Closing, as this has not been commented on for almost two weeks. Feel free to file another case here if dispute resolution becomes necessary again. (If you do file another case, I recommend simply linking to this thread to save typing everything out again.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)13:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Sorry to bother busy clerks, however I need some outside input. I may well be wrong, overreacting or both, however I am having an issue with User:DocKino at The Beatles. I believe said user is inappropriately "rolling-back" sections of the article to one of their preferred versions, perhaps here, from 2009 or here, from 2011, or some version in between. DocKino has made these edits without any prior discussion at the talk page or regard for the numerous hours of work that had been put into the material by several editors since the last incarnation they endorsed. Disclosure: During my extensive copyedit of the article (approximately November 2011-April 2012), I did in fact make several undiscussed deletions for the sake of brevity and accuracy, however, to my knowledge no one ever reverted any of them of any substance, objected to or even discussed anything in that regard with me while I was devoting numerous hours copyediting the article. Indeed, I have over 11,000 edits to my credit including over 1,000 at the Beatles article and in 2.5 years on wikipedia only 47 of my edits have been deleted. I would have been more than willing to discuss any of my edits, as they were occuring, however I do not think rolling them back two months later, without any discussion is appropriate. Are these "restorations" of content or the use of sub rosa "rollbacks" in a content dispute? Clarification: I am well aware that DocKino does not actually have rollbacker rights, nor do these edits in the strickest sense constitute technical rollbacks, however, my point here is that DocKino's edits are de facto rollbacks, achieved manually via copy-paste from previous versions. In other words, one can rollback paragraphs, sections, or entire articles, in one edit, or in several, piece by piece, without ever actually using a rollback in the technical sense.
I've omitted several examples that if taken alone, look like perfectly good content work, however, if you study the edits carefully, in their totality, you'll notice that 80-90% or more of the restored material is included nearly verbatim in either the FA version from nearly three years ago or this version from November 2011.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Beatles}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have made attempts on the user and article talk pages.
How do you think we can help?
By determining if this type of restoration/reversion/rollback was used appropriately.
Clerk Comment: Hello. I am a volunteer/clerk here at DRN. This is not meant to imply that I have any sort of authority or enforcement rights; I'm just an editor (with some experience resolving disputes) who is working here to help establish consensus. First, a couple "rules of order": this appears to be a rather complex issue, so patience will be important from everyone involved - just remember that we're not in a hurry. Also, try to keep your comments short and sweet - long responses are going to cause the discussion to string out.
Okay, GabeMc - I see you've also filed a thread about this issue at WP:WQA. That is, of course, up to you (and DRN is for addressing content, not conduct), but after looking at all of the talk pages involved, and I have to wonder if a WQA is really necessary. I don't see signs of incivility or "bullying" (as you put it). Yes, you have the option of carrying out the WQA, and I wouldn't try to stop you if you really think it's necessary; the only reason I'm bringing it up is because I think this will be easier for everyone if we keep all of this discussion in one place. Now, on to the matter at hand. You contend that DocKino is performing de facto "rollbacks". What is the contentious content that is being "rolled back"? I need both sides here - first, DocKino, since you are the one performing the reverts, the onus is on you to explain why. What part of GabeMc's additions/changes to the article do you object to, and why? Sleddog116 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Just dropping in to say I'm aware of this thread and intend to respond to the request for information you've posed, Sleddog. This is a very busy week for me in the real world, so I just want to hold off until I can focus and respond in the appropriate spirit--probably Friday or Saturday. Thanks, DocKino (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The dispute is over whether certain polls should be described as polls regarding single-payer (diff). To me they clearly are, the sources identify them as single-payer polls and while wording affects the outcome of the polls, the content of the polls, comparing a healthcare plan to Medicare (US) and Canada etc. is clearly single-payer since those are single-payer systems and are identified as such in other wiki articles.
The argument against that seems to be either that (a) Americans don't know what single-payer is or (b) those aren't single-payer systems so it doesn't work on polls, none of which is supported anywhere.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Public opinion on health care reform in the United States}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussed it on the page.
How do you think we can help?
Deciding whether or not those are polls regarding single-payer.
Public opinion on health care reform in the United States discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This ultimately seems premature. Discussion is happening at the talk page, and I'm relatively confident we can come to some sort of conclusion. If anyone feels the need to input, the polls are described by media organizations differently than the questions that were asked. Thus, the questions reflect an opinion from the populace that is different than what CartoonDiablo wants to include in the article. I thought we reached a good compromise, apparently s/he disagrees. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I placed the pov-check tag that prompted this dispute, but I am otherwise unfamiliar with the past history of the editors and articles involved. I placed the tag after noticing that the polls CartoonDiabolo added were sourced from an explicitly partisan and non-neutral web site. I would like a clearer idea of where this data is from, what it is intended to add to the article, and whether there might be other data that was selectively omitted from the source web site (as I noted that even that website qualified their list as "polls showing support for a single payer system", suggesting that there might be other polls not on the list which had different results). All that said, I am not on any particular side of this dispute and would prefer that someone more familiar with the issues in question take a look at it. -- LWGtalk22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It seemed at a deadlock but I suppose there can be a way to reconcile it. From what I can tell, there are 3 polls which can be argued not to be about single-payer and thus can be removed (although I think they are effectively the same thing) but everything relating to Medicare, Canada's/England's system and single-payer are explicitly single-payer polls since Medicare (US) and Canada/England had at the time the questions were asked and continue to have single-payer systems.
While the organizations that cite the polls are political they cite the original questions which, since the polls are comparing the US system to single-payer systems, are clearly single-payer polls. I would ask the other editors how such polls by virtue of using Canada's system and Medicare are anything but; there is no evidence or sources that suggest Americans don't consider those systems to be single-payer, that Americans don't know what single-payer is or that those are not single-payer systems so how are the polls not asking about single-payer? CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
My concern has nothing to do with whether the polls are about a single payer system or whether Americans know what a single payer system is (or the much more relevant question "whether Americans know that Medicare is a single-payer system"). What I want to know is two things:
What purpose are these polls intended to serve in the overall context of the article? What useful information are they meant to communicate to the reader?
What assurance do we have that the analysis of the polls provides by an explicitly partisan advocacy group does not introduce pov problems to the article?
These are the concerns which led to my placing the pov-check tag, regardless of whatever existing questions about the polls may be going on at the other article. -- LWGtalk02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Attempts to solve the definition problem failed, moving the discussion back here. Thargor has said that:
you're assuming that "like Medicare" means "single payer" to poll respondents with no evidence to support it other than your understanding of Medicare as a single-payer system.
Does this mean that (a) poll respondents don't know what single-payer is or (b) Medicare and Canada/England's systems are not single payer? And if so what evidence is there of this? It would seem absurd that poll questions asking respondents whether or not they would prefer a single-payer system are not single-payer polls even when multiple sources cite them as such. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
See my reply on the article talk page. Also, if any uninvolved editors are reading this, please consider looking at the material CartoonDiabolo and Thargor Orlando are arguing over and helping us work out what needs to be done. -- LWGtalk04:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Both editors seem to claim that most Americans don't know what single-payer is leading to problems with calling them single-payer polls. This is problematic because (a) there's no evidence whatsoever for this and (b) even if it can be proven that most Americans don't know what it is, by virtue of telling polls they would want to implement single-payer systems they are therefore unknowingly preferring single-payer which confirms the polls as single-payer polls.
Thargor has claimed that there is evidence for this by virtue of wide variation in polls. The problem is there is no such variation, almost ever poll is 60%+ in favor with the only poll that's not being a Rasmussen poll which is often alleged for conservative bias. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I will be continuing this discussion at the talk page, not here. If CartoonDiablo is serious about actually trying to fix the problem, he will join us there and do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Can an outside editor please clarify whether or not someone party to the dispute can unilaterally just leave? The dispute is unsolvable in the discussion page which is why it is here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thargor is under no obligation to discuss anything anywhere, and it is understandable if they do not wish to put up with someone who they feel is being unnecessarily difficult. However, I hope that both of you will be willing to show some patience and work this out satisfactorily. If for some reason you are unable to discuss the issue on the talk page, I am willing to continue to discuss it here, and copy the discussion to the talk page afterwards, although unless some uninvolved editors decide to join in here this venue is not going to be any different from the talk page. -- LWGtalk22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope so too, on my part I suggested that we remove 3 polls which can be construed as non-single-payer polls and am awaiting for an outside editor to give his opinion over whether they are such. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Having taken a closer look at the dispute and the sources involved, I think I have a better idea of what is going on. There seems to be several intertwined issues here. Would both of you agree with the following summary?
Feeling that the existing wording in the Single-payer health care article, which stated that many polls showed support among Americans for "a system like medicare", was unfair, CartoonDiabolo changed the wording to say that the polls showed support for "single-payer".
Thargor Orlando reverted this change.
CartoonDiabolo and Thargor Orlando engaged in an extended discussion on the talk page as to whether to use the "like medicare" wording or the "single-payer" wording. Thargor Orlando claims that the actual polls used "like medicare", while CartoonDiabolo claims that since medicare is a single-payer system, if respondents said they wanted a system "like medicare" then they actually wanted a single-payer system. Furthermore, he claimed that the usage of "like medicare" was not as widespread as Thargor Orlando claimed it was.
As the argument continued, CartoonDiabolo found a source for polling on single-payer healthcare, and added it to the article as a new section. He then added a similar section to Public opinion on health care reform in the United States.
At this point I became involved, because for some reason that page was on my watchlist. I noticed that the source of the new content was a website called "Physicians for a National Healthcare Program", which raised red flags as a potential source of pov issues. I therefore tagged the article and requested that the content be scrutinized. This brought Thargor Orlando and CartoonDiabolo to the article, where they continued their existing debate.
Whew, this is too much text for one posting. I will post my understanding of the facts and questions facing us shortly, but in the meantime do you both agree that this summary fairly reflects what has happened so far? -- LWGtalk23:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that's fair and thanks for the effort to post all that. My thinking is that whether or not those can be called single-payer polls is the most crucial question both for this article and beyond and is what will allow the other questions to be answered. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is deceptively simple (not purposefully on your part), but I'm not interested in fighting this in two venues. The proper place is the talk page of the article, not to rush to DR simply because the discussion is not going your way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but I'd rather see a resolution in an unnecessarily inconvenient manner than no resolution at all, and CartoonDIabolo seems to feel like he has to do it here. -- LWGtalk02:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to, there is nothing wrong with collectively deciding that you want to close this, go back and try to resolve this on the article talk page. You can always open a new DRN case if that doesn't work. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll just say that I offered as a solution both here and the talk page, to call the polls single-payer polls and remove the ambiguous ones (which is more or less the defacto structure of the article now). Other issues like what kinds of reforms to include as noteworthy etc. stem from that; we need to agree on basic facts before looking at article structure in my opinion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Currently there is a edit war happening on the page between myself and another user who up until a few days has made zero contributions to the article and has begun making massive edits mostly based on their personal opinions and not facts. They refuse their edits with anyone else. I have spent over a year keeping the page updated and accurate and understand this is a site free to anyone to edit however myself and others are pretty much being blocked from this person who feels their edits are the only ones that matter. I even recieved a First Warning after asking this person to discuss it on the talk page but they keep insiting on being childish.
I noticed on their talk page their edits haaven't been so well recieved in other articles and they seem to have a habit of making random edits without responding to anyone.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=I'm with You World Tour}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Yes. I tried to discuss it with this person, asked them why they made these edits and the response was mostly due to personal feelings and not facts.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hello Jason1978, and thanks for posting to this board. I'm a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I thought I'd let you know my opinion on the situation. Looking over this dispute, the first thing I notice is that there hasn't been any substantial discussion on the article's talk page. It's actually a requirement of this noticeboard that editors involved in a dispute make a good-faith attempt to find a consensus on the talk page before a case can be filed here. (I see that you have posted on each other's user talk pages, but I don't really see a discussion taking place at all.) For this reason, I'll close this case after you've had the time to read this message.
However, I also want to give you some advice before you take this back to the talk page. First, it is always a very good idea to assume good faith on the part of the other editors involved in any dispute. It is all too easy to assume that if we don't like an edit, then the person making it has bad intentions; however, in all my time being involved in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I have seen that this is very rarely the case. Most often, there is a perfectly valid reason for the other editor's actions, maybe because of a Wikipedia policy that we didn't know about, or some other reason. I think that in this case, both of you are acting in good faith. Once you have both found out the reasons why the other editor has been doing what they have been doing, it is much more likely that you'll be able to find a solution on your own.
One very good way to understand what the other editor's reasons for their edits are is to break down the dispute into separate issues. In this case, I spotted four or five different points on which you seem to be disagreeing. I suggest discussing each of these separately, one at a time. This should make things manageable, and get you focused on talking about the content, rather than what you might perceive the other editor's motives to be.
Also, I noticed that itsbydesign mentioned WP:SOURCES in one of their edit summaries. If Itsbydesign is questioning some of the sources in the article, as this suggests, then it would probably best to make this the focus of the discussion. If the sources aren't suitable for backing up the claims for which they are used, then it might be best to find another source, or to leave those claims out. Or it might turn out to be that the sources were fine, and the material should be left in. (But bear in mind that other Wikipedia policies may also apply.) If you have any specific questions about sources, then they would best be directed to the reliable sources noticeboard.
If you still can't find a consensus after discussing the issue, feel free to file another case here, and we can look at other ways to resolve things. Also, please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)08:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
the user, User:Fry1989 is continuously reverting the image that I uploaded, which I've clearly explained to him or her as the correct image for the article, the logo for the television channel OUTtv. I've outlined my points and provided proof of my explanation in the user's talk page and in the edit summary of the article. The user continues to act inappropriately and in my opinion is vandalizing the article.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=File:OUTtv logo.png}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have tried speaking to the user directly on the talk page and in the article summary, which has lead to no resolution. The user has acted inappropriately from the very start which has led both of us on a downward spiral ever since.
How do you think we can help?
Come to a decision on which image is the correct one. Block Fry1989 (talk·contribs) for vandalism.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Well, let me start by pointing out that I am actually the original uploader of the image in question, I did it several weeks ago (May 26th 2012) when OUTtv gave a press release on their upcoming change in identity. I got the file from that press release. Musimax only recently came along (last week or so) and uploaded over with a cropped version, and my initial upload was deleted as a non-free historical version, in common practice here when a on-free file is updated. I reverted that because the cropped version that Musimax over-wrote with was inferior in quality to the one I uploaded, and I explained that in my summary saying it was missing the shadows and gradients from the press release version. He has since uploaded over a different crop with the addition of transparency and a bit better in quality than the first, but it's still not as good as my upload. I've asked him to leave it alone, I've told him to leave it alone, and he simply will not stop edit warring on my upload.
As for the claim that I'm "vandalizing" the article. that's a VERY big stretch of a claim to make, since the only edit I've made to it in recent months was to add the new logo when I originally uploaded it the first time shortly after the press release. I'd hardly consider maintaining a higher-quality image "vandalism". This is ridiculous bullying by Musimax who just wants his own way without concern for quality. It should also be noted that I am the user who first contacted Musimax on his talk page, not the other way around as he insinuates. I got a nasty reply telling me I'm "playing childish games", a personal attack.
Musimax claims I'm acting inapropriately. However, it is he that has uploaded an inferior quality image over another person's upload. It is he who kept edit warring on the file after multiple explanations why it wasn't acceptable by the original uploader. It's he who gave me a very nasty reply on my talk page telling me to stop "playing childish games", and now it's he who is making false claims of vandalism to an article I haven't edited in two months. Hyperbole of this situation abounds, and it's offensive. Fry1989eh?22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
As I've explained in my edit summaries and on the user's talk page, the logo I uploaded is of better quality and is a more accurate representation of the channel's logo. The logo I uploaded is taken directly from the channel's website, it is also used on their Facebook and Twitter account pages. The gradient and shadows in the logo itself is the correct ones as evident by it taken directly from the channel's website and also used on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. It is also used on other cable company websites to promote OUTtv. No where does the logo ever show a shadow at the bottom of the main image (logo). Also, all other places show the same gradient as my logo shows. This is clear evidence that the image I uploaded is the correct and most accurate image of the channel's log and should be used in the article. In addition, the image I uploaded has a transparent background, which I believe is something that is or should be encouraged for quality purposes on Wikipedia. In response to personal attacks, the user in question began by making condescending personal remarks such as "Are you able to read?" in the edit summaries. I also did not insinuate that I contacted the user in question first on his/her talk page as the user in question says that i did, I simply said I did contact them, I never said I made the first connection. musimax. (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
You know why I asked "are you able to read"? Because you kept saying the file has no shadow below it, and I then explained that I wasn't reverting because of the shadow below, but because of the quality of the shadows and gradients in the logo itself. You then reverted me again and in your next summary you continued to complain about the shadow below the logo, saying "...and the logo should be removed just by the simple fact that the shadow at the bottom". My question, whether you consider it polite or not, was a serious matter because you directly overlooked my concern about the quality of the image, and kept going on about the shadow below, like that was my issue when it wasn't at all. I furthur explained that to you when I contacted you on your talk page, telling you that you were nitpicking about a minute detail and the expense of the image's quality. Fry1989eh?23:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A poor explanation of incivility which was started by yourself. Likely made up because you were called out on it. musimax. (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
As for the insinuations, I believe you have. In your first summary, you said that I have kept reverting the image that you' uploaded, which can easily be read to suggest you're the original uploader. Then in the question asking if you have contacted the user you are in dispute with an an attempt to resolve the matter, you said you did, but that's far from true. What really happened was that I contacted you first, and asked you to stop edit warring on my upload with an inferior quality image. You then gave me one nasty reply saying why you think your version is better and why I should just accept it, and when I didn't, you came here. One nasty reply does NOT make a valid attempt at dispute resolution with a user you are in disagreement with. Fry1989eh?23:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I stand by my wording, I did not insinuate anything. It is not my fault if people read into something different from what I originally said. I made my points clear. And if I did insinuate anything, it would have been pointless because others can just go back to see that I didn't contact you first or upload the first image. musimax. (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the original posting by the user in question, all the points are moot simply by the fact that the image I uploaded in better quality and the correct one. What else can I say other than what I've already said? The correct logo does not have a shadow at the bottom, the correct logo has the same gradients and shadowing inside the logo itself as mine does, the logo I uploaded has a transparent background. It is up to another impartial user(s) to decide as the user in question can not or does not want to see the truth and accept facts.musimax. (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
But it's NOT better quality! Just because it has transparency for the negative space (something I prefer myself anyways), and that you grabbed it from a different source than me (you their website, me their press release), doesn't make it better! If you put them side-by-side, your upload is of a lesser quality, many of the gradients are faded, and that's what I've said from the beginning. You could have worked this out with me very easily, but instead you kept edit warring on my upload, telling me you're better without looking at the validity of my concerns, and then coming here after one measly contact on my page which was little more than a continuation of your posturing on why mine is bad and yours is better, and then ask a good user to be blocked just cause you disagree (nitpick) about an extremely minute detail like the shadow below the logo itself. You started this, you exacerbated it, and now you're completely over-reacting. You continue to use insulting language like "the user does not want to see the truth and accept facts", you continue to overlook any concern I raise just because you think you have it better and it's your way or no way, which has been your attitude from the beginning.
To those who are viewing this: It would be a shame to block me because of Musimax's arrogance. I've been very clear why I don't like his crop and why I reverted it. I've attempted to be calm and concise in my concerns, and in my attempts to get Musimax to stop edit warring, and all I get in response is accusations of vandalism, and unhelpful comments such as "the user in question can not or does not want to see the truth and accept facts"Fry1989eh?23:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Fry1989 is under a 1 revert per week restriction, and so he should not have broken the conditions of his unblock. Neither party should have been uncivil. I have listened to the complaints of both sides and uploaded a new version File:OUTtv 2012 logo.png that should satisfy both parties. The old file and all its versions can now been deleted as an unused non-free file. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Last I checked that was for articles, not my own personal contributions to this project. Now should I have came here and reported Musimax after he broke 3RR on the file? Yes. But let's not over-react here and block someone for a simple mistake such as that, or mis-interpret edit restrictions because we have a past history of disagreements with a user, DrKiernan. Also, you should know better than to upload a separate version, all that will cause is moving the dispute from an edit war on the version of a single file to which file of two should be used on an article. Considering Musimax's absolute insistence that his version is better just because he's taken it from the website as opposed to the press release, completely overlooking any concerns another user has raised about it, how do you possibly think that having two separate files is a magical fix to this? Fry1989eh?18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm doesn't help. My question is a serious one: How does that solve the problem, rather than simply move it from a revision war on a single file, to a "which one should be used on the article?" battle? The answer is that it doesn't, nor does it answer my very pertinent concerns about the quality of the image. If I were to put my upload back on the article, do you really think Musimax would sit by? Ofcourse he wouldn't, he thinks he's right for the most silly reasons, and refuses to look at valid concerns instead choosing to use unhelpful language like "I refuse to see the 'truth'!". Fry1989eh?19:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Technically, nothing. But I could just as easily ask the question, what was wrong with my file? There was nothing wrong with it, only the useless nitpicking of a bully who thinks that just because he got his version from one source as opposed to another (but both from OUTtv), that somehow makes his inherently superior. My entire problem was that his crop degraded the logo, which could easily be seen when put side-by-side. I don't appreciate nonsense like that, and that is why I'm still posting here. Fry1989eh?20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
How exactly is the file I uploaded lesser quality? Because the colour at the bottom of the logo is not as deep purple as Fry's? The shading is a little different? What is this user even complaining about? And this guy thinks I'm nitpicking? HAHA! The actual logo part of the image is almost exactly the same in both images, except the image I uploaded has the slightest and tiniest bit of lighter shading at the top and bottom. If that isn't nitpicking, I don't know what is. What Fry1989 seems to not understand is that the shading and supposed "lesser quality" is due to the fact that, that is how the logo is intended to be. It isn't lesser quality, it's the way the logo was designed. It's not a hard concept to understand. Every single place I've seen the new logo on the net, it has used my version of the logo, the one with the lighter shading and the absence of the shadow at the bottom. Plain and simply, this is the correct logo. It is even used on the channel's own website.musimax. (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring the arrogance of Musimax's posturing (there's no such thing as a "correct logo", they're BOTHfrom OUTtv, they're BOTH correct), I really have nothing more to say. If you people aren't willing to deal with his bullying through his way, then go ahead and close this as "resolved". But don't count on my putting up with his repeated thinly-veiled attacks. Fry1989eh?21:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This comment can be perceived as patronizing, so I'm saying this ahead of time: I really don't mean it that way.
There is kind of an economy to a dispute, particularly conduct ones that end up at ANI or RfC/U or as far as ArbCom. You can think of this as a sort of internal "karma meter", and you lose a point for every ugly comment, regardless of the circumstances around it. Nobody really takes the energy to see who started an argument, and of course "he started it" has never been a good excuse anyway. Generally speaking, the kinder voice holds the cards in these kinds of disputes, even if they're totally wrong from a content perspective.
Here's the patronizing part, and I apologize: You're about even in score. If this dispute continues, the next logical step is a block. I won't be the one to do it, nor will I be the one keeping track so that I can tell admin to block. Any administrator looking over this dispute will say "well, protection didn't work, so what now?"
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: December 27, 2024 at 12:10 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The new file appears to be accepted, and the old file is tagged for deletion. DrKiernan (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
No discussion for five days. Please note that opening a new discussion on the same topic is allowed, and may very well avoid the issues that stalled this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The question is whether to include a passage describing a paper published by Boehmer-Christiansen (editor of the journal Energy and Environment): JournalScholar has repeatedly deleted a passage asserting that, as noted by Gavin Schmidt (a member of RealClimate), the paper claims that the sun is made of iron. That passage is supported by The Guardian (quote: "Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron"). JournalScholar's argument is that the source is wrong. If one digs into some of the sources used by The Guardian, I think it's clear the source is not wrong -- certainly not in conveying the perception that other scholars have about that paper's author.
It's worth noting, I think, that although JS first edited on Wikipedia several years ago he/she became active at a normal level only last month and seems unfamiliar with some core policies, including WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V. The edit history of the article shows at least one instance of editing beyond WP:3RR, and the article is now protected. JS has also now been warned under WP:ARBCC.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
extensive talk-page discussion
How do you think we can help?
help editors to understand the relevance of core Wikipedia policies/guidelines, and help judge the use of the relevant sources
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Amazing, he cannot even present my argument properly despite it being repeatedly stated to him.
1. The attribution of this line to Schmidt violates WP:V. While the Guardian article does include the line - Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron - it is not in quotes, so it cannot be verified that Schmidt characterized that the paper, claimed that the Sun is made of iron. This is an editorialization by the author of the Guardian article and the line is also a hyperlink that cites a blog. The author then includes a direct quote from Schmidt that does not include that characterization. It is very important when reading news articles to separate direct quotes from any author injected editorializations.
2. This line is not a NPOV representation of the paper (Manuel 2009) in question titled, Earth's Heat Source - The Sun - http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/v3600623g8txh577/ - The author's theory is not this disparaging characterization by the Guardian author. Dr. Manuel's theory proposes that hydrogen fusion creates some of the sun's heat, as hydrogen and can be found on the sun's surface. But most of the heat comes from the core of an exploded supernova that continues to generate energy within the iron-rich interior of the sun, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iron-02a.html - This is a vastly different context than the characterization in the Guardian. My NPOV edit was to remove the line, "that claimed that the Sun is made of iron" and have added the actual title of the paper. Nomoskedasticity has not even attempted to argue that his line is a NPOV representation of the paper or the author's theory and simply wants it included because the Guardian used the line and IMO to disparage the BLP.
Note, Regarding - "If one digs into some of the sources used by The Guardian, I think it's clear the source is not wrong -- certainly not in conveying the perception that other scholars have about that paper's author." - The "source" is a blog. --JournalScholar (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. We need more volunteers; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details.
At issue is the statement "Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the sun is made of iron." specifically, the part that says "...claiming that the sun is made of iron". That statement was added here.
So, does the cited source say that Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper claiming that the sun is made of iron.? Before I answer that, note that the article does not claim that the paper actually says that the sun is made of iron. What we are looking for is Gavin Schmidt's assertion. Here is a direct quote from the article:
"As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. 'The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway,' he says."
JournalScholar, could you please explain, in detail, why you deleted the above with the edit comment "No such quote is found on source of Gavin stating any such thing"? Were you under the impression that we can't include a statement like "John Smith asserted that unicorns exist" if unicorns don't actually exist? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, I did not initially add this passage. It was added in February 2011 (diff). I got involved when someone deleted it as unsourced (I found a source for it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats really the specific problem with the desired edit - you shouldn't use an opinionated six word partisan summary from Gavin Schmidt to reflect a whole paper and then use that so brief partisan summary to reflect negatively on the subject of this BLP and the website that she is involved in.Youreallycan18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see a really good case for removing the whole paragraph -- these "Third-party views" sections always make me question why those particular third-party views are given more weight than others, but I cannot agree that "the sun is made of iron" is a partisan description of a paper that contains the words "The Link of Earth’s Climate with the Iron Sun". See http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf section 2.6. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Three quick points: The 'third-party views' section was so-named by user JournalScholar. (diff) It struck me as an odd choice at the time. 2. This post on RealClimate, of which Gavin Schmidt is an active member, includes a direct link to Shanta Barley's piece in The Guardian[1] (see 'update' at the bottom). It appears that Schmidt was aware of, and happy with, Barley's characterisation. 3. User JournalScholar nevertheless disapproves of the "disparaging" description provided by The Guardian, furnishing instead an article on Space Daily which, get this, says precisely the same thing! "Sun Is Made Of Iron, Not Hydrogen, Professor Says". [2] If Oliver Manuel says the sun's most abundant element is iron (not hydrogen) then it's entirely fair to summarise his paper in the manner described by multiple sources. — ThePowerofX18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Each dispute resolution volunteer approaches a dispute is a slightly different way (and I will be happy to recuse myself if anyone had a serious problem with my methods). My approach is to focus in on one edit and get everyone to agree that it was or was not according to Wikipedia policies. Then I typically look for a problematic edit by someone on the other side of the dispute and repeat. Yes, I can easily show that Oliver K. Manuel says that the core of the sun is rigid and iron, but that is irrelevant to the question I asked. I want to focus on one thing: does the cited source say that Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper claiming that the sun is made of iron? If it does (hint: the answer is "yes"), why was it removed? Once I get everyone involved to understand Wikipedia policy on this, I will move on to the next issue. So please, stop piling on and give JournalScholar a chance to talk it over with me, OK? Our goal here is to resolve the dispute, not to "win". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is that odd? It is certainly not her views on these issues. The RC blog post says exactly, "The Guardian reports on the story". The link from Space Daily is not referring to the E&E paper. That was simply to show what his 'sun is composed mostly of iron theory' was in detail. The E&E paper is about the Sun's influence on the Earth's climate.--JournalScholar (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a completely inaccurate description of the paper. Your selection of words is cherry picked out of a section of the paper. The paper is, Earth's Heat Source-The Sun not Manuel's theory that the Sun is composed mostly of iron, that is a completely different paper. The paper The Guardian article is referring to is discussing the sun's influence on the Earth's climate. A NPOV would simply refer to the paper by it's title.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Guy, I already explained it. The Guardian's author wrote, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. It was not a quote from Schmidt. There is no way to verify that it can be attributed to what Schmidt actually said. The Guardian's author can easily be responsible for the characterization of the paper, that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. For example in the interview, Schmidt could have simply stated "look at this link" to go along with his quote and the Guardian author added in his characterization of the paper. It thus violates WP:V. Schmidt is very careful about what he actually says.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The Grove shopping mall's decision to ban Manny Pacquiao was based what on turned out to be erroneous information that the boxing legend had said gay men should die, according to a source in the Grove organization.
The writer of the original story also backed up Pacquiao's account. But some media outlets attributed the quote to the boxer.
This is a perfect example of how our Reliable Source policy *must be* read in full. Just because a publisher usually gets things right, doesn't mean they always get them right. Publisher, Author, Article, and context all matter. -- Avanu (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Alas, someone reading our Reliable Source policy in full would have -- rightly -- concluded that what turned out later to be erroneous information should be in Wikipedia, and anyone who challenged it would have had to come up with a reliable source that contradicts the (erroneous) reliable source that was cited. Then, when the retraction came out, that becomes a new reliable source that justifies taking the erroneous information out. We don't get to decide whether information is erroneous. We must report what the sources say. Once we do that, anyone challenging it must provide a source that establishes the error before reverting. That did not happen here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if someone challenges a source, it is up to us to verify it. We do not blindly accept that a source is 'reliable'. We are required by policy to show that it is. -- Avanu (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That is certainly true. Is anybody seriously claiming that the Los Angeles Times and the Guardian are not reliable sources? I mean other than "I don't like what they published so they must be unreliable". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone actually read the Reliable Sources policy? I mean really, I've explained this about 4 times now. A reliable source has 3 components. Publisher, Author, and Article. In addition, context matters. The LA Times and The Guardian are Publishers. That is only 1/3 of the test. Go back and read the reliable source policy. -- Avanu (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Still that is not my argument. Which is it cannot be ruled out that is was the Guardian author who added, - that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. This specific argument is the attribution of that characterization to Schmidt.--JournalScholar (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, I am quite familiar with WP:RS. It would be helpful if you were to stop quoting basic Wikipedia policy at me while implying that I somehow wrote something that contradicts policy. Also, I am trying to help the editors of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen to resolve a dispute. Perhaps you can pick a more appropriate venue to argue about interpreting Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar, You may think that you already explained it, but your explanation appears to be in conflict with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong, and I hope that you are as well. Could you tell me the exact wording of the part of WP:V that you believe it violates? The Guardian meets Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source. It sounds like you are arguing that material that is in reliable sources must be verified elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Your statement that The Guardian is a reliable source shows that you don't have a firm grasp of the WP:RS policy, but as JournalScholar says, this isn't about that, it is about proper attribution of a phrase. First, verify who the phrase "claimed that the Sun is made of iron" should be attributed to. Other arguments aren't really relevant. And incidentally, a lot of the debate here has revolved around a misunderstanding of how policy applies to the addition of this material. -- Avanu (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable" - It is not verifiable that the characterization, claimed that the Sun is made of iron can be attributed to Schmidt since it is not in quotes. Thus it cannot be ruled out that it was inserted by the article's author. Thus attribution of this phrase cannot be verified to come from Schmidt.--JournalScholar (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I brought it here because I didn't perceive it as a RS issue (that's Avanu's agenda). As for Avanu's attribution question: the phrase "that claimed that the Sun is made of Iron" should be attributed to Schmidt (per the Guardian article) -- as indeed it was.
JS believes that it needs to be in quotes to satisfy V -- but V simply doesn't require that. The heart of it seems to be JS's assertion that "it's a completely inaccurate description of the paper". (That's puzzling, in light of other things JS says here about Manuel's work -- but never mind.) As I said in my opening statement here, JS believes that the source (the Guardian) is wrong. But there's no difficulty whatsoever with V here. As several people have now seen, it is widely perceived that Manuel claims the sun is made of iron -- because Manuel does in fact write in his academic work that the sun is made of iron (something JS does seem to recognize). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
My 'agenda' isn't anything but seeing that this guy gets a fair hearing of whatever his point is. Guy Macon has the idea that something is a reliable source without anyone having any possibility of scrutinizing it. That relates to its verifiability, and this seems to be the entire stupid debate here and the dispute that needs to be resolved. Now instead of debating the WP:RS policy, can we actually focus on whatever the freaking point actually is, instead of people getting off track? -- Avanu (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Interpreting WP:RS is not something that DRN can or should address, but WP:RS says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It clearly says that if something has a reliable publication process OR an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject it is a reliable source. OR. Not AND. If you think about it, AND makes no sense at all. The New York Times publishes many articles every day with no byline, but we don't need to verify that the author is a RS, because the NYT editorial process has already vetted the article. Likewise, if a person who is a reliable source on a particular topic says something, he is a RS even if his words are published on a blog or some other unreliable source. (we do need to rule out the possibility that it is fake and he never said it or that it might have been edited). I invite Avanu to discuss this on the reliable sources noticeboard, but I will not discuss it any farther here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank goodness that you've agreed that this isn't the place for side discussions on a policy that you need to further understand. -- Avanu (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This is very interesting because I tried to do this to provide a NPOV by using the same blog source The Guardian used to quote Boehmer-Christiansen, "Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint." - Boehmer-Christiansen, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html - but it was reverted. This is a very important distinction as peer-reviewed papers carry legitimate scientific weight as opposed to opinion pieces. It also completely changes the context of the charge as she did not disregard reviewers to publish a paper as having the legitimacy of passing peer-review. This goes to her credibility as an editor of a journal for upholding those standards. Opinion pieces have no scientific weight. A reader of this page should know the whole truth for a NPOV, especially considering this is a BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomo, can it be ruled out that the author of the Guardian article did not add in the characterization, that claimed that the Sun is made of Iron? It is unknown from The Guardian source how he characterized it because he is not quoted on this issue. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Anything relating to "Dr. Manuel claiming the sun is mostly composed of iron" is not a NPOV representation of his paper titled, Earth's Heat Source - The Sun that is discussing climate change on Earth. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
When you look at the diff that Nomoskedasticity references as the disputed one here, and then look at the source:
As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway," he says.
The phrasing is just poor in the diff. This could have been resolved easily by rewording it.
FROM:Gavin Schmidt asserted that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the sun is made of iron.
TO: The Guardian reported that a formal paper claimed that the Sun is made of iron, which Gavin Schmidt says was published in Energy & Environment by Boehmer-Christiansen, against the recommendations of a reviewer.
End of dispute and still conveys the same information. This also relates to what I said from WP:RS. Context matters. You might have a perfectly reliable source for one purpose, but not ALL. -- Avanu (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not an improvement -- rather the opposite. There's no need to attribute to Schmidt the claim that the paper was published in E&E. What needs attribution is his characterization of it (that it claims that the sun is made of iron).
Again, the obstacle for JS is the notion that V requires a direct quote. It just doesn't -- all the more because there's no dispute about the nature of Manuel's work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Without a direct quote, you can't tell whether it is The Guardian interpreting the wording of Schmidt, making its own assessment of the paper, or the actual words of Schmidt. We can assume by logic that it isn't a direct quote of Schmidt because The Guardian probably would have just included that quote.
TO: The Guardian reported that a formal paper in Energy & Environment claimed that the Sun is made of iron, which Gavin Schmidt says was published by Boehmer-Christiansen, against the recommendations of a reviewer.
Ok, reworded again... now The Guardian is reporting it as being published by E&E, not Schmidt. Easy. Done yet? -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's clear the Guardian is attributing the characterization to Schmidt; if those aren't his exact words, then whatever they were they were close enough to warrant the characterization. I can live with attributing it to the Guardian, however. But in that case, we don't need any attribution to Schmidt at all. Boehmer-Christiansen is the journal editor; it can't be a matter of dispute that she decided to publish it, so we don't need to say that Schmidt asserted she did.
I, like Guy Macon, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I disagree that any of the formulations which has the Guardian saying anything about Manuel's paper is proper. The only thing being asserted by the Guardian, and the only thing that the Guardian's fact-checkers would have checked, is that Schmidt said something. That is clearly indicated by both the context in which the paragraph in question appears in the Guardian article and the terms, "Schmidt points to ... he says." The Guardian article, at least not the paragraph in question (I express no opinion about the rest of that article), is not a reliable source for any direct assertion about Boehmer-Christiansen or the journal she edits but, instead, only about what Schmidt said about them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, as I hope my post immediately above makes clear (despite saying I could live with Avanu's suggested direction). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the above 100%. The article should report what Gavin Schmidt asserted. It should not put Gavin Schmidt's assertion in the Gaurdian's voice. On the other hand, the assertion should not have been deleted, as it was in the specific edit I have been trying to discuss. --Guy Macon (talk)
Saying "The Guardian reported" does not put something into The Guardian's voice. The Guardian didn't put an exact quote on that portion that is in contention, so its not completely right to attribute that to Gavin Schmidt, however, since they did, in fact, report it, it is perfectly fine to say that very thing. -- Avanu (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, what would you think about the following: The Guardian reported that Gavin Schmidt noted that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper -- against the recommendation of a reviewer -- that claimed the Sun is made of iron.Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Instead of saying The Guardian said anything, say "Shanta Barley reporting for the Guardian said," but Avanu's suggestions, "The Guardian reported" would work. I also suggest removing the word "formal". I am glad that Avanu actually understands my argument which I falsely assumed was blatantly obvious. No one has been able to answer my question, can it be ruled out that the author Shanta Barley did not add in this characterization? - claimed that the Sun is made of iron. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Without full context it can be falsely assumed that this paper was published as having passed peer-review in defiance of the reviewers (this is the false impression I got before I read the sources and researched this fully). This is not a NPOV representation of this event. This paper after failing peer-reviewed was published as a viewpoint which are not considered peer-reviewed in E&E and published for debate at the discretion of the editor, "Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint." - Boehmer-Christiansen, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html - "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed, as well as shorter personal viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform." - http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee-mission.htm - http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=climate_ctte/submissions/sub573.pdf - Nomo is arguing against inclusion of this material. This additional information provides full context to this event for a NPOV. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1. The title of the article makes it clear that the article is very much about the Sun. 2. As two different editors have advised you, the passage you want to retain runs afoul of WP:SYN. 3. You might give some thought as to why Guy Macon proposes below that an RFC/U is opened regarding your behavior. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is clear from The Guardian that this Gavin Schmidt guy thinks the paper is trash-worthy. I don't see where a neutral description has to be in place, just a counterpoint, maybe, if it can be found and attributed to a reasonable source. -- Avanu (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that the "sun is made of iron" part can't be, but the "It was trashed and should have been" can be. Give us a suggested wording and let's get this wrapped up. WAYYYYY too much ink spilled on this debate at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1. But it is a NPOV characterization of the paper? My passage is two separate statements of fact, "This paper is titled, Earth's Heat Source - The Sun and published as a viewpoint article. According to the publisher, viewpoint articles are not peer-reviewed in Energy & Environment." The only position this passage is advancing is the truth. 3. I am not concerned with unsubstantiated charges or someone who could not even understand my attribution argument.--JournalScholar (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar, I hope it's clear to you that at least three or four other people here -- all with long experience at Wikipedia -- are telling you that your perspective on the edits in question (particularly the appropriateness of including the phrase claiming that the Sun is made of iron) is not tenable. We can work out the details, but it should be clear what direction the article will take when protection expires. I suggest also being mindful of the ArbComm warning you are under. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No, only one user has commented on this section here - Avanu. These are two separate issues, the main one was the attribution argument which was found relating to Schmidt - not to be tenable. I am interested on their perspective of if they believe it is a NPOV representation of the paper being discussed. I accept the attribution to the Guardian as valid. --JournalScholar (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposed Closure
Looking at this page and at User talk:JournalScholar, I have come to the conclusion that this is not the right place for this to be resolved. In my opinion, the issues with JournalScholar's behavior should be taken to WP:RFC/U(changed per suggestion below)WP:WQA and Avanu's disagreement about the proper interpretation of WP:RS should be taken to WP:RSN. (Note: I am not implying that Avanu is wrong, just that DRN is not the place for debates about policy.) If, after those issues are resolved and the page comes out of full protection, another attempt should be made to resolve any remaining disagreements about content on the article talk page, and a new case can be opened here at DRN if you are unable to resolve them on the article talk page.
Yes - I do - a RFC user for such a new user without any need or reason for a one month investigation - its a content dispute - it you feel unable to resolve it then allow another user to jump in - Full protection should remain and be extended until there is resolution via discussion. - Youreallycan20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I object also, because I'm not arguing whether this article from The Guardian is a reliable source. It seems clear that it is reliable for what it says. However, the assertion that the source speaks with Schmidt's voice on "the sun is made of iron" is in contention. It doesn't say it as if it is paraphrasing, nor is it in quotes, so the only fair statement we can make is that the Guardian reported it. Not sure how this is debatable, but I suppose anything is. I agree with Youreallycan that this is a content dispute, specifically the 'interpretation' of a source, not whether it is reliable. -- Avanu (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
BLP Edit and Removal of Phrase without DRN resolution being reached
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
An editor, the User:Readin, is objecting to my use of the word "claim" in my changes to the article, and variants thereof in other tenses, as part of a clean-up of some sort, unreasonably in my view, and is offering alternatives, at his talk page, if not other places, that can only be described as, if used, giving or rendering a pro-Derbyshire "Fanpov" slant or point-of-view. From his talk page, at (User talk:Readin), his understanding of the English language does appear to be a little strange. -- KC9TV19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=John Derbyshire}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Indeed there is, unsuccessfully.
How do you think we can help?
Possible language help, possibly from native speakers of both English and Chinese, and general outside input.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I'll copy and paste the main section (about John Derbyshire's personal life) that I was questioning.
Derbyshire appears to be married to one Lynette, or Lynette Rose, née Qi (齐红玫; Qi Hongmei), apparently a naturalized former citizen of the People's Republic of China, [25] and he claims to have two children between them, a daughter and a son. He apparently lives in Huntington, New York. He often recounted observations from his personal life in his former bi-monthly column, "The Straggler", in The National Review. In a July 2011 blog post, Derbyshire claimed that his then sixteen-year-old son "has set his heart on joining the [United States] military" and is "immovable on this, simply won’t consider anything else." [12]
He claims to be currently undergoing treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.[26]
The tone of the writing is that everything John Derbyshire says is dubious - even statements about how many children he has. I'm suggesting that the wording be more neutral. For example, instead of "Derbyshire appears to be married to one Lynette, or Lynette Rose, née Qi (齐红玫; Qi Hongmei), apparently a naturalized former citizen of the People's Republic of China, [25] and he claims to have two children between them, a daughter and a son.", we could write "Derbyshire has written that he is married to one Lynette, or Lynette Rose, née Qi (齐红玫; Qi Hongmei), a naturalized former citizen of the People's Republic of China, [25] and that they have two children between them, a daughter and a son." Instead of "He claims to be currently undergoing treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.[26]", it could say "He wrote in ... that he is currently undergoing treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia." We should use wording that simply reports what he said or wrote and let the user decide rather than using loaded words that seem chosen to caste doubt on the statements.
Slightly off-topic, but since KC9TV has mentioned it, there does appear to be a language issue. At first I just wondered if KC9TV wasn't reading my statements carefully and therefore misunderstanding some of them. However I noticed that his talk page has an "en-0" box, and that he seems to have completely misunderstood one of the questions asked as part of the dispute resolution: "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" "Indeed there is, unsuccessfully." I'm not sure how to deal with this since I'm not sure what precisely the difficulty is. As for "Chinese", he seems to be under the wrong impression that I'm currently living in Taiwan and am therefor unqualified to comment on subtleties of English. That should not be considerd an issue because English is my first, native, and mother language and I live in America where English continues to be my primary language of communication. Readin (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Notwithstanding of any implication that might or might not be drawn therewith, this is not what I actually said or wrote. I beseech you, and would respectfully suggest, that words not be wrongly attributed, and be "put into my mouth". -- KC9TV20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We have a guideline about usage of words such as claim. It's at WP:CLAIM. It is quite clear: "claim" is a loaded word, and where possible, should be replaced by a neutral term such as "says" or "writes". Using the word "claim" is altogether inappropriate for this case, and every effort should be made to replace it with neutral terms. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute over map of india and pakistan in article death of osama bin laden
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
the map in the article death osama bin laden shows a part of the map under pakistani terretory but it is claimed by both india and pakistan. and by showing it under pakistani terretory ascertain it as a pakistani territory,which disputes the neutrality of wikipedia acording to standards. it is requested to rectify the mistake at the earliest .
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Dispute over map of india and pakistan in article death of osama bin laden}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
How do you think we can help?
it can be helped by properly checking the map from verifiable sources
Dispute over map of india and pakistan in article death of osama bin laden discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
User:Martinvl and myself are having trouble agreeing on a suitable wording for a phrase in a sentence explaining the relationship between "km/h" and "kilometres per hour", in the section called "Use of kph", about alternative abbreviations in use, in the Kilometres per hour article. I favour something like: "a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents in all its member states". Martinvl insists on: "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states". The disagreement is over the use of the word "abbreviation", which I would like to see used to clarify the description of Martinvl argues that it would be original research (WP:OR) to include that word as two international bodies, the European Union (EU) and the International System of Units (SI), use the word "symbol" exclusively when describing that relationship in their documents. I argue that "abbreviation" is a usual term for that relationship in a general readership English-language-only article - where "km/h" is clearly an abbreviation of "kilometres per hour" ("/" is often used in place of "per"). My wording also mentions the fact that the SI call it a "symbol". I understand that the international bodies use the word "symbol" because they also use "km/h" to stand for "kilometres per hour" in languages where one or more of the constituent letters ("k", "m" and "h") may not appear in the initial letters of the phrase in those languages. I do not agree that English Wikipedia is obliged to disregard normal English usage practices and word meanings and has to necessarily comply with the conventions of these outside bodies. The dispute has descended into a continuous cycle of modification and reversion. Martinvl tried to get me banned by reporting me for "edit warring", see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. An administrator intervened and has now locked the article.
I believe Martinvl is being rather intransigent over this. I produced a list of 7 different references which supported the fact that "km/h" is an abbreviation, which Martinvl dismissed and continued to claim it to be WP:OR.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Kilometres per hour}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I would like some direction as how we can overcome this impasse as I believe that the article content will be made much clearer, and will be more understandable to an average English language reader.
The current wording in the article is "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states"
In the last version of the article before it was locked, User:Ornaith wishes to change the wording to "A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents in all its member states"
The EU directive contains the word "symbol" 35 times, but does not contain the word "abbreviation" at all.
There is a fundamental difference between a "symbol" and an "abbreviation" - and abbreviation is a shorthand for a word or an phrase which is formed from letters found in the phrase - eg "VAT" for "Value Added Tax" or (in Italian) "IVA" for "Imposta sul valore Aggiunto". On the other hand a symbol does not necessarily use letters from the phrase that it represents, for example the symbol "km/h" is the symbol for both "kilometres per hour" and [in Italian] "chilometri all'ora".
A large number of websites connected with the metric system draw to attention that symbols and abbreviations are not interchangeable. Foremost among these is the SI Handbook - Section 5.1 (the formal definition of SI) which states "Unit symbols are mathematical entities and not abbreviations".
Ornaith's proposed changes are riddled with problems and as a result I must oppose this change. My objections include:
The substitution of the word "symbol" by the word "abbreviation". It must be abundantly clear that there is a big difference between the two and it is highly probably that, given its international status, the EU really meant that the word "symbol" be used rather than the word "abbreviation". Moreover, Ornaith's proposed changes to the wording misrepresents the nature of the EU document - how would the Italians (for example) abbreviate "chilometri all'ora"? In my view this misrepresentation of fact to be worse than just WP:OR - at least WP:OR should get the facts right.
The inclusion of the phrase "(or "symbol" as the SI define it)" is a total bodge to hide a misrepresentation of fact. Why not just present the facts as they are? The rest of the section in the article (Kilometres per hour#Use of kph), if Ornaith actually read it, explains the significance of the word "symbol". (OK, it could be written in more detail, but otgher editors have objected in the past).
In short, Ornaith's proposed changes are so riddled with poor practice that there is no way it should be considered. Finally Ornaith is new to Wikipedia so he would do well to sit back and listen, rather than charge in with all guns blazing.
Hi Guy. Thanks for taking the time to look at this. However, and with all due respect, the reading suggestions you have offered appear to be addressing a different issue to the one presented here. This isn't a dispute about the presentation of units in articles or about what abbreviation/symbol should be used when referring to kilometres per hour. This is a dispute about whether we are allowed to use the English language word "abbreviation" when describing the use of "km/h" in place of the full phrase "kilometres per hour", or whether that would be rightly seen as original research. Ornaith (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for the correction. Sorry about that. Let me start over.
I see a problem with what both of you are saying.
Martinvl writes "Abbreviation is a shorthand for a word or an phrase which is formed from letters found in the phrase - eg 'VAT" for "Value Added Tax' ". No it isn't. VAT is an acronym, not an abbreviation.
Ornaith writes: "This is a dispute about whether we are allowed to use the English language word 'abbreviation' when describing the use of "km/h" in place of the full phrase "kilometres per hour". The term "km/h" is not an abbreviation. It is an initialism, like "EU".
Note: I am assuming that folks in the EU say VAT as one word instead of spelling it out and that they spell out EU instead of pronouncing it as one-syllable word.
BTW, Contraction is the fourth member of the quartet of commonly confused words.
OK, once we decide to use the correct word, we get back to the question of
"...as the initialism (or "symbol" as the SI defines it) for..."
Does the SI actually make that definition? If so, cite it and we are done. If it doesn't, (which I strongly suspect from the fact that both of you got the wrong word) we should not say that it does.
That being said, there are two possible replacements for "...EU directives require the use of "km/h"..." that do not have the "SI never made that definition" problem. They are:
"A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the initialism for kilometres per hour..."
"A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the symbol for kilometres per hour..."
Or we could just not decide and write
"A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" for kilometres per hour..."
Of the above, in my opinion "Symbol" is preferred, because that's the word used in the directive. "Initialism" would not be considered to be WP:OR as long as we don't pretend that someone made a definition that they didn't make - it is the proper use of that word. "Abbreviation" would be using the wrong word. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Guy. Given that Ornaith is [probably] Irish, I have taken the liberty of tracking down the Irish Gaelic translation for "kilometres per hour" - it is "ciliméadar san uair". Maybe Ornaith would be able to confirm that. Regardless, the symbol for "ciliméadar san uair" is "km/h" which is what the EU directive was getting across. Martinvl (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Guy yes, "km/h" may be an "initialism", but an "initialism" is just a more specific type of "abbreviation" (see the initialism article). So "abbreviation" is literally correct and is a more commonly used word in the English language, as evidenced by the seven references that I gave on the article's talk page to support the assertion that "km/h" is indeed an abbreviation of "kilometres per hour". If the more specific word "initialism" isn't WP:OR, then neither is the more general word "abbreviation". I've never read the EU directive or the SI document, but take Martinvl's word that they call it a "symbol"; presumably because they cover languages in which it isn't an "initialism" of the words used. None of that though renders my favoured phrase as WP:OR. I don't think "symbol" or "initialism" are as easily understood or appreciated in English as "abbreviation", and I think it's good to highlight that the multi-national organisations use the word "symbol" to be politically correct between languages, so my preferred wording choices are:
First choice: "A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI refer to it) for kilometres per hour..."
Second choice: "A European Union directive require the use of "km/h" for "kilometres per hour"..."
The former adds value to the pure assertion and makes it clear for anyone reading the SI text (assuming Martinvl's observations about its exclusive use of the term "symbol" are correct). I don't support the phrase using just the word "symbol" on its own with no clarification.
And yes Martinvl, I appreciate exactly the fine line of political correctness that the internatinal bodies have to walk along, and have understood all along (as evidenced in the discussion) why they use the word "symbol" to cover themselves, but do not accept that as an argument to compromise the English language we use in a purely English text such as this.
Metric system where you can learn about the underlying philosophy of the metric system
Until you have read and understood these, you are wasting everybody's time pontificating about things that you clearly do not understand. Martinvl (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing there invalidates my case, and nothing from any EU or SI document takes precedence over common everyday English, why on earth do you think that it does or should? And please describe exactly how you think Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research support your case, there is nothing I see there saying normal English must be discarded if the EU or SI invent a new term for a common abbreviation. Have you read the references I left for you on the article talk page yet? For your convenience here they are again:
[3]: Irish Department of Transport: Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8: Abbreviations on page 8: "km/h - Kilometres per hour"
[4]: Dictionary.com: "km/h - abbreviation for kilometres per hour"
[5]: Scramble: General Abbreviations: "km/h kilometres per hour"
[6]: Collins English Dictionary: "km/h abbreviation for kilometres per hour"
[7]: Wiktionary: "Abbreviation km/h 1.kilometres per hour"
[8]: MathsIsFun: "km/h An abbreviation of "kilometers per hour". A metric measure of speed."
[9]: IEEE : "Unit or term": "kilometers per hour": "Abbrviation": "km/h"
I am withdrawing from this discussion, it is going nowhere, but I am placing on record that I am opposed to the use of the word "symbol" with the word "abbreviation" when describing the requirements of EU directive 80/181/EEC in the article kilometres per hour. Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, the logic of my argument has prevailed. As your baseless and unsupported opposition can carry no weight, I presume that you will leave my words intact when/if the article is unlocked and I get the chance to edit it again. Ornaith (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I am at a loss to see how it can be helpful to the reader of an article about "kilometres per hour" to encounter a digression into the usage of the terms "symbol" and "abbreviation". I suspect such perplexity may contribute to Martinvl's opposition to the proposed insertion. Please could Ornaith explain how this unusual insertion improves the article for the reader? NebY (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith, your last comment was uncivil and combative. Apologize and promise that it will not happen again. To everyone involved, do not edit war or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WP:BRD contains good advice about how to handle this sort of conflict. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologise to everyone who thought that I came across as uncivil or combative. By the way Guy, which comment were you specifically referring to - the one about editing the document again? If Martinvl has withdrawn from the discussion how can we do the "D" bit of WP:BRD? Surely if Martinvl isn't prepared to "discuss" anymore, then my wording can go back in as it is no longer being challenged. Ornaith (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The way it works is this; let's say you have a content dispute with "Silent Sam" (I want to keep this theoretical). The article starts in a stable state - it has been pretty much unchanged for a while. You make edit X, which you believe improves the article, making sure to add a very polite, neutral, and descriptive edit summary. Sam reverts, with or without an edit summary. You see that the B and the R of BRD has happened, so you go to the article talk page and ask why your edit was reverted, along with a brief description of why you think it would be an improvement. That's the D, which opens the door to the next round of BRD. If there was a reason for the revert given in the edit summary, address that. The key here is to be cool, factual, and super-polite no matter what Sam does. If Sam refuses to discuss it, (Give him at least three days -- sometimes editors get busy) put your change back in with a comment like "undoing undiscussed revert; see discussion on talk page." if he reverts again and still refuses to discuss, read the following discussion...
...to see what some other editor's opinion are on this and then bring it up at WP:ANEW. The key here is that anyone checking the history will see you being unfailingly polite, always ready to discuss, and willing to wait a few days without your change being made to the article, while they will see Sam edit warring and refusing to discuss. Once Sam get warned, then you put your change back in. If he reverts again, attempt to discuss again and go back to WP:ANEW. No need to wait a few days this time. Eventually Sam gets indefinitely blocked and your edit stays in. The key is that by being patient, following the proper procedures, and making sure your own behavior is spotless, you win.
Getting back to the case at hand, I am not saying that NebY is Silent Sam. Many editors get frustrated and say they won't discuss things anymore. Just ignore that and continue on assuming that they will have good-faith discussions no matter what they said. If they really won't discuss but still revert, see above. The ideal situation is for NebY to also be patient, follow the proper procedures, and make sure his own behavior is spotless. If you still can't resolve the issue, that's what DRN is for. Do it that way and you both win. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Reading through all this, it appears "symbol" is the correct term, and only absolutely correct term, in some cases. When the article is discussing how various languages don't spell "hour" in the same way, some don't even use an "h", then "km/h" is a symbol rather than even an abbreviation, because you can't abbreviate "uur" to "h" or "quilómetro" to "km". In countries where the the language is consistent with the letters in "km/h", it could also be considered an abbreviation. In short, the use of the word "symbol" is correct in the EU documents because that is what it is. In everyday English, it would be more likely to be called an abbreviation, because even though it 'symbolizes' the full phrase "kilometers per hour", abbreviation is the generally understood word for such things. Someone saying "symbol" would be understood too, but someone might ask why they picked such a term. You could try a phrase like "The abbreviation km/h is a symbol used to denote the the unit of speed of kilometers per hour." After all, it clearly began life as an abbreviation, but was adapted to use as an universal symbol for the unit of speed. -- Avanu (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Avanu, I can accept that variation of the wording too. Let me try to integrate it into the disputed phrase: "A European Union directive requires the abbreviation "km/h" to be used as the symbol for "kilometres per hour..." How does that sound? Ornaith (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NebY (this discussion is getting a little tricky to follow now), the only objection Martinvl aired was the notion that the use of the word "abbreviation" is WP:OR because the EU use the word "symbol" in deference to the SI document. We have seen that that interpretaion holds no water. I am puzzled as to why you call the addition of clarification to a phrase as an "unusual insertion". Without my "unusual insertion", the phrase was: "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents...", which isn't very clear as it doesn't say when or why. I changed it to something like: "a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation for kilometres per hour in official documents..." Martinvl objected to this as WP:OR because the EU use the word "symbol". So I changed it, to accomodate that assertion, to: "a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents...". Martinvl didn't like that either, and still called it WP:OR. Hence we are now here. Ornaith (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, "a European Union directive requires the use of 'km/h' as the abbreviation for kilometres per hour in official documents..." is not OR but "a European Union directive requires the use of 'km/h' as the abbreviation (or 'symbol' as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents..." is OR -- it makes an unsourced claim about how SI defines a word. The choice between abbreviation, initialism and symbol is for consensus to decide; none of them violate OR or any other Wikipedia policy.
Also, in my opinion the statement "'EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents...', which isn't very clear as it doesn't say when or why." is not a good argument. None of the suggested replacement wordings say when or why, nor are they clearer. Perhaps you could expand on why it is that you reject this wording; it seems perfectly clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll go with your suggestion of: "a European Union directive requires the use of 'km/h' as the abbreviation for kilometres per hour in official documents...". And with respect to your excellent description of how to collaborate (the big block up above), can we safely put that new wording in if/when the article is unlocked, do you think? I'm happy to drop the stuff about "symbol", I only added it to try to appease Martinvl. Your suggested text seems to tick all the other boxes. By the way, the "when" is: as an abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" and the "why" is: apparently because the SI use that in their document, rather than "kph". Ornaith (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be completely fair to start again at the B in BRD when the block come off. If anyone complains, let me know and I will discuss it with them. It might be that nobody objects, in which case we are done it might happen that someone reverts, in which case I would hope that at the same time they opened up a discussion (either side can initiate the discussion). Otherwise, initiate the discussion yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I wish I had come here sooner on this one, you make it seem so straightforward! Thanks for your help here Guy! Do you think that if we (you perhaps) asked User:EdJohnston nicely, and we referred him to this excellent discussion, that he might unlock the article again right right away? Ornaith (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I just requested unprotection. Needless to say, I am counting on all of you to not make me look like a fool (that's my job!). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest the following revision:
«The impact of EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"[Note 1] is that the shortened form of "kilometres per hour" should be the internationally agreed symbol "km/h" and not "kph" as is used in certain publications.
Note 1 - As from 1 January 2010 this was extended to all aspects of the Internal market.»
Suitable references will be provided, including a link to the text to the EU directive and a link to Chapter 5.1 of the SI brochure (which deals with symbols). BTW, the phrase "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes” is taken straight from Article 2 of the EU directive. I described how to access these documents earlier in this thread.
Does this explain the background to my earlier objections? (BTW, I used the symbol "«" and "»" to delimit the proposal in order to remove ambiguity surrounding the use of double and single apostrophes. Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Both "abbreviation" and "symbol" have definite technical meanings in this context, and replacing "abbreviation" with its non-technical meaning of "shortened form" avoids that confusion. I do understand where Ornaith is coming from; if the IEEE can't manage to get this unambiguously right then I can't really expect a casual reader to understand the nuances involved.
The dispute doesn't seem to be anything more than Martinv1 preferring the technical reading of "abbreviation" and "symbol" and Ornaith preferring a more widespread reading. For this particular article I don't see any compelling reason not to stick with the technical meaning.
If one actually looks at the IEEE paper, one will see that Ornaith has misrepresented things - did he actually look at this reference or did be rely on the "Google summary"? Units symbols (to use the IEEE terminology) have been lumped into the same table as abbreviations and the table is headed "Unit Symbols and Abbreviations" - what the IEEE is saying is that for purposes of reading the IEEE document the reader does not need to know the difference between the two (in much the same way as many women are styled "Ms Jones" on the basis that in the context concerned their marital status is irrelevant).
By the same token, the Irish Road Transport document has also listed abbreviations and symbols in a single list for purposes of convenience - 12 abbreviations and 3 symbols in the same list. Moreover, does their house standard make provision for "symbols" to be identified separately from abbreviations?
English language dictionaries reproduce what is actually used and often words (and concepts) remain in dictionaries long after they fall out of common use. All that this entry does is to confirm that "kph" has been used sufficiently frequently in the past, not whether or not it is the correct word to use.
In short, even though Ornaith has supplied a quantity of references, their quality in this context must be called into question.
Martinvl, it is clear that you have strong feelings on this issue. Are you willing to make a commitment to follow the advice given in WP:BRD for resolving such disputes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am, I expect the same of Ornaith. I had to rap him over the knuckles for undoing a change of mine before I had a chance to publish my rationale on the Talk page even though I wrote "See Talk Page" on the Edit Summary. Martinvl (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to wave my magic wand now and declare a fresh start. We are going to forget what happened in the past and move forward. I want both of you to engage in a contest to see who can be the most polite, calm, coolheaded, and cooperative. The winner gets a teamwork barnstar (a valuable award that will, along with a valid credit card, get you a large coffee at Starbucks), and I am expecting to award more than one of them :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
May I risk a suggestion that might equally annoy all, but of a sort that has worked elsewhere? Discussion has centred on whether to use "abbreviation" or "symbol" or both, but we could simply use neither. It should be possible to collaborate in finding a form of words (such as "EU Directive stipulates the use of km/h rather than kph [for kilometres per hour]") which would be easily understood and brief. [The part in square brackets may be superfluous]. NebY (talk) 4:16 pm, Today (UTC+0)
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
The symbol for calcium is "Ca" and the symbol for water is H2O. The chemical fraternity have dictated as much and these symbols are accepted world-wide and that "Ca" is not an abbreviation (or did your your Chemistry teacher tell you otherwise?). In the same way the meterological fraternity have dictated that "km/h" is symbol for "kilometres per hour" and this is also accepted world wide. What is the difference?
The SI Brochure (Section 5.1) and the EU directive do not even mention the word "abbreviation". I have found four reasonably reputable sources that actually commnent on the use of the word "abbreviation" vis-a-vis the word "symbol". They are:
In view of this, I feel that no compromise should be made, but rather that as part of the Wikimedia Mission statement with particular reference to the word educational, readers should be exposed as to the correct usage of the word "symbol", not have editors duck their responsibility.
This is a question best answered through consensus. Both sides should try to convince other editors on the article talk page (this is where my advice about being super-polite come is; being super-polite greatly increases your chances of the consensus going your way.) If the consensus goes against you, follow the consensus whether you like it or not. If there is a deadlock, seek a 3rd opinion. If that does not work, create a RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
---
The protecting admin does not believe that unprotection is justified. See User talk:EdJohnston#Kilometres per hour I think he probably made the right call. It looks like you folks are going to have to come to an agreement as well as promising not to misbehave. It's your decision to make, but agreeing to go back to the article talk page and demonstrating a spirit of cooperation there might be worth considering. You can always open up a new DRN case later if you need to. Your call. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl (good, you haven't withdrawn after all!), re your newly suggested revision. We need to make it clear that it is only official EU documents that are implicated. So I would re-prase something like:
'For certain official publications in EU countries, the EU directive 80/181/EEC recognise only the SI symbol "km/h" as a shortened form of "kilometres per hour", and does not allow any other abbreviations.' Assuming you can find a secondary source to support that, and not your personal interpretation of a primary source such as the EU directive itself or the SI brochure. Ornaith (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, re your personal appraisal of the small sample of the references confirming km/h as an abbreviation that I supplied. They are reliable sources, and there are many, amny more too, and they support the assertion that km/h IS an abreviation. Ornaith (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I like NebY's idea of a solution to annoy everybody. Let me offer a different one. I'd normally just say make "symbol" its own article an provide a link to it, but the problem is that most readers won't infer from just a link that there's a domain-specific definition of "symbol" in use. So let's make it obvious: creation a subsection that discusses both the origin and use of the domain-specific definitions of "symbol" and "abbreviation" and point out that not all dictionaries will provide the domain-specific definition. In short, resolve the dispute with (many) more words, not fewer words. GaramondLethe20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, I think the two of you are still talking past each other. The dictionaries you cited are perfectly reliable sources for a particular domain: common usage. They are a poor guide to domain-specific usage, in this case where "kilometers per hour" is defined officially. If I had to pick one or the other I'd go with the domain-specific language, but I would learn more from an article that drew the distinction between the two domains. GaramondLethe20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, re your story about the rapping of knuckles. Which edit were you referring to? Perhaps if your edit summaries were more accurate and less misleading, you wouldn't have that problem. Ornaith (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@NebY, re your alternative wording. I like that idea and would go with it so long as it also made it clear that it only applied to official docs from EU countries. We need to keep the paragraph balanced, and be careful not to give a false impression of the scope of the EU official requirement. Ornaith (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, re your Wiki mission statement addition. Educate yes, not just sticking exclusively to the EU line though. We need to remember WP:NPOV too. EU directives apply only to a limited scope of publications. They may insist on the word "symbol" within that scope, but outside of that scope the word "abbreviation" is more normal. We would be neutral if we say they "use the SI symbol km/h as an abbreviation for kilometres per hour" and cover their line too. Now that would be better, from an educational point of view. We do not want readers mislead into believing that they have to comply with the narrow EU view on this when they don't. Ornaith (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy, re consensus point. Does "consensus" mean "majority" of those voicing an opinion, regardless of Wikipedia policies (I've been involved in another discussion elsewhere where that seemed to be the case)? Ornaith (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, re your dictionary points. Exactly, you would "learn more" if we described the distinction between the two domains. The EU domain is just one part of the complex story, as is the "common usage" (as you put it) domain. We shouldn't be suggesting it is compulsory to use "km/h" or that it is incorrect to use "kph", but we could point out the EU view for their official documents, their "house style" if you like. Ornaith (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, this applies to the international standard as well. "Unit symbols are mathematical entities and not abbreviations...." (section 5.1) combined with "The metre per second, symbol m/s, is the coherent SI unit of speed. The kilometre per second, km/s, the centimetre per second, cm/s, and the millimetre per second, mm/s, are also SI units, but they are not coherent SI units." (section 1.4, The System of International Units (SI), 8th ed., 2006). This is also known as ISO 1000, which while having been supplanted recently, had been adopted by pretty much universally. This doesn't look like an EU-only policy to me.GaramondLethe21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that the EU one seems to be a legal requirement for some uses within a limited domain, the SI one isn't, as far as I know. The "Common usage" domain is the general case, the EU (and SI) domains are more limited. I believe we need to cover the distinction - and cover it neutrally. Ornaith (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think I've lost track of what we're disputing here. I think we've established (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that insofar as "km/h" has an official definition, it is defined (globally and legally) as a symbol, and insofar as "km/h" has an unofficial definition in English-speaking countries, it is often defined as an abbreviation. Have we reached a consensus on at least that much? GaramondLethe00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond , that's not quite how I understand it. The way I read it is that "km/h" can rightly and literally be called an abbreviation in English, and is indeed referred to as such in "common usage" English and in dictionaries, glossaries of technical publications, websites &co. On top of that the SI have designated it as a "symbol" in their specification, apparently so that exactly the same form can be used in all languages, even those where it clearly bears no resembance to the actual literal translation. So I maintain the belief that to keep the English Wikipedia article balanced, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is, in English at least, firstly an abbreviation and secondly an SI designated symbol too. I hope that is clear. Ornaith (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, that was helpful. Let me ask you this: I can envision a (much larger version) of km/h with several sections: history, US conversion, automobile industry, road signage, and (most interesting to me) the standarization process. I can see handling the abbreviation question by a couple of sentences in the standardization section pointing out that before standardization, and continuing in areas that don't have to deal with the various standards, "km/h" is considered an abbreviation. I'm concerned that this won't sufficiently address your concerns about balance. If you don't mind, would you sketch out an example that shows how you'd like to see this one point be handled? (If you'd rather wait and work this out for the the RFC process, I understand.) Thanks, GaramondLethe19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy, re going back to the article talk page. Do you have any arbitration role in this? What is your opinion of how best to tackle this point and keep it neutral, covering all "domains" as Garamond exquisitely put it, and not giving undue weight or attention to the parocial requirements of the EU? Ornaith (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations states "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted". Since this is a Wikipedia content guideline it should be followed unless there is good reason to the contrary. In the case in question, the word "symbol" is a direct quotation from the source text, the word "abbreviation" is not. I therefore see no reason to adopt Ornaith's proposal, especially when the current text follows this guideline to the letter. (The changes that I proposed earlier also follow the guideline to the letter). Martinvl (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to revise my proposal slightly so that it reads:
«The impact of EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"[Note 1] is that the shortened form of "kilometres per hour" should be the internationally agreed symbol "km/h" and not "kph" as is used in certain publications. This affects areas such as speedometer design where the text "km/h" is mandatory1 and most goverment documents.2
Note 1 - As from 1 January 2010 this was extended to all aspects of the Internal market.
Ref 1 - "Council Directive 75/443/EEC of 26 June 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the reverse and speedometer equipment of motor vehicles" (Document). Council of the European Community. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
Ref 2 - "Guidance Note on the use of Metric Units of Measurement by the Public Sector" (Document). [United kingdom] Department for Business Innovation & Skills. 1 October 1995. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)»
I am aware that the second document is UK-oriented - has the Irish Government published a similar document? Also more references will be added if needed.
In response to Ornaith's recent comment that "EU directives apply only to a limited scope of publications" - Wrong, wrong, wrong - they apply to all documents in all member states that are produced for administrative (and also other) purposes. They do not apply to areas where freedom of speech take precedence. EU direcitves also apply to labelling of goods that are intended for sale - see Metric martyrs and also to speedometers (see above).
Re: "Do you have any arbitration role in this?", 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. As i said before, this should be settled be WP:CONSENSUS. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me revise your revision with an eye towards accounting for concerns about parochialism (eliding references and notes for the moment).
«The International Committee for Weights and Measures has established the symbol km/s as an SI Unit. SI Units have been incorporated into ISO 1000, ISO/IEC 80000, and NIST 330. The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes" requires "kp/h" as the symbol for "kilometres per hour" rather than "kph". This affects government documents as well as areas such as speedometer design where the symbol "km/h" is mandatory. Note that "km/h" is considered a symbol and not an abbreviation, and should not be written as "km/h." or "km./h.".
From one point of view I agree, but from another point of view this is rather a heavyweight replacement for "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states." However, given Ornaith's concerns, it might well be neccessary, though I might well skip the last sentence and wikilink the phrase "consistent use and representation of units of measure" to International System of Units#Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities. Martinvl (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's back up a bit and look at the big picture. I would like an honest and unbiased as possible evaluation from both of you, answering the following questions. Make sure your answers are descriptive and factual, without any hint of criticizing another editor.
Is this working?
Are the two of you close to a compromise that both can live with?
Or is this DRN case just an extension of the article talk page discussion?
If you are close to a compromise, lets wrap it up.
If the dispute appears unsolvable through continued talking at each other, I want to know that. No finger pointing, no "if he would only..." comments, no "I would be willing to live with X" if the other party has already rejected X.
Note that there is nothing wrong with a disagreement that you cannot resolve. We have ways of dealing with that situation.
The basic plan when there is a one to one deadlock is to bring in other editors, get their opinions, and for whoever is on the losing end of the consensus that emerges to graciously accept defeat. I am not going to be one of the outside opinions, BTW, my role as a dispute resolution volunteer is to let you know if someone is violating a policy but otherwise stay neutral and encourage you to resolve the dispute between yourselves.
A good next step if the two of you cannot agree would be to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I will be happy to guide you through it. You might want to seriously consider putting up any proposed RfC on your own talk page first (clearly label it as a draft) and asking for comments / improvements before going live with it. Ideally, both of you should like the wording of the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Points that I would like Ornaith to recognise are:
The use of the word "symbols" in respect of the EU directive
The acknowledgement that the EU directive applies to most if not all UK & Irish government publications
The word "abbreviation" is often misued in the context of describing SI units of measure
If Ornaith would like to go down the RfC route, fine, let him say so, but would he first describe exactly what he wants discussed. Martinvl (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::Any particular reason why you didn't answer any of the questions I asked ("Is this working?" "Are the two of you close to a compromise?") and instead did something I specifically asked you not to do ("No 'if he would only...' comments")? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The big picture, as I see it, is that there is considerable misunderstanding regarding the metric system as a whole within the United Kingdom which I suspect is also present in Ireland. Ornaith has given me the impression that he is Irish, I have noted that in many places the Irish dimension in both articles had been lacking and that I have done my best to work it in. I trust that there are no outstanding problems in that respect.
In his last posting, Ornaith asked a number of questions:
«You say "wrong, wrong, wrong" about "limited scope", and then go on to describe exactly the limited scope that I alluded to!».
If Ornaith had taken the trouble to read all of Ref 2 above, he would have seen that the scope extends to virtually anything that a civil servant might write, that a salesman might write, that a doctor might write, in other words, using the word "limited" without qualifying it conveys the wrong message to the reader. "Almost all government activity" is, in my view, a far better description.
«I see too that the UK document you give the link for uses the word "abbreviation", but not "symbol"».
As I said earlier in this posting, there is considerable misunderstanding within the UK about the metric system and since the document in question was an internal document that was only made public in 2007, it is probable that the lawyers never scrutinised it.
«Which of those documents state that speedos have to use "km/h"?»
Ref 1 above.
@Ornaith: On the basis of these answers, what is your position?
@Guy Macon: Once I see Ornaith's answers, I will be able to state where I stand.
@Guy, this is getting really difficult to navigate through, but did you see my question to you, up there somewhere, about the meaning of "consensus"? Ornaith (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
This is working well for me. It is highlighting the differences in expectations between the disputees.
Are the two of you close to a compromise that both can live with?
I don't think we have converged enough yet, no. I think we need to possibly explore the neutrality aspect more. There is a requirement there to not represent just one view, but to draw a balance. I do not think we can dismiss the significance of the "common use" aspect here. Perhaps you could prompt the other party to respond to some of my arguments (rather than continually restating his own), and me to his if you think I have failed in that respect, to see if we can more fully understand our differences and, perhaps, adapt or compromise to better encompass them.
Or is this DRN case just an extension of the article talk page discussion?
I suspect that on the article talk page the discussion would be less civil, at least there is a referee here.
@Martinvl, re your "recognition of points" addition. First the points you asked me about:
I absolutely understand that the EU directive uses the word "symbols". I have never disputed it.
I wouldn't know, but don't question your assertion that the EU directive apply to most if not all UK & Irish government publications. I assume that you will provide a secondary source to allow readers to verify that.
I wouldn't like to say if the word "abbreviation" is often misued in the context of describing SI units of measure, as I have difficulty, living in a country where the common use of English language is generally unregulated, accepting that words, especially if used literally correctly, are being "misused".
Now some questions for you:
Do you accept that "km/h" is technically and literally an abbreviation of "kilometres per hour" (forget what the SI or EU say for now, imagine you'd never heard of them and you are relying on your knowledge of the English language and the definition of the word "abbreviation")?
Do you accept that there are publications such as newspapers, websites, books, movies, music &co. in which the use of words and abbreviations or symbols are not regulated?
Do you agree that "km/h" had entered usage before the SI was born, and certainly long before the EU was born?
@Martinvl, re your "the big picture" addition. Comments on your responses, in order:
I think you are exaggerating the influence of the EU directive in the real world. Most people are only affected at work, and only if they work for the "establishment" or certain other disciplines within industry. Unless you are saying it applies to the output of 100% of the people 100% of the time, then you must agree that there are exceptions that, for the sake of balance, cannot be ignored.
You supplied the document reference, it used the term "abbreviation" when referring to what the SI call "symbols", what was the point you wanted to make?
I can't get your link to the motor vehicle doc to work. Can you cite the sentence in it that says that "km/h" must be used as the abbreviation/symbol for "kilometres per hour" on speedometers please.
An additional observation: I see that you modified the text of at least one of your contributions way above after I had replied to it, but with no explanation in the edit summary or here, can you please explain?
For your information: You may not be familiar with it, but Ornaith is a name generally given to a person of the female persuation, and I am not an exception to that generality.
I missed that one. Thanks for bringing it up again - it is a very important question, which I will address below. For the record, I am temporarily retracting the questions that Martinvl declined to answer above, but I will no doubt be asking them again. It is not reasonable to refuse to answer a simple question like "please give me your evaluation as to whether you are close to a compromise that both can live with" by not answering and instead telling us all once again what you think the other party has to do to reach a compromise.
Enough of that for now; on to the important question.
The question asked is:
"Does 'consensus' mean 'majority' of those voicing an opinion, regardless of Wikipedia policies (I've been involved in another discussion elsewhere where that seemed to be the case)?" --Ornaith
First, I am assuming that we have all read WP:CONSENSUS. If anyone has not, do that now.
Wikipedia policies and guidelines always take priority over the consensus on an article talk page, but it is really important to understand why; those policies and guidelines came from the consensus of a much larger group of editors with far more experience. So if, for example, ten editors on a local talk page all agree that it is OK to violate, say WP:BLP, the actual consensus is ten who say the violation is OK and a couple of thousand who say it is not. (I am picking WP:BLP to talk about specifically because it does not apply to this dispute). So the reality is not that policy trumps consensus, but rather the reality is "you are counting wrong." The net effect is that same, so it isn't wrong to say that policy trumps consensus, but it helps a lot to understand what is really going on.
That being said, the basic principle I just described is often misunderstood by editors who think that WP:BLP (or whatever policy we are talking about) requires them to get their way in a content dispute. Maybe WP:BLP supports them, and maybe they just think it does. In other words, "WP:BLP!!!" is not a magic word that makes all opposition go away and allows the person using the magic spell to get what he wants while ignoring consensus.
So, what do you do if you are convinced that WP:BLP requires you to get your way in a content dispute? First, be suspicious of your own thinking. In particular study our page on confirmation bias. Do you keep finding again and again that Wikipedia's policies support your positions and almost never find that they don't? Are you having a hard time convincing others that Wikipedia's policies support your position? One other editor who does not agree might be wrong. Five other editors on the article talk page and two uninvolved editors at DRN all disagreeing with your interpretation of a policy probably means that it is you who are wrong.
So, is there a method to guard against getting policies wrong? Yes. There is. As soon as anyone disagrees with you about the interpretation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, quote the exact wording that you believe supports your position and ask them to quote the exact wording that they believe supports their position. That often does it. If you still disagree, get the advice of someone with more experience.
Firstly, my apologies for not realising that Ornaith is a female name.
I decline to answer Ornaith's first question as it is loaded.
I agree that there are publications that use "improper" language - not only in respect of units of measure, but also in the use of at least two different varieties the "f-word".
I have no idea when the symbol "km/h" was first used in English - probably in an obscure publication reporting on the speed of a French railway engine in the nineteenth century. Before you make any comments, the concept of a symbol predates SI - if you visit Conversion between SI and legacy units you will see a list of units of measure and their associated symbols that were superseded by SI. One of them, the roentgen was both defined and given a symbol in 1928 and symbols have been used in chemistry since at least 1869 (See Periodic table. The illustration in this article show cyryllic script from Medndeleev's book, but the symbols for the chemicals are in latin script).
I will however explain what has influenced my way of thinking. I was brought up in South Africa, which like the Republic of Ireland, was a bilingual country. English is my mother tongue, but I am reasonably fluent in Afrikaans. When I was at school, I was taught that today's date, when written in English was 9 July 2012, but in Afrikaans was Julie 9, 2012. As you can imagine, this caused untold problems when expressed in an all-numeric format - what did "7/9/2012" mean when it appears alongside a signature at the bottom of a bilingual document?
South Africa adopted the metric system in the early 1970's and the country took the opportunity to harmonise both languages by using international standards wherever possible - mph (English) & mpu (Afrikaans) went out of the window and were replaced by km/h. The ISO format for the date was adopted - in South Africa, today's date is written 2012-07-09. The abbreviations "am" & "pm" (English) and "vm" & "nm" (Afrikaans) were discarded in favour of the 24 hour clock. It was this which convinced me of the value of international standards - if one has the choice of a word which has meaning internationally and one which only has meaning locally, then I use the one which has meaning internationally. If Ornaith is from the Republic of Ireland (which is suggested by her other contributions to Ballydesmond) - I am surprised that she has not been aware that terms such as "km/h" are symbols in both English and Irish Gaelic.
The obvious answer has been staring us in the face - "km/h" cannot be an abbrevition - the phrase "kilometres per hour" does not contain a "/". Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
While that's a nice bit of lateral thinking, the slash replaces the word "per" when constructing the abbreviation. Replacing words with non-alphabetic typographic symbols has long been considered a form of abbreviation (although this isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article on abbreviation). For example:
"In the United States, the symbol is commonly called the pound sign. Historically, the pound name derives from a series of abbreviations for pound, the unit of weight."
And, of course, there is still the problem of reliable sources stating otherwise.
You might make a good argument that using "abbreviation" as it is above isn't sensible, but it does appear to be common practice. There might be a better argument for renaming the article km/h (SI Unit) with a separate article for km/h (non- and pre-SI uses), but I would think those two articles could be merged.... GaramondLethe09:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
We really need to look at the section as a whole. Here is a proposed text:
Use of kph and km/h
Sinced the text "km/h" on this Irish speed limit sign is a symbol, not an abbreviation, it represents both "kilometres per hour" (English) and "ciliméadar san uair"(Gaelic)
Although "kph" and "km/h" are often used interchangably as a shorthand for "kilometres per hour", there is a difference between the two notations:
"kph" is an English-language abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" and is somewhat analagous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".[ref]
"km/h" is an internationally-agreed symbol for "kilometres per hour". It is constructed as per the rules in the SI brochure,[ref] the official definition of the International System of Units.
The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which catalogues the use and representation of units of measure used for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"[ref] requires "km/h" be used as the symbol for "kilometres per hour". These "purposes" in this direcitve include but are not limited to primary and secondary legislation, court orders etc.[ref]. In addition, EU directive 75/443/EEC explicitly states that "km/h" shall appear on speedometers of motor vehicles.[ref]. Examples of text that does not include all three letters "k", "m" and "h" in the native language of the state concerned, but where the EU directive applies include Dutch: "kilometer per uur" ("hour" is spelt "uur"), Portuguese: "quilómetro por hora" ("kilometre" is spelt "quilómetro") and Greek: "χιλιόμετρα ανά ώρα" (a different script).[ref]. Similarly, US law requires the use of either "km/h" or "KM/H", but not "KPH" on speedometers.[ref]
@Guy, re your latest "consensus" post. You make it sound so straightforward and logigal! Your discussion of policy v. consensus is excellent. In the other discussion that I was involved in though, it seemed that local consensus steam-rollered policy in that case. The motion to enforce a policy was defeated because there was no local consensus to do so. At least that was my view of the outcome! Ornaith (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, re your "larger article" point. Remembering that English Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in standard "common use" English, and not in EU-speak or even SI-speak, we could have a "The use of abbreviations" section. This section could have comment on the use of "km/h" and "kph" and could describe the SI view and their classification of the abbreviation as a symbol, and their reasoning. We could also mention that the EU have written the SI specification into their directives and whatever the US and others do about it. I don't think we need to labour it too much though. Ornaith (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl. re your addition covering my questions, SA, etc.
You refused to answer a straightforward question about the English language - labelling it a "loaded". What do you think was the "controversial or unjustified assumption" in it (see Loaded question)? Do you accept that "km/h" is an abbreviation in English?
You misrepresented another question, I asked if you accepted that there are publication in which word usage is not regulated. You equated it to the use of "improper" language and the "f-word"! Why not give a straightforward answer? Do you accept that English word usage is not generally regulated, even in the EU?
Your way of thinking about symbols is not relevent here, I don't think anyone denies that, a language independent "symbol" is a good idea, or that the SI or EU have got it wrong. The discussion here is about the wider issue of "common use" English, and whether English Wikipedia should use standard English or EU-speak as the language for its articles. Ornaith (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, re your "the obvious" remark. Did you read the "Dispute overview" section at the top of this section? You will see your concern answered there. Ornaith (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, re your proposed replacement section. It is much too EU-centric, it is not from a neutral point of view and gives undue weight (see Argument from authority) to the "official" definition, it contains original research around the scope and impact of the EU directive (btw, did you find that quote about the use on speedometers that I asked for yet?). Ornaith (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This looks like a prime candidate for WP:LAME to me. I've read the whole shebang, and I very much fail to see the point. What service do you want to provide to the average reader? Is there anything not covered by a simple statement like "The SI symbol km/h is used to indicate kilometers per hour and is mandatory for official EU documents. In less formal context, English speakers sometimes use kph". Even a randy Bonobo can figure out where the terms come from. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That's good, but still has a non-neutral tone. It implies that "km/h" is only an SI symbol - it isn't, it is also an abbreviation in standard English. It also asserts "kph" to be informal, which it isn't, it is a standard English abbreviation like "mph", "rpm", "psi", &co. The use of the word "sometimes" implies "kph" isn't in mass use, or doesn't have the same profile in English as "km/h", which would be misleading. Ornaith (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the last sentence of my previous reply for the abbreviation remark. Nothing in my comment implies that km/h is only an SI symbol. If you don't like "sometimes", substitute "also". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
How about: "The abbreviations kph and km/h are generally used to indicate kilometers per hour. km/h, also the official SI symbol (and common for all languages), is mandatory for official EU documents."? Ornaith (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, Please stop playing silly games. I have put forward a proposed rewording of the entire section which I think addresses all concerns. Please either indicate exactly what you would like to change or add, alternatively write out what you would like to see. Remember, if we can't agree, the present text stays. Martinvl (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, I prefer Stephan's rewording to yours, and I've reworked it just very slightly to cover my concerns. See above. Ornaith (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith - the phrase "is mandatory for official EU documents" does not convey the truth. It is mandatory that EU direcitves 80/181/EEC be followed for all official documents within the EU and that includes the minutes of the Ballydesmond Parish Council. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, that sounds about the same to me, at the level of detail required in this article. You can link to another more specific article that covers the gory EU/SI minutia. Do you have a reference for the Parish Council assertion, or is that just from your reading of the primary source? What about the quote I asked for to cover your assertion about speedometer design? Ornaith (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith: If you read this reference, and in particular Section 5, you will see the scope of this measure. (And that is only the "public administration" part). Read the Wikipedia article Metric martyrs about other parts. I know that this document is aimed at British central and local government, it derives from an EU direcitve and exactly the same directive applies in Ireland. Since the minutes of the Ballydesmond parish council almost certainly have a legal standing, the the direcitive applies there. BTW, I have arelady told you about this document - didn't you read it. Here is the speedo reference - look at Annex II. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, 4 things:
I read that UK document before, it doesn't say anything that supports your assertion about Irish parish councils (although it does support my view about the use of the word "abbreviation").
Yes, you mentioned the speedometer document above, but gave an incorrect link to it, which I pointed out when I said that the link didn't work, and asked instead for a quote from the document. Your new link does work, thank you, but the document doesn't support your assertion. Which paragraph (they are all numbered) did you think did?
Do you agree with my appraisal of your proposed rewording?
What do you think of my slight rework of Stephan's succinct wording, bearing in mind it can link to another Wikipedia article giving a fuller definition? Will you agree to use that instead of the disputed sentence - and so allow this dispute to be closed as resolved?
No, I will not agree to use it. You make is sound as though the concept of the symbol is an after-thought - in the classroom, especially in science, children might well loose marks if they use "kph" instead of "km/h". I do a certain amount of physics tutoring and I see that the English A Level physics syllabus is very strict on units of measure. That to me is sufficient reason to ensure that the SI notation is given proper coverage. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't suppose it would be too helpful to mention that the SI use of "symbol" was actually an afterthought? The earliest use I've found of "km/h" as an abbreviation goes back to the 1898 US Geological Survey. My French is more than a little rusty, but I'm not seeing any mention of "symbol" in the text of the 1875 Metre Convention. The first use of "symbol" in this context that I've tracked down is from 1976. Now we're down to "Think of the children!" arguments we can probably close this out and move on to the RFC phase. GaramondLethe21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kilometres per hour discussion: Restart
I am going to step in here and attempt to resolve this dispute. To do that, I am going to set some ground rules (for this section only) and I am going to move any comments that do not follow the new ground rules to another section. In this section I am going to try to focus us all on reaching a solution.
First, no more trying to convince each other. We have already established that this is not working (but of course you can keep trying, just not here.)
Second, no offering of compromises, We have also established that that isn't working.
Third, no saying anything about any other editor. Don't talk about what they did, don't talk about what their position is. Don't say anything about anybody.
You are allowed to talk about article content but I am limiting you to a simple statement: "I think the article should say X." Don't say why, don't say that Y and Z would also be acceptable, don't comment on the other editor's statement.
Fourth, I will be asking specific questions, and I expect answers. Specific answers to the actual questions asked, not a springboard to talking about something else. Answering questions supersedes all the other ground rules, so you can comment on one of the forbidden topics if I ask you about it.
The obvious question someone would ask is this: "OK tough guy; what gives you the authority to do this and how do you plan on enforcing it?" The answer is...I got nothing. I have no authority at all. I can't force anyone to do anything. All I can do is to try to persuade you, and you are free to ignore me. The only consequence will be that everyone will see that I tried to resolve the dispute with some bold measures, and you refused to cooperate. Which you had every right to do.
Ready to start? OK, here are my first two questions:
Does anybody want to declare that they have no intent of cooperating with me on this? (Remember, you are completely free to do that.)
There are two names listed under "Users involved", but I see that four people besides me have participated in this discussion. Do we have a two-to-one split on this issue? Does anyone know about anyone else who may be interested or possibly even be lurking? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll cooperate, for sure.
I don't know who else would be interested (other than those you mentioned). There were no others involved on the article talk page.
I'm happy to participate (and cooperate) if you think it would be useful, but I'm just as happy to bow out at this point as well. The two positions I'm seeing are close enough that I'm confident I'll be able to support the final version – whatever it is –, and if having one less cat to herd makes that happen faster then I'll do my part by sitting down for a spell. GaramondLethe22:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Great! OK, here is the situation as I see it. I have two editors who have a content dispute. No other editors are involved, so there is no point in doing a quick check for consensus and possibly telling one editor that the consensus is against her or him. Both editors have made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue, first on the article talk page and then at DRN. There are no glaring violations of policies such as WP:RS or WP:V that would allow me to tell one editor that he or she is clearly wrong and needs to back off. Previously there were behavior issues leading to full protection of the article. (No, we are not going to revisit that -- I am here to fix the problem, not to fix the blame.) I think both editors are ready to play nice, but the blocking admin isn't buying it.
In my opinion, the next step is to go to Wikipedia:Third opinion and request an outside opinion. (This is not the same as what I do, which is to attempt to get the two of you to agree without taking sides). The next step if that does not resolve the issue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but let's give TO a chance.Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Either one of you can file the request, but I recommend first putting your suggested wording on the talk page and seeing if the other involved editor has any problems with it. If you get stuck disagreeing on that I will be happy to choose the most neutral version, or flip a coin if they are equally neutral. Does this sound like a reasonable plan? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
That was a bit of an anti-climax after that dramatic build-up! I thought you were going to present a sequence of cunningly formulated questions, designed to yield an optimum sentence which satisfied both parties, and which both parties were honour-bound to accept! But, disappointing as it may be, I'll accept your advice that a "TO" is the way forward. I'll go away and read what a "TO" involves, and come back with a suggested wording for the request as you suggest. Ornaith (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion has moved on quite a way, but on this page, from what currently stands on the article talk page, so where should we point the "TO" entry to?
There are more than just the 2 original editors now involved.
[Deleted my own comment: completely wrong, and based upon my somehow not being able to count. (Note to self; next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...)]
Well, 3 said they'd participate after I did, so I make that 4. But if you dismiss the 2 who hadn't been involved previously, that does leave 2, yes. Ornaith (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, ignoring my my prior stupidity, we have four editors who have shown an interest in helping to resolve this. Let's do a quick consensus check:
Guy, just a quick sanity check here (and echoing a concern of Martinvl), we are discussing alternatives for the text of the first sentence of the lead, yes? The current version is:
The kilometre per hour (American English: kilometer per hour) (unit symbol km/h or km·h−1) is a unit of speed, expressing the number of kilometres travelled in one hour.
Or are we discussing the first sentence in the first subsection? That currently reads:
The abbreviations "kph" and "kmph" are used (kph was used on 1975-1976 model cars in US) even though the official recommendation from the BIPM is to use "km/h" - the rationale behind the BIPM stance being that the symbols for units of measure should be consistent world-wide. The symbol (as opposed to abbreviation) is in near-universal use elsewhere, even though the letters "km" and "h" do not always correspond to "kilometres" or "hours" in the language concerned.
I too am confused, or are we making the assumption that the sentence will remain a single sentence? How will it fit into the rest of the article? Unless this is made clear, this exercise is, in my view, a waste of time. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I came to this noticeboard to attempt to resolve a dispute over the content of the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section named "Use of kph". The dispute, as described in the summary at the very top of this entry, hinges around whether the the use of the word "abbreviation" is WP:OR in this context. I hope that clarifies it for those who were not involved on the article talk page. Ornaith (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The proposed text by Garamond Lethe (deleted earlier this morning) states "The SI explicitly states that unit symbols are not abbreviations and are to be written using a very specific set of rules". Given that the CGPM who published the SI manual also have responsibility for defining and maintaining the standards for the metre (and hence kilometre) and second (and hence hour), that their rules regarding symbols have been in place for 64 years and that they are funded directly by governments around the world (including the British and Irish) it is quite reasonable that their recommendations shodul take precedence over earlier recommednations. Therefore there can be no question that in this contect the word "symbol" takes precedence over teh word "abbreviation". Martinvl (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Martinvl, would you be so kind as to go to the section below and fill in your preferred version of the the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section named "Use of kph"? That way I can compare the three different versions and get a rough feel for what the consensus is on each. Thanks!
ROUGH CONSENSUS CHECK
The page should read:
Disputed sentence:
The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure in all member states for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"[ref] implicitly catalogues "km/h" as the symbol for "kilometres per hour".
Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:
Use of kph
Although "kph" and "km/h" are often used interchangeably as shorthand for "kilometres per hour", there is a difference between the two notations:
"kph" is an English-language abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" and is somewhat analogous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".[ref]
"km/h" is an internationally-agreed symbol for "kilometres per hour". It is constructed as per the rules in the SI brochure,[ref] the official definition of the International System of Units.
Historic development based on User:Garamond Lethe's earlier proposal will be added here
Many academic journals require the use of SI units which implicitly requires the use of "km/h", not "kph", but the style guides for many newspapers mandate the use of "kph" for "kilometres per hour" (along with "C" or "F" rather than °C or °F when writing temperature). The EU .... for "kilometres per hour".
EU directive 75/443/EEC which regulates the layout of speedometers, uses the symbol "km/h" in all languages.[ref] Examples of text that does not include all three letters "k", "m" and "h" in the native language of the state concerned, but where the EU directives applies include:
Dutch: "kilometer per uur" ("hour" is spelt "uur" - no "h"),
Portuguese: "quilómetro por hora" ("kilometre" is spelt "quilómetro" - no "k")
Greek: "χιλιόμετρα ανά ώρα" (a different script).
Similarly, US law requires the use of either "km/h" or "KM/H", but not "KPH" on speedometers.[ref]
The abbreviations "kph" and "km/h" are generally used to indicate "kilometres per hour". EU directives mandate that just "km/h", also the official SI symbol in all languages, be used in official EU documents.
Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:
km/h is one of several abbreviations for and one of two standard symbols of the unit of speed "kilometers per hour".
(n.b. Citations and explanatory text that would need to be added in support of this may be found here.)
Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:
Notes: Names are listed in alphabetical order. Participation is purely optional. Our goal is to reach a consensus, so if you can bring yourself to take your name off an entry that has little support and add it to one that has more support, that would help. However, it has to be real; it does nobody any good agreeing to X here and then insisting on Y when later editing the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy, can we have a section with the one disputed sentence listed too please, to see what we are talking about? Ornaith (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy, the sentence I want to replace is this one: "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states." Where is the place you added to put it, you seem to have added a "disputed sentence" heading to each section, incuding above my proposed replacement sentence?
Will you tidy up the form please so that it is clear which is the disputed sentence and which are the proposed replacements for it. Ornaith (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
EXTENDED COMMENTS
You may put whatever material you wish here in order to fully present any material that you feel supports the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The text I've proposed is intended to be used as either the first sentence in the lead or the first sentence of a following section. Here are a few comments for why I've written it the way I have. Proposed additional supporting text is currently in my sandbox.
The existing version treats "km/h" as kilometre per hour / kilometer per hour and then describes the two standard unit symbols. However, the name of the article is not "kilometre per hour", but "km/h". While this distinction would appear to be of interest only to folks who had taken too many lit. crit. classes, the string "km/h" has a history intertwined with (but distinct from) "kilometre per hour". For example, "km/h" is one of several abbreviations used before (and after) international standardization occurred, and standardization has created a body of rules by which the string "km/h" must be constructed and represented (down to specifying how the [solidus] may and may not be used and the requirement of an upright Roman typeface).
This distinction (so far unspoken, to the best of my knowledge) has resulted in a bifurcation of the focus of the article. For example, the European Union may have adopted the units "kilometers per hour" to be used in specific areas, but that would more properly be noted in an article on "kilometers per hour", not "km/h". Pointing out that existing dictionaries continue to treat "km/h" as an abbreviation instead of a symbol has very little to do with the definition and standardization of "kilometers per hour", but is a useful and interesting datapoint in the evolution of "km/h".
Elsewhere I had proposed that the article be split in two: km/h (Unit Symbol) and km/h (pre- and non-SI uses). A more natural split might be kilometers per hour and km/h. While I think both can eventually find a home within one article, it may helpful to editors to remind them (and me) that there are two distinct concepts in play. Based on the discussion I've seen so far, this unspoken difference is at the root of the conflict. GaramondLethe17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy, the Kilometres per hour article is unlocked again now, and I notice that Martinvl has already introduced part of his proposal from above (including his controversial opinion that "km/h" is not an abbreviation) into it. I consider that to be an inflammatory and extraordinarily bad-faith move, as well as disrespectful to yourself given your efforts here to resolve this dispute amicably. Ornaith (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
We have spent a week discussing this matter and have not got anywhere. Does User:Ornaith object to an RFC on this particular change. In this way we can get a full community viewpoint on the core question and then look at the details later. Martinvl (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the first as impenetrable, the second as giving undue priority to kph and being convoluted and the third for being even more convoluted. We're not writing legal documents here, or computer programs that will crash if we don't cover every condition; we're trying to write English that the general reader will understand on first reading. Or we should be. NebY (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that this is a subsection about the use (or misuse) of "kph", what message should we be giving the reader then? Martinvl (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it, or is it about whether kph or km/h should be used, or about the history of, rationale for and legal standing of km/h? If it is to be solely about the use of kph, why should we have so much material about km/h in it? NebY (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course both should be covered in the encyclopedia. But a couple of hours you wrote "this is a subsection about the use (or misuse) of "kph"". I'm asking two questions about that statement: (1) Is it? (2) If it is about the use of "kph", why should "km/h" be discussed at such length in it? NebY (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposed compromise from previously uninvolved editor
Hey guys, I was browsing and I saw this. I think the idea of not using "symbol," "abbreviation," or "initialism" is a good one, but that the way it was presented was not ideal. My proposed compromise is:
"EU directives require the use of "km/h" to represent "kilometers per hour" in official documents in all member states."
I think "represent" is a nice, neutral term that means all the things you guys have suggested, thus working out all the problems. Opinions? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Support Not my favorite way to build that sentence, but it's OK. It might be useful to have a paragraph (not in the lead) -- Is km/h a symbol, abbreviation, or initialism? -- to forestall further eruptions (I know, I'm an optimist about such good intentions.) A sentence or two about each of those labels for the text string, so that a reader could both understand this controversy and that there was no need for Wikipedia to conform to any of those positions might be helpful. Perhaps as a long secret comment on the page, so that editors would find it when they went to restart this squabble. htom (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy, should we add this suggested wording as an alternative in the table above as we seem to have two different votes in progress now? Ornaith (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally would like to have it in the table with support and oppose votes (no reason it can't be both places). The key here is that I am looking for a solution that everyone can live with, not necessarily a solution that fits my preconceived vision, so if another format works for everybody, great! That being said, I kind of think my preconceived vision is pretty good, so you might want to give it a try.
Here is what I am hoping to achieve. Every variation of the sentence we are considering is listed. All are formatted the same way for easy comparison. Each has votes showing us who supports it and who opposes it. All extra arguments are in another section.
If I can achieve the above, then we can all look at the alternatives, and, I hope, someone will say "Hmmm. I am the only one supporting number 827, but 19 people support number 32767, and I can live with number 32767, so I will give it 20 supporters and number 827 zero supporters." (Made up numbers, obviously -- did you know that 47.36% of the numbers on Wikipedia are made up on the spot?).
BTW, anyone should feel free to edit the tables above -- this is Wikipedia where a single click can undo a change and a single click can put it back, so there is no possible harm to being bold, as long as you accept that someone else may be just as bold in undoing your changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
WHY NO RESPONSE????
I put up a section to gauge consensus, and got only a single vote. several of you added your preferred wording but didn't even bother voting in support of it. Any suggestions as to why this is and what I am doing wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: As to the former, I didn't realize voting for my own suggestion was appropriate (apologies --- this is my first time participating in this process).
As to the latter, part of the problem is the huge amount of verbiage here concerning what is probably seen as an incredibly dull topic. So I'm not too surprised at the low turnout. But most of the problem is probably due to the sentence in question being only a symptom of the underlying dispute. (This explains why there was so much confusion about what it was were were !voting on, as well as why Martinvl and I were trying to rewrite the entire article around the change in one sentence.) I don't think this is your fault --- if two editors in dispute tell you they're disputing over a particular sentence, I could see where you might be inclined to believe them. That just happened to be the wrong choice here.
Having met with a collective yawn from the rest of the community, I'd like to go back to the talk page and try hashing things out there for a while. Would you like to let this process run a few more days before we do that? GaramondLethe11:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
@Everybody: We have allowed too many issues to clutter up the discussion and we a choking by taking too big a mouthful. Let us start at the very beginning: if we go back to Ornaith's first changes diff here, we see that she was:
Defining "km/h" as an abbreviation with particular reference to its appearance an EU document.
Stating that the EU rule was widely flouted, but refusing to give a reference.
Could we try to get these two questions resolved first without getting bogged down in other details? Everything else will then follow.
Here's the text sans cites: "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation for kilometers per hour in official documents in all of its member states, "kph" and "k.p.h." are frequently used by both the Irish and British." I think that's fairly straightforward to demonstrate. A google search on site:gov.uk kph speed gives 6980 hits; checking the first twenty I find the majority to be within the past ten years and using "kph" as an abbreviation for "kilometers per hour". The same search with site:gov.ie returns only twenty, so I suspect I'm looking in the wrong place. Ah, here we go: site:oireachtas.ie kph return 866.
So with the possible change of "abbreviation" to "symbol", I find this statement wholly uncontroversial.
Problem No 1 - Ornaith was adamnant that "km/h" was an abbreviation, I disagreed
@Martinvl, "km/h" is an abbreviation, and was first used as an abbreviation no later than 1898 and was defined as an abbreviation in a mass-market, hardcover dictionary as late as 1985 and in a mass-market manual of style as late as 2011. "km/h" is also a symbol. When you began your conversation with Ornaith, neither one of you had a good sense of when and where "km/h" transitioned from an abbreviation to a symbol. We now have citations that map that out in pretty fine detail. Based on that, and in the context of this sentence (recent usage by an EU member state) "symbol" is probably the better way to go. I think Ornaith will be more likely to accept that argument if there is a section of the article that describes the original and continuing use of "km/h" as an abbreviation. I have a draft of that in my sandbox and I'm looking forward to haggling over the exact working with the two of you on the talk page.GaramondLethe19:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Problem No 2 - I did a few Google searches
Filter = ".gov.uk" - km/h: 57.600; kph: 56,300
Filter = ".dft.gov.uk" - km/h: 629; kph: 125
Filter = ".gov.ie" - km/h:976; kph: 125
Filter = ".oireacht.ie" - km/h: 3120;kph: 866
Conclusion No 1: In Ireland, the government uses "km/h" much more than "kph", in the UK, government useage of km/h andkph is about the same, apart from the Department for Transport where km/h is used significantly more.
Observation - The British press appears to always use "kph", but the schools always teach "km/h".
Conclusion No 2 - The above is all WP:NOR. We therefore cannot say anything unless we have are quoting an analysis done by a third party. Again Orniath refused to give any citation to back up her statement.
Problem No 1 seems like an easy one. Depending on how you look at it, you are both right. In English-speaking countries "km/h" is and can continue to be an abbreviated form (as well as a symbol, as well as an initialism). But in places that don't conform to the same initials k,m, or h, it symbolically represents the rate of speed. So just phrase your sentence in a way that resolves this in a factual way.
@Martinvl: I agree with you that citing particular numbers of uses is WP:OR. I'll even agree with you that comparative language like "most" would be WP:OR. I think I can make a pretty compelling argument that "frequently" falls on the correct side of this line, especially when it can be backed up with verbiage like "(e.g., in 2012 the Department of Transportation used kph in the following ten documents...)."
I'll agree that this is a subtle point, but I don't think it's an ambiguous one. I cannot say "The first use of k.p.h. occurred in 1889" because that's a conclusion based on evaluating thousands of primary documents; that is unambiguously original research. I believe I can say, though, that "The first use of k.p.h. occurred no later than 1889", because that is a summary of a single document and I can cite that document.
For the sentence in question, if you wanted to argue that "occasionally" was better than "frequently", or better yet, "there exist government documents as recently as 2012 where kph is used instead of km/h", well, ok, I that's not my preference but that kind of wording should remove all doubts about WP:OR and I would accept that.
Finally, I'll note that this probably isn't the argument Ornaith made, and you may have been justified in rejecting the arguments that she did make (I don't know, I haven't gone back and read them). I expect I'm making a different argument: summarizing facts found in specific, cited reliable sources is not WP:OR. You might want to argue about the verbiage in my summary, but that's a discussion I'd like to have on the talk page. GaramondLethe19:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:
"if two editors in dispute tell you they're disputing over a particular sentence, I could see where you might be inclined to believe them. That just happened to be the wrong choice here."
and
"We have allowed too many issues to clutter up the discussion and we a choking by taking too big a mouthful."
There are a couple of ways we can go here. It is perfectly OK to decide to abandon a DRN case, ask for it to be closed, and immediately open up a new one on the same topic in the hope that the same mistakes won't be made. You could even ask for another dispute resolution volunteer (I really would not have any problem if the general feeling is that someone else is a better fit for this).
It It also OK to ask for the case to be closed so you can go back to the article talk page and try to work it out, possibly with a RFC on the article talk page. Or you could try to work it out here trying another approach.
I am here to try to help you to resolve this dispute. Clearly my idea for gauging a rough consensus was not acceptable to most of you. It would have been nice to know who supports what, but I can't force you folks to participate. So please tell me what you will be willing to work together on. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
@Guy Macon, In the week or so that we've been here I've dug up three dozen relevant reliable sources and have evaluated an order of magnitude more than that. Several of them unquestionably and unequivocally support Martinvl's contention that "km/h" is a symbol, and several of them unquestionably and unequivocally support Ornaith's contention that "km/h" was originally and continues to be used as an abbreviation. Instead of the is/is-not symbol/abbreviation conversation I think we can now move on to how much emphasis should be given to each batch of reliable sources.
I'd like to propose that the conversation here either be suspended or completed and that any interested editors retire to talk:Kilometres per hour to evaluate these sources. I'd also like to propose that you come along. I'm a newbie here and I'd really appreciate a bit of mentoring as we try to untangle this.
I would have no problem with that if the others agree. The ideal solution is for the folks who are editing the page to come to an agreement and then give me all the credit for my brilliant mediation even though I didn't actually do anything (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to close the discussion, but I note that Ornaith's last contri bution to Wikipedia was on this page 48 hours ago. The way. Martinvl (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think events have overtaken this dispute, the discussion has broadened to a scope much wider than the original question about the legitimacy of the use of the word "abbreviation", so does belong elsewhere. I was hoping for a more definite conclusion (that "abbreviation" is NOT WP:OR preferably) but am happy to close the discussion here, knowing I could bring it back if necessary. Thanks Guy for your patient attempts to resolve this. Ornaith (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
