Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 116
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 110 | ← | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | → | Archive 120 |
Talk:Impalement#tagging
![]() | The involved parties appear to have found common ground in terms of improving/expanding the article going forward, and as such moderated discussion is no longer required. They have agreed to seek out other editors on a relevant WikiProject. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 11:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by 96.52.0.249 on 13:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC).
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 User:OccultZone and User:I am One of Many have not addressed concerns regarding the section of Talk:Impalement/GA3. The one comment made by User:I am One of Many on Talk:Impalement/GA3 is nearly identical to These edits, though well intentioned, do not meet Wikipedia standards. The reassessment is an individual assessment; after 9 days, with no comments, I decided to delist the article from "good article status". I during the reassessment, I did not inform contributors because I felt that there were too many contributors inform. Some contributors have now been informed, and but the GA3 is not easily accessible on the talk page: One must go through the special pages and insert the prefix. Per WP:BRD, both users should be discussing the concerns. Comments can be made at the section or at the GA3.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously? How do you think we can help?
Summary of dispute by OccultZonePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This edit was the last one, made by 96. Anyways, what we have to see is, that there are no issues with the sources and the information. That is why dispute resolution is not the right place to discussing this matter. It is particularly more about changing the article's theme, for doing so, first it should be discussed, and this sort of edit warring[4][5][6][7] is probably not going to decide a lot of things. I believe that article should remain protected and any productive changes should be discussed on the article talk page. It is a GA, if I am One of Many or I am not going to agree with these changes, anybody else would still observe and recommend what has to be done. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by I am One of ManyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Impalement#tagging discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I've appealed to OccultZone for their input on the matter in case they missed the last few pings. At any rate, let me know if you're certain that the discussion can continue without issue on the article talkpage, in which case I'll close the case. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion appears to have gone stale, so I will post one last round of DRN talkpage notifications to request input from the other parties before I do a general close in a day or two. Obviously parties are not obligated to comment on DRN cases, but it will not be able to proceed if there is no discussion. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
With consideration given to the statements made by the involved parties above, I have the following suggestions to make in the interest of resolving this dispute:
What do the involved parties think of my suggestion(s)? Do you consider any combination of these an acceptable step towards resolution? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It is up to them to decide on how they will proceed with the dispute in terms of either continuing it here, or using some other resource, to reach a consensus on the issue. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:List of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#AP_Urban_area
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. The filing editor has only one talk page edit, which can hardly constitute "extensive" discussion. If after extensive discussion consensus cannot be reached, then this may be refiled here or other dispute resolution may be used. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The user is removed the edit even though I had it the enough info on the talk page prior to his revert. The user is stressing on removing Delhi NCT, which I have performed on his request. He also removed Andhra Pradeh capital city urban planning body which do exist earlier before the state was divided in the name of VGTMDA. Here is the ref. APCRDA official website the capital is yet to be built, but the region officially exist prior also with 4 municipalities. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've written in his talk page about that, he then bluntly removed and placed population as a means of first priority where the name itself suggest metro area. How do you think we can help? Just express opinions on that talk page and both of us talk pages. Also, please check which one is true. Whatever you decide I'm ready to accept. Summary of dispute by JayB91Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:List of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#AP_Urban_area discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source
![]() | Close as per my original comment - with an RFC ongoing on the issue, I would like to see the outcome of it before it comes back here. If it stalls, I'll gladly look at it oncemore. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2015 (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 Jytdog reverted a change that I made to a page and is refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for the reversion. I initially took this matter to ANI but was told that it was a content dispute. The change I made was to remove a citation that did not support the sentence in the article that the citation purported to substantiate. He claimed that the following sentence in the cited web page was his basis for claiming that the citation substantiated the sentence in the article: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. ..." Please note that these sentences make no mention of any scientific consensus. Please also note that they do not pronounce that any such foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." When I requested his basis for believing that these sentences from the linked web page were somehow equivalent to the claim in the article, his response was as follows: "I hear you; that is your interpretation" When I pressed him further (see my 05:36, 29 May 2015 post in the talk thread), his response was: "really, you are beating a dead horse here." When I again asked him to "...explain [his] analysis in more detail to justify [his] position that the citation should remain in the article," his response was: "And I don't agree...You cannot change things by pounding away on dead horses, ..." A further attempt at engaging in good faith resolution was met with: "...you are just shifting ground here. I suggest you drop the stick." Have you tried to resolve this previously? I submitted an ANI. Please see it for more information. How do you think we can help? I would like to hear an opinion by an experienced editor on whether I am correct that he is not making a good-faith effort to come to a genuine consensus on the matter. My secondary hope is that someone can help break the logjam in the discussion. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Grayduck has been here for literally 12 days and edited on exactly one topic - this citation in this article. That includes filing an ANI because i supposedly "refused to answer". My response there, was this, which includes diffs that I did respond directly. (The ANI was closed btw as this is a content dispute; there was no behavioral violation for action at ANI) It is a violation of the WP:TPG to misrepresent what another editor writes. I will consider joining this DRN if the OP strikes his/her mischaracterization of my response - namely that I am 'refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for the reversion" when they deleted the source. It may be that Robert McClenon is correct when he writes below that this may benefit from more structured mediation. But I am willing to give this a shot. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please note that, when I brought this up as an ANI, he did not address the substance of the dispute but, rather, attacked me personally with false accusations. If that is the way to make progress, please let me know--I can go ad hominem, too. GrayDuck156 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon is incorrect; no RfC exists pertaining either to the primary issue or to the secondary issue. The primary issue is Jytdog's failure to provide a substantive explanation for his reversion. He is the only person directly involved in that issue. The secondary issue is whether the WHO citation should remain. Only about half a dozen editors have weighed in on that issue substantively and all of them have either agreed that the citation should be removed or that the statement should be changed to better reflect the WHO source. An RfC does exist on that page, but it is a political debate about the safety of GMO food--not a discussion about whether the statement accurately reflects the WHO citation. Every editor that has substantively commented specifically on the WHO citation in that RfC agrees that it needs to go. For example, Sarah (SV), who has been a Wikipedia administrator for a decade, says that "...[the WHO's] position doesn't really support the paragraph." GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
(Self-appointed acting) Coordinator's Note: Our regular DRN coordinator is tied up with Wikipedia Australia matters at the moment, so I'm going to act on his behalf because this needs to be cleared up before this case moves forward any further. The filing party defines two issues above. The first one is about a user's conduct (i.e. "failure to provide a substantive explanation") and will not be dealt with here since DRN does not handle conduct matters. The secondary one is whether the WHO citation will remain. Though the filing party says that the RFC pending there does not cover that issue, his/her edit here begins, "The purpose of this RfC is not to debate GMO foods, it is to discuss whether the citations support the sentence in the article. The WHO citation, specifically, does not support it." That would seem to contradict the filing party's assertion that the RFC does not cover the issue. I would ask GrayDuck156 to please explain the contradiction because if the RFC does cover the issue, as it would appear to me to do, then this case must be closed under our rules here at this noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Coord note - thanks TransporterMan (things are under control with the WMAU stuff). Read over this briefly and agree. I believe that the in progress RFC should run its course (the usage of the WHO source is relevant in the discussion from what I can see and is not a separate issue). I also note there was a previous RFC on this issue in 2013. The WHO source is one of eight being used to reference a statement, so singling it out here does not make sense. The RFC needs to run it's course first - if it closes with no consensus, it can come back here, but I see this DRN thread duplicating the discussion in the RFC. Will close this case off in 24 hours, but it can be refiled if the RFC closes as no consensus. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 15:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: @Steven Zhang: So what should I do now? My ANI (on the primary matter I raised) was closed on the basis that it was a "content dispute." [8] Can I reopen that issue based on the assessment, here, that it is a "conduct matter"? GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC) @TransporterMan: "I would ask GrayDuck156 to please explain the contradiction because if the RFC does cover the issue, as it would appear to me to do, then this case must be closed under our rules here at this noticeboard." I have three problems with your conclusion. First, the paragraph at issue in the RfC does not even exist in the article at issue. Second, even if the RfC was talking about the sentence that actually includes the citation, the official question is as follows: "Do the sources support the content?" That question can be interpreted as "Do any of the sources support the content?" rather than "Do all of the sources support the content?" Some editors might answer in the affirmative because one citation supports the statement rather than because all of the citations support the statement. The danger with conflating those two concepts is that doing so potentially allows editors to combine unreliable sources that directly support a statement with reliable sources that do not support a statement and pretend that they sum to a statement that has reliable sources that directly support the statement. Another problem with conflating those two concepts is that addressing individual citations is a much easier task that is more likely to produce analysis that precisely addresses the strengths and weaknesses of each individual source. Only when the merits of each individual source are addressed can we realistically assess whether an extremely complex and sweeping claim truly is well sourced. The third problem I have with your conclusion is that many of the participants in that RfC are clearly interpreting it as a debate about the safety of GMO foods. For example, the first affirmative commenter--none other than Jytdog, who is both the person at issue in this thread and the author of the RfC--wrote: "No science has emerged since 2013 that changes the scientific consensus." That statement does not pertain, in any way, to whether the existing citations support the claim. It is merely a personal opinion that is designed to provide additional support to the claim. But if the claim needs additional support, what does that say about the strength of the existing citations? GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast)
![]() | Pending in other forum. Instructions at the top of this page say, "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion ... in decision-making processes such as ... Articles for deletion... ." — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Massive difference of opinion on whether a page created for an award-winning podcast is notable for inclusion. There is also disagreement about what has been put on the page with admins deleting information that other people feel is important for inclusion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Just extensive discussions How do you think we can help? Gibe an unbiased opinion on whether the page is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia in its original form before admin GiantSnowman made edits and also after GiantSnowman made edits. Summary of dispute by Calico1903Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AgouthelisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Rinkydink84Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RedJulianG40Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Imperatrix MundiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Fenix downPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GiantSnowmanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Beepi
![]() | It appears that this issue has been resolved on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by BC1278 on 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
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 requested via RFC that an editor assist with what I see as basic updates to an article where I have a WP:COI. e.g. The revenue of the company is now incorrect in the article and a more recent citation is available by the New York Times; Forbes now provides the company's valuation, which puts the previously cited venture raise of $79 million in context; the company received a major recognition from Forbes Magazine. There are new, in-depth profiles of the company in The New York Times, USA Today and Forbes and I attempted to improve the article with new information from these sources. I cannot make these edits directly because of my COI, or unless another editor approves them. The RFC editor asked for broader content and context beyond the financial updates so I provided new information on that as well. However, the editor rejected this non-financial content as well. I think the proposed editions (e.g. updating article's now incorrect revenue with a new, major independent source) would be completely non-controversial had I not revealed my COI. The editor is under the mistaken impression that financial information about a company is only of use to investors, when in fact, the financial aspect of a company is useful to anyone interested in the company, whether it's a consumer, journalist, government regulator, etc. Venture capitalists, in fact, can get the company's financial information from the company. VCs don't need Wikipedia, so the editor is incorrect in his assertion that I am proposing all these changes to solicit investors. Trying to keep the article up to date. Beepi has emerged as an important new company being extensively covered by most major media outlets. The Talk section cites above is a continuation of: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit§ion=4 and http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit§ion=6 and http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit§ion=7 Have you tried to resolve this previously? I requested another RFC. This reviewer, Damotclese, was in favor of putting the content requested in the article. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit But declined to make the edits directly himself (and I didn't want to do it with a split decision) and more generally, said the article was promotional in tone. I asked for specifics so I could improve the article. I provided major sources to support all facts. He summarily rejected all sources (NY Times, USA Today, Forbes, Wall Street Journal) as "paid-for stuff, it's the way the Capitalism works." How do you think we can help? Please evaluate the suggested content based on whether it would improve the article; whether the sources are reliable; whether the language is neutral. If I had not revealed my COI, would there by any issue with this content? If any of the new or existing content/language seems to you to be promotional, please help with changing the language or tone. I believe I wrote this as I've written other article for Wikipedia, without any COI, but am glad to learn from specific suggestions. Summary of dispute by JojalozzoI was invited to the RFC randomly by a bot. The edits proposed by BP1278 in the RFC relate to financial performance of the business. I asked for more content that discussed interesting aspects of the business such as the ways it was disrupting business as usual and the response of the industry. I also suggested that editors might be more open to the proposed, more promotional, content (mainly of interest to potential investors) if it was balanced by information of general interest. The fact that lots of crap gets contributed to business articles is not a good reason for lowering our standards for COI editors. Editors with a COI are supposed to suffer greater oversight and take more care. I think we are correct to expect high quality, well informed contributions from editors with a personal relationship to the subject. If the most interesting information about Beepi is its financial performance then I question the value of having a Wikipedia article about it at all and I certainly don't see any reason I or anyone else should spend more time on it than we have already. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Beepi discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: I'm neither opening or taking this case, but just want to note that there appears to be adequate discussion and notice has been given to the responding party. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am now opening this case for discussion; I will have further comments after I study the page history and talk page discussion. There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
These were items I requested. As part of a WP:RFC, Jojalozzo suggested the article be improved with "more content about user experiences, successes and complaints, and about how the car sales industry is impacted and responding". Many of the articles about Beepi have very positive anectodes about user experiences but in my opinion, they would come across as promotional. WP:PROMO There are not yet reviews of the service from an independent sources such as Consumer Reports. So there's no way to satisfy the first half of the suggestion from Jojalozzo. But there is information that can be added about "how the car sales industry is impacted and responding", which could be added to the end of the "Services" or "Growth" sections:
The above points are all I could find about how the car sales industry is impacted. No reliable source as of yet on how the car industry is responding. Thank you very much. BC1278 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)BC1278
References
I have been hanging back and watching the conversation because it looked like it was moving forward, but I believe that it is now time to step in. Here is what I propose as a way forward. BC1278 copies the article to a subpage in his user space (I suggest User talk:BC1278/Beepi Draft as a title) and edits it until it is just the way he likes it. At that point I will look it over for any obvious problems, and will ask a couple of other uninvolved volunteers to do the same If we think it is better than what we have now (possibly after suggesting a few improvements), I will replace what we have now with the draft. Needless to say comments by other participants that attempt to point out problems with the draft would be welcome, but the decision will be made by three or more uninvolved editors, not the editors who have been unable to reach agreement on this. And of course once the new version is in place anyone can edit it,`following the principles of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Sound fair? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC) That's fair. The edits are minor, so I can accomplish this in short order. Many thanks. BC1278 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278
Note: Anyone, involved or not. os welcome to look at BC1278's proposed changes and comment on them here. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the article is being improved, and I am seeing zero objections from Jojalozzo, here or on the article talk page. I am going to wait another 24 hours to allow final comments, and if there are no objections I am going to close this as resolved. I would like to thank Jytdog for the hard work he has put into improving the article. I would also like to thank SageRad for his thoughtful comments. They really went to the heart of the issue. Have either of you ever considered becoming DRN volunteer mediators? We just recently doubled the pay (which was previously $0)... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Related issue #1; we have established that it is OK for BC1278 to make uncontroversial edits to pages where he has a COI, and that the kind of financial information about current performance (as opposed to predictions about future performance) that is in pretty much every Wikipedia page about a corporation is uncontroversial. Related issue #2; a question was raised on the article talk page about compliance with our COI policy, and I have suggested that it be discussed at WP:COIN (certainly not on DRN or on the article talk page). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement_in_countries_where_fair_use_does_not_exist
![]() | Participants failed to show up to participate even after being notified and waiting several days. Per comments by our DRN coordinator (see bottom of this thread) I am closing this case. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview User Bianbum is not engaging with me or the other editor who disagree with an addition of theirs on multiple grounds. Erpert suggested opening a request here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Me and other editor have left messages on Bianbum's wall and asked them to use the talk page. How do you think we can help? Weighing in on disputed text and suggesting future courses of actions Summary of dispute by BianbumPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TedickeyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement_in_countries_where_fair_use_does_not_exist discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just giving a reminder and a recommendation:
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Sean Hannity
![]() | Pending in other forum. DRN does not accept cases pending in other dispute resolution forums such as MEDCOM. — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:54, 12 June 2015 (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 There have been allegations that Sean Hannity associated with neo-nazi Hal Turner. A proposed entry on the allegations has been rejected on the grounds that the episode's very inclusion in Hannity's bio constitutes undue weight. Should the allegations feature in the article? If yes, to what extent? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive debate in talk section. How do you think we can help? Establish a consensus on whether or not an entry is appropriate, and on what kind of entry should be made is if is. Summary of dispute by Niteshift36Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CwobeelPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MaleroosterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RocdahutPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JimintheatlPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KellyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Asher196Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FuriousJorgePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by StargnocPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Baltech22Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZonerocksPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JohnInDC.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sean Hannity discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Mediation Committee Chairperson's Note (with DRN volunteer's PS): There is a Request for Mediation pending on this matter, which is due to be rejected or accepted by the Committee by June 16 (though that date may be extended if the filing party here adds additional parties there; the list of parties here is much more extensive than that given there). If RemoteControl97 wishes to proceed here at DRN s/he should immediately withdraw that request by putting a note on the mediation request page. For the Mediation Commitee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
|
List of_Murder,_She_Wrote_episodes
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview This page unlike EVERY OTHER page on wiki has details about who the Murderer is, Yet i have pointed out this is out of sync with all other wiki pages about TV detectives. I pointed out why is this one so special I never get a proper response to this. Wikipedia:Spoiler is used but there is a BIG difference to plot etc and naming who did it on this one page, show me another page with Murderer.. Quincy, M.E. doesn't Kojak doesn't etc Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page but not one want to give any suggestions How do you think we can help? Have a proper ruling on this subject, and have everyone singing of the same hym sheet. Personnel I don't think its WIki job to give pin point details about Murderer. IF that was the case Why would you read up on the pages in the first place???? Summary of dispute by SkyerisePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of_Murder,_She_Wrote_episodes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale
![]() | Moving this case to the original research noticeboard and closing it here. Please take further discussion there. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Well originally this dispute came about because an Indian study stated that some estimates suggest the Typhoon has 1/4 the RCS of a Rafale. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Radar_signature_reduction_features http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf It simply added supporting information. I didn't state anything that wasn't in the sources or say it in a way suggested anything other than what was said. It originally read: According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[1] I added "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite,[2] while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.[3]" Can't see the problem. I've been accused of OR but I haven't synthesized anything not in the sources as you can see. If the issue is whether composites have a lower RCS then metal, that is a scientific fact, well supported even by wiki: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/navy-experimenting-with-composite-superstructure-for-warships/articleshow/47056945.cms Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussion, not resolved. How do you think we can help? Look at the two sources provided in my addition (2&3) and determine if I've said or inferred anything not in them. Summary of dispute by MztouristI have already raised Z07x10's edit-warring at WP:ANI, but will respond here. the issue first arose from an edit in February where I questioned the reliability of a source on the Talk Page, see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale, the statement was tagged and was left at that. On 24 May Z07x10 editted the phrase claiming to add a source but actually just removing the tags, I reverted this. On 28 May Z07x10 added a comparison of relative %s of composites and his OR/Synthesis that the Typhoon had a reduced radar signature. I reverted this and Z07x10 and I discussed this on the talk page. User:Fnlayson who tagged the disputed statement then trimmed the OR on 29 May. On 30 May I removed the OR and restored the tags. Earlier today an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. I reverted the changes and advised that the IP wasn't me. Z07x10 has then engaged in an edit war, his changes have been reverted by me and 2 other users. Z07x10 then made the baseless accusation "You have also reverted more than 3 times using sock puppet accounts. Home PC, work PC, lap-top, mobile device, proxy servers, all unsigned edits. I've had the same problem with you before". As can be seen from the current Talk Page and the latest Archive, Z07x10 has done OR before (number of hardpoints) and adopts an extremely argumentative approach with other users who disagree with him (maximum speed). If you look at his Talk Page you will see frequent warnings for edit warring and incivility. Mztourist (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I must express my concern that the edits by Z07x10 (talk) seem to present the view that the purported difference in RCS between Typhoon and Rafale is due to the 15% difference in composite surface area and the latter's metallic intakes. This specific assertion is *not* supported by any of the sources given. There are cites of some general sources which confirm that composites reflect less radar signal than steel, but to tie that or other features to specific comparisons of RCS is clearly synthesis. I would therefore oppose their inclusion. I would also discourage the use of manufacturers' own websites as citations, except for innocuous details such as date of first flight etc. HLGallon (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment by involved McSlyHLGallon and Mztourist have nailed it. This is a clear case of synthesis. Z07x10 is inferring that difference in radar signature between the Eurofighter and the Rafale is due to the difference of composition of their surface without any source stating that link. This is not the first time is this user is trying to push his own OR/Synth on this article with a battleground mentality, see this from last year for example. --McSly (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but am merely noting that (1) notice and discussion seem to be adequate, First statement by volunteer moderatorI am opening this issue for discussion. I don't know much about this topic, and I expect the participants to provide me with any information that I need. My job is not to decide any issues, but to facilitate discussion. I see that there is a question about whether particular statements are original research because they may be synthesis by Wikipedia editors. Original research by Wikipedia editors is not permitted. Are there any other issues? Please be civil and concise. It appears that the participants in this thread have been civil, which is good. Civility is not an optional nice-to-have factor in Wikipedia, but is mandatory. Please explain your position briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Please comment in your own sections. Do not add your comments to those of another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Comment on content, not on contributors. Comments on other contributors may be stricken or hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC) First statement by Z07x10Ignoring what has or hasn't happened previously, as it is irrelevant, in the current edit, shown below, every separate sentence is individually sourced and says exactly what is supported by the source and no more, as per the 3rd example in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, which is marked as correct/permissible. The allegations that the following contains OR/synthesis is false, I'm simply pointing out exactly what is contained in a variety of sources and have not made any links or suggestions that one proves/disproves the other (as per the two incorrect examples on the OR/synth page): "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[15][verification needed] Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.[16][17] The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.[18][19] An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.[20] Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.[12][13] The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection.[21]" Also particularly relevant to some of the counter points you'll see: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not 1. Wrt composite percentages - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article." 2. Wrt counter opinions - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be." http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all "If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim." 3. Wrt to maximum detection range equation - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_explanation "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis." http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4"" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question "Most Wikipedia articles, those on subjects of general interest, should be comprehensible to a typical secondary-school student. It does not follow that a secondary student should be able to evaluate whether the cited sources suffice to verify a particular assertion. Inevitably, many sources are more advanced than the article. Normally, however, an ordinary educated layperson can understand the sources adequately. If such a person can confirm that the sources suffice to verify the claim, then the claim is not SYNTH -- even if a typical secondary-school student would have trouble evaluating the question."Z07x10 (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC) First statement by MztouristA clear case of OR/Synth that follows a pattern by User:Z07x10. The issue first arose from an edit to Eurofighter Typhoon#Radar signature reduction features in February stating that "some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return". I questioned the reliability of a source on the Talk Page, see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale, User:Fnlayson then tagged the source and it was left at that. On 24 May Z07x10 editted the phrase claiming to add a source but actually just removing the tags, I reverted this. On 28 May Z07x10 and User:Fnlayson added a comparison of relative %s of composites and OR/Synthesis that the Typhoon had a reduced radar signature to support the questionable ref. I reverted this and Z07x10 and I discussed this on the talk page. User:Fnlayson who tagged the disputed statement then trimmed the OR on 29 May. On 30 May I removed the OR and restored the tags. On 4 June an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. I reverted the changes and advised that the IP wasn't me. Z07x10 then engaged in an edit war for which he was warned for edit warring and false sock accusations, see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned), Z07x10 then accused me of edit warring see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mztourist reported by User:Z07x10 (Result: Declined), so it hasn't exactly been civil. Since then Z07x10 has continued to modify the paragraph adding sentences that while they may be individually factual (if primary sources are accepted and after some questionable sources were revised) add up to synthesis all intended to support the original questionable statement. A number of other users have also revised or reverted the paragraph and I have notified them of this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC) First statement by McSlyFirst statement by HLGallonSecond statement by volunteer moderatorI can see that the basic issue is whether certain edits by User:Z07x10 are synthesis amounting to original research. I can see that Z07x10 says that they are not original research. However, because of the length of the discussion, I would like a very brief summary, either quotes or diffs, showing exactly what edits are the controversial ones. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Also, while this is a reasonable place to discuss whether edits are original research, there is a separate specialized noticeboard for discussing arguments about original research. One possibility would be to move this discussion to [[WP:NORN|the original research noticeboard]. Would the parties agree to move this discussion there? If not, we can continue it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Please be civil and concise. Comment on content (including possible synthesis and OR), not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Z07x10No problems, here is the current paragraph with contentious bits in bold. I am happy with it, they are not: "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[22][verification needed] Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.[23][24] The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.[25][26] An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.[27] Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.[12][13] The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection.[28]" With respect to first bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm insinuating that the composite percentages are the reason for the Typhoon having a lower RCS than the Rafale, just because it follows a sentence that does draw a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say: 1. Wrt composite percentages - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article." I.e. it is not synthesis just because two sourced facts are stated in separate juxtaposed sentences. So when Mztourist says, "This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence," he is incorrect. Even if we removed the part about the Rafale, it would still be in the Rafale article[29], indeed the image source is from that article anyway. So the facts would all still be there in wikipedia, saying the exact same thing and having the same meaning. As per "SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition" the reader gets the same facts even if they are placed elsewhere in the article, or project. With respect to second bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm proposing this as further synthesised proof of RCS, just because it follows a sentence that does source a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4"" I.e just because I'm summarising the content of the radar detection range equation in the sources, it is not synthesis, and as before, it isn't synthesis just because it's juxtaposed either. The statement is correct, radar detection range is proportional to the 4th root of RCS as per equation marked out in source following sentence. See also, if required:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) Also of note, if two separate sentences are individually sourced and accurate to that source, it is not synthesis/OR and complies with example 3 in:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material Also applicable to complaints against paragraph: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question I am happy to include any sourced counter claims, as mentioned by Mztourist, if he can find WP:RS for them.Z07x10 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Mztourist
To analyse the contentious paragraph: "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[30][verification needed] This is the original wording from February that all of Z07x10's later edits seek to support. Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.[31][32] The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.[33][34] This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence. An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.[35] I'm really not sure what this is trying to say as it is comparing the Typhoon against a completely different, stealthier aircraft. Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.[12][13] I'm also unsure what this is trying to say. The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection.[36] This is another attempted comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale (which does have a vertically mounted radar). In my view all of the above amounts to Synth to support a claim made in a questionable source. User: Z07x10 doesn't present any information that could support the contrary position such as that the Rafale's engine intakes conceal the engine face more efefctively than the Tyhpoon. I certainly don't wish to see this page devolve into a blog of "the Typhoon is steathier because of this" versus "the Rafale is stealthier because of this." Unfortunately that will be the result if the questionable source is supported by this OR/Synth. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Second statement by McSlySecond statement by HLGallonIn this case, in contrast to the general case of Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, the juxtaposition is the root of the matter. It is obvious to me and several others that there is a clear implication in the first three disputed sentences, of "A *because* B and C". The "because" which readers may very well infer is the synthesized OR. The sentences would not have the implied meaning if they were in separate paragraphs or part of the article. All other arguments and apologia are irrelevant. Third statement by volunteer moderatorI think that there is an impasse. As I noted, the issue is whether certain edits by User:Z07x10 are synthesis amounting to original research. In particular, is there "mere juxtaposition", or is the juxtaposition such that it amounts to synthesis? Two editors think that the edits by Z07x10 are original research. Z07x10 maintains that they are not. I see two ways forward. The first would be a Request for Comments to the community. The second, which I recommend, is to go to the specialized original research noticeboard and ask the opinion of other editors who have experience in dealing with original research controversies. I will be closing this case after getting comments from the editors as to which route to take from here. (If there is no agreement as to how to go forward, I will go to the specialized noticeboard). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Third statement by Z07x10Yes, the OR noticeboard would probably be a good idea Robert. I can't agree that two separate sourced statements amount to synthesis, because neither of them amounts to the suggestion of a third point that isn't expressed by either of them, and that is the crucial aspect of this. If you look at the incorrect examples here [37]. There is a third point/opinion being suggested by the crucial words in bold: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world." In the third example it's more complicated but there is still a clear insinuation that the rule broken is not plagiarism and that Jones may have broken another rule relying on one editor's interpretation/OR of a source: "If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." You can see the clear linkage between the sentences, "practice" -->> "this rule" and the manual "does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead..." It could be acceptably rewritten as: "Not consulting the original sources is contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. According to the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." There is no longer any editor OR/synthesis although a reader may still perform their own OR/synthesis, which does not count as editor WP:OR. Now my edit: "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[38][verification needed] Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.[39][40] The Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.[41][42] Here the point that the Rafale has a larger RCS is included in the first sourced sentence, the Typhoon's surface area composition is stated in the second point and the Rafale's surface area composition is stated in the third point, without any adjoining commentary linking the two. There is no suggestion that the Rafale has a larger RCS as a third point, because that's already sourced and pointed to in the first sentence. Could the first sourced point be because of the second and third sourced points? Well it could but the editor has not suggested that themselves with any inflammatory text, as shown in bold in the above examples. Any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader and that is impossible to prevent and does not constitute editor OR, as shown in [43]." An apple is a kind of fruit that is eaten by many people. Apples contain fruit sugars, vitamins, water, and fiber. Apples can be eaten raw or cooked. Some people are allergic to eating apples. Is the reason that many people eat apples because they contains fruit sugars, since these are sweet? Is it because of the flexibility provided in being able to be eaten raw or cooked? Well it might be but the editor has not suggested this simply due to juxtaposition, any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader once again. Wikipedia rules under juxtaposition do not hold an editor accountable for reader OR, only their own OR. It simply tells complainants, as readers, not to perpetrate their own OR and blame it on editors[44]: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't." Ultimately it is impossible to write in a way that stops readers thinking and drawing an opinion on the multiple facts presented to them and would we want to anyway? Editors are not responsible for human nature, only their words. Inferring words that aren't there is a complainant problem not an editor problem. Z07x10 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Third statement by MztouristThird statement by McSlyYes, this should go to the original research board. This is as a clear case as it gets.--McSly (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Third statement by HLGallonFourth statement by moderatorTwo editors have agreed that this can be taken to the original research noticeboard to ask other editors who are experienced in determining what is and is not original research. The other two editors did not disagree. As a result, I have opened Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon_and_Comparison_to_Dassault_Rafale and am closing this thread. Further discussion will be at that noticeboard. Please be civil and concise there also, and comment on content, not on contributors. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC) ReferencesReferences
|
Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific
![]() | Lack of adequate participation, as well as a conversation that did not progress much when it was (semi)active. A lot of that conversation was also reduced to attacks, and comments out of line of the moderator's requests. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Disagreement about what content to include related to the context of the War of the Pacific in the article Economic history of Chile. Our discussion is about what is neutral and what is relevant for inclusion. I cleared the article of non-economic content that user Keysanger thought would balance the views on the origin of the war. Yet Keysanger have also at times removed and put into question some of the sources I have provided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Requested a third opinion. How do you think we can help? By helping define what sources are valid or not and what content is relevant or not for the article economic history of Chile. Summary of dispute by KeysangerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User Dentren wrote: Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[55] Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain.[50][56] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[50] In the mid-1870s, Peru nationalized its nitrate industry, affecting both British and Chilean interests.[55] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[55] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[55] In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:[50][55]
This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883).[50] It has been argued that the economic situation and the view of new wealth in nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war against Peru and Bolivia.[50] [note 2] I ask Dentren to respond following questions course according to the 5-WP pilars:
I thank Dentren in advance for his cooperation to resolve Salazar's trouble. --Keysanger (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note: Keysanger has been notified. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Coordinator's Note: I've pinged L235 that this case is ripe to be opened. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
OK, lets wait until the volunteer open the discussion. I will discuss here and not in the article page. --Keysanger (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC) So, not sure, but I think now is the discussion open. Hello L235, thanks for helping us to sort out the trouble. I must say that English is not my first language but I keep it simple and direct. Don't hesitate to stop me when you mean that something is not clear. I propose following roadmap to resolve the problem:
L235, Dentren, what do you think about?. --Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
DRN Coordinator's Note: I've moved the foregoing discussion from the summary section to here in the discussion section, just to put it in the right place. You are free to continue the discussion at the article talk page until the volunteer opens this for discussion, but please refrain from discussing it here until that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (current Coordinator)
DRN Coordinator's Note #2: L235 has announced that he will not be able to take this case. Kharkiv07 can you proceed with it, since you've expressed an interest? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dentren and Keysanger: I will now be mediating this case; I highly appreciate Keysanger's points and Dentren's response to them, this dispute is already going in the right direction. For now, I would like you to comment only in your own section; however I will allow you to respond once to a point the other makes in your own section. I would also strongly advise both of you to refrain from editing the article for the time being, if there are any more blocks for edit warring on the article I will withdraw my support and I fear it may lead to topic bans. Now, as far as the dispute goes, I would like both of you to either give text or simply a handful of ideas which you would be happy with and you think the other person would be happy with, remember the goal here is compromise. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Dentren's first proposal
I have tried to follow these principles in the writing:
References References
Dentren | Talk 21:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Keysanger's first proposalWelcome Kharkiv07!. Dentren doesn't want to say any thing about Peru and Bolivia, only about Chile, because, he says, Avoid duplication of things already discussed or The thing with the article is that it is about Chile and economics. Do you think that (X=Jews/Armenians/Yazidis/Gypsies)
would be a fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views description of X-genocide? I think we don't disagree on content, but in the hard facts that should be shown. Compare both descriptions:
I stick to the first line written in WP:NPOV:All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Dentren wants to save hard disk space, he says. But indeed, his text is sensation-grabbing and larger than mine!. Kharkiv07, What do you think about the genocide description?. Do you think it is neutral?. What do you think about the description of the causes of the war? --Keysanger (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC) ResponsesKeysanger has already more or less responded to Detren's, and I will not comment what I believe to be NPOV or not, but I would like to hear constructive responses to the other, including suggestions that would make you happier while preserving the original author's intentions. The goal of this is not to get to a final product, but move closer to a compromise in the middle.Kharkiv07 (T) 17:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Detren's responseFrom Keysangers proposed text I can think of having brief mention of economic downturn in Bolivia and Peru (and perhaps globally). What I would like Karkiv, Keysanger and others to do is to rememberv that the article is ultimately about the economic history of Chile. Anything about the War of the Pacific that is not related to the economics of Chile should be kept to a minimum and discussed elsewhere. Dentren | Talk 19:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Keysanger's responseIn order to explain the economic causes of the war in Economic history of Chile we have to explain which was the context of the war, that is the situation and role of Peru and Bolivia or we get the description Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the genocide. That is what you are offering now in your proposal: a biased, fringe use of some sources for an sided description of the causes of the war. Dentren says, he followed the principles Being concise ..., Avoid duplication ..., Retain the attention in the economy of Chile ..., Mention of historiographical debates/differences should not obstruct flow or prose. But aesthetics or saving of hard disc space aren't not the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Any solution must be based in the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, aesthetics and saving of hard disc space must play a secondary role. And marginal, fringe ideas must be mentioned AFTER the main views have been explained. --Keysanger (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer's second point@Keysanger and Dentren: From now on I'd like you two to only comment in your own section. Now, that being said, I tried my best to work out a compromise based on your points. Tell me how you feel about them.
Kharkiv07 (T) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Keysanger's responsePinging Keysanger for comment Kharkiv07 (T) 16:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Dentren's responseI appreciate the work of Kharkiv in this dispute resolution. Hope we have managed to reduce the issues to their essentials in order to solver them. I would not like this effort bogged down by a sudden rise of new or resurected complains. I don't see a major difference on "who's right" on facts (at least reading from the last commnetaries of Keysanger), the issue is how to present them in a maner that is: a. relevant to article and not off topic b. how to in brief words express plurality (of views) and weight (of views by expertise and what is the "scholarly maintream".. if there such thing.) relating to the impact of the economic crisis on Chile's decision to enter war.
|