Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar	Failed	Southasianhistorian8 (t)	17 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov	In Progress	Trumpetrep (t)	6 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Eastern Tennessee seismic zone	Closed	Mccunicano (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours
Breyers	New	Zefr (t)	7 hours	None	n/a	Zefr (t)	7 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

BP

Extended content

BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I am noticing bias on the BP article. There is only one other editor active on the page and we do not see things the same way. He sees my edits as POV pushing and continues to undo them. I see his editing as POV pushing and obviously pro-BP. He is having a hard time refraining from sharing his displeasure with me, which makes discussion a dead-end venture. Here is the discussion: [[1]] Here is the edit in question: [[2]] I took the problem to [POV noticeboard] and received only one reply, which was in complete agreement with my stance. But this did nothing to help the situation. There is an edit war going on as he has reverted my edit 3 times, and I have done the same (not in a 24 hour period though). Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs) 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=BP}} --~~~~ 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? Discussion and POV noticeboard How do you think we can help? Please give suggestions for where to go from here. We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing, and perhaps to ban them from editing the page, to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great. petrarchan47Tc 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC) BP discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me [removal of BP oil spill financial aftermath] and [removal of the fact that BP's oil spill was the largest accidental oil spill in marine history]. petrarchan47Tc 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective.Coaster92 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) We aren't administrators here. We are dispute resolution volunteers. The goal here is to reach agreement. Right now I am waiting until both parties have posted their arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Following Petrarchan47's comment above in which they state that 'to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.', and in view of their repeated attempts to impose changes to the lead of this article, despite having been reverted for very good reasons and a discussion being ongoing on the article talk page, I am unwilling to enter into any further discussion with them. I have made over 130 edits to the BP article. Anyone is free to compare the state of the article when I started working on it and the position today. My edits speak for themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC) For those who don't have the time to follow links to various discussions, I thought I would give a summary. Reading the intro to the BP article, the third paragraph stopped me in my tracks. It was one sentence mentioning that BP has had some environmental and political problems. That is well known, and flushed out in the body of the article. But in the same paragraph was a diatribe about BP's green energy investments. To me the structure of this paragraph seems to be a statement that is not favorable to BP followed by a rebuttal. I cannot see any other reason for these two ideas to be bunched together. To remedy what I saw as POV, I separated the 2 ideas, and added the most recent petrol investments I could find at the end to give a more rounded picture. From the body of the article: "BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget, but they have since closed their alternative energy headquarters in London. As such they invest more than other oil companies..." to give some idea of just how out of balance is the 3rd paragraph of the intro. This edit has been undone 4 times now, and I have been told to "go get a blog" based on this edit. As you can see from the discussion, I was labeled a POV pusher based on my editing after this and my earlier edits, which consisted of updating the "Solar" section. BP ended its Solar programme at the beginning of the year and posted their reasoning on their website, saying it was no longer profitable. I updated the article with this information, making statements past-tense. The article still had a section about Solar in the present tense, with a picture of Solar panels. Rangoon11 immediately deleted BP's stated reason for ending it's Solar programme but did not explain why he did so. I added it back. I also removed the image of solar panels as it gave a false impression. This edit was not disputed. Based on these edits, Rangoon had this to say: " Your edits to this article to date are very concerning as they all appear to be motivated by a desire to push a certain POV rather than to actually develop the article. Breaking out the sentence 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' into a one line paragraph is about as classic an example of POV pushing as I can imagine, designed purely to emphasise a negative aspect of the company. ...I also find it interesting that you think that that sentence and the remainder of the paragraph are so unrelated that they should not even be in the same paragraph, but then wish yourself to make a highly POV linkage between the amount that BP invests in renewables and in oil and gas through the use of the words 'By comparison'. I fully expect that you will fail to see the hypocrisy of this but I personally find it offensive.''" In my opinion, to not break out the sentence (and yes, it should be flushed out a bit, i imagine it used to be a fuller argument but has been whittled down over time) is to hide the sentence, and to mute the facts. To follow it with BP's 4% investments in Green Energy is pure POV and more specifically "greenwashing". Rangoon11 rebuttal above is alarming as well. The number of edits one has made to an article does not in any way give that editor ownership or privilege. But this editor does appear to have an attitude of ownership over this article. He is also working somewhat closely with a BP employee who is giving editing advice - I add this for your information but I am not claiming that this is a problem. I don't see it as such yet, but it is interesting how friendly Rangoon11 is with the BP employee compared with his attitude towards me. "My edits speak for themselves" "I have made over 130 edits to the page" This gives me pause based on certain edits. One of the most noteworthy facts about the BP oil spill is that is was the largest in US history, and the largest accidental marine oil spill ever. This is a well known and easily verified fact. Yet Rangoon11 saw fit to erase this statement from the BP oil spill section of the article. I brought this up on the talk page asking why. His response was to insinuate he was unaware of any sources verifying this, and asked me for proof. My understanding of Wikipedia is that the editor, before removal of statements, should do their own research to find verification. I cannot believe Rangoon11 is being honest about his motives being NPOV, and that he saw fit to remove this bit from the oil spill section because, if I am reading his statement correctly, he hadn't been able to find supporting refs. I gave him 3 refs and he did not respond. Another edit in question was the removal of a large section detailing the aftermath of the oil spill as it relates to BP's stock, etc. This was a big part of the history of the spill. I have been told that before removing sections from a Wikipedia article, editors are to bring the section to the talk page to discuss. His reasoning for the removal included it being "out of date" - but he told me "this article is about BP throughout its history and not merely the present day" when we were discussing me edits to the now defunct solar programme. I hope someone can tell me how Wikipedia deals with companies that might be trying to edit Wikipedia articles to better their image. I have a hard time believing it's left up to individual editors who notice POV to deal with it on their own - as you can see it is not easy or effective. The snarky attacks are not fun either.petrarchan47Tc 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, the above violates the request to 'keep it brief'. Let me know if it's better to move this to my talk page, with a link. Thanks. petrarchan47Tc 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Petrarchan47, can I ask why you have actually come to this noticeboard at all when you are in parallel simply attempting to force your proposed change to the lead of this article (which is long standing and has been stable for a long period of time, and was the result of discussion)? Rangoon, I have already stated my reasons for bringing this dispute to this noticeboard. The length of time that the paragraph has been in place is irrelevant. The paragraph either is or is not POV. Outside help is needed as you and I see things quite differently. petrarchan47Tc 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC) It is highly relevant. The existing lead is long standing and therefore has the weight of accumulated consensus. It was also the work of multiple editors in discussion. You are attempting to make a non standard and bizarre change, which would create a one line, in fact considerably less than a line on my screen, paragraph, right in the middle of the lead, which is designed purely to give heightened emphasis to negative aspects of the company's history. You have admitted as much yourself, when you say that you feel that the text is currently hidden. Whilst discussion is underway on this proposed change which has been reverted by an established editor for very good reasons please refrain from your efforts to impose the change through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I have never come across this type of grief or 'longstanding' (ie, "carved in stone") argument when making changes to the lead of any other article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress. I am not alone in seeing the paragraph and your attitude as problematic. You think your reasons for reverting my edits are good ones. I do not. Changes to articles are not based on whether the editors are ["elite editors"] or editors like me. That's what I love about Wikipedia. It is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people" and edits are to be based on their NPOV - not on who did the edits or on how long the edits have gone unchallenged. I can see why no one would want to challenge edits on this article based on my experience thus far.petrarchan47Tc 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Yes you have to date have around 140 article edits on WP, I have substantially over 100 times more. I have worked on the leads of I would guess hundreds of company articles and you appear to date to have worked on only that of BP. I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks. However I do ask that you stand back and ask yourself, "why is Rangoon so anti this particular edit, and yet has not reverted 90% of my edits to the BP article?". My genuine, sincere goal is to make the BP article as good as possible and to make WP as good as possible. A half a line paragraph right in the middle of the lead would draw huge attention to that text, in much the same way as if the text were in bold or italics. Why make that sentence into a single paragraph rather than any of the other sentences? Why not adhere to the usual WP approach of having no more than four paragraphs in the lead? I can't see a good reason for it. And I don't in any way believe that the current lead is perfect. For example it should in my view have more detail about BP's history. It currently has essentially none. However this particular change would not in my firm view be a step in the right direction. I would like to add that I do recognise that you have an expertise on Deepwater which I personally lack, and is no doubt rare, and in that regard your recent edits to that section of the article are most welcome. The section was much in need of work. aRangoon11 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I would imagine the lead is important to you as it is the most-read part of any article by far. As for the single sentence, I stated above that I believe it was probably a larger section that was scrubbed down. And I believe it should be flushed out a bit as it's quite awkward right now, even as it stands with your reversion of my edit. Perhaps you would agree that it needs to be expanded before the change is made. I have no problem with that. I have seen many a lede on Wikipedia where a single sentence stood alone in the intro. Over time these things get worked out. The 4 paragraph intro is not a rule, but a recommendation. From [Wikipedia:LEAD] In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. The stand-alone sentence does violate this suggestion but that's easily remedied. The sentence should be expanded to reflect it's importance within the body of the article. The Green Energy part should be whittled down for the same reason. Take a look at the sections within the article to see what I mean. I am glad you are willing to join the discussion. But, I cannot believe that your sincere goal is to improve the BP article if you would remove important information about the oil spill without doing an ounce of research. You can highlight the sentence and do a Google search in 1 second. Though I have 1/100th of your experience, I would never think to remove a statement from a Wikipedia article unless I had a good reason and had done some research first to back up my moves. You never answered me as to why you removed the oil spill information. I assume based on your statements it was to improve the article and Wikipedia? Obvious POV is obvious - one needs zero editing experience to recognize it.petrarchan47Tc 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Regarding that specific edit, I can see how it might have put that thought into your head. Please note however that the text 'and caused the biggest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry' was removed from the "Safety record", where I felt it had no relevance, and was purely duplicative of the very long section on Deepwater in the Environmental record section earlier in the article, which deals with the size of the spill. My edit summary of 'dealt with at length higher up' was perhaps unclear on the point, and I should have explained it on the Talk page when you queried it. However I was annoyed by what I felt to be your confrontational attitude in terms of repeatedly making your desired change to the lead despite having been reverted for good reason, and so instead was terse. I do stand by that specific edit though, that wording is not needed in the safety record section.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The way it reads now, the Deepwater Explosion caused (only) the deaths of 11 people. That's it, no other consequences you can think of? It also caused the oil spill, which is hinted at with the redirect to the oil spill article. But that is whitewashing if you ask me, and not fair to those who come to seek information. The Deepwater explosion caused a pretty big oil spill and that fact should be added. As it stands now, this is a single sentence section. How can you defend that after all the grief over a single sentence in the lead? Further, I have seen a few examples in your edits of late that scrub data about the financial after effects of the oil spill. This is history and very relevant to this article. It was daily news for about 6 solid months. There is no reason to delete the info altogether. Unless we aren't here to build encyclopedic knowledge but rather to - for whatever reason - mold this Wikipedia article into something favorable for BP's image. The spill is dealt with at length in the (excessively long) Deepwater section in the Environmental record section just a little higher up in the article. Repeating that information again in the Safety record section would be pure duplication. Some of the financial impact of the spill on BP should probably go in the History section. We need to be careful to avoid duplication and overlap however, and be aware that the amount of content on Deepwater in the article is already excessive and undue.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section: The [Renewable energy] section is 1 of 26 sections in the BP article The section consists of 3 small paragraphs, the 3rd and largest one discusses BP's Solar programme which is no longer in operation Renewable energy is [no more than 4% of BP's budget] 5 sentences in the body of the article are dedicated to current renewable energy projects Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power." 3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." < ie, 4% > The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here. The intro is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines for [Wikipedia:LEAD]. This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss.petrarchan47Tc 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The lead is there to provide an overview of the topic. That does not mean that the length of sentences in the lead or number of sentences should try to exactly mirror that of the article. For me the lead most requires improvement through the addition of a brief summary of the company's history. We need to avoid the lead becoming too long however, it is already about right in terms of length. The first and second paragraphs of the lead provide a good overview of the company's operations and the company's place within its industry. The third paragraph is where I would propose adding in some more historical info. As part of this I would be prepared to lose all of 'In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period'. Key points which in my view should really be in the lead are: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Iran connection, nationalisation and privatisation, and the acquisition of Amoco and ARCO. This needs a bit of thought and work however. The BP lead is by the standards of company articles in WP already pretty good though, and certainly better than peers such as Total S.A., or Chevron Corporation.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC) To begin addressing some of the above issues, I made the following edits: Added citation needed tag on the "major" renewables claim in the first paragraph of the intro. I don't expect a 4% investment can be described as major, but I could be missing something. When using a descriptive term like "most people", Wikipedia guidelines say that a supporting ref must accompany the statement. Flushed out the "Deepwater Explosion" section, which recently was scrubbed by Rangoon11 of all but one sentence: "Killed 11 people". I took a few sentences directly from the intro to the main Deepwater Horizon explosion article so that it now reads: The explosion killed 11 workers and injured 16 others; another 99 people survived without serious physical injury. It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl. I assume this information has passed the test of POV and reliability since it comes from an established article. Luckily there are [guidelines] to help us get the intro balanced out.petrarchan47Tc 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Rangoon11 removed the word "major" from the renewables claim, along with the citation tag. Seems like a good move to me. Rangoon11 also removed the last sentence from my addition to "Deepwater Horizon explosion" section, giving the reason that it was duplicated elsewhere in the article. This is the sentence that was removed: "this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl". This claim is NOT made anywhere else in this article. That is a lame excuse and was not even applied uniformly - that the explosion caused the oil spill is also a duplicate. To me this edit is POV pushing/cleansing/whitewashing with no valid argument to support it.petrarchan47Tc 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Regarding the Intro, from Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article....In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body."petrarchan47Tc 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Firstly, it is getting exceptionally tedious that, whilst this discussion is ongoing, you are going to the article and making edits which you know are disputed. What is even worse is that, once reverted, you are simply making the edits again. And again. Secondly, the Safety record section is about SAFETY. We have an Environmental record section in the article, which has a *very* long (excessively, unduly, long) section on Deepwater. That is the place for discussion about the spill and its environmental impact. It is questionable whether Deepwater should be repeated in the Safety section at all, but if it is, this should be very brief and concern only the explosion and the related fatalities. You have unhelpfully completely ignored most of the points which I just made above about the lead. Perhaps you could now reply to them.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC) It appears I ignored your suggestions, when actually you and I were writing at the same time, and when I hit "enter", I received and "edit conflict" notice as you had just entered your bit. I was not responding to you because I had not seen your contribution - look at the time stamps. You and I are both editing during this dispute, shall we both put all edits on hold and discuss them here first? That sounds good to me. Secondly, I have not seen any mention of the single sentence and it's need to be expanded with references. What do you suggest for fixing the problem of undue weight?: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence" without any refs (violating Wiki rules). This sentence is roughly 1/13th of the intro yet the subject matter is roughly 1/3rd of the article.petrarchan47Tc 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC) In regards to your suggestion for the lead, it is not becoming too large given the size of the article. As for the body, I can cut some of the 'fluff' from the oil spill section. As for addition of history and acquisitions to the intro, as long as it follows the guidelines for "undue weight", I am fine with whatever you choose to do. As you know, my issue with the intro is bias. I agree the statements about green energy could be removed from the intro, but not deleted. They should be moved into the body of the article. In general, for an encyclopedia, the more information offered, the better. I have concerns with the deletion of material for no good reason. petrarchan47Tc 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I am happy to not make any edits to the article whilst this discussion is ongoing. I may do so if edits are made by others which I feel need to be either reverted or corrected, but otherwise will not go to the article to make any changes myself. Although the lead is at the moment not too long, and could get a bit longer, if the history content which I have suggested above were added to the current lead then I feel that it would become too long. However if those two sentences which I have identified above were simultaneously removed (and yes am happy for them to be moved elsewhere in the article), I think the length would probably be OK. I think that the removal of those sentences and addition of the history content would go a long way towards addressing any possible concerns about the lead having an excessive amount of content on renewable activities, and would provide a much better summary of the article and overview of the topic. On the point of a citation for the sentence "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence", in my view this is more than adequately supported by the citations within the body of the article. On the point of weight, a lead does not need to contain a direct proportion of content relative to the size of sections. This is generally impossible and impractical given the small size of the article lead and to attempt to do so would merely create a low quality overview. The lead is there to both provide an overview of the topic (since many people will only read the lead) and a summary of the article. We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length. In terms of significance to the topic, which is a company, that company's own operations and the most significant details of its corporate history are of much greater relevance than important but secondary issues such as environmental record, safety record, sponsorships and the like.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC) The Environmental Record IS BP History, perhaps keep that in mind. The sentence mentioning BP's environmental and political controversies violates [Wikipedia:LEAD] Do not hint at startling facts without describing them....the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. ....(and for our perusal:) In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources....The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. "We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length." That's certainly debatable, but not surprising these are your views. petrarchan47Tc 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47Tc 02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47Tc 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I have been watching this debate with interest and do not really have strong views on the subject. That said I think the third paragraph of the lead is very well crafted: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases." It makes the point that BP has been found wanting but then shows balance by going on to say what BP is doing about it. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Balance is the goal, but we aren't here to defend a company - only to present facts without bias. It's a matter of scale. First of all, know that the statements about green energy above are going to be moved to the body of the article, as agreed to in this discussion further up. The statement about BP having been found wanting is in violation of WP:Lead for the reasons I outlined above. The paragraph and general tone of the intro was heavily biased. The second reason for this dispute resolution was to show that the editor who initially defended this paragraph as being perfect and beyond reproach is pushing POV on the page and should be banned from the topic, imo. To show the bias, I offer the following: "BP had 518 safety violations over the last two decades, compared with 240 for Chevron and even fewer for its other competitors. Since those statistics were compiled, in 2009, OSHA has announced 745 more violations at two BP refineries, one near Toledo, Ohio, and the other in Texas City, Texas, where 15 people were killed and 170 injured in a 2005 explosion. In the last decade, OSHA records show that BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company." Per OSHA [[3]] "Analysis found that their green campaign overemphasizes their investments in alternative forms of energy, when those investments are just a blip on their history of huge investments in and profits from fossil fuel energy. In the first quarter of 2010, they made $73 billion in revenue, $72.3 billion of that came from the exploration, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas. Only $700 million came from solar and wind energy.[[4]] Another assumption that, albeit well structured, paragraph forces upon us is that these investments in green energy (which peaked at 4% of BP's budget - and that was before BP Solar was shut down) do help and were meant to help 'fix' BP's troubles or the environment. BP pulled out of Solar Energy because it was not profitable ~ showing BP is involved in green energy for the same reasons it's involved with petrol; the positive environmental effect is irrelevant to BP if profits aren't there. Further, it has not been established that their green energy efforts have improved anything, so it wouldn't be right to give the impression that they have. A tiny list to give an idea of the negative impacts BP is having, to help with scale - these are new stories from just the past month or so: [on humans] [on Gulf shrimp] [on science] [on microbial diversity]petrarchan47Tc 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47Tc 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, Dormskirk, it looks like you changed the third paragraph. I was responding as if you had quoted the version I'm used to, the one that includes "BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." That is how it reads now.petrarchan47Tc 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I read this article for the first time a few days ago and since I was familiar with BP from my work on the Gulf spill article, I was extremely surprised, to put it mildly, to read the following in the lede: BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.[13] BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.[14] I put a note on the talk page to say that I planned to edit the lede and was directed to this discussion. If the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of the article for the reader, this information regarding BP's environmental record is laughable - I don't know how else to say it. I really can not imagine that anyone could read the environmental sections and references and still say that one vague line in the lede is adequate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Whilst Dormskirk and I edit on a very wide range of company articles, and on all aspects of their activities, it is fair to say that the other two editors in this thread are primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities. And primarily with increasing the emphasis on environmental impact in the article. There is zero interest being shown in the operations, corporate affairs and general history sections. That's fine, but this is an article on a company not on an environmental topic. The core of the article is about the company's own operations, corporate affairs and corporate history. Many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all. Personally I don't take that approach, but do recognise that this is secondary information, just as information about sponsorships would be. Dormskirk and I have also made by far the greatest contributions to the BP article in terms of number of edits. Yes that should count for something in a discussion like this. There are also plenty of criticisms of the article being made, but few constructive suggestions. I made what I felt to be a pretty reasonable suggestion above as to how to move the lead forward. It would be good if either we could get a consensus for that suggestion, or hear some other suggestions. Otherwise we are just going round in circles. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you have run across many editors that believe that "many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all" because you have done so much work on company articles which, not surprisingly, would prefer to skip criticism sections. I would assume that most editors do believe that a corporation's environmental record is an important part of its article, not something to be left out or treated as of less importance. Regarding your suggestion that the editors with the most edits should be given special standing, in all of my years of editing I've never seen that suggestion on any talk page. I would have thought that it is obvious that Wikipedia does not work that way. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Do you either (a) support the proposal made above for moving the lead forward; or (b) have any other constructive suggestions?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article: In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident.[38] In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[39][40] Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.[41][42][43] In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread [who are] primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC) This is a company with a 100 year plus history and with global activities. A paragraph in the lead on Deepwater would be grotesquely undue in the context of the overall history of the company and its whole scope of activities. It would be both highly recentist and highly slanted towards the U.S. It would also place a subjectively large emphasis on the environment. For example, more people died in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster and the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion. Neither of those belong in the lead in my opinion, but I am puzzled why you think Deepwater deserving of an entire paragraph and show no interest at all in those events. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC) The history of America is far longer, and in BP's short history it has managed to create the largest oil spill ever for the US, and what most sources call America's largest environmental disaster ever, while others say it was second only to the Dust Bowl (a fact which you think had no place in the article) as well as ranking number one largest accidental marine oil spill in the entire world. These facts are undisputed. Your reasoning above in not in accordance with WP:Lead "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" I am frankly sick and tired of trying to reason with someone who clearly does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. No editors should have to deal with this if they are simply trying to update an article or fix obvious bias in the article - whether it happens to be that of a large company or otherwise. You were fine with mentioning environmental impact in the lede when it made BP look good. Now when confronted with facts, you declare that companies should not have to even mention environment. There are many updates to be made as the aftermath of the oil spill and the various court cases hit the media, as they doing now. I do not want to have to deal with this nonsense in order to update the article. The POV on your part is clear, and given your behaviour including bullying and lying as well as your self-appointed position as owner of this article, this will likely need to be taken to the Admin board sooner rather than later.petrarchan47Tc 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC) To answer Rangoon's question about changes for the lede: I don't think the DWH spill should require it's own paragraph. It should be mentioned in the lede as the single sentence mentioning BP's 'troubles' gets flushed out in accordance with WP:Lead. BP's troubles should merit a single paragraph and should not be followed immediately by a rebuttal. Rangoon suggested removal of BP's green/climate claims from the lede and we agreed on that. Rangoon suggested to replace the green claims with more about BP's history particularly it's acquisitions. He also said the single sentence about BP's troubles is fine the way it is. I disagree with both points. I would need to be shown why more about BP's history and acquisitions merit space in the lede. These arguments only seem valid from the POV of BP or someone hired by them to make sure BP looked good on the internet. But maybe I'm missing something?petrarchan47Tc 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC) It's amusing that despite your taking such great offence at being called a POV-pusher, and insisting that I desist from this, you have since made a plethora of personal attacks in this thread, including saying that I am working for BP and that I am a liar. I have made an effort to engage you in a constructive discussion, despite my views on your very narrow agenda regarding this article and complete lack of interest in the great majority of its content, but it is proving fruitless and very time wasting. Now you are threatening to take me to the Admin board, but simultaneously accusing me of bullying. There are a number of highly significant aspects of BP's history which are not currently in the lead and which should e.g. mention of its foundation, nationalisation, privatisation, the acquisitions of Amoco, ARCO and Burmah Castrol, and the TNK joint venture. I propose adding in this information, and removing the sentences about BP being the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and its investments in renewables. This is a more than reasonable proposal, and yet since it was made all that has followed is unconstructive comments, absurd suggestions such as putting an entire paragraph on Deepwater in the lead, and multiple personal attacks. I will now make a further proposal, that, in addition to my proposed changes described above, a mention of Deepwater be made in the following way: 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC) This is from the intro to the Resolution Dispute: "We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing". I am not bullying or threatening you by saying this should go to the administrators, I am simply repeating a claim I made originally. As for saying you worked for BP, I am questioning it. My claim in the intro to this DR was "it looks to me like he is working on behalf of BP" but I have not said that you do. As for the narrow focus with regards to this article, I have also stated that right now I am focusing, to the exclusion of all else, on the bias in the Intro and on remedying that. There is absolutely no clause anywhere in Wikipedia supporting your grief about my narrow focus. I would prefer if you were to use arguments that could be supported by Wikipedia guidelines, it makes things simpler and much faster. Here is where you indeed told an untruth. When I pointed out that it was not located anywhere else in the article, you switched your reasoning for the edit with "not relevant to section - which is about SAFETY" and proceeded to let me know you weren't pleased I was still editing whilst in discussion. If your edits are valid you would not have to dance around looking for a valid sounding excuse for them. If you had no bias, you would not have a problem with leaving that statement in the Deepwater explosion section, as the section is very short, the information is important and well-sourced. The Deepwater explosion happens to be in the SAFETY section, but that is not justification for your removal of the sentence. Secondly, your argument makes no sense as you left other remarks in that would also need to be removed if your reasoning was valid. It does feel like you are wasting editors time by not being honest. Keeping in mind "due weight" I stand by my recommendations for the third paragraph re environmental and safety incidents and disagree it should remain one single sentence. You don't like single sentences, anyway.petrarchan47Tc 06:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC) It is not true that since your proposal to add BP history no one has commented. I said that as long as it abides by guidelines for weight, add anything you like. I also asked you to support the claim that BP's acquisitions and history deserved more space in the lede. Those facts might be important to you, but why are they important to Wikipedia? The reason this is all so hard is that your additions all seem geared toward minimizing BP's negative side and bolstering it's positive and neutral aspects in the article. I would like to work with editors who want to update the page with plain ole facts regardless of how it makes BP look. In fact, I did want to keep the mention of BP's recognition of climate change. Since they are the first oil company to do so, it is notable in my opinion.petrarchan47Tc 06:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Happy to keep the reference to BP being the first major oil company to recognise climate change if there is space in the updated third paragraph. It would be good to hear the views of the other participants in this thread so that we can implement the proposed changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC) This should help. Perhaps take a quick glance at BP, note the sections, their content, and weight (space) in the article. From WP: Writing better articles] If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any. Based on this and other Wikipedia guidelines, let's make a very rough draft for an unbiased Lede, starting with 'the third paragraph'. petrarchan47Tc 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC) That is an essay, not a guideline. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Rangoon, what are your problems with the essay? It seems reasonable to me and I think that a draft proposal would be a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Essays are not policy or guideline and it is really rather tedious to have chunks of them copied and pasted in here, replete with bold text. The same thing has happened on the BP talk page. Just another example of what a tedious, timewasting exercise this discussion has been. The question is, do we have a consensus on what should be included in the revised third paragraph. I am particularly keen to hear the views of Dormskirk, who has great experience in company articles and previously said that they thought the lead perfectly fine as is.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Rangoon, company articles have no different guidelines at Wikipedia than do other types of articles. It's easiest to refer to the Wiki guidelines when going forward, which is why I continue to quote them here. Otherwise we're arguing "I'm right, you're wrong and my friend agrees!" which could take forever.petrarchan47Tc 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Rangoon, I am sorry to hear that you consider this discussion tedious and a waste of time. Though you have no interest, I'd still like to try to work for a reasonable lede. Petrarchan, could you go ahead and present a rough draft as you have suggested? Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Before we go any further, where are the official guidelines/policies for Leads? We need get on the same page. Also, is there a different policy for writing an article about companies? (Seems I've been referring to essays rather than official policies.) petrarchan47Tc 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Gandy, here is an idea of the facts I am considering when trying to create a balanced Lede. (Or, just scroll up to my June 13 entry/response.)petrarchan47Tc 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Rangoon, please reread Dormskirk's comment, you have misquoted them. They referred solely to the third paragraph and changed it slightly before saying it looked fine.petrarchan47Tc 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47Tc 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead. As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning. As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power. Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I only have experience with one other corporation, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. Note that the lede contains an entire paragraph regarding controversy, and the largest paragraph at that. I believe that it must be repeated: BP was found almost totally responsible for the largest accidental marine oil spill in history and one of the worst environmental disasters in the U.S. To suggest that it doesn't even need its own sentence is preposterous. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The company has more than 100 years history and there is a number of things being the first, largest etc, which even not mentioned in the lead, not talking about their own paragraph. Deepwater Horizon has its own section and right now it is mentioned in the lead. By my understanding this is present in the balanced way. Beagel (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I am content that the latest drafting shows some good balance: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases." I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I think when seeking balance, context is required. "BP has been involved in a number of accidents" --> "In the last decade, BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company"[[5]]; BP's "culture of recklessness" was found to be the reason for this, and this understanding should be mentioned in some form.[6][7][8] I agree with Gandy that the DWH disaster does deserve it's own sentence(s) with context - "it was the biggest...". What I find truly helpful is to imagine we are writing for a printed Encyclopedia. I grew up with those. They were pure facts and I never saw evidence of bias in them. This is how I judge my contributions to Wikipedia and to this discussion. More, not less, information - especially if it provides context - is encyclopedic. The "company wide target to reduce greenhouse gasses" - if that is mentioned, it should be more than a 'plan' - what were the results? Remember, BP also promised to put up a $20 billion escrow after the DWH disaster, but now is trying to settle for $15B. I would disagree that a plan (target) is worth mentioning in the Lede, unless it was implemented and reliable sources show that the results were a big deal. Otherwise it might be better placed within the body of the article, rather the Lede. I still see the placement of these 2 ideas within the same paragraph as biased, as that is bordering on greenwashing. I don't see how they relate except in terms of a rebuttal, which violates NPOV. Again, would someone point me to the Wikipedia guidelines for Lede? Also if there are different guidelines for articles about companies we need those as well. We all seem to have have slightly differing ideas regarding these guildelines and it would help to begin by getting on the same page. Thanks. petrarchan47Tc 04:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC) With regard to mention of BP investments in alternative energy, it was agreed to earlier in the discussion to scrap those sentences. If we did mention it, I would rather it be in the form of a percentage (context), as 1 Billion sounds like a lot, but actually even before BP quit Solar, their investments were never more than 4% of annual budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I removed sentence about renewable energy investments. So, having mentioning Deepwater Horizon and removing renewable energy investments, it seems a decent compromise between different POVs. As for Deepwater Horizon – for the context we have a long section, not taking about the series of Deepwater Horizon articles. Beagel (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I believe that Beagel is sidestepping the real issue here when he suggests that a decent compromise has been reached with one sentence regarding environmental issues (now with a mention of the spill) and the following sentence praising BP's good work for the environment. BP's extremely long list of negative environmental practices and events, as listed in the lengthy sections of the article, need a separate paragraph in the lede rather than be combined with mention of their efforts to combat greenhouse gases, which has very little copy in the article. One could make an argument if BP had a long history of environmentally friendly activities with many references to back it up, but that is not the case at all and to give equal copy in the lede, in the same paragraph, and immediately following their poor environmental record, is very misleading. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I've been following this discussion and, although I defer to the experienced editors here on the issue of balance in the article's introduction, I thought I might be able to help with some of the figures that are getting confused. Before I get into that, Petrarchan, here is the link to the Wikipedia article guidelines for companies, and a couple about writing introductions: Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information Wikipedia:Lead section Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Lead section Regarding the figures quoted by Petrarchan for Deepwater Horizon: BP has spent almost $23 billion on the response and claims, including $8.5 billion on claims, advances and other payments so far, not counting the $7.8 billion additional claims that have been estimated as part of a legal settlement. The escrow amount that BP committed to put aside was $20 billion. The $15 billion figure that has been in the news is just speculation — as you can tell from the wording of news articles that mention things like "an unnamed source familiar with discussions" — and is not related to BP's announcement of the $20 billion set aside right after the spill. In response specifically to what Petrarchan was saying, that it shouldn't just be a plan for reducing greenhouse gas that's mentioned in the lead, I think the following release provides the information he's seeking here: BP Beats Greenhouse Gas Target By Eight Years And Aims To Stabilise Net Future Emissions, 11 March 2002 I hope that this information is helpful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Arturo, your help is greatly appreciated. As for the greenhouse emissions, the article from BP may not be enough to warrant inclusion in the Lede, I believe we would need a reliable secondary source. As for the $20B Escrow, Feinberg was planning to spend $6B and return the remaining $14B to BP, so it gets confusing. Thank you also for the 3 links. The Company article guidelines show that there is no different set of guidelines when writing an article about a company. The essay about Ledes is good, but Rangoon has suggested essays aren't really relevant as they aren't official guidelines, so it is of no use to us here. The article about Ledes is what I have been referring to. Here is the section which shows our one single sentence mentioning environmental issues and the spill is not sufficient: the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The 'explaining' part is why I suggested adding context to the accidents. Beagle, I do agree we will have to compromise at some point. But the article is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 dedicated (rightly so) to environmental and political issues. The intro is supposed to let folks know what they'll be reading in the article. This is why to dedicate a paragraph to these issues in the Lede seems appropriate.petrarchan47Tc 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC) To newer editors to this discussion, note this is focused on the Intro, but I also brought up the fact that content was being removed from the article, and that the POV problem does not end with the Intro. Please see my first comment in this discussion... petrarchan47Tc 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC) If I've understood correctly, the guidelines for the introduction refer to a standard for an ideal form of article. The BP article as it stands is not in perfect shape and much information is missing about its operations, leading to an imbalance of information about environment and politics. Would it not be better to generally improve the article first, then return to the introduction later once the other issues in the article have been addressed? Meanwhile, here are some secondary sources for the reduction in greenhouse emissions: Energy Policy Journal, 2006 Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2005 (footnote 10) The Climate Group, 2005 (page 4-5) There were also some news articles, but these tended to report meeting the target as "the company announced" or "Lord Browne announced". Hopefully the above sources work well enough. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Usually peer reviewed sources are favored, so if a reliable source published an article about BP's reduction in greenhouse gasses, that would help. Then we would need to prove it belonged in the Lede. This discussion is focusing on getting the obvious bias out of the Lede. Other improvements can be done in time, but it's best to keep focused for now as this is dragging on longer than anyone wanted.petrarchan47Tc 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC) It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial. Thank you to Petrachan47 for bringing the issue to DR. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps before coming to a discussion such as this purely in order to make personal attacks you should actually familiarise yourself with the article. And I didn't even write the paragraph in question. All I have had in this disussion is repeated personal attacks, hence why I decided I could not be bothered to continue my involvment in it. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, not user conduct. If you wish to complain about another user, don't do it here. Take it to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the issue, take it to WP:RFC/U, but please wait until the DRN case is closed. It often happens that solving the content dispute solves the user conduct issues as well. It looks to me like we have pretty much done everything we can do here. Unless someone has an objection, I am going to close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC) We're almost finished, but not quite. Give me until Monday as I am researching over the weekend and will present an idea for the third paragraph as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. 174.74.66.179 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Take as long as you need. We only want to close cases where everybody has given up or where they resolved the issue and didn't bother telling us. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC) That is good to hear. To be honest, I will probably need another week. petrarchan47Tc 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC) {od}

Dispute resolution volunteer note: Normally we close discussions after a few days with no discussion, but I am temporarily collapsing this one and giving it more time; See the discussion for details. If 10 days go by without activity I will close this. This discussion is still open: anyone who wishes may add comments, and anyone who wishes is free to uncollapse the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

• Vassula Ryden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

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:

1. IRWolfies primary argument to keep the aforementioned material out was that Hvidt was not an WP:RS despite considerable efforts to point out the contrary.
2. When it became clear that the discussion to justify that Hvidt was an RS was not going anywhere I went ahead and sought WP:CONS by posting on the WP:RSN to get outside opinion regarding Hvidts work to see if it was in compliance with WP:RS.
3. When I attempted to get some outside opinion by posting in the WP:RSN IRWolfie attempted to thwart public opinion about my RS and divert attention before other contributors had a a chance to review it. It was nonetheless subsequently approved as an RS by the commentators involved.
4. Despite the approval of Hvidts work as an RS by uninvolved editors, IRWolfie has continued to deny (see comment 13:57, 4 June 2012) that Hvidt was an RS and continues in his efforts to remove it.
5. Hvidt not being a RS was used as a primary justification to keep his material out until the RSN process was concluded. Now he has put full focus on the WP:WEIGHT argument since he lost the RS argument regarding Hvidt.

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

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs)
• Arkatakor (talk · contribs)
• Sasanack (talk · contribs)
• Webwidget (talk · contribs)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)

• 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=Vassula Ryden}} --~~~~ 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?

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.

• How do you think we can help?

1. By arbitrating the dispute and make judgement on the inclusion of the CDF material in the Church Stance section.
2. To make sure all editors adhere to wikipedia guidelines by allowing properly sourced material to be inserted in the article and removing any material that is based on primary sources such as this one.

Arkatakor (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden discussion

Discussion 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)

We have a number of sources that say there has been no acceptance by the catholic church of Vassula Ryden, exceptional claims to the contrary require exceptional evidence. Hvidt is an active supporter of Vassula's who has met her on a number of occassions (see "He made specific mention of his apparent heroine, Vassula Rydén, who has made a name for herself " [9]). [10]: "Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt, a very active Danish supporter of Mrs Ryden. Dr. Hvidt has done much to promote the TLIG messages in Denmark and in the world. ". This was not considered at RSN because comments were not allowed. WP:REDFLAG specifically requires multiple high quality reliable sources.

The text is phrased to mislead the reader into thinking the catholic church has accepted Vassula even though this is contradicted by other sources (WP:WEIGHT) before and after the event.

The primary source I have added supplements the points in the rest of the section, I make no analytical claims and have used the source carefully, it is not misleading and this meets WP:PRIMARY. Note also that the arguments raised above are also self defeating, there is mention excluding primary sources above, but Hvidt is a primary source; he was a primary witness according to Arkakator! IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also I never claimed the source was unreliable at RSN, nor did I refer to it being an unreliable source post RSN for the claim that the meeting occured (that I can see anyway). I suggest other uninvolved editors look at the diffs and links posted above by Arkatakor rather than taking them at face value as there are a number of misrepresentations of my actions. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 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)

You specifically mentioned that there were other editors in your above statement. There are other reasons why besides reliability that text is rejected. Per WP:BEANS it's good to not mention every issue all at once, just because a source is reliable source for a sentence doesn't mean we should add that sentence. It is not the job of RSN to form a consensus about inserting material, and noone did so. Note that you also misunderstand what noticeboards are for, they pool interested editors together into a single board, they are there to offer a second opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 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)

• Comment by involved editor: I am one of the editors mentioned obliquely by Arkatakor above. I agree with IRWolfie that the source, though published by a university press, is not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents. The author of the source is an avid champion of the subject of the article by his own admission, and was not only a witness of secret Vatican talks, but was a partisan participant, as well. His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available. These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN, so I do not hold their opinion as well-informed or binding.

Furthemore, as IRWolfie says, WEIGHT is a serious problem with the material proposed by Arkatakor, as the addition appears to undermine and misrepresent the official public stance of the Vatican.

Last of all, consensus is pretty firm about not including this material. The addition has been reverted by several editors, including me, user:IRWolfie-, user:Sgerbic, user:LuckyLouie, user:Eldamorie and user:SkepticalRaptor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dominus;

RE: "These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN".

1. The commentators of the RSN were given the link to the Catholic Stance section so they could check the sources for themselves
2. The commentators of the RSN stated that they were aware that Hvidt was a follower of Ryden. One of them even said "I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. 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.". All these comments have been linked in this DR report.

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)

EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 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.

• First of all, I want to be clear, I have nothing to say about WEIGHT or other issues.
• Secondly, the RS value of the source is completely independent from other sources (Other regular editors at RSN aside from myself also found the Hvidt source to be RS). Finding other RS sources that have different conclusions in no way reduces the RS value of the Hvidt source. That argument is incorrect/false/wrong, take your pick, unless there is a multitude of RS sources that directly address the Hvidt source specifically and its conclusions. It is completely possible, and in fact, not uncommon, for RS sources to have different, and even opposing, material. It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, and agree about the reliability of the source. The arguments I was using against it fall under WP:WEIGHT, but still support excluding the material and the source from the article, regardless of its reliability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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:

Mostly-rhetorical inquiry: In light of the Vatican's subsequent statement in 2007, I'm not at all certain why this 2004 statement is worth arguing about. What do you, Sasanack, see that it adds to the article? (For reasons I'm about to explain, this is mostly a rhetorical question at this point and place in time, though you are free to answer it if you care to do so.) ... TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is important to recognize that the 1995 Notification and the 2007 letter are effectively warnings and are not rulings. The Vatican has no jurisdiction over Vassula who is Greek Orthodox. Also, neither document involved any dialogue with Vassula on any level. The ONLY dialogue that has taken place between Vassula and the Vatican is that which took place between 2001 and 2004 and it resulted in the positive letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which is being blocked from Wikipedia. And Cardinal Ratzinger is now the present Pope. Hiding this information from the Wikipedia page totally destroys the neutrality of the Roman Catholic stance section. ... --Sasanack (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

While EWTN is indeed unreliable for material it itself generates, it is quite reliable for the official Vatican documents it hosts. In any case, the document hosted on EWTN is available on more reliable sites, such as the University of Daytons's site: [[11]], so changing the citation is a trivial matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:15, 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)

And I've reverted it because 1) it was premature as the discussion is still going on here; 2) it does not at all address the WEIGHT issue inherent in balancing two high-level Vatican rulings with the opinion of an ardent promoter of Rysen, even if we identify him as such. Please discuss further suggestions here before making changes to the article space. When consensus is reached to include the material, and the final wording is agreed upon, it can be added then. There is no rush. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article already includes multiple statements that the Catholic church disavows AV to some extent. If Oxford publishes a book by a professor which says that the church maybe (in his interpretation) backed off from those disavowals, there is no harm in presenting that information to the reader. If Hvidt were a horribly biased partisan, maybe it could be excluded - but is there any evidence of that? --Noleander (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Horribly biased partisan" is exactly what we're talking about. He is her chief advocate and defender, or certainly most visible one, as a cursory perusal of Google hits will confirm, including his own website on which he defends her against her critics [[12]] (in Danish, but it is titled "Niels Christian Hvidt responds to the criticism of the prophet Vassula Rydén", written by himself. Note that "prophet" is unqualified). And he is also very close to the Pope, as well, who wrote the forward to Hvidt's book. He wasn't present at the meeting described in the source as a neutral observer, but to actively intervene with the Pope on behalf of Ryden, something he had been doing so for years. Last of all, the "relaxation" of which he speaks is not documented by any other source, and in particular by any document from the Vatican itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All 3 uninvolved editors at the RSN agreed that the Hvidt source was acceptable under RS criteria. Then here in this second DRN, the argument shifted to UNDUE WEIGHT, which doesn't hold water since the article already has a lot of "Catholic church doesn't endorse VR" material. Now we are back to "he is her supporter". So what if he is the only source for the relaxation? There is no WP policy which requires multiple sources. So what if he is her supporter? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers that. Just say he is her supporter, and identify the "2004 letter" material as merely his opinion. This is a professor's book from Oxford press ... WP is supposed to present both sides of a debate. --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of trying to gain consensus here, how about starting with some draft text and tweaking it:

According to Danish scholar and Ryden supporter Niels Christian Hvidt, between 2000 and 2004 a dialog took place between Ryden and the CDF. These dialogs led to a letter from Ratzinger which Hvidt interpreted as relaxing the Notification by allowing diocesan bishops to permit prayer groups to utilize Ryden's writings.

In accordance with WP:BALANCE it is much smaller than the "Catholic church does not endorse VR" material already in the article, so it does not violate the UNDUE WEIGHT policy. Thoughts on this proposed text? --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: Yes, Hvidt is actually an admitted biased partisan (although I'd leave out the "horrible" part). According to True Life In God Hvidt introduced Ryden on her 1998 twelve city speaking tour by telling devotees "of the impact that True Life in God (Ryden's writings) has had on his spiritual life" and how he managed to handed the Pope a signed copy of Ryden's latest book during a general audience. He also maintains a personal web page that promotes favorable interpretations of the CDF's dealings with Ryden , and there's even a YouTube of him giving public lectures promoting Ryden's mystical writings. Also, as IRWoflfie mentioned, Hvidt tirelessly lobbied Ratzinger and other Church officials on Ryden's behalf. Saying he's a fan might be putting it lightly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander: The only source we have that there is a debate at all is Hvidt. The Vatican apparently doesn't think so. Without a response from the Vatican side, we cannot even say that a legitimate debate exists, never mind that Hvidt's opinion is part of it. Hvidt can be used as a source on his own opinion about Ryden, but not on the opinions of the Vatican in this matter, in which he has a big fat conflict of interest. The Vatican did indeed subsequently release a second document on Ryden, affirmed the continuing validity of the first document from before the meeting ("no opportunity may be provided in their Dioceses for the dissemination of her ideas") and directly contradicted Hvidt's conclusion about the meeting with the words "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden".

Sorry, but I still can't see any basis for assigning any weight at all to Hvidt's interpretation of the meeting, especially when he is contradicted by the head of the CDF itself, the supreme and final arbiter in this case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to "assign weight" to a reliable source. The Hvidt source is discussing the relationship betwen AR and the Church, and anything he says on the matter is appropriate to include in the article. If the source is biased, the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy says that his bias must be mentioned. If the material is the author's interpretation of an document, the article can state that. But there is no policy-based reason to exclude material from an Oxford-published source that is directly relevant to the article. Your objections are unreasonable: first this went to RSN, and 3 of 3 uninvolved editors said it was okay; now would you like to take it to WP:NPOVN? Uninvolved editors there will reach the same result. Better would be to simply find some wording that satisfies all editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 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)

@Noleander: Whether Hvidt is biased or not, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply except to "Biased statements of opinion" and says that one way to avoid the issue is to "specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." Based on the diff at issue, this does not appear to me to be a statement of opinion, but a mere recitation of facts which should have been subject to fact-checking by this reliable publisher. 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. Ratzinger's statements that Ryden's clarifications were "useful" is semantically neutral: they could have been useful in identifying her writings as appropriate or in identifying them as inappropriate, the letter does not say one way or the other. 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. Whether neutral or negative, it adds nothing to the section but can be seen as violating WP:OR by inviting a misinterpretation at worst and making the section a prohibited WP:INDISCRIMINATE selection of facts at best. If the Vatican has contradicted itself, a reliable source needs to be found which says so. Inviting unwarranted conclusions is, in part, what WP:WEIGHT would seem to be intended to prevent. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 20 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)

You only notified the two other SPAs (one of whom has a disclosed conflict of interest related to this) and did not notify any individuals who disagreed with you that were mentioned above. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 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)

Being a Single Purpose Account (WP:SPA) is not something that warnings are issued against, it's not negative in itself, but something to note. Being a SPA is not a conduct issue or necessarily an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Webwidget: 3 arguments have been used against Hvidt in this discussion. First it was RS (before Despayre stepped in), then it jumped to WEIGHT, then back to RS (as soon as Despayre stepped out), then back again to WEIGHT and now finally its WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (Transporterman came up with this), the last which is based on the assumption that Ratzingers statement is either neutral, negative or otherwise does not contradict the 2007 letter in any way hence it has been argued that its inclusion could be misleading and Transporterman wants to know how it would contribute to the article. It is Transporterman who has come up with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV based on his interpretation of the CDF dialogue. Transporterman is the only person participating in this dispute who has been consistent and has not hopped from one argument to another, though I disagree with the conclusion he has come up with. I will go through the correspondence with Ratzinger and Ryden in more detail before I come up with an appropriate response and explain why having this text is helpful to the article. Arkatakor (talk) 17:02, 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:

From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Vassula Ryde´n and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Vassula’s answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.374 As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Vassula Ryde´n through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’375 The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Ryde´n in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.

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)

@TransporterMan Inclusion of the CDF Dialogue text demonstrates that whist the 1995 Notification was issued without any prior consultation with Ryden, that the CDF then subsequently did engage in dialogue with Ryden (2000-2004) demonstrates the scope & process of that dialogue. (Since at the time of the issue of the 1995 Notification there was no consultation with Ryden nor any Catholic/Orthodox Clergy or Theologians of repute who supported Ryden.) A brief background to this: In 1995 Ryden was given no hearing/right of reply. The CDF's issuing of such a Notification regarding an Orthodox Christian breaches the Balamand Declaration *29 (according to Fr. O'Carroll, see below) “After the appearance of the Notification, I went as president of the Association based on Vassula’s writings, True Life in God, to plead her case in Rome.” [Fr. Michael O’Carroll (1998) A Priest in Changing Times, Columba Press, P190, ISBN 1-85607-229-0]

“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)

@Arkatakor:

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.”

@Dominus Vobisdu:

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)

You can comment as to where you see the WP:DUE weight on the text inserted here: [13]. The statement is sourced to Hvidt an admitted supporter of Vassula's and an observer of the meeting (i.e a primary source), but reliable for saying that the meeting took place. The issue is where it's being inserted and the weight issue as a result: Vassula_Ryden#Roman_Catholic_Church.27s_stance_on_Ryd.C3.A9n, it's being used to counter the two CDF notifications, one before and after the event and only serves to mislead and act as if Vassula Ryden has more acceptance from the Catholic Church than actually exists, this omission is consistent with WP:VALID. I think this is the core of the issue IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A small but important detail, according to Hvidt's web site [14] he was not just an observer to the meeting(s). He persistently solicited church officials until they agreed to meet Ryden. He then orchestrated the meetings and actively participated in them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of that detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by dispute resolution volunteer

The 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)

GuyMacon's suggestions seem sensible to me. Regarding the Hvidt material: I think a single sentence (where he is identified as a supporter) is appropriate. The objection raised above that Hvidt should be excluded because his views are fringe per WP:VALID is not right: Hvidt is a scholar and the source book is published by Oxford Univ Press. Even if he is biased, his opinion can be included per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV provided it is identified as an opinion. --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: its good to have another neutral editor in this discussion. I agree with your proposal of the article remake, especially with regard to the introductory paragraph and the eastern orthodox changed to greek orthodox, etc. The article badly needs a makeover. However I am confused by your concluding paragraph. I am frankly irritated by certain editors (I am not referring to you at all but rather those who have been active in the articles talk page) in this dispute, who never miss an occasion to discredit Hvidt wherever they can , despite the fact that his work was published by Oxford University Press and was also confirmed as an RS in the RSN. It is this approved work and this work alone that I intend to base the CDF dialogue text in the article on. I would like to direct you to some of the following statements made by other users in this particular DR regarding Hvidts work:

1. Transporterman stated: "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."
2. Despayre stated that: "It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN."

Noleander, another uninvolved editor (until about a week ago) tried to insert Hvidts text in the Roman Catholic Church's section (because the dialogue that Ryden had with the RC Church is part of the history between Ryden and the RC Church), until Tansporterman (rightfully at the time) pointed out that such an edit could be a possible WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have pointed out why WP:INDISCRIMINATE would not be an issue in my comment of 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC). Unfortunately this is the time that Transporterman was unable to respond. I would very much like to also hear his feedback on this. Arkatakor (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to realize that DRN deals with conflicts over article content and not user conduct. This means that everybody needs to stop talking about other editors and focus on talking about article content. Please don't take this as criticism; it is natural human behavior to describe disputes in the form "...and then he did this, and then I did that, and then she did the other thing..." Natural, but not helpful. Here at DRN we have found that focusing in on the content dispute usually solves any user conduct issues, and if it doesn't we know where to send you to deal with user conduct issues -- but please wait until we either solve the article content issues or give up on solving them.

Getting back to the content issue, could one or more of you start implementing the things we all agree on such as making the lead purely factual with criticism and support moved to the appropriate sections?

(Saving my comments so far while I do some study on Hvidt; more on that topic within the hour) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a single sentence identifying Hvidt as an ardent promoter of Ryden can be included, and that he should not be used in the section pertaining to the Vatican documents. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:06, 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:

From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Vassula Ryde´n and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Vassula’s answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.374 As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Vassula Rydeen through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’375 The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Ryde´n in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.

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:

1. From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF in which the CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors and submitted five questions in a letter dated April 4, 2002.
2. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger (head of the CDF at the time), Rydens answers to the aforementioned five questions were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.
3. Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Ryden through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’.

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:

1. Interpretation of point 1 above: The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine.
2. Interpretation of point 3 above: The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Ryden in their diocese. On the basis of the ‘‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings were allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop (the "follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop's" is also mentioned in Ratzinger's 2004 letter).

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.
Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Niels Hvidt.
Vassula Ryden is not a reliable source on Joseph Ratzinger.
Vassula Ryden is not a reliable source on Niels Hvidt.
Niels Hvidt is not a reliable source on Joseph Ratzinger.
Niels Hvidt 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)

@Guy Macon: There are quite a few points that I would like to clarify which feel you have overlooked, I will get back to you at a later point regarding your latest post in which I will compile a fact sheet based on my re-reading of the discussion here. I feel this dispute needs remain open for another good few days until we have all had the chance to clarify things. Arkatakor (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am completely open to the possibility that I completely got it wrong; after all, I am just looking at it for the first time. Take as much time as you need - we want to get this right - but if you see that two or three days have gone by with no discussion, just drop a quick "I am still working on this" note here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 24 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)

TransporterMan's comments are, as usual, thoughtful and balanced. It has always been my view that if WPrules prevent any reference to the CDF dialogue, then the Roman Catholic stance section should be removed in its entirety. It is certainly the case that the 2007 Levada letter should not be on the WPpage as, apart from the criticisms of its EWTN reference, the letter was never published by the Vatican. It simply 'leaked' on to the internet. But, in truth, I remain puzzled that Wikipedia struggles to allow the inclusion of basic FACTS on its pages. This matter of inclusion of the three documents which have come from the Vatican referring to Vassula should not be a problem at all. Their inclusion does not involve anyone's opinion, it is just about facts. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to provide?--Sasanack (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@Sasanack: Is not just the 2007 letter leaked onto the internet which uses an inappropriate citation but in particular this:

In November 1996, following a series of declarations from Ryden's supporters affirming that the Notification was not a valid document, the CDF issued a press release, stating that the Notification "retains all its force" and "was approved by the competent authorities and will be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official organ of the Holy See"..

The aforementioned also uses ETWN - I have made efforts to remove it alongside the CDF dialogue as they were both based on primary sources. My efforts were undone, despite wikipedias obvious rules about excluding material based on primary sources.

RE: "I remain puzzled that Wikipedia struggles to allow the inclusion of basic FACTS on its pages" I believe what TransporterMan is trying to say is that facts should not be listed alone as they can be misinterpreted, especially when it comes to the vague, self contradictory documents in question. They need reliable updated secondary sources to analyze them. Otherwise its up to the readers to interpret those facts which are based on 4 documents and they could easily be misinterpreted thus a possible breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TransporterMan mentioned this in a previous post with regard to the CDF dialogue but now he realized the same could be attributed to the Vatican letters / documents as they are ambiguous. At least this is my understanding of his latest post. If thats the case, I can state that the whole thing is starting to make sense to me.

@TransporterMan: I am glad that you took the time to read up on the history between Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, making suggestions or comments about how to improve this article requires quite a bit of background reading and it is clear that you have taken the time to do that. I concur with you that the Vatican documents are vague and self contradictory and that there are very few secondary sources published by subject matter experts to actually interpret them, apart from Hvidt's book. However as you mentioned, his book was published prior to Levada's 2007 letter. There is currently a shortage of recent, secondary reliable sources to interpret the Vatican's documents. For this reason I would like to state my support of your notion of removing the Roman Catholic Church's stance section on Ryden in its entirety until better / more numerous reliable secondary sources can be found to interpret the Vatican documents. Arkatakor (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead Section

Note that Arkatakor is wiping content from the lede and article and apparently says you said so: (The DRN specifically mentioned removing controversial topics such as support / criticism / reaction / controversy etc from the introduction, read Guy Macon's comment dated 07:59, 23 June 2012 [15][16][17]. I've also found extra sources for the 1995 notification: [18]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

@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:

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.

Thus I would like to propose changing the lead from this (current) version:

Vassula Rydén (born January 18, 1942) is a controversial Christian mystic living in Switzerland who professes to receive messages from Jesus Christ and The Virgin Mary. A member of the Greek Orthodox Church, former tennis champion, and fashion model born in Egypt to Greek parents,

Ryden has attracted a devoted following among some Catholics who follow apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her "messages" and she travels around the world giving lectures and providing "healing services". Although two Catholic bishops in California welcomed her into their cathedrals, the Roman Catholic Church has issued statement advising Catholics "not to regard the messages of Vassula Ryden as divine revelations, but only as personal meditations",

Ryden's writings and handwritten transcriptions have been published as a series of nine volumes, called "True Life In God" and translated into 31 languages by Trinitas, an Independence, Missouri, publishing house and nonprofit organization established to spread her writings in 1991.

To this version:

Vassula Rydén (born January 18, 1942) is a controversial Christian mystic living in Switzerland who professes to receive messages from Jesus Christ and The Virgin Mary. A member of the Greek Orthodox Church, former tennis champion, and fashion model born in Egypt to Greek parents, Ryden has attracted a devoted following among some Catholics who follow apparitions of the Virgin Mary. She travels around the world giving lectures and providing "healing services". Ryden's writings and handwritten transcriptions have been published as a series of nine volumes, called "True Life In God" and translated into 31 languages by Trinitas, an Independence, Missouri, publishing house and nonprofit organization established to spread her writings in 1991.

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)

That is the direction I suggested, but keep in mind the following:

• My suggestions are just that, and my opinions should not carry any extra weight. The final decision needs to be made by consensus of the editors working on the page. I hope that the consensus agrees with my suggestions, but if it doesn't, my suggestions should be discarded.
• Make sure that any material removed from the lead is still to be found elsewhere in the article. I suggested moving material, not deleting it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon I thought as much. Here are my comments as to why the following should be removed / shifted.

• The statement "Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her "messages"" adds a positive, non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral.
• The statement "Although two Catholic bishops in California welcomed her into their cathedrals" bears no weight in the light of the fact that Ryden has been to well over 900 meetings (select 'All' for both Select by year AND Select by country in preceding link). Many of those meetings are documented (see 'report' under specific meetings) with photos of clergy higher in rank than these particular 2 bishops. So why should 1 meeting with 2 particular bishops be stand out compared to the 100's of others?
• The 1995 notification is already in the article under Church Stance section. Thus there is no reason to include it in the introduction as, like mentioned for the first point, it adds a non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral.

Thus I feel its clear that we both agree to remove / shift all the above as per your suggestions to keep the lead as merely a description of who Vassula Ryden is and what she has done, leaving the reaction parts to the appropriate designated sections. Arkatakor (talk)

I reverted the removal and instead moved the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No you have not. The paragraph still contains all the 3 non neutral / non contributing points I mentioned above. Arkatakor (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Still not encyclopedic

The 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)

I concur. Please check my comment after yours on 22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC). I attempted to remove everything that is non neutral or already mentioned in the article from the lead. However, my efforts were undone by the very user that made me initiate this DR. Here is a proposed text for the lead:

Vassula Rydén (born January 18, 1942) is a controversial Christian mystic living in Switzerland who professes to receive messages from Jesus Christ and The Virgin Mary. She is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, former tennis champion, and fashion model born in Egypt to Greek parents. She travels around the world giving lectures and providing "healing services". Ryden's writings and handwritten transcriptions have been published as a series of nine volumes, called "True Life In God" and translated into 31 languages by Trinitas, an Independence, Missouri, publishing house and nonprofit organization established to spread her writings in 1991.

I am sure most of us can agree that the aforementioned lead is neutral. If the users who have been involved in this discussion do not have specific objections to the aforementioned text, I will go ahead and make the necessary edit to make the lead as per above. Arkatakor (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a good lead. Please put it back, but as you do, make sure that all removed material is either already in another section or gets put into another section rather than deleted. I want to get the organization right and then go back and see what needs to be added or removed. Other editors; if you think he got it wrong, improve, don't revert. pick one small improvement and propose it on the talk page. Repeat until the article is perfect (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have made the lead as per the proposed version above. Justifications below:

1. "Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her "messages"" adds a positive, non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral. Status: Removed - supportive theologians already mentioned in the supporters section.
2. "Although two Catholic bishops in California welcomed her into their cathedrals" Status: Removed. If we were to list all the clergy that invited her to their Cathedrals they would be in the multiple 100's since Ryden has been to well over 900 meetings (select 'All' for both Select by year AND Select by country in preceding link). Many of those meetings are documented (see 'report' under specific meetings) with photos of clergy higher in rank than these particular 2 bishops. There was no reason to mention them in particular in the lead. What would be more appropriate would be to state in the lead that Ryden has been in more than 900 meetings in over 70 countries. More on this below.
3. "The Roman Catholic Church has issued statement advising Catholics "not to regard the messages of Vassula Ryden as divine revelations, but only as personal meditations"," Status: Shifted - this is already in the article under Church Stance section.

Regarding point 2 above, in the light of the fact that the only up to date web source that confirms not only the number of meetings but that documentations many of them properly is tlig.org, I suggest that we insert a statement in the lead in the line of: "According to the tlig.org website, Ryden has been to over 900 meetings in over 70 countries". This would make it usable under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Any thoughts / comments? Arkatakor (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent job! I advise leaving out the "According to the tlig.org website..." mentioned above, and I advise that if anyone really wants it in, to rewrite it so that it fits in the activities section. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Content Addition / Removal

OK, now that everything is pretty much in the right place, I want to take a quick poll; who wants to add or remove material, and what do you want to add or remove? (Just a brief description, please - details later). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@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)

I agree with TransporterMan 100% on this. I am trying to get a feel for what the consensus of the editors working on the page on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We do have reliable sources that cover the notification, including two secondary sources: L'Osservatore Romano English edition and [19] and [20]. It's also appears to be mentioned in the times in 11th February 1996 if you have access to this [21]. It's also mentioned in several books: [22][23][24]. Even Hvidt notes it: [376&f=false]. There is no reasonable way this can be undue. These are just some of the sources found online, no doubt newspaper scans would have even more. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:Yes, his statements makes sense and have been consistent throughout this discussion. It would also be good to hear from editors who have not been too involved in editing the article itself but rather in discussion pertaining the article / sources. I am thinking Noleander and Despayre.

@IRWolfie:This kind of media is hardly a reliable source for interpreting the true meaning Vatican documents. The journalists who write such articles have no credentials when it comes to CDF / theological / Church matters. As an example, when the 1995 notification came out, a lot of mainstream newspapers falsely published that Ryden was "condemned" by the RCC even though Ratzinger, who issued the 1995 notification, specifically stated that it was a warning, not a condemnation. In Sweden last year, all the mainstream religious newspapers falsely published that Ryden had been excommunicated from the Greek Orthodox Church when the latter had issued a disapproval of her teachings and instructed all Orthodox Christians to not associate with this movement. Media such as these, simply love to have explosive headlines and are prone to exaggeration or misinterpreting of facts. The only scholarly account that I am aware of written by a subject matter expert is that of Hvidt, however his book predates the 2007 letter, thus it could not accommodate for the latest 2007 statement of the Church in its analysis. Arkatakor (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of the text is not under doubt. We are discussing due weight. We have about 8 sources, including 4 reliable books. There is no doubt that there is sufficient due weight established. The current text makes no interpretations at all, it's almost all quoted from the notification. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: "The reliability of the text is not under doubt.". Yes it is, when comes from mainstream journalists. As per my comment above. Arkatakor (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan's reflections are of course referring to the whole Roman Catholic stance section, not just one part of it. Certainly I agree with the removal of that section if all the Vatican's involvement cannot be included within it.--Sasanack (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Alas, we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it, as TransporterMan pointed out. I agree that it is better to delete the section than delete everything we can't source and end up telling half the story, but my opinion means very little. The decision needs to be made by a consensus of the editors working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(Moved here from my talk page -Guy) You posted this Alas, we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it, as TransporterMan pointed out, after I had replied to you with 6 secondary sources covering the notification. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(Moved here from my talk page -Guy) You posted this Alas, we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it, as TransporterMan pointed out, after I had replied to you with 6 secondary sources covering the notification. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack wrote: "TransporterMan's reflections are of course referring to the whole Roman Catholic stance section..."

I replied "we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it". As in, "there are some parts of the "6 Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden" section that we do not have secondary sources for."

Your response said "We do have reliable sources that cover the notification, Including two secondary sources." (emphasis added). We still do not have reliable third party sources for all of it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The text itself is coming from the official Vatican newspaper, it is eminently reliable for the position of the catholic church and the authenticity of the letter. The due weight is coming from the secondary newspapers and books. The newspapers are not being used to analyse or interpret claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have one for and one against deleting the catholic church section. Are all the other sections acceptable as they are? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie is overlooking the fact that the item he refers to was simply the first comment by the Vatican about Vassula about 17 years ago. Much has happened since and if those later developments can not be included in the RC stance section, then it is best to leave out the section altogether.--Sasanack (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems a rather strange stance to take considering that we have the further clarifications and notifications from the CDF to complement the existing secondary and primary sources, which is hardly undue (it's not an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and meets WP:PRIMARY). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 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

Was the information removed here correctly removed? Edit summary says "any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". Loads of arguments about this article.

Interesting article - There appears to be some conflicted/involved editors- personally I don-t see a need to add some critics have called her a con artist using that citation - it seems unduly attacking portrayal and just unnecessary - there is still a fair bit of critical content remaining so its not too much of an issue imo

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)

Regarding IRWolfie's suggestion of sources; If IRWolfie feels that the sources that he suggested are reliable for interpreting Vatican documents, then I am sure he would not object to submitting each and every one of them to the same public scrutiny on the RSN as I did regarding the sources I proposed, which were excerpts from Hvidts book, Swiss magazines and indeed EWTN. Making such RSN posts would entail quoting specific paragraphs from the books / magazines as well as stating their publishers as I have done. Let the RSN commentators decide whether or not these sources are reliable. Until then, I vote that the Church's stance section be removed in its entirety.

As for consensus, I hope that the opinions of non involved editors who have participated in mediating this dispute will bear the same amount of weight as those of the editors who have participated in the article. The purpose of this dispute was to acquire some insight and arbitration from external users. I believe that this has been largely achieved sofar. Arkatakor (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the removal of the "false prophet" and "con artist" claims. They clearly violate [[WP:BLP]. I also like the idea of an RfC on the talk page. Taking a head count on DRN is handy for the cases we often see where one person takes a position and everybody else disagrees, but not really accurate enough for this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Catholic Church Section

As I have already stated, there is no interpretation of the Vatican documents in the article. We merely quote it, that is all. The Vatican newspaper is reliable for the text of the notification. The multiple secondary sources give due weight, some of the secondary sources also quote it. If you really think it's not a reliable quote, I will take it to RSN but I think it is pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There are way too many objective RS that mention the Vatican's stance on Ryden (some even referring to it as a ban), so removing the Church's stance section is not going to happen. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

---

No he didn't address it because the secondary sources weren't there two days ago, I added them yesterday. Also, to claim that the Vatican newspaper isn't reliable for statements by the Vatican is truly bizarre. I've pointed out about seven sources which specifically mention the notification as well, ample due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read it again. In particular, read the part that says "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" . I just looked at that section again. Paragraphs two and three each have a citation to a primary source. Not the analysis that TransporterMan called for. Paragraph one has two newspaper reports which could arguably be called analysis of that one document -- not the others in the section, two primary sources, and one cite to a book that not only contains no analysis -- just a mention in passing of two Ryden supporters -- and which does not support the text it is attached to (see http://books.google.com/books?id=QOa_6HNsp_EC&pg=PA146). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: more citations added after I wrote the above. Have not evaluated them yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 28 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:

1. The purpose of this RSN was to point out that the Church's stance section was very one sided and that I was being prevented from being able to inserted the interview with the CDF.
2. TransporterMan asked me how it would help improve the article since he deemed it potentially misleading considering his (then) understanding of the documents he read - this was also in part because I had misquoted Hvidts book (see my comment dated 11:15, 21 June 2012).
3. I had since started to compile a list of of reasons for the inclusion of the CDF dialogue with Ryden based on my reading of information from certain theologians who are familiar with the Vatican protocol with dealing with alleged mystics. However I will not post them at this point as the discussion has shifted in another direction (see point 5 below).
4. There is also another truth missing from the Church's stance seciton. Although a notification was issued against Ryden in 1995, in 2005 the work True Life in God was officially endowed by the Catholic Church with the Nihil obstat by Bishop Felix Toppo, S.J., D.D., bishop of Jamshedpur and official Censor Librorum (official ecclesiastical authority duly charged with reviewing texts and granting the Nihil obstat) and - the Imprimatur by Archbishop Ramon Cabrera Argüelles, Archbishop of Lipa. This used to be in the article but a proper source was not available so one of the editors involved in this dispute removed it. There are surely scanned documents that confirm the above, however I am sure they are probably only sourced on TLIG.org. I am aware of various religious magazines that have written about it, though I am not sure if they would pass RS.
5. TransporterMan made a very insightful comment (quoted above by Guy Macon) that made me rethink about the whole Catholic Church section. Most importantly, he made this comment after taking the time to read all the information out there. His contention was that the Church's stance be removed until reliable secondary up to date sources are available to interpret them. I support this view.

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)

1.This isn't RSN.

2. TransporterMans comments don't take into account the secondary sources I have since found.

4. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth, there was no citation for TLIG being official endorsed. I find your reliance on scanned primary documents a little disconcerting considering you specifically complained about primary sources being used to justify text earlier.

5. same as 2

Note headcounts aren't how consensus work.

IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that the only thing not secondary sourced at the moment in that section is the 2007 statement. Due weight is already established by the numerous reliable sources covering the original statement, the later 2007 statement is a repetition of the earlier statements. It seems a very strange stance to delete everything because the 2007 statement can't be secondary sourced although it is reliably sourced. I can search the newspaper archives and find a secondary source though. edit: I've added some secondary sources for that statement as well, they aren't in English though. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So, we have at least two secondary source that cover the 1996 and 1995 notifications both at the same time (Hvidt being one of them), we have a secondary source that cover the 1995 notices and the 2007 notices, we also have many other secondary sources that I have not mentioned, this is not an exhaustive list, I can find more if desired. We also have the primary sources themselves for the authenticity of the notices. There is no requirement that sections be covered by a single reference, I don't know why that would be required. (there are still more reliable sources if you want them added as well but verification and due weight have been met). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to finally be able to agree with IRWolfie about something. I agree with his statement that "headcounts aren't how consensus works". But the way 'no consensus' has been used in justification for deletions on the Vassula page has generally been as an alternative to 'no unanimity' which of course is something different. IRWolfie continues to totally ignore the third Vatican document about Vassula (Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter). This betrays a total lack of a neutral POV about Vassula.--Sasanack (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits, not editors, must have a NPOV. This discussion has so far stayed focused on content, rather than on one another. Let's keep it that way, please. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Edits not editors need to have a NPOV" - a very good point which I will try to remember. It reminds me of the Christian directive to hate the sin but not the sinner. Unfortunately, this whole problem does relate to specific editors who, for whatever reason, are not prepared to make the slightest compromise regarding the RCchurch stance section. The two DRN discussions have brought forward many balanced comments and suggestions from independent editors but it seems to me that when this discussion is closed, the 'group of 4' (if I may so describe them) will be able to revert any attempt to remove or change that section. They will simply say there is no consensus to remove it and that will be that. If I am mistaken about this I would very much like to hear of possible ways forward. --Sasanack (talk) 13:23, 29 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)

Hmm, you say you have never seen the topic before, yet you view the RCchurch section "neutral and suitable". On what do you base that assessment?--Sasanack (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not use inflammatory wording, it uses reliable secondary sources combined with specific quotes cited to primary sources, and it tells the reader the status of Rydén with regard to the Catholic Church's official position; a very important point in her biography. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 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)

I did mention I was taking it to RSN because Arkatakor asked me to, see the top of this subsection. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 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:

• The dialogue gave Ryden her first opportunity to defend herself since the 1995 notification.
• The dialogue was held with the same Cardinal that issued the 1995 Notification (Josheph Ratzinger).
• It is very unusual that the RCC has a dialgoue with an alleged living mystic / prophet - it points to the impact Ryden has had in Catholic circles.
• The fact that the RCC / CDF had a dialogue with an Orthodox alleged mystic / prophet is even more significant, since she is not under the jurisdiction of the RCC.
• Towards the end of the dialogue Ratzinger held a private audience with Ryden and Hvidt, which again is signficiant.
• At the conclusion of the dialogue Ratzinger himself reqeusted through Fr. Prospero that Rydens answers be published in her books.

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. Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles

• The Beatles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• 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 graphs, sections, or entire articles, in one edit, or in several, piece by piece, without ever actually using a rollback in the technical sense.

Examples:

• a sub rosa "rollback"
• another rollback, with a possibly deceptive edit summary
• rollback
• edit summary says restore, but seems more like a rollback to me
• a rollback with no edit summary
• rollback
• rollback
• rollback

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.

I've made numerous attempts to resolve issues with them at Talk:The Beatles, as well as at DocKino's talk page, to which I received no reply. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• DocKino (talk · contribs)
• GabeMc (talk · contribs)

• 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.

— GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

You may see some delays in getting to this issue. Please be patient. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, no hurries, thanks for the update. — GabeMc (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for letting me know - we'll leave the thread open then. WP's not going anywhere. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis

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. Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The main dispute is whether or not to include a chart on the effectiveness of various therapy treatments including psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioral therapy. For reference here is the chart and here is the study. The chart is based on the largest study of the subject and used 45 meta-analyses (secondary sources) and 66 of it's own trials. It is also the only tertiary source on the subject that I can find. As well it has over a thousand citations (diff, diff). The main argument for excluding the chart (that has any kind of validity anyway) is that it would constitute Undue weight. I think it's the proper weight because it's the largest and most authoritative study on the subject. I have also asked repeatedly (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) for an(other) tertiary source(s) that would make it undue weight to use that single study for the chart alone. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs) Maunus (talk · contribs) Widescreen (talk · contribs) Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs) 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=Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis}} --~~~~ 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 discussed it in the two talk pages of articles. How do you think we can help? Deciding whether or not the chart can be used in the two articles per Weight etc. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. You may see some delays in getting to this issue. Please be patient. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) You shouldn't even waste time on this, CartoonDiablo is trying to insert a table into several articles and 4 editors have told him that that is a bad idea. Now he thinks that by going to this venue he can force an alternate consensus in his favor. I think he simply needs an explanation of what consensus is and that dispute resolution is not a mechanism that overrides local consensus. He/she also didn't notify User:Polisher of Cobwebs who has also participated in the discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC) My bad with regard to Polisher. That aside, you can't use consensus to exclude material and violate Wikipedia policy. I know precedent isn't really considered valid here but for reference from another dispute resolution: Comments about consensus Based on the article's talk page, the biggest problem that I see is a misunderstanding of consensus by both sides of the debate. I saw a number of comments on the talk page about consensus that were wrong. A few things about Wikipedia and consensus: (1) Consensus cannot trump Wikipedia policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; (3) Consensus can change over time -- a consensus from a year ago can be changed; (4) Wikipedia's "Don't revert solely due to non-consensus" disallows the use of "no consensus" as grounds for preventing change to an article. Debbie W. 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC) As it stands, there is not a single reason to justify undue weight which is evident from the lack of reply after asking five times for other tertiary sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) You are the one who fails to understand consensus. WP:DRNC is not a policy but an essay. Consensus is not "from a year ago" - it is from right now - four editors have told Diablo that the table is not suitable. Contested material may be removed at any point if there is a consensus to do so. No individual editor has the right to include material if a group of other editors find that it is not suitable. Whether to include a large table is subject to an editorial decision and the onbly way we make editorial decisioin at wikipedia is by consensus. A neutral third party is not needed when 4 editors is arguing against one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Maunus: The whole point of the WP:DRN and WP:RFC processes are to gather input from additional, uninvolved editors. Quite often in WP content disputes, there are only a few editors involved, and there is a 1-to-4 vote or a 1-to-3 vote. Is that consensus? Often the answer is "no" because the sample size is very small, and the editors monitoring Talk pages tend to be partisans (thus, sometimes the majority is "wrong"). In situations like that, the minority ("1") editor is supposed to utilize the WP:Dispute resolution process, and go to DRN or RFC to solicit more input. If the minority is "in the wrong" they'll find out soon enough in DRN or RFC. But we should not be discouraging editors from following the WP:Dispute resolution process. --Noleander (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I do not see myself as being involved of any "dispute" of any kind over this subject. I made a comment on the article's talk page - that was all. Sorry to disappoint, but I want nothing more to do with this issue. I have accordingly struck through my name. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I am involed in this discussion. My point is, theres no necessary for an consensus. We see an a compelling case. You can't describe the effecitvness of a treatment by only one study. It don't matter if this study is an secondary oder tertiary source And of course not by cite only one table selected by only one study. Thats nonserious. The study itself, CartoonDiablo trys to push in the Articles, obtaint minor attention at the proffesionel circles. That doesn't mean the study should not be cited at the articles. But CartoonDiable got to accept this little public health overview is not the last result and explain everything in this wide field. Fine it would be as easy as Diabolo thinks. But it ain't. My second Point is, that I couln't fount thousends of citatiations. Because of the tenacity Diabolog trys to push his POV I reserch over the study and found, of course, a lot of criticism. For example Perron, Brusset, Baruch and Emmanuelli, how attac the methodology of the study and a lots more. Diabolos approch is highly superficial and non scientific. So my proposal is: Diabolo should expose the fiel much deeper. --WSC ® 11:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I want to make clear again, that not the consensus is the way to decide what should be included in the article but whats right. If Diabolo is right, his view should be included against houndreds of authors. The Problem is, Diabolo haven't a clue what he's talking about. He found a table in a french public health survey. That's all. --WSC ® 12:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I don't think Widescreen's argument works because (1) the study has over a thousand citations which is much more than "minor attention at the proffesionel circles" and (2) it's based on quantity and not quality. For instance, it would be ridiculous to have a chart based on a dozen secondary studies but ignore a tertiary source as just "one study" even if the dozen sources are a tiny fraction of the research in the tertiary source. What matters is academic weight, not number of sources. And I have asked five times (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) for other tertiary sources that would make the chart undue weight. The argument seems to be that they know it's not undue weight but are excluding it anyway. Regarding consensus I would advise everyone to re-read the comment and especially (1) and (4). This seems to be an attempt at POV exclusion since no one can list a legitimate reason for why it's undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Also as a side note to the supposed criticism by Perron, et al. the only RS I could find was a rebuttal on Pubmed. If Widescreen could show a link to a reliable source of the critique it would be appreciated. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Ok, Diablo. Show me the link with the thousends of citatiations? Here some links: sciencedirect; scirus; google cit. counter. Diablo. It's just one study. Don't matter if they analyse thousends of secondary sources. It is and shall remain only ONE study. One study of thousends of others. If the authors of the study analyse them sloppy, the study would be poor. Diablo. I have listed another study. -> [25] <- This one. But you overlooked it. Diablo. Also a tertiary source can be a bad source. I don't think in this case. But just the fact, this survey is a tertiary source don't make them absolutley safe. Not in this wide field of research. --WSC ® 05:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC) From How do we see the methodological problems in evaluating psychotherapies? section of the report holds the key "In practice, these two constraints are often difficult to reconcile: the diagnosis categories constructed from an optimal reproducibility basis such as the DSM (American association of psychiatry) or CIM (World Health Organisation) are not necessarily those that are most widely used in everyday clinical practice, particularly in France." This report set out to provide clinical guidelines for clinicians in France in 2003. From a research perspective there is no continuity as to how the various conditions are defined and diagnosed internationally as compared to how the conditions are defined and diagnosed in France. So this report can only be taken as a guide for France in 2003, there too many variations in research trial design and structure, and very few Randomised Control Trials the gold standard for this type of research. dolfrog (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC) To Widescreen: (diff, diff). That's not just not a wikipedia policy but a bad policy. Even if you argued that it's better to use 12 secondary sources than one tertiary source that uses a thousand secondary studies (which is prima facie wrong) it would border on WP:SYNTH. So here's my question: how would a proper medical chart be cited? That's a primary source and I have already replied to it in the discussion. If it's not a bad source and there's no other tertiary source why would it be undue weight? To Dolfrog: I don't want to come off as aggressive but it's clearly not a guideline nor just for France as the secondary sources are not exclusively French. It's an evaluation as the title and abstract suggest: This document presents a review of the work of the expert group convened by INSERM through the collective expert evaluation procedure to answer the questions raised by the Direction générale de la santé (DGS; general directorate of health) on the evaluation of psychotherapies.... An evaluation of the effects of the psychotherapies appears to be required to guide public health decisions (i.e. laws) and fulfil the wishes of patients who want to know how effective the treatments offered are (the i.e. was added by me). The expert group has analysed three psychotherapy approaches from the work available in the literature providing the basis for a scientific evaluation of their efficacy.... In fact, the word "guideline" nor any suggestion that it's done to directly assist therapists (outside of knowing how effective their treatment is) doesn't appear anywhere in the study. The problem with methodology is that few people in France use the DSM or CIM so it doesn't work perfectly as a comparison inside the country. If anything, it works better in places that do use the DSM like the US. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Excause me but I check out the google citatiation counter and found 2 cites in french an [scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychotherapy+autor%3Ainserm&btnG=&hl=de&as_sdt=0 not one] in english. Are you sure you search for the study itself or rather INSERM? The Diffs you presenting are just the discussion due you've made. Yes, one tertiary source (don't matter how lousy it is) is much better than an high cited secondary source. I think I have understand your point. Can we now talk about the articles? Take a look again! It's a tertiary source also. Tertiary! The one you find so perfectly. "If it's not a bad source and there's no other tertiary source why would it be undue weight?" - I'll take you up on that. --WSC ® 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Oh sorry, one additional: When you fiddel a bit with tha google scholar you find 7 (in Words: seven) citatiations. I have to revise myself! There are 7 citatiations. I'am sorry about that. --WSC ® 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC) That's probably because the report was part of a larger government report making it difficult to cite by title, meaning people are citing it but they aren't citing it as "Three approaches evaluated" etc. For the citation counter I got 1095 citations, 57 publications and an H-Index of 16. The reason why I posted me saying that is because I already said that. Glad to hear it. What you gave looks like a primary source (and has no direct access) what secondary sources did it cite? You mean you'll accept the position or try to find a way to justify why it would be undue? The point with me asking is there so no way that I can see that a chart based on the largest, valid and unique tertiary source would be undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Ok, the whole report reches 121 cits by tricking g. scholar. And now? The Psychotherapy part reaches still 7? I understand your point. Thats dosn't mean I share your opinion. I don't answer that anymore. Please make sure you understand what a secondary tertiary and so on study is. Ok, I'll try once again. When this little and technical superficial study is so substantial, why such a small number of reserchers cite it? Wouldn't such a weighty tertiary source create much more sensation? I mean more than 7 (in words: seven) cites? For comparison only: My exemplarily study reaches 229 cites. And another approach to psychotherapyreserch reaches 1735 cites. And don't get me wrong: Cites are just a indication. --WSC ® 19:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - Clearly the source of the table is a reliable source, and it contains information that could be useful to readers. The problem is that the table format - because it is so large, colorful, and official-looking - gives the impression to readers that the table's contents are the officially adopted view of the majority of researchers. (Another problem is that it seems to be promoting one form of therapy over others ... I'm sure proponents of the other two columns in the table would disagree with the assessment, no?). On the other hand, if the table's contents were summarized in simple text (prose) there would not be as much of a problem. I would say the table could be included if there were 3 or more reliable sources that endorsed the table and if there were no major sources that dissented from the table. But, if there is only the one source that endorses the table, then I think it is a bit misleading to include the table in the article. However, the contents could be summarized in prose/text form in the article (but see WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which indicate that any dissent from the table's message should also be included). --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I generally agree but it seems that: It is the mainstream view of science, the study was done by dozens of researchers using 100+ meta-studies etc. and no similar undertaking by groups like the APA was done leaving it as the consensus for now. My assumption is if the APA made a similar review it wouldn't even be discussed here. While I'm not against adding more sources in addition to the study per se, it leaves the problem of what would count as a reliable source, (secondary, tertiary etc.) how the sources would be factored along with the secondary studies used in the French study and whether or not it would border on WP:SYNTH. My general feeling was there needed to be another tertiary source but I suppose you can take secondary sources and evaluate them. For instance here are the different standards for proven or presumed effectiveness: Psychoanalytic: Proven: established by a meta-analysis and randomised controlled trials Presumed: established by randomised controlled trials. CBT: Proven: established by one or more meta-analyses or consistent, high statistical power, randomised trials. Presumed: established by meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, reviews Family therapy: Proven: established by one or more meta-analyses and consistent, high statistical power, randomised controlled trials. Presumed: established by meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, reviews The other concern is whether or not it even needs another reliable source. Each evaluation for a disease needed one or more secondary source which includes dozens if not hundreds of reliable sources by itself. And for reference other articles get by with similar charts with much less evidence. As to the concerns that it makes it seem like its "promoting" CBT, I don't see how that would apply to science anymore then the scientific consensus "promoting" climate change. Anyways sorry for the long response but that's just my opinion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) You talking such a nonsense. That's not bearable. --WSC ® 23:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I would advise Widescreen to abide by WP:DISENGAGE but that aside let me briefly reply. First of all it's not 2 and it's not 7 and it's not 121, but well over a thousand citations (and just for reference the 121 figure doesn't even correctly search for the authors). And it's a non-point, even if it did only have 2 citations (as opposed to the over a thousand) it would still be upheld as a good source. And no J. Shedler is a primary source. Just for sake of reference, a primary source is one study. A secondary source is a review of individual studies and tertiary source is a review of secondary sources or meta-studies. Shedler is an individual study. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but this dispute can't be resolved, because it's not a dispute among different authors. It's a dispute among CartoonDiablo and reality. --WSC ® 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The above comment violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Please retract and apologize. This noticeboard is a place for a calm, reasoned discussion, not a flame war. And no, I don't care what the other fellow did first. If I notice him violating WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA he will be warned as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC) So what secondary sources does Shedler cite? CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) At the end let me sum up: Diabolo trys to push a table into two articles. He found that table in a french govermental survey made for practitioners. This survey received marginal response from scientific circles. No matter what Diabolo trys to present there are not more than 7 cites in scientific publications. However, psychotherapy reserch is an wide and embatteled field. It's nonserious to describe this field with thousends of studys an opinions with only one table taken from a subprime study without any explanations. Futhermore Diablos way to led a discussion and his argumentation is unacceptable. --WSC ® 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Staffordshire Terrier

• American Staffordshire Terrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

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

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Wvguy8258 (talk · contribs)
• K84m97 (talk · contribs)
• 89.123.208.58 (talk · contribs)

89.123.208.58 is likely k84m97 but is not signing their changes with their username.

• 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=American Staffordshire Terrier}} --~~~~ 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?

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

• How do you think we can help?

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 discussion

Discussion 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)

The Temperament Tests are widely used in the US by state authorities, canine organizations, city councils and layers. In some towns you can keep a bigger dog if the dog passed the Temperament Test. Since it is a research it can't be published here from the primary source therefore I looked for a trustworthy secondary source. It is also mentioned and used in many dog fancy journal, American Kennel Club, Dogs in Canada, American Veterinary Medical Association and so on but its use in a work of a reputable organization as the American Bar Association can be accepted as a reputable source beyond any doubt. Furthermore the work published by ABA extensively analyzes the issue using the results in the court. 89.123.208.58 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer the use of temperament tests being used by state authorities etc...A test can be perfectly valid to evaluate a specific dog, yet summaries by group may be inappropriate to describe group differences. So, a state humane org using the ATTS to evaluate a particular dog means little to this discussion. For example, we put out fliers to examine the thickness of men's hair in two states. Each male that shows up gets an accurate examine, yet you cannot describe the difference in means for the general population of two states with the samples. Why because guys with thinning hair in both states do not show up. If a state has more bald guys per capita, they will simply have a smaller per capita sample size, and the means of the two states will be remarkably similar and hold no information. Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous poster is misrepresenting my case against including the ATTS test summaries. It was based upon: 1. statistical argument which is obvious to anyone experienced in data analysis (that the sampling frame and sample generation mechanism for these test summaries by breed are not reliable to generate the information many purport) and 2. that the sources of the ATTS test summaries is not reliable. So, I will ask this as a thought question, is the American Bar Association (ABA) a reliable publishing house in terms of sifting through truth claims made by pharmaceutical companies based upon data in order to determine a particular drug's effectiveness? Is a law professor published by the ABA a reliable analyst for biomedical claims like this? Where are the bounds of law professor and the ABA's expertise?

Is the American Temperament Test Society Inc. a trustworthy group to come up with a sampling design to compare breeds when in fact comparing breeds is not their aim at all? Is the reporting of their findings by a lawyer germane?

You know what? I give up. I just google scholar'd the ATTS test and it seems that many people with no expertise in judging numbers are using it to prop up a PC agenda in regards to animals. So, anonymous use can find poor research to back up their claims. By the way, this is why wikipedia is often so unreliable when it comes controversial issues. A democratic approach to sifting truth doesn't work when people insist on discussing things beyond their competency.

I'll try to post on the talk page a brief mathematical description of what the "dog experts" and lawyers are missing.

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)

It seems fair to me what Noleander wrote. I agree with all of them but of course point 3 and point 4 also should be based on a reliable source.92.82.24.232 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It likely doesn't exist. There is not much call for the deconstruction of the incorrect claims and reasoning made by folks in journals related to animal rights and advocacy. I would have to direct folks to information about the ATTS test and sampling design in statistics, which would likely be cumbersome and partly based upon mathematical common sense (since I would have to indicate what stats principles are violated since someone hasn't likely published this exact breakdown of the ATTS summaries). There are many mentions of these stats by folks in 3rd rate journals, so anonymous users can wear me down and end up getting their way by finding at least one cited sources. SO, I formally withdraw this dispute. There are simply too many people lying or passing on lies around the world in print in order to clean up the image of pit bull breeds, and so wikipedias policies will be exploited to include incorrect information. I'm guessing the claim that pit bulls were nanny dogs and were used as baby sitters is coming next (yes people actually say this).Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But the aim of Wikipedia is not to publish information perceived as "truth" by some, instead it is verifiability of the information included, by a reliable source, a respected publisher. You are arguing against the inclusion of the ATTS with your own work which was published by yourself (copy/paste) on the article's talkpage. Your work isn't reliable nor was it published therefore it can't be used.92.82.24.232 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You will see that I have conceded. I know you will find some source that have these ATTS stats cited and be able to get it in. No one to my knowledge has published a critique of those that use the ATTS summaries inappropriately, however it is common statistical sense. But I cannot simply put links to self-selection bias on the page because the suggestion that it is a problem would be my own work. You will notice I likely cannot find any literature stating that umbrellas are not dessert toppings either, so I suppose the insistence that they are not is off limits per wiki rules so long as someone has published it in earnest. I expressed clearly that I wanted to at least show you the problem with what you are doing mathematically. You have no personal page, so I posted that in the talk section with qualification. That's all. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you can.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bit confused Dodo bird, was this snarky as in you can because you did, or are you actually expressing that it is legitimate? Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I was being snarky.

I tried and anonymous user that is here removed it. Wvguy8258 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed your un-sourced edits. You are more than welcome to insert new information in the article until you are respecting Wikirules. Materials inserted must be sourced, primary research can't be used directly just from a secondary source if that source is published by a reputable publisher. You inserted your own work which can't be used in Wikipedia. As I said you are more than welcome to edit, just use a reliable source and respect Wikirules89.123.229.29 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How are you in agreement or not with the moderator above named Dodo bird? I placed a link to sampling bias and self-selection bias. The wiki links do a good job of explaining this. I also added in to the ATTS section that the dogs brought in are from owners that volunteer and pay for the test. Is this not true and directly reflected by the ATTS organization itself? Does the lawyer author of the book you reference mention anything about the ATTS besides breed summaries? No mention of how the data is collected? Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As wikirule states and as Noleander said we should make sure that nothing is added that is not mentioned in the source. Every information inserted must have a reliable source. As you agreed on the article's talkpage a few months back the ATTS can't be used directly because it is a research therefore you need to use a secondary source which must be from a reputable publisher. You are more than welcome to edit but please mention your sources, and as listed above these sources must be from a reputable publisher.89.123.229.29 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added properly sourced information. 90% shot that anonymous user will remove it within a day. Wvguy8258 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Again you added primary research from the ATTS site which is against wikirules plus some references from some dubious sites and those which weren't, were instead taken out of context. You also added info about canince temperament which wasn't about the breed, it was general.89.123.229.29 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I was being snarky. Don't know what gave you that impression, but I am not a moderator. Regarding your recent edits, I agree with the addition of some information about the test and the addition of the Duffy (2008) study. Everything else is mainly original research/synthesis. The Cornell study is not based on ATTS tests.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Noleander's comment upstream. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

BUT the cornell study addresses the claims based upon temperament tests, that they are not reliable, and should it not be part of this when claims are being made using a temperament test? Anonymous user of many numbers has even removed additions I made from the text HE CITED where the author says to take the ATTS stats with a grain of salt. It is right after the part anonymous user quotes. The anonymous user simply wishes to block me from touching this article. I can no longer assumed good faith and will go another level higher in the wikipedia chain. Everything is mainly original research? An interview in a book of the president of the ATTS is not allowed? And anonymous user calls Applied Animal Behaviour Science a dubious source when it is in fact much better than his lawyer's book? This is ridiculous. Please rename the wiki article "Pro-American Staffie Propaganda Page". Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed in wiki just if it comes from a reliable secondary source. Your other reference was about the pitbulls however this is the Staffordshire Trerrier article. None has agreed with you here however you keep vandalizing the article:

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)

Rangers FC club dead or not

• Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Rangers Football Club Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

On the 14th June 2012 Rangers FC where officially confirmed as to be liquidated. Since then there have been a lot of POV pushing from both sides ie rival fans making a mockery of the situation, and supports not wanting to admit the demise of there club which was a very big club. However at the moment no one can agree on what to do with the article because of POV and conflicting sources saying different things. The biggest problem is are the club are company serperate as a lot of sources suggest or is the company the club as some other sources suggest. Also how the article should be as there is two ways similar clubs have had there articles done, one for new club or club page and a page about the liquidation process. There is also a problem with how people interrupt the sources.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Andrewcrawford (talk · contribs)
• Superbhoy1888 (talk · contribs)
• Adam4267 (talk · contribs)
• Edinburgh Wanderer (talk · contribs)
• Johnelwaq (talk · contribs)
• Monkeymanman (talk · contribs)
• Escape Orbit (talk · contribs)
• Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)
• thumperward (talk · contribs)
• Seery234 (talk · contribs)
• Fishiehelper2 (talk · contribs)
• Jmorrison230582‎ (talk · contribs)
• Dingowasher (talk · contribs)
• TerriersFan (talk · contribs)
• BadSynergy (talk · contribs)
• Various ip users to many to list (talk · contribs) 

• 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 apart from various ip users as there not listed what ips

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rangers FC club dead or not}} --~~~~ 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?

There is loads and loads of discussion on the talk pages and at various users talk pages, the problems is there is users pushing pov and also taking advantage of the club demise to make a mockery of it, there is fans who dnt want to accept there club might be gone, there is problem with sources conflicting themselves, there is also user who contact sources and complainant there publish stuff wrongly so making source conflict even further. we had agreed back about 14th june to wait and see what happens and not to create a new page for the new company as no one knows the final outcome and what is truly happen, someone created it and now that is in afd, whoever created went against consensus and made the page and now the old page got constant abuse the admin have fully protected it and forcing discussion on the talk pages. There has also been discussion at the project page but most editors seem not to want to get involved because it such a sensitive issue and they do not want fans of the club or opposing fans say there taking sides.

• How do you think we can help?

hopefully by having someone neutral look at the sources and the arguments and hopefully not got much knowledge in football (soccer) that a cones-us can be reached and agreed on, as then no one can say that it is conflict of interest or pov pushing and who can read the sources and determine what they might be saying

Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC club dead or not discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Here is what I think. The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers as we have always known them. They have went through 2 name changes, they started as The Rangers Football Club in 1872, they then became a Ltd Company in 1899, changed their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, in 1995 they became a PLC and changed their name again to The Rangers Football Club PLC, who as we know are currently in Administration/Liquidation and soon to be dissolved. That is the long and short of it. Sevco Scotland(new Rangers) could basically be anyone, technically a Hearts fan could have went to Rangers administrators instead of Charles Green and bought all the assets to a new Club called Hearts of Scotland. Just to finish off, technically they are not dead yet they are still alive but about to be dissolved(dead). I would also like to add anyone who believes Rangers still exist would need to provide proof that Rangers FC are basically a Fictional Non-entity that only exists in the mind, because those people refuse to accept that The Rangers Football Club PLC is Rangers and claim that The Rangers Football Club PLC were just the owners of Rangers, however if they were just the owners then the "club" would be an asset of The Rangers Football Club PLC which would mean they exist in The Rangers Football Club PLC's annual accounts but obviously they do not as The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers. So there is two options - (1) The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers and Sevco Scotland Limited are new Rangers or (2) Rangers FC are a Fictional non-entity that only exist as people say they exist and they can be whatever people want them to be.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan to put both sides of the argument and my own opinions later, my problem realtes to what the sources say and as wikipedia editor i cant use my POV against what sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to this. Not really my specialism but if pushed it looks, on the face of it, more of a Darlington/Halifax scenario than a Leeds United one. That's because - by hook or by crook - Leeds got a creditor agreement. As such I'd say two articles would be better in this case. Ie. a separate one for the phoenix club/NewCo type thingy which will apparently start in the lower leagues, if it gets off the ground at all. I have some sympathy with the contributors who want to "wait and see" how it all pans out but the problem with that is that it could take years. Meanwhile the existing articles remain in a misleading or innacurate state. I found my way to the discussion after checking the Rangers L.F.C. article and was shocked and surprised that basically NONE of all this stuff was on the main Rangers FC page. That situation has improved now and I'm sure that by working together you guys will get things right whether you decide to have one big article or two. Good luck! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The decision on the entry point of the newco into the Scottish football structure is likely within 2 weeks. Leaky Caldron 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment about Leeds United is exactly the point - while Leeds United managed to escape liquidation at the last minute, Rangers are going to be liquidated. Liquidated clubs do sometimes lead to new clubs that claim to be a continuation, but they are new clubs with new articles. Airdrieonians and Airdrie United sees itself as the successor club. Halifax Town A.F.C. was liquidated and FC Halifax Town is the successor club. Chester City FC was liquidated and Chester FC sees itself as the successor club. Rangers FC should be no different just because it was so huge - it is being liquidated and the successor club is in process of getting established. By the way, I think it is significant that the advert on the Rangers website promoting the Rangers strip for 2012/13 speaks about "The Spirit lives on" - an acknowledgement that it is a new club. It also speaks about getting the 'new Rangers strip' but the word new is in red to stand in contrast to the rest of the statement - again, an acknowledgement that the old Rangers is finished. I realise that Rangers fans find this hard, but Wikipedia has to take a NPOV approach to these matter: Rangers FC should be about the club until 2012, and a separate article is needed for the new entity. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

but that is your pov and interposition of what it says on the site, i agree with you the club is dead, but we cant refute the source saying it is alive i agree some have a vested interest to make sure it is, but we cant say we ignore one source because it doesn't suit what we want on wikipeida, we have to be neutral. ill reply later tonight or tomorrow with my onion and views, so it is clear what my pov is, but then ill put my argument which supports both dies of the argument as i believe both are correctAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Im going to ignore the sentiment of your statement re new strip because that is your point of view and should not be taken into consideration. However originally (still do) i felt that eventually we should go down the new club route however as long as there is equal sources disagreeing then we should of stayed with one article until we could factually state one way or another. Some sources link club and company as one and others don't. The way the main article was before Superbhoy and a few others edit warred rather than actually spending time to gain a consensus was as neutral as it could be for now and had stopped edit warring. Superbhoy ignored the consensus on the talk page and pushed ahead creating a new article and editing the main page against that. Im not saying he is right or wrong just that he won't listen to anyone unless its his version of events. In the form of the new entity they have set that up so that club and company will not be the same as they will have two boards and operate separately this is so they cant bring each other down so Sevco and club aren't one in the same. In regards to Airdrieonians F.C. they purchased another club Clydebank F.C. so thats a different situation. At this time we have two articles neither of which are either accurate or neutral. A draft article should be drawn up for the main page and be worked on to make it accurate and neutral and form a consensus. My opinion is the new article is factually wrong and cannot be deemed accurate until all the events have actually happened and we know more, that will gradually come out over the coming weeks. I think that should be redirected to Rangers F.C. or a brand new article Liqudation of Rangers where the content probably belongs, and then once we have sources that agree they are separate and have proof of the name of the new club not just the company name then we can recreate it. Wouldn't have any objection whatsoever to that but for now its unclear.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea why don't we create here a list of sources that state club and company are the same and equally a list of ones that don't define them as the same and then get outside opinion on which way to go that is what Dispute res is for after all.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan to edinburgh and my opinion is the same as your eh club is getting liquidated but sources are saying there serpentine and we should wait and see how it unfolds then create articles move articles etc and that was the cones-us we all agreed on. Bit busy just now but i am hoping to write up my statement and then write up argument for it be a new club with sources i can find people are welcome to add to what i get, and argument for the club and company are serpentine with sources i can find again people are welcome to edit. I just wish we could have all agreed on the talk page but i dnt think it will happen because of POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andrewcrawford for creating this talk page. Right now I see that the oldco is the club that holds the history but no assets that'll not play again. newco is a company that owns all the assets but not the history and holds no permit to play so is barely a football club. I think that we should keep the two articles like this until it becomes clear whether newco gains a permit to play in a league at which point we can discuss whether that should be in a separate article from the old Rangers FC.--Dingowasher (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Until such point as the "newco" is even confirmed as a footballing entity it makes little sense for us to declare it to be "Rangers", and even then our precedent for recent phoenix clubs is to assign them new articles even if they are regarded as spiritual successors to defunct entities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

All this arguing is because people think they understand what is meant by "Wikipedia is not a news service" but they don't. It means among other things that if we wait until the fourth of July meeting to find whether the new company becomes a "footballing entity" then it doesn't matter. It means we don't have to comment on this metamorphosis on a day by day basis. It means we don't have to do anything for the sake of doing it. Personally I think that the new company will be treated as the old club when the other clubs vote them back into the Premier League, because voting for the loss of the Rangers' support would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I could be wrong: but there's no point in rushing. Just because you can do things instantly doesn't mean you should. Britmax (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Britmax with Inverness and Aberdeen joining Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd in saying no to the New Club being promoted from the wilderness to the SPL then they won't be promoted.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Aberdeen have said the statement published the other day isn't theirs and until the vote is done we cant take a press release for granted they could change there mind episcopally if they get pressure from a bank manager dent forget that why david murrey sold rangers because of the bank and the bank will have far great say than supporter, if any of those club have any sort of debt that a reduction in income might mean they wont repay the bank will force there hands so let not jump the gun, but i dent think they will get back in i hope they dint. secondly they wouldn't have been promoted if they do get accepted they be replacing the old one ie like for likeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ingore mt statement on aberdeen just seen the news rangers will be voite no by aberdeenAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it certainly would appear turkeys are voting for Christmas as Britmax put it. That's five announced they will vote against. Aberdeen, Inverness, Hibernian, Hearts and Dundee United.[ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18577192] Love the analogy though. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that surprises me but not as much as you might think. I've been wrong before and I'm still breathing. Excuse me, however, if I reserve judgement until we see how the turkeys actually vote. None of this, incidentally, reflects what I think should happen. It's just my view on what probably will happen. Britmax (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the conclusive proof by Rangers, SFA and UEFA that Rangers are dying, the pictures are of the important bits, the websites are the sources of the pictures:-

Established

http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824

http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg

Rangers Football Club PLC aka the Club

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830

http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg

Full Member

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf

http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg

Legal Entity

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29

http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg

Company and Club

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf

http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As can be gathered from a lot of the above, the precise situation Rangers Football Club finds itself in is currently uncertain. Much of what has been discussed depends on how you chose to define the club, as opposed to the company that owns and controls it, as opposed to the team, as opposed to the position held within the league, as opposed to the fans, as opposed to its history. Current guidelines in Wikipedia regarding football clubs are not clear on the situation, simply because it is an unusual situation that only has a few, similar to some extent, precedents. Sources are also unclear, with much disagreement, conflicting interpretation and speculation. However, things are slowly clarifying.

But this hasn't stopped some editors straining to implement sweeping changes based on their own preferred interpretation of events and indulging in synthesis. My position is that nothing radical should be done at this stage until the dust settles. That isn't going to happen for a few weeks at best. Wikipedia is not a newsfeed. It doesn't need to be a constant stream of the latest guesses, speculation and theories. It shouldn't be attempting to establish facts, it should be collating them, after they are established.

If, after suitable time, it appears that reliable sources are generally reporting that the new owning company is a continuation of the club, then I see no no reason to break Wikipedia into separate articles. If it is generally being reported as a new club, then it should be divided suitably, according to consensus. Personally, I see a football club as being somewhat more than a company and it is a mistake simply to regard the situation as an acquisition of assets from a liquidated company and establishment of a new. Football clubs are as much a social and cultural entity, consisting of things that cannot be made bankrupt and sold.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I take it your a Rangers fan with their head in the sand? I have a shovel you can use to dig yourself out, if you want to smell the coffee any time soon. Football Club's are not Fictional Entities that only exist in the mind. They are Real Life, they can die and they can begin. As The Rangers Football Club and Sevco Scotland prove. One is dying, the other has been born. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

superbhoy please keep the discussion niceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Having made clear your allegiances so prominently, I suppose you would have difficulty with the idea that not everyone here has an agenda. Your opinion is noted, please do not confuse it with fact. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok here is my POV and opinions on the subject they are bold because it what i believe not what i am [pushing. It is my belief that Rangers F.C. the club is gone and once liquidation is complete no longer exist just like Third Lanark and Gretna.
Ok arguments for the club and company being serperate so the history carries on, a lot of sources say that the history continues on and that club and company are serperate entities.
Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." suggests that it is the same club, as if it was a new club you could not put it back into administration
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312#asset
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18496571
http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity."
http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.co.uk/p/live-event-page.html "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18417120 "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/uk-soccer-rangers-idUKBRE85O0WP20120625?feedType=RSS&feedName=sportsNews "this is talking about the parent company being liquidated but not the club"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18560798 "this is a interesting one it says early in the article the club and history does not exist, but later on says '"The formation of a new company is not the issue. The players would be playing for the same club - Rangers - in front of the same fans.' so saying the club still exist in it current form"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18592410 "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player." if it is a new club they would not owe the club anything as there be no debts, uefa or fifa rules state that football debt transfer to the new company but a club who is only related to a old club by name does not bear the old club debt owned
http://www.football.co.uk/rangers/green_aiming_as_high_as_possible_for_rangers_rss2446203.shtml "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business."There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play," Green said. "Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come."" if it was new club they would not face sanction for a club that is not them, ie the new club only shares a name with another club so can not face sanctions from another club but if the club counties then they can
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18418513 " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too."

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " this is very complying source it is goverment website for scottish law Now i will present agruments for it being the club and company are the same so club is liquidated
http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/rangers-administration-timeline-19732/ "June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid."
http://www.clyde2.com/news/local/rangers-pair-reject-contract-transfer2012-06-24T06-06-25/
http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/newco-rangers-set-for-spl-rejection-11233/ "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season."
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7812988/Newco-will-be-The-Rangers-FC- "The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2163893/Steven-Naismith-Steven-Whittaker-reject-transfer-new-Rangers.htmlRangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company "Whittaker remarked that: "We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18603617 " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. "
Now as can be seen there is realible sources pointing to it be the club and the company getting liquidated, but there is also realible sources pointing to the PLC getting liquidated and not the company and the club are a serperate entity and has been tranfer to the newco, this is wher ehte problems stems no one really knows and until it is made clear we cant say the club is dead.

I am goign to try summerise what is disputed.

• Rangers FC PLC (this is not dispute as far as i can tell by anyone)
  
• Rangers FC and Rangers FC PLC are sereperate entites as source can confirm
  
• Rangers FC PLC is the club so not serperate entities so the club is liquidated sources can confirm this to
  
• Rangers History is transfer to the new club if it is deemed a new club
  
• The Rangers Football Club LTD is a new club
  
• Who is teh owner of Rangers FC PLC Craig Whyte or Charles Green conflicting sources say one and the other
  
• Playing squad should it be empty since the players have been trasnfer to the newco via TUPE again this matter after a decision on the article ie is the club dead or not
  

If i have missed anything please post, post any sources for either side of the arguement witha quote if possible ill add ot the list, can everyone involve say there thoughts on my opinions and my summary and soruces please :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Far too much info here for genuinely uninvolved, non-partisan editors to comprehend the arguments, WP:TL;DR. In my opinion the Administration & insolvency material should be the subject of a separate article, written from a neutral point of view. That article will form a bridge between the existing article and the new or between old & new sections of an extended single Rangers article. Leaky Caldron 16:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

i agree that article on adminsitration liquidation etc is required, but that doe snto solve the underlying problem that pov pusher are trying to amke the article one way or the other, the problem is we cant say for one way or another if it a new club or not the osurces are conflicting--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@STVGrant: It's Sevco 5088 because Green isn't operating a football club at present. If/when he gets Rangers' SFA membership, he's operating Rangers FC. There appears to be a growing consensus in the media that it is the same club IF Green can get Rangers share back — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)--BadSynergy (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Andrew. I've told you before but it's worth repeating, there is no need to rush. If the article is a bit flaky for a while, so what? Stick a non-neutral tag on it until the dust settles. Leaky Caldron 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

i know there no point in rushing and that is what i and others agreed early in the discussion on the talk page but POV pushers from both sides have made this debate so for now i want to get the cheapness to wait and that until we know for sure we cant make claims im in agreness with you but POV will not stop so by forcing this to weird discussion then a conesus hopefully can be reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew see your very first BBC link source thing up there, its a contradition on what your trying to say from the off. Your trying to say the Club has never even been in administration or is in liquidation because its only a company that is so how could a club go "back into administration" if it has never been in administration to start with, because its never come out of administration which means its now in liquidation. I haven't hid my allegiances, as you see from my name im a Celtic fan and am still dancing and consuming Jelly and Ice Cream at their death. PS. The only source that the club isnt part of the company is that there would be an asset called "the club" or whatever in Rangers accounts but there isnt... oh and take a swatch at this:- http://i48.tinypic.com/afemhv.jpg "SALE OF THE CLUBS BUSINESS AND ASSETS"--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Green has his say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qlOISpN_4&feature=youtu.be --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

i dnt take green comment with more than a pinch of salt or should that be a heap ;) no what i am trying to say with the first bbc one is for a club to go back into administration ie i think like Motherwell the club has to exist but if it is a new club then it is impossible to go back into administration do you understand what i mean now. the point i am making is there is conflicting information out there so we cant call it in Wikipedia sense that the club is dead until we have sources all more a less saying the same thing we cat make Wikipedia take sides and the way we have 2 articles and they have people pov means the article dnt comply with Wikipedia policies. now on personal note i agree with you completely rangers are dead or my opinion is the newco/club cause in my opinion it is a new club i wont follow it aint rangers in my books should be booted out the spl and go to div3 or lower if they introduce feeder league into div3 with this restructuring i email all the chairmen of the spl clubs and gave my vote for them voting noAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Try to get cones us one way or another

Can we please discuss which way forward, and get cones us whether that is to use two articles or one so we can get both articles or one article correct there both inaccurateAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " this is very complying source it is goverment website for scottish law, now that state rangers plc own ranger football club two serpentine entries so this source holds more weight than any source since it from Scottish courts which has to adhere to law

"Cones us", "serpentine"....? What are you talking about? Have you not heard of Show preview so that you can proof read your content. This is verging on semi-literate, WP:Patent nonsense Word salad. Leaky Caldron 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

List of CBS/ABC television affiliates

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. List of CBS television affiliates (table) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of ABC television affiliates (table) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? 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 Who is involved in the dispute? Fairlyoddparents1234 (talk · contribs) DreamMcQueen (talk · contribs) 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. 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=List of CBS television affiliates (table), List of ABC television affiliates (table)}} --~~~~ 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 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. How do you think we can help? 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) discussion Discussion 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) 12:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 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.) 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.

Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page

• Soka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Soka Gakkai/Talk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This subject is about a dispute concerning a certain sentence which appears in Soka Gakkai page - section: Perception and Criticism- posted by editor Catflap08 and discussed with Wikipedia editor John Carter on the Talk page at my (SafwanZabalawi) request without a resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C5%8Dka_Gakkai

The sentence in dispute is the following: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[58] and proselytizing[59][60][61][62] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[63].”

/1/ The dispute is about using unreliable sources and also making a misleading accusation about unspecified number of Soka Gakkai (and SG International membership of 12 million) members –in a negative defaming way, without any valid evidence. I’ll focus on the discussed in Talk page example of relying on unreliable references : http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html This reference is a blog which published a report in a tabloid style about a local disagreement between the parent’s association of a certain school (PS24) and a teacher (Mr. Scharper) - as the blog reports: “after weeks of rumors that he crossed the line between church and state with Buddhist prayer meetings in his office and attempts to recruit school staff for a “prayer circle.”

/2/ Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source is a blog, with a defaming accusation involving a living person (the teacher).

/3/ The source does not report a final fact but rumors and multiple conflicting stories about the alleged matter. The storytelling style based on rumors are not a reliable source in Wikipedia performance.

/4/ The source itself states that there are equal contra-claims about the reported rumors: “Not everyone at the school gives much credence to the accusations, including some people who work closely with the principal every day. They say they have never been offered a card nor have they been approached to join him for prayers”.

/5/ The blog mentions that Ms Trebach (an accuser of the Mr. Scharper, the Buddhist teacher): maintained “that she could not confirm or deny allegations of proselytizing or a hate list.” This is a source destabilizing its own credibility where the accuser cannot confirm or deny the accusations.

/6/ The blog also makes a hint to a bullying atmosphere in that school: “One staff member, who did not want to be named, said it was a small group of teachers and parents who wanted Mr. Scharper removed because they are now unable to exert as much influence as under the previous administration. Rumors that speak against Mr. Scharper are matched by others that say the allegations are part of a vendetta started by a disgruntled staffer at the school”.

/7/ Another source repeating the same tabloid and unconfirmed story was also used by the editor involved. My question to Wikipedia is whether a source based on: “rumors, did not want to be named, could not confirm or deny, vendetta, accusation of no credence... administration influence, allegations...” is acceptable in Articles.

/8/ These sources were used as the ground for a sentence generalizing this alleged (and probably fabricated) incident to defame an unknown number of an organization, SGI, which firmly opposes rumored in the blog wrong behavior. The editors’ claim that “some” of the 12 million members also follow the blog’s example (of alleged proselytizing) is lacking substance and has no validity nor any proof in reality.

/9/ This subject brings this dispute to another source (mentioned in the disputed sentence), being: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ and which the editor used to accuse SGI of lack of religious tolerance. The mentioned source claims that a teacher at the University ( Ms Christoffersenat) was discriminated at because of her age and religion. The Court however dismissed that claim as the following source reveals: http://www.rickross.com/reference/gakkai/gakkai56.html and this means that the source provided by the editor was misleading and incorrect.

/10/ The claim in the disputed sentence that an unknown number (of the 12 million members organization) allegedly practice proselytizing is not supported by any factual incident or source including the last source of that sentence, which is: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php. This is a rumor spreading source, which has no endorsement of any professional side and I am also questioning the validity of that source as a Wikipedia approved reference. Thank you for your attention.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• John Carter (talk · contribs)
• Catflap08 (talk · contribs)
• SafwanZabalawi (talk · contribs)

• 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=Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page}} --~~~~ 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?

Soka Gakkai Talk page

• How do you think we can help?

Clarify validity of disputed sentence and sources.

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

blogspot.de (or any other blog) is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Delete anything in the article that is only backed up by a citation to a blog and delete the ref to the blog. Double check to make sure the statement in the article isn't found in a blog and a reliable source. It is easy to remove those by accident.

For those who are wondering why blogs are not reliable sources, consider this; I could write on a blog that Betty White invented the telephone, then I could put it in her Wikipedia article with a citation to the blog. (and we all know that Betty White invented the telegraph...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest all that had to be said about the issue has been raised in the articles’ talk section already. Authors like Montgomery, McLaughlin also used as reference bringing up the issue. An issue that is not even new, two EXAMPLES of WHERE proselytising has occurred and have been reported on were entered. Even the court ruling on the Soka University case is weak, as it deals with grounds on which the woman got sacked … it was not said that proselytising does not occur. Other editors have also informed Safwan on the issue of sources and references. To my mind the editor would just like not to see the issue being mentioned at all. By defaming sources arguing on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines the editor has actually proved he has no real knowledge of the guidelines. And finally as the author seems to be going on about the issue – nowhere does it say that all alleged 12 million members proselytise … the sentence is a summary of sources and references critical/sceptical of Soka Gakkai. I suggest to you to get familiar to why references are used in general.

To my mind the author has actually shown WHY Soka Gakkai is often criticised – its inability to face criticism. Rather than to deal with issues raised the messenger is being ‘attacked’. Typically those issues are then branded rumours originating form tabloids, same old story. And ... the Riverdale Press is not a blog. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on article content, not on user conduct. Talking about other editors is not helpful. Criticizing other people is not a good way to resolve a content dispute. Please talk only about what should and should not be in the article and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above, the disputed sentence : “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[60] and proselytizing[61][62][63][64] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[65].” should be changed to meet Wikipedia guidelines, as presented in the following point by point for better clarity:

1/ The sentence’s allegation of controversy regarding “religious tolerance” depended on reference:[60]:http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ about a case, which was dismissed by the court. This part of the sentence and its reference has the potential to mislead Wikipedia readers about the subject as current or having validity - while there is none.The involved editor is criticizing the court’s decision, however, Wikipedia is not the place for criticizing the court as making wrong or weak decisions. This part of the sentence will be accordingly deleted. (It is also to be noted that the subject of “religious tolerance” is already mentioned in another paragraph in the article, following the disputed sentence).

2/ The sentence becomes: “There has been controversy about the degree of proselytizing[61][62][63][64] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[65].”, however:

3/ Because reference [61]: [Daniel B. Montgomery: Fire in the Lotus, Mandala 1991, p. 185-186] – meets Wikipedia guidelines, it should be kept as a valid,

4/ Reference [62] http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html is a blog (it reads “blogspot” ) and it admits that it presents a rumor. Rumors are not a Wikipedia approved source of information. The contents of that rumor was disputed even within the blog. Further, the reference contains statements of individuals who did not want to be named, indicating an atmosphere of bullying and threats associated with that tabloid type information. There are also many Anonymous comments put in the blog's discussion part about the rumor. This reference will be deleted.

5/ Reference [63]: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600 is a summary and repetition of the previous rumor, and will be deleted. Basically the whole described rumor is based on “ some parents did not like a teacher, but other parents disagreed with them” - and this is not a quality of reliable reference.

6/ Reference [64]:http://ncsu.academia.edu/LeviMcLaughlin/Papers/1636042/Did_Aum_Change_Everything_What_Soka_Gakkai_Before_During_and_After_the_Aum_Shinrikyo_Affair_Tells_Us_About_the_Persistent_Otherness_of_New_Religions_in_Japan is inaccessible. Reference to a title-only of inaccessible text to readers is not a valid source of information about allegations in the text. A title of a document without text is not a Wikipedia approved source. This reference will be deleted whenever it appears unless full access and verifiability of the claims allegedly contained in the source are presented.

7/ Reference [65]: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=867&Itemid=11&limit=1&limitstart=5 presents a POV of an unknown writer, in an article which was not published in any journal. This reference is used to wrongly generalize a POV of amonymous writer or group of writers - criticizing the attitude of “some” of the 12 million members organisation - but being unable to point to a single incident, nor to even a single individual of the “some members” of the 12 million group. The quality of this reference, and its use here to generalize a stereotype over a whole group of people (a group which officially dismisses the allegation) all this does not support its use as a reliable or honestly-informative source, and it will be deleted. Finally the disputed sentence will become: ““There has been controversy about the degree of proselytizing[61] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members.” Regards. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a question to Dispute Resolution Editors. You have mentioned that Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.. Following this, I resonded with the above 7 points of discussion about the disputed sentence. The opportunity was open to the editor involved (Catflap08) to have an input and cooperate, respond, discuss here on this page, but he failed to do so. There was no further addition to his previous input (focused on attacking the person). I have presented my points and suggested an alternative solution and invited for discussion here. I waited for a further discussion, but having no response, I took it as his acceptance to my suggested editing of the disputed sentence, and changed it accordingly with explanation on Talk page of the article.

Unfortunatelly, I was unfairly accused of vandalism and other rude remarks - and the disputed sentence was returned back to the Article, as if your opinion here or following the rules in applying to Dispute Resolution was meaningless!. I request your guidance on this situation. Regards.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, I think the Riverdale Press blog might actually meet WP:USERG standards, which specifically indicates that "news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I am not myself sure how to actually determine from the newspaper's "blog" site whether it actually meets those standards myself, because I actually haven't dealt with such sources before. But if it is, as it appears to be, a form of online edition of that newspaper, it probably would meet RS standards. I have sought outside input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Riverdale Press blogspot. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Streisand effect

• Streisand effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

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, [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].

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

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk · contribs)
• Glrx (talk · contribs)
• Ianmacm (talk · contribs)

• 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=Streisand effect}} --~~~~ 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 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.

• How do you think we can help?

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 discussion

Discussion 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)

OK. I removed the commentary, and kept the points I wanted to raise.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this on one occasion because of doubts about whether it had enough long term notability. There is a tendency to add news stories to this section and to say that they are examples of the Streisand Effect, which contains an element of WP:OR. Overall, there should be stricter rules for adding new examples to this section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:03, 26 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)

X-ray_computed_tomography

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. X-ray computed tomography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? 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 Who is involved in the dispute? Nenpog (talk · contribs), previously known as 79.179.224.214 (talk · contribs) 79.182.199.172 (talk · contribs) 79.182.215.205 (talk · contribs) Yobol (talk · contribs) Jmh649 (talk · contribs) Ytrottier (talk · contribs) IO_Device (talk · contribs) RexxS (talk · contribs) Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) Bluerasberry (talk · contribs)  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=X-ray_computed_tomography}} --~~~~ 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 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. The previous DRN case is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_32#X-ray_computed_tomography. User:Nenpog identifies himself as the User:79.179.224.214 who opened that previous case. --Yannick (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 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) How do you think we can help? 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 discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The first source is a draft. The second doesn't mention CT scans. Neither are appropriate sources for the CT scan page. Yobol (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Agree with Yobol. Sources need to refer to the subject matter at hand and they need to be of high quality. A draft is not of high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The first source is a published "Draft report" of the ICRP. It is an extensive review, by experts, with expert conclusions, and which is only a step from being approved by the ICRP, which is more than can be said on any other review that is used as a source in the Wikipedia article. It is of a high quality. The second source is an approval stamp of the ICRP of some of the conclusions of the first source. It is mentioned that the two documents will be released as a single document, and thus the context of the second source should be considered with regard to the first source. The first source mention CT as a source for significant radiation exposure, and list adverse effect that can occur from exposure to an accumulated absorbed dose of radiation. This accumulation of absorbed dose can result from CTs. The second source doesn't mention CTs, but is written with reference to the first source, which do mention CT. The second source does mention adverse effects of absorbed dose. CTs cause the patients to receive an absorbed dose. It is obvious that that document consider the absorbed dose caused by CTs as an absorbed dose for which the warnings are relevant.--Nenpog (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 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) Reply to (1) - The source describe CTs as a major source of significant radiation exposure (lines 3522-3526). Radiation dose from CTs is measured in absorbed dose. The source describe the adverse effects predicted for a certain accumulated absorbed dose of ionizing radiation. The absorbed dose caused by one or more CT scan can accumulate to the absorbed dose for which the source predict the adverse effects. From the source perspective, the cause for the adverse effects is the accumulated absorbed dose, which can come from CTs, or from an other origin, or from a mix of CTs and other origins. Thus, everything that is written in that document is relevant for CTs, provided that the described accumulated absorbed dose is reached. In X-ray_computed_tomography we have described the absorbed dose for several CT scanning protocols, from which one can see that the accumulated absorbed dose of several CT scans can reach the source's threshold. Furthermore, variation in the absorbed dose of CT scans exist, which cause grater absorbed dose to be caused, therefor the threshold dose of the source could be exceeded in one or two visits to the CT room. E.g. page 94 of this document present finding several CT machines that caused absorbed dose of 140 mGy in routine head scan. It is customary to perform two scans on a single visit to the CT once with plus once without contrast, thus doubling the dose to 280 mGy. Thus two such visits to the CT room would total in 560 mGy, well beyond the source's threshold dose for eye cataracts, and circulatory diseases.--Nenpog (talk) 07:30, 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: http://www.icrp.org/docs/Tissue%20Reactions%20Report%20Draft%20for%20Consultation.pdf (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 Dose: Eye dose ~500 mGy Description of results: Exposed vs. nonexposed: No difference for abnormal luminescence or non-PSC (posterior subcapsular) opacities. PSC opacities: 13 irradiated & 2 control cases ...PSC opacities were "very mild" 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) I based my statements on the executive summary, which start at line 161, and include the experts' summary and conclusions. Lines 245-264 for circulatory disease. Lines 265-280 with regard to cataract and eye opacity. Lines 332-334 for cognitive impairment. Lines 359-362. Note the mentioning of fractionated or protracted exposure and accumulated dose.--Nenpog (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I have no opinion as to which way this dispute should be resolved, but I would like to offer some clarifications in the hope of speeding up this process. First, I would suggest that searching a 300 page PDF for a number does not reveal the most important passages in this case. I would guess that the most important point that Nenpog was referring to is paragraph 678, though there is also other data that is more relevant than the passage that Guy Macon has pointed out. Paragraph 678 states: Overall, the general consistency of the collective results for both early lens opacities and advanced cataracts makes a compelling “weight of evidence” judgement that the recommended acute dose threshold for the purposes of radiation protection should be lowered from its current value to a nominal value of 500 mSv. This is subject to the caveats that the progressive nature of assessed opacities into cataracts, and the likely greater sensitivity of the lens in children compared to post-adolescents, both require further characterisation. From context, this 500 mSv limit is no doubt meant to be applied to eye organ dose, which is a type of equivalent dose. In the context of CT scans, equivalent dose is equal to absorbed dose, so there's nothing really wrong with saying 500 mGy instead of mSv. And there is data to show that someone could potentially receive enough CT scans over their lifetime to go over that threshold, or that CT scans on top of other exposures could push them over that threshold. As far as I can tell, the informed editors seem to allow that Nenpog may be technically correct. They have not taken a contrary position that these effects do not occur, or occur at a different threshold. From what I understand, the real problem that other editors have brought forward is one of undue weight, not accuracy. We are talking about thresholds that are not normally attained by CT scanning, and being just above the threshold only produces a low probability of having mild forms of the condition. No secondary source has been brought forward specifically linking CT scans to these effects, which may indicate that they are not normally a concern in CT scanning. The debates over what constitutes a reliable source and what is synthesis seem to have been surrogate arguments for the underlying issue of undue weight.--Yannick (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I have already demonstrated above, in my reply to Comment, that the 500 mGy threshold can be exceeded, even by two visitations to the CT. The first source is a secondary source linking every mean of causing an accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy, including CTs, to the above problems. 1% is not a low probability when it comes to adverse effects. --Nenpog (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC) COI Accusation I request anyone who has, or will, participate in this discussion to provide a statement declaring if he/she or his/her benefactor(s) have any financial interest in the subject. Financial interest in the subject include profiting from CTs, or from other imaging techniques and devices, or from other devices that emit ionizing radiation that is directed at humans, or expectation to lose profit as a result of publication of the discussed adverse effects, or reliance on the results/product (e.g. images resulting from a CT scan) of financially interested parties for profit or for a completion of work project(s). Benefactors include employer(s), school(s), or other entities to which one is subordinate. I declare, that neither I nor my benefactors have a financial interest in the subject. I request, that financial interest will be assumed for anyone who would not provide said statement. I also note, that I did witness statements in other forums, of a few of the other participants in this discussion, which indicated, that they or their benefactors have financial interest in the subject. --Nenpog (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Another issue is the ref that does mention CT is a draft. Also discussed here [32]. It does state (238) Not all recent studies, however, support the observation of a lower 4173 threshold for radiation cataract. The Blue Mountains Eye study (Hourihan et 4174 al., 1999) failed to find an association between radiation exposure in 4175 individuals undergoing CT scans and cataract prevalence, although these doses 4176 were probably below 10 cGy and a threshold between 10-50 cGy can not be 4177 excluded. In recent years a number of new studies have suggested an elevated 4154 risk for cataract development in populations exposed to low doses of ionising 4155 radiation below these assumed thresholds. For example, dose-related lens 4156 opacification has been reported at exposures significantly lower than 2 Gy 4157 among those undergoing CAT scans (Klein et al., 1993) 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) That the ref mention also studies, that didn't find an association just show us how thorough it is. It also state that the association was not found in doses lower than 100mGy (=10cGy). After studying all the evidence, the experts still found association between dose of 500mGy and the side effects. About financial interest, my request was also with regard to the employer (do any of your employer(s) own a CT?) and work process (do you or your employer (like the ER) send patients to do a CT in order to complete their diagnosis?). --Nenpog (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC) No. You don't get to ask that and I advise others to not answer it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Your advice goes against WP:COI, that state - "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested". --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Doc James chooses to reveal his real name and occupation (ER Doctor) on his web page, while you choose to hide your identity. Of course his employer owns a CT, and of course he sends patients to get a CT when needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Well you wrote that, but that is just your assumption. --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC) That in no way implies a conflict of interest. He has a clear financial and professional interest in not harming his patients by overstating or understating the adverse effects of CT scans. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) That is just your assumption. WP:COI state "When people are very close to a subject, their view of it might be distorted, despite the best will in the world." --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC) and your "I request, that financial interest will be assumed for anyone who would not provide said statement" is completely out of line. You are violating WP:AGF and are on the edge of violating WP:NPA. Stop it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) WP:COI state "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing.","The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline.","Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.". I suggest Guy, that you follow the WP:COI guideline, and declare your COIs, if any. Your attempt to undermine the issue, possibly in order to avoid a COI statement, certainly raises suspicion regarding your own COIs. Lets face it, subjecting people to a ionizing radiation is a very large industry with many people involved. It is natural, that people with COI would be drawn toward editing according to the financial interest of theirs or of their benefactors. And we are having this discussion here, and are discussing points such as source quality, due weight, and relatedness to CTs of damage from absorbed dose of ionizing radiation. And you want the audience to accept the evaluation of quality, weight, and relatedness from people who are unwilling to declare their COIs?! --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Let's face it - should you make similar allegations against editors who hold alternate points of view on scientific literature sources, you will find yourself subject to admin action. Please confine your arguments to the source and avoid further personal attacks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I am not aware of making any allegations or personal attacks. Do you consider following, and requesting other to follow the recommendations of WP:COI as such?! Please enlighten me, if you can. --Nenpog (talk) 17:24, 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) I am open about any potential COI. I do not own any stocks in CT scanner companies, nor do I own a CT scanner (or part of one), nor am I an employee of a company that owns or runs CT scanners. In fact I am Canadian and up here in the North we have something called socialized medicine. The financial structure of our system is very different from what is used down South. And for nearly half the cost we have better outcomes reflected by longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality and maternal mortality.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:54, 28 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) Due to the demands of TransporterMan, I have opened a discussion section at the conflict of interest noticeboard where a discussion of conflict of interests related to the subject could take place. In parallel, content related discussion can continue here. --Nenpog (talk) 00:05, 29 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) 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.

C++

• C++ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

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

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Mecanismo (talk · contribs)
• 74.74.150.139 (talk · contribs)

• 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=C++}} --~~~~ 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?

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.

• How do you think we can help?

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++ discussion

Discussion 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)

• Were you the one commenting on the article under the 74.74.150.139 (talk · contribs) account? -- Mecanismo | Talk 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right? My comments there (which have had no reply) are timestamped "01:58, 26 June 2012". Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I found it odd that you were the only signed user who participated in the talk page's discussion, and only at the start, and once you stopped contributing the IP user picked up where you stopped. Then, when I informed the IP of this discussion, suddenly you started contributing here. I believe we can agree that it's an uncanny correlation.-- Mecanismo | Talk 14:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There was no need for me to comment further since the points I raised had not been addressed. I have not been active at DRN (my last contribution was in December 2011, although I removed a junk comment from the talk page earlier this month), but this page is on my watchlist so I noticed it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't edit as anyone but myself. At a minimum, even a cursory glance through my and his contribs should have shown that I'm not Johnuniq. (Nor, for that matter, Tedickey, the other user who's commented on this matter.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:53, 27 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)

• If you repeatedly revert other user's edits without any reason and justification, and therefore insist on starting a edit war, then you should expect that disputes like this are better handled by involving the community, instead of relying on petty stubbornness. If involving others leaves you irritated then that's an issue which has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.-- Mecanismo | Talk 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I have made one revert. [33]. You have made three [34] [35] [36] in addition to the original edit [37]. Please just answer our substantive objections on talk rather than edit warring, arguing semantics, reverting without comment, refusing to accept community consensus or the WP:BRD cycle, and baselessly accusing us of doing all of these. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 15:38, 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)

• Breaking massive blobs of text isn't a cosmetic change, as it significantly simplifies the way subsequent editions are presented to editors without being forced to parse a long wall of text to pinpoint where, for example, a small typo was changed. Doing this considerably improves the way changes in an article are tracked, and therefore help editors who actually monitor the article to stop vandalism. Regarding the rest, the line breaks are added in a way that they do not show in the browser. If you believe otherwise, feel free to point out an example.-- Mecanismo | Talk 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha

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. Kulin Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? 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 Who is involved in the dispute? Ruderow (talk · contribs) Sitush (talk · contribs) Calcuttan (talk · contribs) Pal subhojit (talk · contribs) 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=Kulin Kayastha}} --~~~~ 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? Ruderow (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Kulin Kayastha discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. We have a content disputes board called the reliable sources noticeboard for disputes over the reliability for contentious social group claims, with a number of editors with discipline specific reliability experience in relation to claims made regarding the historical status of groups. I am surprised that I have not seen this discussion regarding the Kulin Kayastha sourcing issues at that noticeboard, as I check it multiple times a day. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 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) Endorse closureCurb Chain (talk) 02:55, 29 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

• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• 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.

As far as I can tell, the sources all say that they are polls regarding single-payer so there's no reason not to say so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
• LWG (talk · contribs)

• 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.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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. -- LWG ^talk 22:46, 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)