, the Yeakley material does seem to be a reliable source since it's referred to by multiple high quality sources. The secondary sources fail to cover the normative ground Yeakley does. This shouldn't be surprising: for various reasons academic presses in general tend to shy away from making normative claims, especially about religious groups. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do JamieBrown2011 and Nietzsche123 agree?--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cabe & Mark Thanks. This has provided a lot of help on how to move forward. With the clarity to use the secondary source material and not the primary GA stuff, we can go back to the talk page and work out the details of what that wording should be.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Adding link to archived discussion related to this dispute: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73#International Churches of Christ for convenience.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nietzsche123, I feel we should show the full statement from the DR/N volunteer to better understand their intent. This in no way should be seen as agreement with any participant. This is just for convenience to understand the opinion of the volunteer from the past filing:
@Everyone: As for Jamie's last point, above, "mentions" may be enough if the study is mentioned or listed as a source on which the author of the reliable source relies. I've not been able to find a full copy of the Rambo article mentioned by Nietzsche, but the Gasde one seems firm enough. At Wikipedia "multiple" generally only means "more than one", so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory. With that, and with Jamie going to be out, I'd like to close this DNR listing and kick this back to the article talk page for consideration of how and how much to incorporate the material into the article. If you get stuck on that, then you can relist here with a newly-focused request. I'll leave this open for a couple of days in case anyone wishes to object, in which case we can discuss further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Generally I dislike trying to interpret another volunteers words, but it appears to me that what is being said here is that the Yeakley material can be used as a primary source when used with secondary sources that are confirmed to be reliable to Wikipedia standards. Multiple sources are required for BLP group articles as we are talking about living people. Thoughts?--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Without overcomplicating, my take on the above is simply: Secondary sources would be best. In light of that I feel that we are in a good place because the secondary sources describe the research without the weightier claims in the later added editors notes. I'm not exactly sure what @Nietzche means by 'normative ground' (it just sounds like he is trying to squeeze an accusation in which is not what encyclopaedias are for). I still stand by the observation that it is a strange place we find ourselves with Gospel Advocate not meeting encyclopedia quality but a few cultic studies journals (with questionable reliability as I've noted on the talk page) making reference to Yeakley. Given RS, BLP and even FRINGE there are enough problems with the fact that Yeakley (1) virtully published his own work, (2) is a communications and church specialist and not a psychologist (his research didn't make it into any major psychology journals) and (3) The journals he is cited in are very niche and even citing them is making a big and disputed claim about the ICOC (notice that established journals like 'The Journal for the Study of Religion' do/would not source from GA). I still opt for us all to look at the previous ruling and consider the prudence of taking Yeakley out altogether. If consensus goes against this then lets err on the side of concise, neutral and secondary sources. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I previously stated my take on TransporterMan's opinion, namely, that while 1) secondary sources (and the higher quality Norton sources in particular) are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, it's permissible to do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. The secondary sources fail to mention the normative claims Yeakley makes. It's not just several Cultic Studies Journal articles that refer to Yeakley; rather, at least two other high quality secondary sources do: 1) a Norton text edited by Michael Langone and 2) a Pastoral Psychology article by written Lewis Rambo. Yeakley's CV may be found here: http://www.pureheartvision.org/resources/docs/Vita2011.pdf. He was a professor for over 17 years, earning awards for teaching at Harding University and the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Award for Research in the year he published his work on the BCC. I'm not sure on what grounds JamesLappeman declares that Yeakley isn't a psychologist since he has a BA in psychology and a PhD in speech communication (and has published in a number of psychology journals). Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Without overcomplicating, my take on the above is simply: Secondary sources would be best. In light of that I feel that we are in a good place because the secondary sources describe the research without the weightier claims in the later added editors notes. I'm not exactly sure what @Nietzche means by 'normative ground' (it just sounds like he is trying to squeeze an accusation in which is not what encyclopaedias are for). I still stand by the observation that it is a strange place we find ourselves with Gospel Advocate not meeting encyclopedia quality but a few cultic studies journals (with questionable reliability as I've noted on the talk page) making reference to Yeakley. Given RS, BLP and even FRINGE there are enough problems with the fact that Yeakley (1) virtully published his own work, (2) is a communications and church specialist and not a psychologist (his research didn't make it into any major psychology journals) and (3) The journals he is cited in are very niche and even citing them is making a big and disputed claim about the ICOC (notice that established journals like 'The Journal for the Study of Religion' do/would not source from GA). I still opt for us all to look at the previous ruling and consider the prudence of taking Yeakley out altogether. If consensus goes against this then lets err on the side of concise, neutral and secondary sources. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- So Cabe & Mark we are back to the same place we started. @Nietzsche has a predetermined disposition to wanting to use the primary Gospel Advocate material, even though everyone agrees that the GA book of Yeakley's research is regarded as unreliable for Wikipedia (no professional journalists, no editorial board, no evidence of fact checking) yet because @Nietzsche choses to interpret TransporterMan's comments to legitimise the primary GA source, therefore for all practical purposes, anything found in the primary GA book that is not covered in the reliable secondary sources is fair game because the "secondary sources do not cover enough ground". Hence @Nietzsche can conclude above:
Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, let me ping the participants and see if I can sort this threw enough to further the discussion. JamieBrown2011, JamesLappeman and Nietzsche123, I would like to make a few observations.
- The material in question is: "Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. ISBN 0892253118". The issue; is this reliable enough for Wikipedia standards to use in any way to source content if there are secondary (third party) sources, that should suffice. One editor believes that the secondary mentions are not enough and wishes to source directly from the Yeakley, Gospel Advocate (YGA) source where the secondary sources fall short. A sort of broad interpretation of the dispute, so feel free to correct any mistakes I might make.
- Some of this has been slightly misperceived I think on both sides and that is not a bad thing. But let me try this.
- The strength of sources is determined by several factors and in the last DR we seem to have had enough consensus from editors that the YGA was at least good enough to be a primary source, specifically because it had mention in multiple references in third party sources. That in itself means that we are able to at least show the primary source as illustration along with the secondary source references. Now, if there is something that is being cited directly from the secondary source, such as Yeakley's opinion, a quote could perhaps be used from the primary source, if it expands on the secondary mentions, but not if we are interpreting the primary source ourselves independent of the secondary (third party) sources. Thoughts.--Mark 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, so, here is where I think we had left off. On 07:50, 8 August 2013 , in a reply to JamesLappeman, Cabe6403 responded with clarification about secondary sources not necessarily "legitimizing" a primary source. I believe I have recapped much of what the DR volunteer stated about primary source use with the secondary sources. At 15:08, 8 August 2013, the editor that requested the DR/N stated that they were prepared to return to the talk page to continue discussion on the secondary sources-excluding the primary source being used, which was responded to by Nietzsche123 with concern that they felt Transportationman had indeed clarified that the YGA was a "reliable source" and therefore could be directly cited, "especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground".
Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA. I actually think we are still where we left off, when JamieBrown2011 suggested that this could be closed and taken back to the talk page to discuss. But we just do not need to exclude YGA entirely from the article, it's use just hinges on the secondary sources for any material used. Perhaps a quote from YGA that is covered by commentary in secondary sources? Just a suggestion, not a recommendation. In other words there must be a way to get a consensus for content no matter what it is, and the DR/N won't really tell you what you have to do hear.
We could continue to discuss the content dispute and hash out eactly what is used from YGA if editors even agree that something should be at all. Thoughts?--Mark 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would be happy to accept only quoting from YGA if a secondary source has already advanced the information and if the quotes don't go beyond what is advanced by the reliable secondary sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that it is Mark's and Cabe's opinion that YGA be cited directly only if high quality secondary sources cover the same ground, since YGA by itself is not necessarily a reliable source. But I also understand that it is TransporterMan's opinion that YGA may be cited directly, even if secondary sources don't cover the same ground, since YGA is a reliable source (since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources). TransporterMan, please correct me if I'm wrong. As I see it, we have two different "rulings" by the DRN board. If we may only cite YGA directly when the secondary sources cover the same ground, I'm in favor of something like the following summation of Yeakley's research.
- In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley citation). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).
- What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that it is Mark's and Cabe's opinion that YGA be cited directly only if high quality secondary sources cover the same ground, since YGA by itself is not necessarily a reliable source. But I also understand that it is TransporterMan's opinion that YGA may be cited directly, even if secondary sources don't cover the same ground, since YGA is a reliable source (since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources). TransporterMan, please correct me if I'm wrong. As I see it, we have two different "rulings" by the DRN board. If we may only cite YGA directly when the secondary sources cover the same ground, I'm in favor of something like the following summation of Yeakley's research.
- I would be happy to accept only quoting from YGA if a secondary source has already advanced the information and if the quotes don't go beyond what is advanced by the reliable secondary sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand me at least. I am stating what Transportationman has already helped establish, that the primary source (the YGA) could only be mentioned through secondary sources. Could you demonstrate how you are interpreting Transportationman to be saying what you claim?--Mark 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I may also be misunderstanding this from TransporterMan: "[T]he Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". That sounds like we are defining YGA as a RS to be cited when the third party sources do not cover it. So we are saying that there are enough multiple references that YGA is not a primary source in itself and has enough notability to at least allow some use to reference content. Not sure how I feel about referencing any facts though.--Mark 05:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Nietzsche I am not sure where you are getting your information that Yeakley conducted his tests over an extended period of time, on pg 30 of Yeakley's book he says he conducted his research over 10 days and participants were asked 3 questions and asked to give answers how they perceived their personalities to be before conversion, currently and what they imagined they would be like in 5 years time. Here is the quote: "They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years." So stating that the majority of the members changed their personality types is factually incorrect. This was not a longitudinal study. So please word that part correctly. Not sure what @JamesLappeman thinks? Also, I am going to remove all the current GA material from the ICOC article until we reach consensus here.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- JamieBrown2011, if this is true then either it must be explicitly mentioned as Nietzsches current suggested wording is, therefore, factually incorrect or it mustn't be mentioned at all. I don't have access to the source currently, would you be able to quote the relevant sections directly for me here? Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 09:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Nietzsche I am not sure where you are getting your information that Yeakley conducted his tests over an extended period of time, on pg 30 of Yeakley's book he says he conducted his research over 10 days and participants were asked 3 questions and asked to give answers how they perceived their personalities to be before conversion, currently and what they imagined they would be like in 5 years time. Here is the quote: "They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years." So stating that the majority of the members changed their personality types is factually incorrect. This was not a longitudinal study. So please word that part correctly. Not sure what @JamesLappeman thinks? Also, I am going to remove all the current GA material from the ICOC article until we reach consensus here.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I may also be misunderstanding this from TransporterMan: "[T]he Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". That sounds like we are defining YGA as a RS to be cited when the third party sources do not cover it. So we are saying that there are enough multiple references that YGA is not a primary source in itself and has enough notability to at least allow some use to reference content. Not sure how I feel about referencing any facts though.--Mark 05:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.[1]
"The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".[2]
They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years.[3]
- I don't see where Yeakley discusses the duration of his research on page 30 of his work; rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days. On page 24 he goes on to say that the focus of his chapter (and our present discussion) is "a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation". Regardless, I cannot find where I got my "extended periods of time" from. In light of that, I'm comfortable dropping the phrase from the summation. What do you think?
- Mark, I think the following quotes from TransporterMan are relevant.
"Since the material about Yeakley's work reflects upon living persons, it would appear to me that the policy set out in WP:BLPGROUP suggests that Wikipedia needs to be particularly careful when dealing with controversial material such as this so that any doubt about sourcing ought to be resolved against inclusion unless high-quality sources can be found. Though my opinion would be the same even without WP:BLPGROUP, that policy further convinces me that the source is inadequate. That does not necessarily mean that Yeakley's research cannot be referenced in the article, but it does mean that a third-party source which is Wikipedia-reliable and high-quality needs to be found for it. In the alternative, if it can be shown that Yeakley's research (not the book in general, since there appears to be material in the book other than Yeakley's research) has been referenced or discussed approvingly or relied upon in high-quality reliable sources then that too may be an indicator of reliability sufficient to allow the book to be used directly"
"The Recovery from Cults book is published by W W Norton, a highly respected publisher. If what's said in there (and most or all of it can be viewed either through Google Books or through the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon) is sufficient to support the text that editors wish to introduce into the article I certainly would think that would be a reliable secondary source and would avoid directly using the Yeakley book as a source in the article at all [...] If however the secondary sources are sufficient to include the material without referring directly to Yeakley's work, that's a better choice under Wikipedia principles to begin with."
"so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory"
- In my eyes, the first quote suggests that while GA is not a reliable source, Yeakley may be, so long as his work is referenced by high quality secondary sources. And as I read the last two quotes, they suggest that while high quality secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may cite Yeakley directly, especially where the secondary literature doesn't cover the territory Yeakley does. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Nietzsche I think you are missing the point somewhat, the more important misrepresentation in your description of the Yeakley study is not so much in the 10 day timeline of the study but in your comment that "A majority of the members changed their personality types". The reliable secondary sources and Yeakley himself states that the forms were handed out to the 835 church members at a midweek church service and they were asked to answer the questions three times; 1) How they think they would have been before their conversion - or five years ago, 2) How they perceive themselves now (at the time of the study) and 3) How they think they will answer the questions in five years time... Your description is a significant distortion of the facts. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- JamieBrown2011, there is no distortion on my part. I ask that you be more careful with your use of language in the future. Again, you were wrong to assert that Yeakley's research was conducted over a 10-day period; contrary to what you wrote, Yeakley took 10 days to initially gather data, not to conduct his study of over 900 members. Both Yeakley and the Langone Norton source state that "a great majority" of members changed their personality types (see previous citations). So I'm not sure what your concern is. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nietzsche123, you say yourself: "rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days.". From my understanding of the source, the "initial data-gathering" is the questionaires/forms he handed out. Any analysis of the data produced from that may have taken longer, he may have continued to revisit the data and further analyse it for years but the surveys were conducted over a short period of time, this needs to be clear in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 12:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nietzsche123 On pg 37 Yeakley states: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm." On pg 31 Yeakley again states: "It should also be understood that this was not a longitudinal study that determined the psychological type of people at three different times. What was indicated was the present psychological type manifested by these people, their perception of their past psychological type, and their perception of their future psychological type." I maintain, your description is a distortion of the facts.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nietzsche123, you say yourself: "rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days.". From my understanding of the source, the "initial data-gathering" is the questionaires/forms he handed out. Any analysis of the data produced from that may have taken longer, he may have continued to revisit the data and further analyse it for years but the surveys were conducted over a short period of time, this needs to be clear in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 12:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- [WP:BLPGROUP] must have some precedent here even though Yeakley has been quoted in secondary sources. Whatever the eventual consensus I don't think Nietzsche's original claim (even stated in the heading at one point) that the BCC was changing the personality of its members is well enough sourced to carry the weight of the accusation? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) and Mark are you aware of any past cases where a serious claim itself to BLPGROUP was required to have more than a single source. i.e. there would need to be more than one body of research making the same exact claim in order for it to be included? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- If the claim being made can be defined as an extraordinary claim, or one that directly refers to living persons or BLPGROUPS, then it requires more than s single reference.--Mark 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- In pages 23-24 of his text Yeakley clearly distinguishes the 10-day initial data-gathering stage of his research from the larger psychological study he conducted with over 900 BCC members. The data gathering consists of sitting in on leadership meetings, observing training classes, "Bible Talks", house church meetings, and Sunday worship services. So where's the distortion on my part? Again, I'm ready to drop the "over an extended period of time" bit. JamieBrown2011, as I repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, your quote from page 37 of Yeakley's text is a qualification he makes. Yeakley's discusses his method on page 24:
"Considering all the criticism that has been directed against the Boston Church of Christ, it is remarkable that they were as open as they were in allowing this study. Their openness is strong evidence that they believed that they had nothing to hide. They even permitted me to conduct two different psychological studies. One study involved the two newest converts in each of the 35 house churches that were meeting at that time. Results and implications of that study will be discussed in Chapter 3. The focus of the present chapter is on a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation. A central element in the criticism that has been directed against the Boston Church of Christ, other discipling churches, and the discipling movement generally has been the charge that these churches employ methods that produce unnatural and unhealthy personality changes. Critics charge that discipling churches tend to make the members over after the image of the group leader, the group norm, or the group ideal. Supporters of the discipling movement deny that any such personality changes are taking place. This, of course, is an empirical question that calls for an empirical answer. There are many mysteries associated with the conversion process that can never be explained scientifically. This question, however, about the presence or absence of personality changes can be answered by the appropriate use of a personality inventory."
- The following is from pp. 20-21 of his text, where he states the conclusion of his research.
The next chapter presents the results of some research conducted in the Boston Church of Christ. A psychological test was administered to over 900 members of that congregation. Results of that study provide convincing evidence of an unhealthy pressure toward conformity in the Boston Church of Christ. It is changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways. Later in this book, you will find several follow-up studies done after the original research in Boston. Results of these studies provide compelling proof that the personality changes are being produced by the discipling methods employed by that church. Various comparison group studies show that these personality changes are not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations--but the very same pattern of personality change is observed in studies of various sects that are highly manipulative.
- Now, if we're only permitted to include material also mentioned by secondary sources, we can't include Yeakley's claim that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (since none of the secondary literature I'm aware of repeats this claim). But we can and should include his claim that "a great majority of the members of the Boston Church of Christ changed psychological type scores in the past, present, and future versions of the MBTI" (Yeakley p. 34; Norton p. 39; and Gasde p. 58). In light of this, I propose the following (slightly modified from my previous attempted) summation.
- In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A great majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley p. 34). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation). Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Nietzsche Your arguments didn't make sense on the talk page and they make even less sense here.
- 1st, you are guilty of WP:CHERRYPICKING when you ignor the qualifying information from the same source. Yeakley clearly qualifies his research by stating it was not a longitudinal study and does not prove that anyone actually changed their personalities. By you trying to exclude that qualifying information from your summary it is wrong and misleading.
- 2nd, you are conducting WP:OR when you say on the talk page the reason Yeakley says his research doesn't prove anyone changed their personalities is because: "Prove" or "proof" are very strong words that (responsible) academics tend to shy away from because so little can actually be proved. You are now interpreting Yeakley's research for yourself which you are not permitted to do. Also, Yeakley himself states "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm." In the very next sentence he is not shying away from using terms "proof" and "prove". Your argument falls flat on both accounts.
- 3rd, none of the secondary sources make the claim that people changed their personalities. In fact, Giambalvo does quote Yeakley as saying:
The secondary sources reinforce the fact that this was not a longitudinal study on people's actual personality changes over time."The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".[4]
- 4th, you are edit warring over at the ICOC page. Wikipedia policies state that: poorly sourced and controversial material should be immediately removed. Yet you are trying to force large tracts of material from an unreliable primary source to stay in the article. That is called POV pushing.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- If someone's guilty here of WP:CHERRYPICKING, it is you, JamieBrown2011: you ignore Yeakley's conclusion to his own research, one that is cited in the secondary literature, including the highest quality Norton source. My summation accurately states that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality types on Yeakley's tests. Langone in Norton (p 39) along with Gasde (p 58) repeat Yeakley's claim that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality type. It's as simple as that. You seem to be confused about WP:OR. Explaining to you that Yeakley's qualification is just qualification in no way violates WP:OR. While The Boston Movement does include the bit you mention, it includes the entire third chapter of The Discipling Movement, including Yeakley's conclusion. Concerning your accusation of edit-warring, we've left the disputed section of the WP ICOC article on Yeakley alone throughout this entire discussion. Yet you tried to unilaterally change it yesterday. The responsible thing to do is let consensus here determine how the bit is worded. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Nietzsche, you seem a little confused. You are the one who has proposed the wording of the Yeakley summary (a few times now) and on each occasion it has been mentioned you are leaving out important qualifying information that is mentioned by both Yeakley and the reliable secondary sources. By deliberately and continuously leaving out those qualifying statements, it is misleading and you are guilty of CHERRYPICKING and POV pushing. Also on a more technical note, of the over 900 people who were surveyed only 835 people actually filled out the three forms asking them their perception of their past, current and future personality types. See page 31 & 32 of Yeakley's book. "The MBTI forms were passed out in Wednesday evening house church meetings. Some members were busy with retreats that weekend and did not have time to take part in the study. No pressure was put on anyone to take part. However, around two-thirds of the members did take part. There were 835 members who filled out all three forms. A few others filled out only one or two. Among the males, 378 filled out the past (p32) form, 402 filled out the present form, and 388 filled out the future form. Among the females, 471 filled out the past form, 478 filled out the present form, and 460 filled out the future form."JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- If someone's guilty here of WP:CHERRYPICKING, it is you, JamieBrown2011: you ignore Yeakley's conclusion to his own research, one that is cited in the secondary literature, including the highest quality Norton source. My summation accurately states that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality types on Yeakley's tests. Langone in Norton (p 39) along with Gasde (p 58) repeat Yeakley's claim that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality type. It's as simple as that. You seem to be confused about WP:OR. Explaining to you that Yeakley's qualification is just qualification in no way violates WP:OR. While The Boston Movement does include the bit you mention, it includes the entire third chapter of The Discipling Movement, including Yeakley's conclusion. Concerning your accusation of edit-warring, we've left the disputed section of the WP ICOC article on Yeakley alone throughout this entire discussion. Yet you tried to unilaterally change it yesterday. The responsible thing to do is let consensus here determine how the bit is worded. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Please keep accusations at a minimum, this board is to discuss content not conduct. Nietzsche, you appear to be attempting to selectively decide what to include in the article. If you include survey it must be very clear how the data was obtained. Claiming that 'personality' and 'personality types' are completely different things may technically be true but it's not clear. Basing your defence on semantics is close to wikilawyering. Please propose a version of the text that makes it completely clear what is being discussed in the research. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The MBTI is a personality type measure. Suppose that it's given to a group of 1,000 individuals, all of which are the only members of some college club. Say that 900 of the 1,000 individuals change their personality type scores on the tests in the same way, that is, that the scores on the test converge to a single type, which happens to be the type of the group’s leader. While this change in personality type does not prove that there have been personality changes, it does provide evidence that there's an unhealthy element present in the group getting the individuals to converge to a single personality type, that which happens to belong to the group’s leader. TransporterMan's previous opinion leads me to believe that while secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Now we're being told that we may cite Yeakley directly only if the secondary sources cover the same ground. If that's what we must do, ok. But JamieBrown2011's bits are not cited by multiple secondary sources. Rather, one book, The Boston Movement, includes Yeakley's entire third chapter (since the chapter is on the BCC (the name 'The Boston Movement' was name given to the BCC)). The last thing I want to do is misrepresent Yeakley's research. My summation accurately depicts Yeakley's conclusion, which is repeated by multiple secondary sources: the highest quality Norton source and the Gasde source, neither of which just includes an entire chapter, as The Boston Movement does. My summation may be found immediately below. I changed it in attempt to more completely depict how the data were obtained. I've also included numerals for each statement. If someone disputes a portion of it, please state which numeral(s) you're disputing.
- (1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a psychological study of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley passed out three different Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests (Yeakley and Gasde citations). (3) The tests asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (5) A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Yeakley citation p 37) -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The MBTI is a personality type measure. Suppose that it's given to a group of 1,000 individuals, all of which are the only members of some college club. Say that 900 of the 1,000 individuals change their personality type scores on the tests in the same way, that is, that the scores on the test converge to a single type, which happens to be the type of the group’s leader. While this change in personality type does not prove that there have been personality changes, it does provide evidence that there's an unhealthy element present in the group getting the individuals to converge to a single personality type, that which happens to belong to the group’s leader. TransporterMan's previous opinion leads me to believe that while secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Now we're being told that we may cite Yeakley directly only if the secondary sources cover the same ground. If that's what we must do, ok. But JamieBrown2011's bits are not cited by multiple secondary sources. Rather, one book, The Boston Movement, includes Yeakley's entire third chapter (since the chapter is on the BCC (the name 'The Boston Movement' was name given to the BCC)). The last thing I want to do is misrepresent Yeakley's research. My summation accurately depicts Yeakley's conclusion, which is repeated by multiple secondary sources: the highest quality Norton source and the Gasde source, neither of which just includes an entire chapter, as The Boston Movement does. My summation may be found immediately below. I changed it in attempt to more completely depict how the data were obtained. I've also included numerals for each statement. If someone disputes a portion of it, please state which numeral(s) you're disputing.
This is real progress. Thanks @Nietszche, this is a much more balanced description of the research. My suggested changes would be to keep the sourcing and wording closer to the secondary sources:
Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.[5]
Hence:
(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals actually completed all three forms. (5) Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader. (Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2) (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219)
- Thoughts?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- JamieBrown2011, thank you for your suggestion. But I'm afraid that we cannot use your summation, or at least your (2) and (5): it's plagiarism since you repeat word for word what a secondary source wrote without using quotation marks. Being that we already have a large quote in (6), I'm more in favor of a paraphrase, hence my (2) and (5). If there's something specific about either that you dispute (even if it's minor wording), that's fine; I'm of course open to changing them. But if there's nothing in it you dispute, I'm inclined to keeping it. Plus, while you repeat what Gasde writes, my summary better tracks both what the higher quality Norton source and Yeakley himself wrote. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- We seem to be getting closer. Nietzsche123 Just confirming that you don't want to use your original heading: "Members Personality Changes" anymore? Are you thinking we go with the later option of "Yeakley's 1985 Research on the BCC" or maybe take the heading away and move it under another section? (I'm less inclined for it to be a free standing section rather than a paragraph possibly on the BCC). Any thoughts? As for the above discussion on (2) and (5) i'll take a look and get back to JamieBrown2011 & Nietzsche123 soon. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think my original heading was 'ICOC members' personality changes'. Regardless, it shouldn't be the title if we're only permitted to cite Yeakley when secondary sources refer to him. Yeakley's claim that the BCC changes the personalities of its members isn't repeated (as far as I'm aware) by secondary sources. But I'm also not a fan of 'Yeakley's 1985 research on the BCC'. For one thing, it's not descriptive enough. For another, Yeakley's research on the BCC consists of other things besides the psychological study we're discussing here: the psychological study in question represents one of his numerous chapters about his research on the BCC in his book. So I'm more in favor of something like 'Yeakley's 1985 psychological study on the BCC'. By the way, 'psychological study' isn't my own term: Yeakley uses it to describe this portion of his research starting with his table of contents and continues using the term throughout chapter two of his text. I'm also inclined to think that Yeakley's study should receive its own section. I would think that the BCC section should discuss the history of the Boston Church of Christ, not necessarily a psychological study completed by an academic and Church of Christ minister. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"psychological study" sounds a little too close to an accusation of brainwashing. MBTI is most common as a personality assessment to help people choose an appropriate career path. Maybe its safer to head it 'Flavil Yeakley's 1985 study on the BCC' (@Nietzsche's suggestion but without "psychological"). Then when people read the section it will explain. JamesLappeman (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have also been reading over Nietzsche123 and JamieBrown2011's versions. My take is that while it may be preferable to paraphrase, the sensitivity that we have all had to deal with over primary and secondary sources leads me to think that we should go with JamieBrown2011's as is. It is clear (as requested by Cabe6403), properly sourced as per the help from the DRN volunteers and because it is properly referenced the accusation of plagiarism is a bit overstated. Please read it again and maybe we can close the chapter:JamesLappeman (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals actually completed all three forms. (5) Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader. (Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2) (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219)
- I'm not sure I understand how the term 'psychological study' implies or even suggests brainwashing. Yeakley states that researchers have conducted psychological studies of other churches, many of which haven't been accused of brainwashing their members. Plus, it's Yeakley's own term for the research we're discussing here. I agree that we need to be sensitive when paraphrasing secondary sources. I contend that my paraphrase does just that. An electronic copy of the entire Gasde article may be found here: http://www.csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vol15_no2_98/cutexperiencetext.htm. The relevant portion occurs very early on in the article. You'll have to get the Norton source from a library; the relevant page is 39.
Jaimie's summation plagiarizesI'm concerned with Jaime's summation since it repeats word-for-word what Gasde says about Yeakley's study.You have to use quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. You should always use quotation marks when repeating what another author writes. But being that we have a large quotation already in statement (6), I'm still in favor of paraphrasing. Plus, we were previously directed to use as much of the higher quality Norton source as possible. My paraphrase does just that. What specific points of my paraphrases (if any) do you think should be changed? Last thing: I don't think we should cite The Boston Movement: the book just repeats an entire chapter from Yeakley. The other sources cite Yeakley directly in their works, not repeat a chapter. Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand how the term 'psychological study' implies or even suggests brainwashing. Yeakley states that researchers have conducted psychological studies of other churches, many of which haven't been accused of brainwashing their members. Plus, it's Yeakley's own term for the research we're discussing here. I agree that we need to be sensitive when paraphrasing secondary sources. I contend that my paraphrase does just that. An electronic copy of the entire Gasde article may be found here: http://www.csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vol15_no2_98/cutexperiencetext.htm. The relevant portion occurs very early on in the article. You'll have to get the Norton source from a library; the relevant page is 39.
- I have modified it:
(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) Yeakley asked the church members how they perceived their personalities to be before their conversion, a second time how they perceived themselves at the current time, and a third time how they perceived themselves answering in five years time. (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals actually completed all three forms. (5) The majority of those tested tended to change their MBTI scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction of those changes was towards the personality of the leader. (Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2) (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219)
JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
References
- Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2)
- Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, page 219
- http://www.somis.org/TDD-02.html, The Discipling Dilemma, pg 30
- Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, page 219
- Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2)
Jamie, while I think this makes some progress, I'm still concerned with it, since: 1) you still repeat word for word a sentence from the Gasde article, and 2) you seem to paraphrase the other two sentences by just changing a few words here and there. Generally, we should paraphrase by putting the author's words in our own. That's what I tried to do with my summation, which I include below.
(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a psychological study of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley passed out three different Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests (Yeakley and Gasde citations). (3) The tests asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (5) A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Yeakley citation p 37)
I think it has a number of advantages over your summation. First, it's shorter, but not so short that we lose something from the study. It also better tracks the higher quality Norton source. Also, my (2), (3), and (5) paraphrase instead of either repeating word for word or nearly repeating word for word. I know I've asked this several times now; but I'm curious. JamesLappeman, please feel free to chime in, too. What is it about my summation (or at least (2), (3), and (5)), particularly, that you find wrong? If it's just that you prefer to keep out Yeakley's term 'psychological study', I'm okay with that. But then we'd need to slightly change the rest. That is, I'm fine with the following:
(1)' In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test to the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2)' Yeakley passed out three different Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests, which asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (3)' While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (4)' A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (5)' After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Yeakley citation p 37)
Notice that I cite Yeakley instead of The Boston Movement in (6). I explicated my rational above. Jamie also quotes Gasde twice in his (5). If this is unacceptable to JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011, I'm afraid we're at a stalemate and hence need Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) and Mark Miller to help us decide which to use. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- As tedious as this is, we have made more progress in the last week here than we made in 3 months over at the talk page. I think we are very close to a version we all agree on. @Nietzsche your final version is much better with two issues. 1) You continue to cite 'Gospel Advocate' as a reference whenever you cite 'Yeakley' directly. GA is a primary source with no editorial board and no evidence of fact checking, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Since the reliable secondary sources cover the same ground being referenced here, I think it is better practice and preferable to stick with those sources and references. 2) Also, using terms like "A great majority" is also discouraged on Wikipedia as it is regarding as PEACOCKING or using peacock adjectives . Finally, since conciseness is important, I have made a few tweaks and replaced the two other mentions of the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator Test with (MBTI) and removed the (BCC) since that is not referred to again. So:
(1)' In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test to the Boston Church of Christ, the founding church of the ICOC. (2)' Yeakley passed out three different MBTI tests, which asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58). (3)' While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (4) The majority of those tested tended to change their MBTI scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the convergence of those changes was towards the personality of the leader. (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (5)' After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, page 219)
JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, JamieBrown2011. I like your use of 'MBTI' over my continued use of the long name. But I must insist that we cite Yeakley directly. No one has ever said that we cannot cite Yeakley directly, period. Rather we are now being told that we may cite Yeakley directly only when he is cited by secondary sources. So we really must include the Yeakley citations (along with the secondary ones). I disagree about 'a great majority' violating peacock adjectives since both Yeakley himself and the high quality Norton source use the term 'a great majority'. Heck, Gasde herself uses 'nearly all respondents'. So I insist that we use something like what Yeakley and the secondary sources employ. The only other apparent disagreement we have is over (5)', where you cite The Boston Movement instead of Yeakley directly. While I don't think we should cite The Boston Movement here because it merely repeats an entire chapter from The Discipling Dilemma, I'd much prefer that we cite Yeakley directly here, too, rather than not citing him at all. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) and Mark Miller, care to weigh in? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- This whole DRN has been about the use of secondary sources instead of Gospel Advocate. The volunteer moderators asked us to use the secondary sources (you can read the discussion again) and said that they would help us settle on wording. Nietzsche123 you keep on talking about using the "higher quality" Norton source but as soon as there is an attempt to write the article in a way that wont be confused with an strong accusatory claim then you jump onto the extremely "low quality" Gospel Advocate as a source to rewrite (claiming that we can use it when the others don't cover enough ground). "enough ground" means to have a clear overview of the research and a balanced explanation of the findings. This JamieBrown2011 has done. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- JamesLappeman, I'm confused by what you write. The volunteer moderators never told us to not cite Yeakley directly; rather, they've suggested that we only cite him directly when secondary sources cite him. I'm not the one who called Norton the highest quality of the secondary sources; I'm just repeating what Transporterman said. WW Norton is an esteemed publisher; so it makes sense that the articles it contains are of higher quality than the rest. You make several accusations in what you say immediately above, but I can't decipher what you specifically mean. Again, do you contest any of the statements in Jaime's or mine summations? If so, which statement? The only difference between his and my summation is (4)'. I've given at least two reasons for preferring mine to his. I also contend that we should cite Yeakley directly in the summation, in addition to the secondary sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- See this from Mark: "Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA". So we should cite Yeakley in the summation, even if it's the last of the available citations. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Taking into account Jamie's most recent summation and my comments I arrive at the following summation.
(1)' In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test to the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2)' Yeakley passed out three different MBTI tests, which asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (3)' While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (4)' A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (5)' After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (The Boston Movement citation p 219 and Yeakley citation p 37)
What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey folks, I was pulled away with IRL stuff this past week. Appologies. Looks like you're doing a great job working together to come up with a version everyone agrees with Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Cabe yes we have made much progress, which is very positive. @Nietzsche you say in your last post "taking into account Jamie's suggestions..." but looking more closely you barely changed anything at all. Also, from your previous post to be "Insisting" that your suggestions and references be adopted is inappropriate and not very Wikipedian. We will not make much further progress towards the conclusion of this matter if you stick to that position.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Jaime, our summations only differ by one statement now: (4)'. I've taken into account your suggestions at least three times now, compromising on what I think should be included as the summation. When have you compromised? Yes, I insist that we 1) cite Yeakley directly as a source when secondary sources cite him and 2) that when we paraphrase the secondary literature we do it right by using similar (but not identical) language as they use. If you think that insisting that we maintain good citation practices is preventing us from making further progress, then I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Cabe yes we have made much progress, which is very positive. @Nietzsche you say in your last post "taking into account Jamie's suggestions..." but looking more closely you barely changed anything at all. Also, from your previous post to be "Insisting" that your suggestions and references be adopted is inappropriate and not very Wikipedian. We will not make much further progress towards the conclusion of this matter if you stick to that position.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey folks, I was pulled away with IRL stuff this past week. Appologies. Looks like you're doing a great job working together to come up with a version everyone agrees with Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Broadchurch#Miller family
| Resolved. Policy clearly permits the inclusion of the spoiler. Clivel 0 should see the closing comments, below, for suggestion about a way forward for forming an local exception to policy or having the policy changed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The last sentence of the paragraph about Joe Miller is "In the final episode, Joe is revealed to have killed Danny". I have attempted to remove this as it does nothing to ensure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served as per WP:SPOILER "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served". Because this information is already included on same page in the episode synopsis there would seem to be no reason to duplicate it where a reader would not expect to find it. Sonicdrewdriver and I are in disagreement. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Please see the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Broadchurch#Major_Spoiler_warning How do you think we can help? As the spoiler is already included in the page, to my mind there is no need to duplicate this spoiler so that a reader completely unexpectedly stumbles on it, and thus risk alienating the reader. Rather than leading to an edit war, I would appreciate other viewpoints.
Summary of dispute by SonicdrewdriverAs far as WP:SPOILER goes, we shouldn't censor Wikipedia to preserve narrative. That is what we'd be doing by removing the information on the identity of the murderer from their entry in the character biographies; the main character trait (that they were the murderer around which the entire series is based) should be included in the biography of said character. This has been supported previously, including by an admin (Ged UK) who saw it necessary to semi-protect the article to ensure this remains in place. The user who initiated today's dispute believes that the revelation has a place only in the synopsis for the episode in which it is revealed, but this severely limits the ability to find the information; we should provide information in a way that it isn't necessary to follow the entire narrative (read all episode summaries for the entire series) to reach one bit of information. It is my opinion (and one echoed by many other users) that we should not have to preserve such revelations in any way on the page about the subject, but that it is up to the reader what they decide to navigate to. There is no reason, in my opinion, that a reader visiting an encyclopaedic article on a murderer mystery can expect to do so without finding out who the murder is. Broadchurch#Miller family discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. Rather than talking about the identity of the murderer for a moment, let's talk about the fact that Mark Latimer is having an affair with Becca Fisher. That plot point is mentioned both in the character biography of Mark Latimer and in the episode synopsis for episode 1.3. Is the fact that it is mentioned twice objectionable? No, because it is important in both places: It's needed to give the essential facts about Mark Latimer and it's also needed to give a complete synopsis of the episode. If this were a minor or incidental fact mentioned in the synopsis about the character, say that he was driving and turned left onto such-and-such street, where the fact that he turned left was needed to make the plot make sense but said nothing about the character himself, then there would indeed be a good argument that there would be no encyclopedic purpose served by mentioning it in the biography. Indeed, most of the information in the character biographies is repeated in both places for that very reason and serves an encyclopedic purpose in that way: they're important both to understanding the character and to understanding the plot. Mere repetition of matters which are significant to both the character and the plot is, thus, clearly not unencyclopedic. It simply cannot be argued that the identity of the killer is not significant to both his biography and to the plot. The repetition of the fact that the character is the killer is clearly as appropriate in both places as is the fact that Latimer is having an affair. The only difference is that the identity of the killer is a spoiler and we do not make editorial decisions based on whether or not a particular fact is a spoiler. The information should stay in the character biography. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
While this is under dispute I am going to remove the spoiler, and the spoiler should stay removed until the dispute is resolved. Clearly from the number of attempts at removing the spoiler or alternatively attempts at warning about the spoiler, this spoiler is affecting many readers negatively. And given that only a very small percentage of Wikipedia users are comfortable with making changes, I think that it is safe to assume that a far larger number of people have been impacted negatively by the spoiler. So, while the section is under dispute, I think that it is fair to err on the side that causes the least offence to the most Wikipedia users. To do otherwise is in my opinion just plain mean spirited. Clivel 0 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, here are my arguments in favor of including the information: WP:SPOILER makes it clear that information about the show, even information that spoils enjoyment, should not be cut if it interferes with completeness. Revealing a killer's identity is a noteworthy event in the artistic work that seems to intuitively belong in the description for that character, as well as in the episode summary. We might be losing sight of the fact that Wikipedia is an academic tool, not an entertainment guide, so we must maintain focus and priority on the academic uses of the Broadchurch article, not just on the recreational and entertainment uses. Yes, people interested in the show will look at the article and will have information spoiled. Caveat lector. But a film student, or an aspiring writer who is researching the series may need access to this information, and shouldn't be expected to watch the entire series to get it. Thus, the inclusion of this information has academic and encyclopedic purpose. Further, the following from WP:SPOILER is a persuasive reason to keep the information in the article: Labeling (or cutting) a plot detail "as a spoiler would require editors to use their own subjective opinions to interpret the significance of a plot detail and its likelihood of altering the enjoyment of the work of fiction. This would be a violation of Wikipedia's core policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view." I think this is fairly clear. (Disclosure: I added "(or cutting)" to make the point that labeling and censoring would both be in vio of this principle.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
AussieLegend thank you for your input, although I think that you missed my main point probably due to waffling on my part - To paraphrase WP:SPOILER:
I feel that the spoiler in the episode summary ensures that the first requirement is met, however to my mind, the additional spoiler in the Character section contradicts the last point (which is admittedly only a suggestion), if only in spirit.
Closing comments: AussieLegend and Cyphoidbomb are absolutely correct that WP:SPOILER does not limit spoilers to Plot and Ending sections. What it does do is to say that we do not take spoilers into consideration in drafting text. Clivel 0 says that he has reasonable arguments and that is true, but those arguments can only be implemented in one of two ways. He can seek to establish a local exception to policy at this particular article, but to do that he must establish a consensus for that and he does not have one. Alternatively, he can seek to change the spoiler rule, but due to WP:CONLIMITED that cannot be done either here or at the article talk page, but must be done at WP:SPOILER following the procedure set out in the policy policy (not a typo). Other than doing one of those two things, Clivel 0 can only argue against what is a clear application of policy against his position and policy can be ignored only in one of those two ways: consensus or changing the policy. There is nothing to discuss further here. Clivel 0 can either file a request for comments to seek a local exception at the article talk page or seek to change the policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
|
FC Steaua București
| No extensive talk page discussion about the content in question as required by this noticeboard and by policy. If you cannot obtain discussion from the other editor, consider my suggestions here about how to address that situation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute See also User_talk:Jamesx12345#FC_Steaua_București for additional dialogue. Jamesx12345 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Users involved Dispute overview The dispute is over the history of the football club Steaua Bucuresti. The current form of the two wikipedia articles regarding this subject, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti are basically written by club employees who attempt to re-write history, regardless of well known historical facts described by multiple sources. When I tried to edit this articles another editor simply reverts any changes made, regardless of arguments given and references. More important, this editor refuses to use the talk page, violates the 3 reverts rules and has no arguments whatsoever to support the ludicrous affirmations currently displayed on these two articles. This editor also resorted to personal attacks in his comments made on the revision history. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened a discussion on the talk page, provided references for the edits and added arguments on the revision history when making edits. How do you think we can help? I need someone to simply take a look at the arguments listed in the original text and in my edits, IMO the informations that I added speak for themselves. Perhaps having a neutral 3rd party to write another edit would be a good idea. Summary of dispute by Narcis90Optimvs, tried to write from his point of view in a malicious way about Steaua's history. This is the single article on internet about what hi wrote & is his blog http://optimvs.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/steaua-bucuresti-buboiul-bolsevic-de-pe-obrazul-fotbalului-romanesc/
In fact he created his wikipedia account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Optimvs, specially for write this things about Steaua.
FC Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Optimvs (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
|
HEMU
| Please don't expect DRN volunteers to figure out who is involved, list them here, and notify them for you. Feel free to relist with all parties properly listed (and the article name properly listed so it links properly). — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Hemu was born in a Brahmin family, to Saint Puran Das, who was a Purohit and involved in performing Hindu religious ceremonies and rituals. On growing up Hemu got involved in business. Some historians have written him a Vaishya by birth (instead of Brahmin), which is absolutely wrong and needs to be changed on the page. One editor refuses to accept several citations and claims from Hemu's community and decendents that he was a Brahmin. Discussions are on talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Put citations and necessary information on talk page of Hemu and talk page of editor Sitush How do you think we can help? Please depute some editor who understands indian caste system and decide on Hemu's caste by birth and profession. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
HEMU discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|