Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 35
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
List of CBS/ABC television affiliates
 | Not a content dispute. Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
My dispute is about the following: The user I'm involved with (User:DreamMcQueen) currently says NO to my helpful edits. I have placed links to lists of other O&O linked station where needed on the CBS list. For example, I offered a link to CBS Television Stations where it said "This list does not include CBS-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with the CW Television Network." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_CBS_television_affiliates_%28table%29&diff=498671924&oldid=495704466. I done so for the NBC (Telemundo) and FOX (FTSG) ones. This DreamMcQueen said "NOOOOOOOO!" and removed it. I don't like this. Imagine having to run a search for such topics instead of having a simple link to the article in question; of so excruciating! (You can already experience such a case scenario: the network names are NOT linked.) Second issue is that the keeps removing the DMA numbers from the ABC table when I add it on. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ABC_television_affiliates_%28table%29&diff=498244793&oldid=498050818 The reason why this is an issue is that ONLY THE O&O list is stripped of DMAs, not the affiliate DMAs. I think this may cause some issues to the user, since the DMA can be considered useful in considering the O&O's status. I have re added the DMA numbers, but did not change the placement of the O&Os. Guess what: he removes it. ALSO THE NBC AND FOX LISTS STILL HAVE THE DMA NUMBERS ON THE O&O LISTS AS WELL. He directed me to this as his alibi issue on DMAs. I'm not sure if this SHOULD apply to the ABC and CBS tables as well, because it said it only applied to the North American lists, not the affiliate lists as well. I am hoping that the conflict will be resolved ASAP. Thank you! Users involved
ATTN: DreamMcQueen- Please be respectful to me and I will respect you. I am not trying to be a "bitch" and ruin your life (see:Wikipedia:Let it go). YOU KNOW I don't like the dispute either..... In addition, please give a summary to each of your edits. Thank you.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have attempted to talk to him, but he did not respond, only if it was harsh. I have also tried to clarify my actions in the edit summaries., but he makes rather vague explanations to why he removed my edits, e.g. "your edits are not helpful, please stop" and uses "redundancy" as his backing alibi.The preceding example was on the CBS table. Even worse, he sometimes never even left a summary, even if it is considered good manners here to do so. (For proof, see the respective talk pages.) I have also tried to advise him on edit warring and the 3R rule, but he hasn't complied and set up a compromise.
You can tell him that the links on the article to the O&O groups are there for EASY REFERENCE. You can also tell me if there are new rules implemented on the tables due to the apparent issue on DMAs. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC) List of CBS television affiliates (table), List of ABC television affiliates (table) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerkish note: I closed this discussion for the reasons set out here, but another DRN volunteer has objected to the close and I am therefore reopening the listing and notifying the parties. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I'm starting to consider DreamMcQueen a vandal. I noticed he is targeting the CBS and ABC lists in particular and not the NBC and FOX lists as well. In addition, the removal was conducted without consensus of other Wikipedians. I believe the DMAs should be kept on the CBS and ABC tables. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Cl*rkish note: In addition to the problems that TransporterMan correctly noted (no substantive talk page discussion before attempting dispute resolution), there has been no substantive discussion here either. You cannot have a discussion if one editor will participate. I suggest filing a request for comments to bring other editors into the discussion. (Please look at footnote one on the RFC page before filing.)
|
X-ray_computed_tomography
| See closing note. Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The issue is regarding the quality, and applicability to CT, of the sources used. Here is a diff of the removal of the matter. The pages of the ICRP describing the first source and the second source. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have discussed the issue on the talk page, where other editors wrote that my sources were not good enough, and didn't explain why. I have opened a DRN case. I got back to the talk page. I found sources that qualify to the demands of the other editors. The other editor Yobol still deleted my edit, and said that the sources are not good. I talked about it in the talk page. I think that the other editors are wrong.
Other relevant diffs in which content was removed: diff1 see DNA damage subsection, diff2 see cognitive effects subsection. --Nenpog (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Determine if the sources are as good as any other source used in the article. Determine if the statement taken from the source apply to radiation absorbed from CT. Nenpog (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC) X-ray_computed_tomography discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Comment - The report looks like a very high quality, very reliable source. The mere fact that the title includes the word "draft" is no reason to dismiss it, given the depth & detail in the report. But, still there are a couple of more things that could be useful: (1) which parts of the document are specific to CT? The title indicates that it is about radiation in general ... only portions that are specific to CT should be used for this article; and (2) The report cites many other studies: editors should get copies of those studies (which are relevant to CT adverse effects) and read those sources also ... they may shed some light on this, and could be used as sources for the article. --Noleander (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Nenpog's version that was reverted a couple of things stand out. He wants to put this in: "Eye cataracts: An accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy can cause cataracts, and opacity of the eye lens" With a citation to: (Note: 500 mGy and 0.5 Gy are the same dose) Seaching the above PDF for "500 mGy" brings up some rat studies and then this: Number of individuals: 234 radiation-exposed, 232 unexposed So, 5.55% of those who got a 500 mGy dose in the eye had very mild PSC opacities vs. 0.86% of the control group. And PSC opacities are not what most people are talking about when they say "cataracts." Posterior Subcapsular Opacity (also known as Posterior Capsular Haze or Secondary Cataract) does not require surgery. It is treated with YAG laser capsulotomy, an in-office procedure that does not involve touching the eye. See http://salemretina.com/info/disease/Posterior%20Capsular%20Opacity/index.php The first problem that this highlights is the problem with WP:SYNTHESIS. Clearly Nenpog read the same part of that study that I did, but just assumed that Posterior Subcapsular Opacity is "opacity of the eye lens." It is not. It is a haziness of the thin membrane just behind the lens. The second problem is that the study is about a 500 mGy dose to the eye -- the most radiosensitive part of the human body. Where does the article say that CT scans of the eye are at 500 mGy? The closest it comes is head CTs, at 1/10 that dose. Where does the statement "An accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy can cause cataracts, and opacity of the eye lens" explain that an abdomen CT, chest CT, CT colonograph or a cardiac CT angiogram deliver a negligible does to the eye? I am concerned over one particular editor who only wants to insert material about the dangers of CT, and who first writes up the negative effect and then goes searching for sources to support what he already decided to be true. Even if the sources do back up the statement, there will be a strong confirmation bias -- sources that conclude that CT is safe never get searched for. I am also concerned with the wide vareity of alleged harm he has tried to insert: Cataracts, Cognitive impairment, Heart disease, DNA damage -- the list goes on and on. I must ask myself whether there in a non-neutral point of view or even a conflict of interest at work here. So what happens if I look at the same source looking for the author's conclusions instead of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion? I get this: "From current evidence, a judgement can be made of a threshold acute dose of about 0.5 Gy (or 500 mSv) for both cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease. On that basis, 0.5 Gy may lead to approximately 1% of exposed individuals developing the disease in question, more than 10 years after exposure. This is in addition to the high natural incidence rate (circulatory diseases account for 30-50% of all deaths in most developed countries). The value of 0.5 Gy to the heart and cerebrovascular system could be reached during some complex interventional procedures. Hence, medical practitioners need to be aware of this new threshold" ...A completely different story than the story told in the reverted material. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
COI Accusation
Another issue is the ref that does mention CT is a draft. Also discussed here [1]. It does state
My income by the way dose not rely on the existence of CT scans. And seeing that I have added nearly all the negative side effects of CTs to the article in question claim of COI are strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a regular volunteer here at this noticeboard. As set out in the instructions, this noticeboard is for content issues, not conduct issues. Failure to disclose COI is a conduct issue. Any further discussion of that or other conduct matters will result in this listing being closed as a conduct, not content, issue. Feel free to discuss it on the other editors' talk pages, on Elen's talk page (where you have already made the inquiry you just made above), or take it to WP:COIN, WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, or WP:SPI, but limit all further discussion here to content, not editors. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
My remarks from 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC), apply to all editors involved in this discussion. Talk about content, not one another, or else close this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Closing Note: Because Nenpog has decided to accuse several participants in this discussion of conflict of interest and has opened up a WP:COIN case, it is not reasonable to except those who havebeen accused to have a calm, reasoned discussion about the content of the page in one venue while defending themselves in another. DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are under discussion in other venues on Wikipedia. In addition, the consensus has become clear; not a single other editor agrees with the changes Nenpog wishes to make to the article. Finally, while filing a case at COIN does not violate the warning TransporterMan gave above, announcing it here clearly does. Because of these factors, I am closing this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Kulin Kayastha
| Requesting editor did not complete submission, presumed abandoned or withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Kulin Kayasthas are a Bengali Hindu community. A dispute has arisen on questions of their origins, history and status. The users involved are particularly unhappy with each others' reliance on few restricted sources and are also concerned about the verifiability of such sources and their acceptability on Wikipedia as per the pertinent Wiki policies. Also, an edit war has been taking place with regard to the article on these very issues. The issue that is being brought here is precisely to determine the much larger question of determination of the varna of the Hindu Kayastha community, whether Kulin or not. There are a few other wiki articles related either directly or indirectly to the Kayastha community. Most of them contain the fact that the question as to the Varna of the Kayastha community has for long been a matter of dispute. Somehow, things as they presently are being conveyed, are not accurate and lack authenticity, and are prima facie, biased to an extent. The Kayasthas in this article have been stated to be of the Shudra varna. Which happens to be the lowest ring of the Hindu social order, whereas it is well established that Kayasthas have for long enjoyed all the privileges that the upper castes in the Hindu system do, and are a very prosperous community as a whole. Until the formal abolition of the caste system, Kayasthas were generally ranked next only to the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, and often ranked even above the Kshatriyas and just below the Brahmins, as a community with dual-caste status. All of this has documented proof, and has been included in the wiki article on Kayasthas. There also are some other sources where the Kayasthas have been attributed the Shudra rank. But all such sources do mention that originally the Kayasthas, weren't shudras and were degraded to the Shudra rank due to some reasons from their original Kshatriya rank. This has been stated to be particularly true of the Bengali Kayasthas in many sources. The Kulins are the highest of all bengali Kayasthas, as per the traditional hierarchy. Of the origins of the Kulin Kayasthas, many sources do state that they are of Shudra origins, but there are many others which don't. There are other sources that do state that when the traditional beliefs as to the origins of the Kulin system of Hindu Bengalis were documented, some of the documentations, were under the Brahmin influence, and the Brahmins to ensure their hegemony, may have twisted the original beliefs at the time of their documentation, and resulted in the distortion of the facts. It is also found at many places that, unlike the rest of the Hindus,the Bengali Hindus have followed a two Varna system, with broad classifications only being Brahmin and Shudra, without the other two Varnas. All these aspects, and many others need to be covered where as all of them have been left out, and on each occasion I and few others have tried to bring these in, are efforts have been reverted out rightly. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Ruderow (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Kulin Kayastha discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This request will be closed as abandoned or withdrawn 24 hours after 17:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC) unless the requesting editor notifies the other editors and completes the "Resolving the dispute" questions set out above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Misha Bryan page deletion
| Improper venue, see closing note, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The article for Misha Bryan has been deleted. See Talk:Misha_Bryan. The basis was "She is not (yet) notable outside of the X-factor reality TV series." However, I argue this reasoning is not sufficient because she does meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines as per my comment on the Misha Bryan talk page. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
I contested the deletion of the Misha Bryan article -- see Talk:Misha_Bryan, and it was deleted anyway without a response.
As the reviewer who accepted her page, I would either like the page reinstated or a justification for its removal. newzealander 21:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Misha Bryan discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Closing note: This request is being closed for being filed in the improper venue. The proper place to do this is at Deletion Review. Please read and follow the directions set out there and refer to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misha_Bryan_(singer). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Streisand effect
| No discussion for 4 days. Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is a dispute between me and two other editors. Streisand effect documents "a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely". The article is a short blurb and a list of notable examples. In early June 3 IPs and one editor (myself) attempted to add/restore a particular example of the Streisand effect. This example is about a beer company which threatened legal action against a newspaper which published a photo of suspected-killer Luka Magnotta holding a beer. The newspaper refused to censor the photo, which resulted in a public relations blunder for the company. The photo ended up being copied thousands of times, and the company caved in the end. Text-book Streisand effect. Magnotta was the subject of an international man-hunt. Labatt is Canada's largest brewer. The newspaper is the Montreal Gazette. So none of the parties are unknown. However every contribution was reverted. The reasons for the reverts are contained in four edit summaries: "recent example; more like news", "more of a news story and the sourcing does not mention the Streisand effect", "Rv unexplained, undiscussed change", and "get a consensus on talk page to include this recent event". So basically, WP:NOTNEWS. I started the discussion on the talkpage. I showed that many of the listed-examples are recent, and that every example is referenced by news coverage when the said events took place. I also showed how the censored-example has superior sources to the others, as it has been commented on and identified with the Streisand effect internationally in the media, and noted by professionals in the public relations, marketing, and legal fields: IMO the best source, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. User:Glrx responded to me with WP:OTHERSTUFF, and User:Ianmacm with NOTNEWS. IMO, both are unsupportable. The most recent examples in the article—which neither editor has a problem with—date to about a week before and a week after the censored-example (late-May and mid-June). I noted that NOTNEWS and OTHERSTUFF have been selectively applied to the censored-example. The validity of contributions are supposed to judged by the content and reliability of supporting sources—but that is not happening here. Personal opinions such as "this does not seem to be a disaster for Labatt's", and "no real sign of a lawsuit, only a threat", are not only wrong, but also totally irrelevant. The only relevant opinions are those given in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKE is not grounds for blocking or removing of well-sourced content. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I asked for input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Internet_culture. I started the discussion on the talkpage to counter NOTNEWS (used in the edit summaries). There only responses so far have been by me and the other two involved editors.
We're deadlocked 2-1 on the talkpage. I'm hoping that some people will look over this and offer outside-opinions. The censored-example and sources can be seen on the talkpage. No one has raised any concerns over the reliability of the sources, or has shown why this example should be singled-out from any other example currently in the article. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Streisand effect discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
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. I noticed something about this entry. The section that starts with "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" contains a paragraph (the one starting with "The validity of contributions are supposed to judged by...") that doesn't even come close to being a "step you have taken." Much of the rest of that section isn't a description of the steps you have taken, but rather criticism of the steps others have taken. In the interest of making it more likely that we will be able to resolve this issue, could you please go back and edit that section along with the "Dispute overview" to be less like advocacy and more like an unbiased description? You will still be able to make any points that meet our requirements (the rule about discussing article content and not user conduct still applies) in the "Discussion about the issues listed above" section. Our goal here is to try to reach an agreement, not to pick a winner. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - That first source (The Globe and Mail) looks like it meets WP:RS requirements; and it explicitly talks about the "Streisand effect". Granted, it is a recent event, and we should guard against WP:RECENTISM, but given the nature of this topic, recent events are to be expected for the S. E. I see no reason to exclude it. The "not news" guideline applies more to the appropriateness of new articles, not to material within an article. --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Comment. I disagree with some of the characterization of this dispute. The inclusion of this entry is a consensus issue. WP:BRD says discuss it on the talk page. It took a few trips, but BMA brought the issue. Glrx and Ianmacm opposed. BMA disputes the discussion there and brought it here. That's his right. If a consensus wants it in, it goes in. The SE article has a list of examples. Some are good, and some are bad. The notion that I or other editors accept all the existing examples is unwarranted. Three editors have, however, reverted the Labatt's example: Glrx, Ianmacm, and UncleBubba. The issue is whether the Labatt's example, as it stands now, belongs in the article. The notion that Labatt's should be included because it is better than some of the other examples isn't directly on point. It might mean that the other SE examples should be removed. The question is whether it is a good example for the SE article. I don't think it is a good example right now. It's not the typical SE scenario, and we don't know its impact on Labatt's yet. I do not believe that any article is required to give an exhaustive list of examples. That means that even strong examples may be tossed. Which examples are included lies in consensus. If other editors want the Labatt's example included, then I'm OK with that. Part of BMA's argument appears to be that if an entry has some sources, then it must be included. I don't buy that argument. I think editors can look at the events and their sources and make judgments about whether it should be covered. BMA casts the exercise of that judgment as WP:OR, but that policy is for the article page and not the talk page. Editors may not put OR on the article page, but that says nothing about what content from RS to include in an article. The example is not trying to provide some minority viewpoint that would fall under a WP:NPOV umbrella. Yes, Globe and Mail is outwardly a good source; it is probably the paper of record for Canada. In the the first G&M article, SE is mentioned in one paragraph. The article gives some facts such as first day hashtag count at 1718 falling at second day to 500 and continuing to fall. Even given those falling figures, the article quotes a Mat Wilcox questioning Labatt's choice of keeping a low profile while the hashtags decline. Who is right? Wilcox or Labatt's? We don't know yet because the whole episode is recent. That the point of the recent/WP:NOT#NEWS comments. Is this is durable event? I think it is appropriate to wait and see if there are subsequent articles that actually assess the damage to Labatt's. Is the Labatt's example a flash in the pan or will it have some staying power? If marketing textbooks start including it as an example, then it probably should go in our article. The G&M article does not describe how the Labatt's episode plays out because that is not known yet. Speculation before the resolution. Most of the G&M article is about how fast social media spreads information rather than the SE. Bad news can travel quickly. The article offers some observations about how earlier social media disasters with Dominos and MacDonalds were handled. It is, after all, a business article. But those disasters are tangential to our interests. The MacDonalds incident was not SE; it was a corporate twitter campaign that backfired. The Dominos incident was not SE; it was an employee's youtube video that went viral. The Die Welt article is similar. It mentions the Streisand effect as directing attention to the image that was trying to be suppressed. Labatt's certainly matches that pattern. But the article also characterizes the SE as arising from the threat of a lawsuit. That is not what most SE examples entail. The bad guy usually does some public act beyond sending a single letter: there are actual lawsuits, super injunctions, shutting down networks, or denial of service attacks. I don't see Labatt's stepping over a line. There's no bludgeon applied to an insignificant issue. The other references given above are less compelling. MarketingMag appears to be a narrow trade publication. The second G&M article does not mention SE and is more focused on how advertisers should respond to social media incidents (PR Lessons). The WorldCrunch is a recycled Die Welt. JDSupra is a legal blog. BaskinBrand appears to be a tech blog. There aren't a lot of strong, general, sources taking notice of the incident. Two sources mention SE, but I disagree with parts of their assessment. It's a nice tag to attach, but that does not mean it's used correctly. In the original SE, a wealthy actress tried to intimidate a poor photographer by suing for $50M(!) over a trivial photograph that only six people had viewed. That is a crushing maneuver. Instead, the actress suffers an enormous and righteous public blowback, hundreds of thousands view the picture she wanted suppressed, she loses the case, and she pays out over $100K to the defense. Here, we have two wealthy corporations. The Montreal Gazette has a competent legal staff; it is not a Goliath v. David story. There's no little guy who is going to get crushed. In the original SE, Streisand did a public act and actually filed the lawsuit. Here, it is not clear that Labatt's did any public act; it sent a demand letter to the MG, but who published that letter to the public? That little gem is not stated. The Labatt's incident seems to be more of a political play by a powerful press. Even one of BMA's sources, BaskinBrand, said Labatt's "had a legitimate gripe with the photo". Hey, can't you guys find another photograph that doesn't include our beer? Labatt's had nothing to do with the accused murderer; its product just happened to be in his photo. The demand letter was probably heavy handed, but not detestable. I don't like the Martha Payne example, but it has a powerful school prohibiting its 9-year old student from photographing her meals. That fits the Goliath v David pattern, and the age adds some human interest. There was public blowback. The school publicly capitulated to its student. There's further quantification of the impact as increased awareness, hits, and donations for the student's blog and its cause. If the sales of Labatt's Blue plummet, then it would be good to revisit the example. But today the sources are limited, the reaction appears to be short-lived Twitter spike, and the dispute isn't all that interesting. It's a savvy newspaper stepping on a naive brewer for political gain. The newspaper could have just replied "No" to the letter, switched photos, cropped the photo, or photoshopped the bottle. It doesn't do that. Instead it wants to crush Labatt's. There are no sympathetic players here. MG is neither a conservation-minded photographer or a 9-year old girl. To me, right now, the Labatt's incident should just be a footnote in the murder case. My arguments for excluding the Labatt's example do not include that it would continue to celebrate the photo of an accused murder. I am not trying to censor that elephant. I just think it is a poor illustration of SE. Glrx (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
|
C++
| No discussion for 4 days. Guy Macon (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Innocuous line breaks were added to the article in order to reduce the output of diffs involving subsequent edits, so that they don't overwhelm the user with walls of text. These line breaks are innocuous in the sense that they don't change rigorously anything in the structure of the article and even how it is presented to the user. In spite of this, it appears that a user opposes them, and refuses to accept that some line breaks are added to the article, even when it is between fields of a template. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
A discussion was started in the article's talk page (Talk:C++#Line breaks) in order to gather opinions on the pros and cons of introducing line breaks to an article.
The discussion is limited to two participants. It would be important if someone else gave their opinion on the subject of adding line breaks to an article. Mecanismo | Talk 23:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC) C++ discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The issue is not suitable for dispute resolution, although I was thinking of gently letting Mecanismo know about WP:3RR but decided against it as I was the one who initially reverted their introduction of superfluous line breaks in the article, and the reaction was a little excited for such a minor matter. I was planning to ask for thoughts at WP:VPR by posing the proposal that editors should be encouraged to insert line breaks into paragraphs consisting of one long line (I oppose that, but some kind of central discussion should occur before changing the style of established articles). Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't thought this rose to the level of dispute resolution either when I made my revert, either, though I must admit some irritation at how Mecanismo's imposed this "innocuous" edit on the article four times now (discarding intervening edits to the actual article content the latter three times) while arguing only semantics on talk contra WP:BRD. You don't get your way on a Wikipedia article by being the one to revert it last; that's just not how it works. I also encourage Mecanismo to look for a wider consensus on WP:VPR, but I can't help but wonder in the meantime what's so urgently wrong with the status quo ante at the article in question that it can't wait until he's gained even minimal support for it first. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Mecanismo has been making similar edits to other topics (I noticed some other resistance, but C++ is the most noticeable). Making cosmetic changes that interfere with other editor's ability to see what other changes (such as the "powerful") are not generally a good idea. If Mecanismo had been making changes to content, actually improving it, then situation would be different. As it is, the edits are a nuisance because that style is rarely done, is easily confused with spurious line breaks which do show up in the browser. TEDickey (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Line breaks --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Vassula Ryden
| Returning to article talk page by consent of participants. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I am editing a highly controversial article which is subject of intense debate. The debate has intensified over the last months following the involvement of a group of 2 or 3 editors who seem to be editing the article in a WP:GAME fashion. One editor in particular, IRWolfie, refuses to allow a WP:BALANCE to develop in the article by allowing edits to remain that are contrary to the edits he is making. The insertion of the material would bring a more WP:NPOV to the topic but by refusing to allow this material to be inserted it leaves it somewhat one sided. The material I want to insert is based on a book, published by Oxford University Press, written by an theologian of repute and subject matter expert named Hvidt. Furthermore, Hvidt was a primary witness this material which makes him an invaluable source. Here is a summary of what occurred:
Now that IRWolfie has put full focus on WP:WEIGHT, I remain certain that even if I was to prove WP:WEIGHT regarding Hvidt, IRWolfie and certain other editors would likely resort to consensus to block any text based on Hvidts work as there are at least 2 other editors in the article that share his questionable views. Their prejudice against Hvidts work was also noted by Fifelfoo, who commented that "the treatment of Hvidts work was appalling". I have not included the other editors in this dispute as their activity seems to have subsided ever since the Hvidts source was approved in the RSN about 10 days ago, and it is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text, hence this DR is addressed to him alone. Furthermore, IRWolfie has inserted material based on a source which he himself criticized (see comment 14:20,3 June 2012) which begs the question if IRWolfie is capable of WP:NPOV on this article or does he have a WP:COI? Either way, this, combined with his continued denial of Hvidt as an RS seems to indicative of tendentious editing. With IRWolfie being a more experienced wikipedian than myself I would have hoped that WP:DONTBITE would have applied to my being WP:BOLD in editing my first wiki article. The edits I have made to this article had taken it from a rather undeveloped page a couple of years ago to a more comprehensive version which was live until a couple of months ago following which numerous edits performed in a rather WP:GAME fashion resulted in the article being trimmed to this version. During the cdf tlig debate I revealed that I had comparatively in depth knowledge of the Rydens dealings with the Vatican and mentioned that it was necessary to have such knowledge of the subject matter to edit the Church Stance section of the article. When I did so, it was automatically assumed that I was a WP:COI. My points regarding wikipedia guidelines were ignored and instead the WP:SPA card was also played on me (see comment 12:51, 24 May 2012). As a result I went ahead and explained why my wiki contributions have been primarily focused on this article and where my knowledge came from. Users involved
Resolving the dispute
Absolutely. The talk page speaks for itself. The discussion has lasted at least 3 weeks and also involved an RSN post. The steps that were taken to attempt to resolve the dispute can be read in points 1 to 5 in the Dispute Overview section.
Arkatakor (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Vassula Ryden discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This whole DRN is phrased as an attack focussing on me and not on the issues. Note that there were a number of other individuals involved in the discussion who appear to have not been informed. Note also that two other SPAs have been pushing this issue, one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, I have not included the other editors in this dispute as they have not been involved in editing the article nor have they actively posted in the article's talk page since Hvidt was approved as an RS 10 days ago. It is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text which cited an approved RS and who commented accordingly. As the CDF text is the primary focus of this DR post, this DR was addressed to him alone. However, if the commentators feel its necessary to alert the other users, I will go ahead and do so, though it seems that they have opted out of this article. I will not refer to IRWolfie's other points, rather I will leave that to the commentators. Arkatakor (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
RE: "one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden" - My text and reference differs substantially from that of Sasanack. This has already been explained to you in the RSN - see my comment dated 14:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Arkatakor (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Dominus; RE: "These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN".
RE: "not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents" and "His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available.". Which other reliable sources? EWTN? The only official Vatican document used to back up the Church section is the 1995 notification. Everything else that discusses the Vatican's views is backed by EWTN, a confirmed primary source, strictly prohibited in BLP's. It is rather interesting that IRWolfie and Dominus continue to deny that Hvidt is an RS in this discussion. In doing so they have further showed how they refuse to get the point. Yet they seem content with leaving text in the article that uses primary sources like EWTN. Being greater in number does not make you right, nor does it mean that the users that you listed are necessarily adhering to wikipedia guidelines. Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am a regular editor at RSN, and I commented on the original RSN question brought there. I received a note on my talk page, and after looking at the comments here, I have a couple of things to say.
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN and I closed the previous discussion about this issue. Let me start by saying that we are not going to discuss COI, SPA, puppetry, failure to get the point, tendentious editing, or other conduct issues here and I will close this discussion if any such discussion continues. Talk about edits, not editors. Next, I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source. I do think, however, that the WP:WEIGHT issue is plausible and, indeed, I raised that issue indirectly in the prior discussion. My comment and the listing editor's response are as follows:
Because my comment was rhetorical at the time, I did not choose to comment on Sasanack's reply, but I must say now that I find it to be unconvincing and would like to hear from Arkatakor what it is that he feels that it adds to the article and why he feels that the section is NPOV without it in light of the 2007 statement. The use of the term "doctrinal judgment" by the 2007 statement could not seem to be any clearer and while its prohibition on participation in Ryden's prayer groups can be seen as a contradiction of Ratzinger's earlier statement about following the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops it is in fact not logically a contradiction of Ratzinger's statement, especially in light of the fact that Ratzinger's response was being sent to (per the desired addition diff'ed above) "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings". In light of that clarification by Hvidt, if the addition is correct in making that clarification, then Ratzinger's 2004 letter would appear to be to be wholly inconsequential and it's inclusion would be to invite a false interpretation of its meaning by incautious readers. In short, it would appear to me that it's inclusion would invite a misreading of the Vatican's position and rather than preventing the section from failing NPOV would instead invite a false NPOV reading. Finally, in accordance with this section of the consensus policy the burden to obtain a consensus for the inclusion of challenged material is on those seeking its introduction. Unless there is a policy which mandates its inclusion, which would not seem to be the case here, challenged material must be supported by a positive consensus and if the foregoing analysis is correct, then there is either a consensus against its inclusion or, at best a no-consensus situation, which gives the same result. (Finally [really this time], I would be remiss if I did not note that it would appear that every independent editor who has looked at the question of whether EWTN is a reliable source has opined that it is not and I tend to agree with that evaluation. In light of that, then it is not a reliable source for the Vatican documents being cited from it. The argument that "EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available" is false; a source is a source.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I've inserted a sentence into the article based on the Oxford Univ Hvidt source, but was careful to present it in Hvidt's voice rather than the encyclopedia's voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. See the article's Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course we assign weight to reliable sources. That's part of our job. As for the rest of you post, it does not convince me to change my stand. The three editors on RSN most certainly did NOT say that it was OK to include this material. That is a complete misreading of their findings. As far as I'm concerned, better would be to omit the material altogether. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
@TransporterMan I was disappointed by your comments here after having expressed my thanks for your previous, constructive comments. You say, regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter (which is being kept from Wikipedia readers), "It is possible to read the letter as saying virtually nothing or as being negative in approving the negativity of the bishops to which it is being written, but it is not possible to read it as saying anything which contradicts the other statements of the Vatican." I'm sorry, but the Cardinal's letter is quite short and clear and states, "a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God", in which Mrs. Ryden supplies useful clarifications....". That is a very clear statement giving specific information which includes informing the bishops where the dialogue has been published. To continue to argue that the Cardinal's letter and the dialogue to which it refers is not relevant to the Roman Catholic stance seems bizarre to me.--Sasanack (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I have notified some other users about this ongoing dispute and have updated this discussion accordingly. @TransporterMan; I will get back to you in a later post regarding your points. Arkatakor (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Hi, I received a note on my talk page regarding this DRN, as I read it, is it a fair summary to say the issues are as follows: 1) Hividt is a WP:RS? 2) Regarding insertion of text regarding the Ryden/Ratzinger (CDF) dialogue and subsequent 2004 Letter, is it significant in itself / WEIGHT? 3) Is Hividts opinion on dialogue and letter relevant/WEIGHT and if so is CONS required to put it in? Webwidget (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC) @IRWolfie: The status or not of another editor as a SPA is a conduct issue not appropriate for this forum. Feel free to issue whatever warnings and make whatever complaints you may feel to be appropriate at other, appropriate, places but do not discuss or mention them further here. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, but this is not the place to raise those allegations. Discuss only edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
@Transporterman: I have done some reading on the CDF dialogue topic, hence its taken me a while to get back to your points. RE: "Moreover, if the author is biased in favor of Ryden, it seems odd to me that he would specify that the recipients of Ratzinger's letter were "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings" and that Ratzinger clearly says that in the matter of the prayer groups people should follow the instructions of their [negative] bishops.". You made a very accurate observation. It was indeed correct to state that it seemed odd that Hvidt would specify the recipients of Ratzingers letter being negative if he was supportive of Ryden. He actually never stated that. For some reason I overlooked this when I cross referenced the book versus the actual text I was inserting into the article. Below is an excerpt from paragraph 1 on page 119 of Hvidts book, the source of the CDF dialogue claim that I wish to insert into the diaolgue. Take note that the wording: '"to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén"' which appears in my proposed CDF text actually does not appear in the Hvidts paragraph below. I have taken a look at older versions of the article and it has been there for years yet I am unable to find a reference that specifies the aforementioned information. Here is what Hvidt wrote:
Note that the aforementioned text is exactly identical to the text I pasted in the RSN. I am stating this lest certain users in this discussion accuse me of some sort of manipulation. In my view the aforementioned does not seem as neutral or negative, rather positive, albeit cautiously positive. Being cautiously positive, it actually does contradict Levada's 2007 statement which states "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden.". Ratzinger says, "consult your bishop first", Levada says "Do not pariticipate". Thus according to Noleander, this contradiction warrants the inclusion of my proposed text under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV . At that point the following text: "to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén" would have to be removed and replaced replaced by Hvidts text. This would enable it to fall under WP:NPOV which states that all viewpoints from prominent sources must be included. If you agree with this, we still need to negotiate the text as there may be a couple of more reasons that I will eventually come up with to warrant its inclusion based on further research. Arkatakor (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
“On 5 December (1995) I saw Patriarch Bartholomew in London. He was aware of what had been done to a member of his Church in violation of the Balamand Declaration.” [Fr. Michael O’Carroll (1998) A Priest in Changing Times, Columba Press, P190, ISBN 1-85607-229-0] Quoting Fr. Michael O’Carroll: “it seems to reject the spirit if not the letter, No. 29, of the Balamand Declaration.” [Michael Dore (1996) Vassula and Rome, JMJ Publications, P3, ISBN-13: 978-1899228034] 29. Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. When cooperation becomes necessary for the good of the faithful, it is then required that those responsible to an agreement among themselves, establish for this mutual assistance clear principles which are known to all, and act subsequently with frankness, clarity, and with respect for the sacramental discipline of the other Church. In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts. Webwidget (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been re-reading the DRN and perceive there to now be 2 issues in dispute; WP:WEIGHT and then depending on if WP:WEIGHT is affirmed how an edit would be worded in accordance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The previous issue of Hividt being an RS has not been challenged or contested (If I have read correctly) since user:TransporterMan commented: “I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source.”
RE: Without a response from the Vatican side… What @Arkatakor quotes from Hividt above is the Vatican response all be it a "low-key" response as described on Hividts site CDF-TLIG “May 2004 Fr. Grech confirmed that the response to Mrs. Rydén’s answers had indeed been very positive. Despite this, however, the CDF would not issue a "new" Notification that would abolish the first one of 1995. Rather, the positive response would be "kept low-key".” Webwidget (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC) If anyone is waiting for me to say something, let me note that I may be unable to do so due to real world issues for another two or three days. I'll try to jump back in sooner if I can but don't be surprised if I can't. Pretend this is Coffee Talk and talk amongst yourselves. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details. How close to a resolution are we? What can we at DRN do to help resolve this dispute? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment by dispute resolution volunteerThe following is my opinion as someone who has never looked at the page before and who has never heard of the Vassula Ryden. Remember, DRN dispute resolution volunteers have no special authority and our opinions do not carry any extra weight. First, an overview, then on to the specific question asked above I think the page needs to be reorganized to correct the following "good material, wrong section" problems. The lead needs to have everything removed that is not an uncontested factual description of who Vassula Ryden is and what she has done. All material that describes someone's opinion of her, reaction to her, etc. should be moved to another section, such as support or criticism. In particular, the "...vouched for the authenticity", "welcomed her", "false prophet" and "con artist" material need to go elsewhere. Make the lead purely factual, like an encyclopedia. The articles on Thomas Merton and Bede Griffiths are good examples. The biography is short on biographical facts (names of parents, spouses and children, degrees (if any)) and contains details that are not really relevant (religion of parents and spouses). Try digging harder; surely her husband has a name. The writings section is mostly biographical. Move things like "One day while writing a grocery list, she claims..." into biography, put the name of the book into "she is the author of..." form and move it into the head, and delete this section. In the Activities section, instead of "In 1998, Ryden initiated the Beth Myriam (Mary's House) project to feed the poor, sponsored by the True Life In God Foundation", write something like "In 1998 she founded of the Beth Myriam (Mary's House) project, an organization that feeds the poor in [name of city]." Delete the "made speaking appearances" - not notable; we want to hit the high points. Change "In February 2003, she was invited by the Venerable Suddhananda in his monastery in Dhaka to honor her with the "Peace Gold Award" for for her efforts in propagating peace in the world." to something like "In 2003 she was awarded the Peace Gold Award by [name of monastery] for her efforts in propagating peace in the world." (Double check the sources to verify that that is the exact wording of what the award honors.) Move the "Eastern Orthodox Church's stance" section into the Skeptics section, renaming it "Criticism", and answer the obvious question of why we say she is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church and then say that the Greek Orthodox Church says that her teachings are heretical. Also, in the future watch for errors like a section titled "Eastern Orthodox Church's stance" with text that details the Greek Orthodox Church's stance. They are not the same thing. Every so often you need to read the article one sentence at a time and ask yourself "is this true? Is it in the source we cite?" Finally, the "Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden" section is far too large. This often happens with disputed sections. Cut it way back, delete non-notable events like the Cathedral of Los Angeles withdrawing an invitation, and merge it with the Criticism (formerly Skeptics) section. As for the Niels Christian Hvidt material, write it up as Niels Christian Hvidt being a supporter, report his opinions in a neutral tome as opinions, and put it in the supporter section. Do not attempt to portray him as a reliable source for interpteting Ratzinger's positions. He is not a reliable source on that topic, and you are not allowed to use it to cast doubt on what appears to be a well-documented position of the Roman Catholic Church. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
@Dominus Vobisdu The section is not about "Vatican Documents" its about the Church's Stance on Ryden. The purpose of that section is to offer a brief summary or history of what has happened between Ryden and the RC Church and what the RC Church has had to say about Ryden, right from the beginning until the present. @Guy Macon: I am glad that you are taking the time to read up on Hvidt. It can be noteworthy to state that Hvidts book is not about Ryden, rather Ryden is merely an example within a chapter of a larger framework of content that deals with Christian Prophecy. Thus its not exactly a "propaganda leaflet" like some people might have suggested. Here is a direct quote from paragraph 1 of page 119 within Hvidts work that I wish to extrapolate information from:
The idea is to insert the content of the aforementioned paragraph in the Church's Stance section as part of the history between Ryden and the Church. The main points I want to bring forward from the above in the Church's Stance section are the following facts:
On top of Hvidts source, there are also letters from both Ratzinger and Levada that support the aforementioned facts. The following are Hvidts interpretation of the aforementioned facts:
Bear in mind that although the aforementioned points are interpretations, as they were part of Hvidts doctoroal dissertation published by Oxford University Press, they would have been subject to scathing peer review and scrutiny for fact checking. Despayre also commented in the RSN that "There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.". So personally I am leaning towards using the above "as is" since this work is a confirmed RS. Having said this, I want to state that I am uncertain about potential WP:WEIGHT issues pertaining to the aforementioned interpretations. Arkatakor (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Previous discussions on the use of a doctoral dissertation as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#University_Thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Dissertations.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Dissertations.3F Hvidt is a reliable source. Everyone should stop pointing out that Hvidt is a reliable source unless you are replying to someone who says Hvidt is not a reliable source. As in "exclude Hvidt from the page; not a reliable source". Being a reliable source means you can use the source for some purposes, as opposed to not being a reliable source meaning that you cannot use it for any purpose. Saying that something is not a reliable source on X is not the same as saying that something is not a reliable source. Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Quantum Mechanics, just as Alain Aspect is not a reliable source on Roman Catholic doctrine -- but both are reliable sources. Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Vassula Ryden. Anything that we put on Wikipedia about any of the three people I just named needs to be supported by reliable sources on those individuals. For example, we can report the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Vassula Ryden with a citation to Joseph Ratzinger, who is a reliable source on Roman Catholic Church stances (was/is a RS as a professor, cardinal. and pope). We cannot report that Vassula Ryden believes X if the only source we have is Joseph Ratzinger. He isn't a RS on that. Likewise, we cannot report that the Roman Catholic Church's stance is Y if the only source we have is Niels Hvidt. He isn't a RS on that. Here is the bottom line. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951006_ryden_en.html is the official position of the church. It has not been retracted or modified. When Ryden and or her supporter asked for clarification, Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, talked with Ryden, and later with Hvidt. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfryden2007.pdf pretty much sums up the RC church's position after those meetings. I realize that Ryden's supporters claim that all of this somehow adds up to the RC Church not really meaning what it wrote, but until the RC church prints a retraction or modification and reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject (Not supporter Hvidt) report on same, that claim is not going to make it into any Wikipedia article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Lead Section
@IRWolfie:That is correct. @Guy Macon: I am still in the process of working on my "fact list" regarding the CDF dialogue. I want to try and keep it simple but informative. In the meanwhile I have taken note of Webwidgets many edits and have decided to action your request regarding the lead section as per your comment dated 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC) in which you wrote:
Thus I would like to propose changing the lead from this (current) version:
To this version:
Let me know if this is consistent with what you had in mind when you made opening comment. Arkatakor (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Still not encyclopedicThe article still has a lead section that is full of opinion: "Ryden has attracted a devoted following" "Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her messages" One issue I see from looking at the page history is that there is an effort to move material as I suggested alongside a parallel effort to remove material over sourcing issues and to add material which then is questioned on sourcing issues. May i suggest that you all take a brief break from adding and removing material, work together to get the existing material in the right place, and then resume the discussion about what to add/remove? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Article Content Addition / Removal@Guy Macon: I dont know if you happened to read TransporterMan's comment dated 17:07, 26 June 2012 and the two comments that followed. Basically TransporterMan has highlighted WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues with basing the Church's stance section on 4 documents. I suggest that everyone who participates in the poll takes the time to read that comment. If you read my follow up comment, I supported TransporterMans notion of removing the Roman Catholic Church's stance section on Ryden in its entirety until better / more numerous / more up to date secondary reliable sources can be found to interpret the Vatican documents as some of them are ambiguous and possibly self contradictory. Arkatakor (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
@Guy Macon I am in favour of deleting the Church section, Like @Transporterman I also read through the various letters / notifications and sources that I could find for them and found it to be vague and self-contradictory. Webwidget (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I totally agree with IRWolfie's arguments for retaining the section. Furthermore, I don't think that a poll here on DRN accurately represents the opinion of the editors working on the article. I propose an RfC on the article's talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC) @Guy Macon "Are all the other sections acceptable as they are?" I previously moved this from the lead to Criticism > Critics see her as a "false prophet" and "a con artist who has duped a few bishops and thousands of Roman Catholics longing for modern-day miracles".[2] then deleted it after re reading WP:BLP Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source I also was looking at the WP:BLPN and saw a mention about this under Vassula Ryden
I would like to propose that this is removed unless there is something contrary to what wp:blp says Webwidget (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed Removal of Catholic Church Section
The above objection was already answered by TransporterMan, and I agree with him 100% on this. For your convenience, I am adding a copy of his comments below. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I've now thought about this for several days and my belief is that the Roman Catholic Church stance section cannot be based upon the four Vatican documents (that is, the 1995 and 1996 Notifications, the 2004 Ratzinger letter, and the 2007 Levada letter). While I believe that sourcing issues for these documents have not been adequately resolved, that issue plays no part in my feeling about this matter. The problem lies in the fact, first, that these are indisputably primary documents under Wikipedia policy and under that policy any interpretation or synthesis of them is absolutely forbidden. Second, I have read and re-read these documents, Hvidt's very useful but Wiki-unreliable analysis of them and history of Ryden's relations with the Vatican at cdf-tlig.org, Hvidt's interview with Ratzinger which touched on these issues, and a couple of other sources, and am still uncertain what exactly those four Vatican documents mean. They are extremely vague and, indeed, appear to be self-contradictory even within the same document, and can thus be read in a number of different ways. (Indeed, I keep re-reading them and thinking, "oh, THAT'S what they mean," only to decide a few minutes later that I'm wrong about my conclusion.) In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis. To set them out in their entirety would give this issue undue weight and, even if it did not, the situation is analogous to Wikipedia's position on scientific and medical research papers, whose use is disapproved because, among other reasons, they can easily be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreted by non-experts. For that reason I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it. Hvidt's book is one such secondary source, but it makes no reference to the 2007 Levada letter and appears to have been published before that letter could be taken into consideration by Hvidt and its use alone would, I fear, raise neutral point of view issues. It appears from the footnotes in Hvidt's book that there has been, at least in the past, a great deal of secondary writing about Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Those references, like Hvidt's book, may be too outdated and/or non-Wiki-reliable to provide a complete and neutral point of view, but the number of them gives me to believe that there have probably subsequently been at least a number of potential secondary sources written which take into consideration the 2007 letter. My opinion is, therefore, that all use of those four Vatican documents and the Hvidt book as references should be removed and that unless new Wiki-reliable secondary sources can be found for the section that it ought to be removed from the article altogether. The Wikipedia verifiability standard is that no information is preferable to inadequately or non-neutral information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I will travelling for the next 5 days and will have limited internet access so I will not be able to participate much in these discussions until the 5th of July. Before I do so I would like to highlight a few points:
Other users have since attempted to come up with secondary sources, though I am sure most of them would not pass RSN consensus for reliability, especially when compared to Hvidts publication. Thus my view is in the absence of 2 truths in the Church's stance section (CDF dialogue and Nihil Obstat), I would rather have the Church Stance removed in its entirety then having it as is. My decision is also based on what TransporterMan pointed out, which was that there are very few sources out there that are qualified and up to date to interpret the Vatican documents objectively. Sofar the way I see it, 3 editors involved in the article support TransporterMans view, and from the looks of it, so does Guy Macon. This currently puts the headcount to 5 editors if the votecount for the 2 mediators in this discussion are accounted for (unless they have not fully made up their minds). 3 editors have already stated they want the RC Stance section to remain. Thus I would suggest that, to get an even greater consensus, Noleander and possibly even Despayre who have participated in this discussion also be called to vote for / against removal of the Church's stance's section after taking the time to read through TrasnpoerterMans quoted comment above. Perhaps this would give us a consensus and way to move forward? I will be back on the 5th of July but will try to monitor whats going on here, given the chance. Arkatakor (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I am new to this topic, never having seen it before, and here is my take on it. I think the Catholic Church section as now written is neutral and suitable. If this section were taken away, the reader would not be fully aware of the negative force of the official Catholic position. With secondary sources providing ample support, the section stands up without depending on primary sources and especially without interpretation and synthesis. The material that Arkatakor wished to add to the article made my head spin, it was so nebulous and opaque. Just like TransporterMan's response to the primary sources, I could not make heads or tails of the various statements. I do not see any value brought to this Wikipedia biography by adding such unenlightening text. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, there's an effort to sort out the sourcing issues going on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vatican_Newspaper_in_Vassula_Ryden. Can I please ask that if anyone takes a content issue to another board that they at least mention here that they have done so? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
@Binksternet: RE: I think the Catholic Church section as now written is neutral and suitable. I suggest you do more reading on the topic then. There is "The Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Writings of Vassula Rydén" by Fr. Tiberio Munari who based part of his book on his meeting with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in Guadalajara, on May 10, 1996. Ratzinger then stated: "The Notification is not a condemnation but a warning, a notice of caution. Anyway, you may continue to promote her writings, but always with discernment." There is also "Christian prophecy: the post-biblical tradition" by Hvidt and also Hvidts website, cdf-tlig.org (not hosted or owned by tlig as the name implies but by Hvidt) which offers a good but non wiki usable description of Rydens dialogue with the vatican. There are also quite a few articles / magazines our there that also mention the dialogue. The 2000-2004 dialogue is significant for the following reasons:
Having Ratzingers questions and Rydens answers mentioned in the article and linked externally would give the wikipedia readers a chance to read and deduce for themselves what Ratzinger meant by "uselful clarifications", a statement that TransporterMan rightfully said was ambigious. Thus the way I see it, in order to keep that section neutral, all the important events between Ryden and the RCC should be mentioned. Tell the full story or dont tell it at all. Having it as is would give readers the incorrect impression that everything has always been "all bad" between Ryden and the Church. Note: This comment is only noteworthy if we are back to keeping the Catholic Church section. However, the issue of lack of synthesis and interpretation by updated reliable sources continues to apply for most of the events between Ryden and the RCC (including the CDF dialoge). Thus I still support TransporterMan's views of keeping the section out in its enterity until the latter issue can be resolved. Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
When I registered on Wikipedia, I was presented with advice which pointed to the five pillars of Wikipedia. All the discussion regarding Vassula on this Noticeboard and all the other talk pages ignore the following WP principles: The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate. The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion. The problem is that there is no system on WP to implement the above principles. It should be obvious to anyone that the CDF dialogue with Vassula should not be excluded from the Vassula page but the mindset of a group of editors which discards totally the above principles seems likely to ensure that the dialogue will remain blocked.--Sasanack (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Disrupting the DRN process by talking about users instead of content
I am talking about article content: the inclusion on the Vassula page of a proper reference to the dialogue between Vassula and the Vatican. A reference to such can and should be included under the principles (rules) I quote above. Yet any attempt to insert such a reference will be removed using the normal rules. Blocking that information devalues Wikipedia as an informative and balanced encyclopedia--Sasanack (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Arkatakor, please post such requests on my talk page. DRN is for discussing article content, not user conduct. Thanks! IRWolfie, I am not going to answer your question because it is a question about user conduct. DRN is for discussing article content, not user conduct. Your behavior above presents me with a problem. You were clearly informed that DRN is for discussing article content, not user conduct, and yet you decided that the rules don't apply to you. These rules are there for a very good reason. Long experience with a large number of disputes has shown us that discussing article content, not user conduct, then addressing any remaining user conduct issues after the content issues are settled, has the best chances of a positive result. I can address this in one of several different ways. First, (and this is by far the best solution) you could voluntarily decide to follow the rules and stop talking about other users. Second, I could simply start deleting your comments about other users. This is allowed under WP:TPOC, "removing harmful posts" section. I would consult with the other dispute resolution volunteers before doing that -- it is not an action to be taken lightly. Third, I could close this discussion and mark it as failed. I don't think I would, considering what we have accomplished here, and again I would consult with the other dispute resolution volunteers first. Finally, and I include this just for completeness, I could start down the path of posting a waring template after each incident, ( Template:Uw-disruptive1, Template:Uw-disruptive1, Template:Uw-disruptive1) then escalating it to the appropriate noticeboard and asking an administrator to give you a series of blocks (typically 24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week, one month, indefinite) I really don't want to do that. That path is for very disruptive editors, which you are not. The admin might very well decline my request, and even if we finish the process, you would get to talk about other editors at least 7 more times before being indefinitely blocked. I would really like it if you made this choice unnecessary by voluntarily agreeing to discussing article content, not user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
|
American Staffordshire Terrier
| Four days without discussion. Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Last fall, the American Temperament Test Society (ATTS) test summary statistics were attempted to be added to the temperament section of the American Staffordshire Terrier entry. I initiated a movement to have them removed because they were primary statistics from the ATTS corporation themselves or from a self-published source. The section has been re-instated by an anonymous editor who is the same person, I believe, I had the dispute with earlier. The source now is a law professor who wrote a book about animal law that was published by the American Bar Association. My contention is that this author has not demonstrated the ability to analyze statistical information and it is unclear if the publisher of the book would be stringent in that regard. Other sources that point to ATTS test summaries are usually dog advocacy groups with the same issue. There are obvious problems with the claims made based upon ATTS test summaries by breed that are not addressed by the author, and so her credibility in this regard is dubious. Namely, the sampling frame for the summaries are those dogs with owners that will know of the test, voluntarily bring their dogs in, and then pay for the test. Even among the sampling frames of various breeds, there is no guarantee of a random sample. Therefore, interbreed comparisons are worthless from a statistical standpoint, and the test results only hold for individual dogs as the population being sampled is not the breed itself but an unknown subset. Users involved
89.123.208.58 is likely k84m97 but is not signing their changes with their username.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
removed the edits, got accused of deceiving the public by the anonymous user in the talk page, anonymous user reinstated entry, I removed it again
provide a perspective, objective voice in analyzing whether sources are credible for the page at hand Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC) American Staffordshire Terrier discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I was the one who inserted the new text. I read up the talk page where it was agreed that a reliable second source can be used on the subject. This second source is a work published by the American Bar Association which we all can agree is a trustworthy source. User Wvguy8258 posted on the article's talk page links about pit bull attacks from the news as a reason why the information about temperament tests shouldn't be included. As I know "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or what others perceive as truth.89.123.208.58 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Wvguy8258 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - In controversial topics like this, it is often best to try to present both sides of the story, rather than eliminate the material and leave the reader with ... nothing. See WP:BALANCE. I would recommend including the ABA material described above, but doing the following: (1) make sure it states exactly what is in the ABA publication ... no added interpretations by the editor; (2) make sure the article identifies the ABA as the source (in the prose, not buried in a footnote); (3) include any sources that critique the ABA's material (provided they meet the WP:RS requirement); and (4) include material that present the opposing point of view about Temperament Tests (in a general way, without reference to ABA) for instance, claiming that the tests are flawed or unreliable. As long as everything is well sourced, and any biases are identified, that will give readers the full picture. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
1.you can't use directly info from the ATTS site since it is primary research 2. your second source Christensen, E. et al. (2007) Aggressive behavior in adopted dogs that passed a temperament test doesn't mention the American Staffordshire Terriers, nor does it the ATTS, it's another temperament test. perhaps it needs a different article 3.your third source Snopek, Roxanne Willems. (2006) Dangerous Dogs. Altitude Publishing. Alberta Canada is from a person who run various anti-pitbull sites. 4.your forth source Duffy, D. et al. (2008) Breed differences in canine aggression is reliable, even if you misquoted it as the article states that Pitbulls showed to greater aggressiveness toward other dogs however less toward humans compared with other breeds. However the American Staffordshre Terrier is not mentioned, t is about the American Pitbull Terrier Usre Wvguy8258 is making fun from the article trying to push his personal views, basing his edits on "comon sense", own research published on the article's talk page, links to pitbull attacks on the article's talk page and calling owners idiots and wikipedia unreliable because its democracy.89.123.229.29 (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Eight breeds common to both datasets (Dachshund, English Springer Spaniel, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Poodle, Rottweiler, Shetland Sheepdog and Siberian Husky) ranked similarly, rs=0.723, P<0.05; rs=0.929, P<0.001; rs=0.592, P=0.123, for aggression directed toward strangers, dogs and owners, respectively. Some breeds scored higher than average for aggression directed toward both humans and dogs (e.g., Chihuahuas and Dachshunds) while other breeds scored high only for specific targets (e.g., dog-directed aggression among Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers). In general, aggression was most severe when directed toward other dogs followed by unfamiliar people and household members. Breeds with the greatest percentage of dogs exhibiting serious aggression (bites or bite attempts) toward humans included Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell Terriers (toward strangers and owners); Australian Cattle Dogs (toward strangers); and American Cocker Spaniels and Beagles (toward owners). More than 20% of Akitas, Jack Russell Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers were reported as displaying serious aggression toward unfamiliar dogs. Golden Retrievers, Labradors Retrievers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Greyhounds and Whippets were the least aggressive toward both humans and dogs. Among English Springer Spaniels, conformation-bred dogs were more aggressive to humans and dogs than field-bred dogs (stranger aggression: Mann–Whitney U test, z=3.880, P<0.0001; owner aggression: z=2.110, P<0.05; dog-directed aggression: z=1.93, P=0.054), suggesting a genetic influence on the behavior. The opposite pattern was observed for owner-directed aggression among Labrador Retrievers, (z=2.18, P<0.05) indicating that higher levels of aggression are not attributable to breeding for show per se." The source Christensen, E. et al. (2007) seems to be reliable but it doesn't dealing with the American Staffordshire Terriers nor with the American Temperament Test Society. It might became another article about Temperament tests or canine aggression and a direct link could be inserted in the American Staffordshire Terrier article. Greetings,Citizen of the USA (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
|
- ^ a b c Gilstrap P (1996-12-05). "When God Talks Vassula Listens". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2012-03-23.
- ^ a b c Lattin, Don (December 14, 1996). "Mystic Called Divine Prophet Or Con Artist Catholic churches issue warning before S.F. visit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
- ^ a b c Stammer, Larry B. (April 29, 1995). "A Divided Message : Spirituality: To her followers worldwide, Vassula Ryden is a faithful purveyor of communications from Jesus and Mary. But theologians question credibility". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
- ^ a b c Stammer, Larry B. "L.A. Cathedral Disinvites Christian Unity Event: Pastor decides not to allow conference after realizing the role of a self-proclaimed mystic". January 10, 2006. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 March 2012.