This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
So complicated (and encumbered by TLDR postings) that it is not feasible for this board to try and pull it apart. Advice was offered on how to move forward with a RfC to funnel down the herd of cats into a manageable consensus. Hasteur ( talk) 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview An editor wishes for the sourcing for (at least parts of) the article Organic food not to be subject to the WP:MEDRS guideline, and/or there is an unresolved question as to whether particular article content should fall under the WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussion on the article Talk page. How do you think we can help? Help us guide the discussion to a resolution. The article is full-protected until 14 December and we need to be well on the path to having a productive discussion so that the content dispute does not return to the article after unprotection. Opening comments by MontanabwPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
My position is on the talk page already, but I will restate it here: As I see it, the first problem is use of the WP:MEDRS standard to create an NPOV problem: the removal of material with a pro-organic food slant, leaving only material with an anti-organic food slant. The second issue is if MEDRS should be applied to this article at all, not at all, or somewhere in-between? I would refine this question further: if MEDRS applies to this article at all, should it apply a) to ALL aspects of the article (including, e.g. farming methods, chemistry questions, etc.) ; b) only to "medical" or "health" claims (whatever those are, but this issue arose over a question of whether pesticide residues on non-organic foods have a cancer link, so let's focus on that one); and if b) applies, then c) Is the question of pesticide residue entirely a medical claim subject to MEDRS in the first place or is it also a non-medical question involving politics and other issues? if so, are these relevant to balance the NPOV of the article? My position is that WP:RS is suitable, perhaps WP:SCIRS though, clearly, MEDRS sources are great - when available. Further, the edit I suggested (at talk) clearly identifies the sources and their POV so that the reader can assess the information for themselves. To me, the concerns raised are akin to early claims linking smoking to lung cancer or carbon emissions to climate change; mainstream researchers first debunked these claims, but now, with time, have upheld them. Most such concerns are raised long before there are sufficient mainstream studies, thus narrow MEDRS adherence may in fact violate NPOV. Further, my own position is stated at MEDRS itself: "sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." Montanabw (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by The BannerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
A short respons: Focus of the conflict is a blatant refusal to allow more reliable sources into the chapter "Health and safety". It is rather weird that in an article about producing food and part of the WikiProject Agriculture, no agricultural sources are allowed to references statements about health, safety, nutrients and taste. Those agricultural sources, although of the highest standard, are treated as completely unreliable. The blanket ban of these sources has led to an article that is POV and one sided. It gives undue weight to the medical side of growing food, due to the fact that only medicals sources ( WP:MEDRS) are allowed. Every statement using agricultural sources to back up claims in the chapter "Health and safety", are consequently removed. Discussion about this point was as walking into a concrete pillbox and proved utterly useless. The Banner talk 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by YobolPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The focus of the dispute seems to be about proper sourcing for portions of the article dealing with nutritional content and safety of organic foods. My reading of WP:MEDRS finds that any health claim in any article, whether about food or not, falls under WP:MEDRS, including Organic food. Others in the dispute have claimed that since this is a food article, WP:MEDRS doesn't apply in the article at all. Clearly MEDRS does not apply to non health related matters (such as specifics of farming). However, discussion of nutritional values and safety are clearly health claims, and therefore fall under WP:MEDRS. I would like sourcing of material to be appropriate for the content; medical/nutritional sources (in this case WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing) should be used for medical/nutritional claims; agricultural sources used for agricultural material. A related side dispute has focused on the neutrality of the article, specifically regarding whether there is a bias about the conclusions from sources. The position of WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing is fairly clear in that there is no significant nutritional or safety benefits from either organic or conventional foods. Some have claimed that since "pro" organic food claims are not sufficiently represented, there is a bias, and therefore inferior sourcing needs to be added to adjust for this bias. I think this is putting the cart before the horse; this argument has neutrality and weight determined before hand, and sources found to support that bias, rather than letting the sources dictate what the neutral point of view is. This is clearly an inappropriate way to write this article from a neutral point of view. We should summarize what the best (MEDRS) sources say, no matter what the outcome; we should not artificially adjust the weight to some predetermined outcome and use inferior sources to justify them. If none of the best MEDRS compliant sources support organic food as superior, then that is the neutral point of view, and trying to shift it with inferior sourcing is POV pushing and has to stop. (I note that at no point has there been a presentation of a MEDRS compliant source to support the superiority of organic food; just the arguing of the use of non MEDRS to be used to justify that conclusion). Yobol ( talk) 19:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by The Four DeucesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This may be a diversion. Since no one has presented any sources that meet the policy of neutrality, MEDRS does not arise. If we find that there is consensus in the literature of agricultural sciences that organic food is superior in nutrients, then this would be reflected in the literature in nutritional sciences, making the point moot. Only in the event that there was disagreement between different sciences on the same facts would MEDRS become an issue. But then we would expect reliable sources covering the dispute and could address the problem then. TFD ( talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by IRWolfie-Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Noone has focused on the actual content under dispute. Here is the content under dispute: [1]. As you can see it is full of claims about regular food being a cancer risk etc, thus WP:MEDRS sources are required. As you can also see, it's a WP:SYNTH being used explicitly to counter the MEDRS sources above it. Montanabw has been pushing that their is a large conspiracy to thwart small organic producers by "big grain" [2] sourcing it to "Motherearthnews" and Cornucopia.org, commondreams.org amongst others, and that we shouldn't use MEDRS. The Banner has refused to clarify whether he think MEDRS sources are required for cancer risks. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by bobraynerKeeping it short - DRN can involve a lot of reading and I don't want to make life harder for people. Opening comments by uninvolved MrADHDWP:MEDRS is a guideline to cover medical content, such as medical facts and medical claims. Any use of MEDRS outside of medical content is a WP:GOODFAITHed misuse of MEDRS. From a very brief brief look at this dispute it may be the case that people on both sides of the dispute are not interpreting policies and guidelines appropriately.-- MrADHD | T@1k? 22:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Organic food discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. MedRS only applies to parts of articles relating to medicine, and WP:RS is for other things. High-quality reliable references are good, but avreage RSs are also good as they are reliable nontheless. I would like a list of the references of which this dispute is centered upon. We will still wait though for the two other parties before discussion.
To The Banner ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), your last edit, where you have a diff showing IRWolfie- threatening an AN/I thread is not about the content dispute, but rather the behavioural side. I suggest you remove it. ~~ Ebe 123~~ → report 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Another third party editor here. I think that Zad68's proposal of judging the sources on a case by case basis is promising. Perhaps the parties should list all of the contested sources? Then we'll discuss each source individually.-- xanchester (t) 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Specific exampleHere is an example identified above as a primary example of the dispute:
Perhaps we could shift from speaking in generalities, and start focuing on this particular paragraph? -- Noleander ( talk) 16:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it sounds like there may be consensus to create a subsection on historical opinions about purported health benefits. I guess the next step would be to identify specific sources and discuss them here. Publications by proponents/opponents should - ideally - be supported by WP:Secondary sources that discuss/analyze those publications. However, secondary sources are not needed to support publications by major proponents/opponents when the publication is cited merely to demonstrate the existence of the publication (contrasted with material which interprets the publication's contents, which would require 2ndary sources ). -- Noleander ( talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict:
The neutral folks see the problem here. I think it is accurate to say that the above two editors will not budge from their positions much and have an unfortunate tendency to misstate others (No, Banner and I are NOT claiming that "regular food causes cancer" - the issue is far more nuanced than that). What I understand to be Noleander's compromise is to create a "historic" section. I don't quite agree, as I believe that additional research since that time can be added, the concerns about pesticide residues in conventionally-raised foods is still out there. I think a better structure is along the lines of "prominent
More sources neededAt the top of the prior section are two sources (NRDC report and "Cancer and non-cancer health effects") that are proposed for inclusion in the article - either in a "Historical Opinions" section; or a "Various opinions" section. It would be really helpful if those editors that want to include those sources could supply additional sources here, including: (a) sources that discuss/analyze/use those two sources; and (b) other sources that suggest that O.F. improves health. Go ahead and provide sources of all kinds: scientists, farmers, advocates, dietitians, etc. Speaking as an uninvolved editor, it is hard to form an opinion based on just two sources, so seeing 10 or 20 sources that buttress each other will help uninvolved editors form an opinion. -- Noleander ( talk) 02:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Note I generally share Yobol's views here. The fact that there are indeed
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that address the specific biomedical claims being considered by the article should really put an end to the question of whether we need to use more relaxed sourcing guidelines, which can only lead to the article having statements supported by lower-quality sources possibly alongside better-sourced statements, and this is a clear problem with the
WP:MEDRS guideline and
WP:GEVAL policy.
Organic foods movement material?Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all modern scientific secondary sources have determined that there is no concrete health benefits derived from organic foods (I'm not saying that is so, this is just a hypothetical). I'd like to then return to the proposal made above: Should the article contain historical information about the proponents of organic food? Something like:
The question is: would such information about the arguments of proponents of organic food (presuming sources exists to support the above text) be relevant to the organic food article? (It is noteworthy that WP does not yet have an article on Organic food movement). -- Noleander ( talk) 18:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Would something like this create a structure from which to plug in the source material? Montanabw (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Back to square oneInstead of discussing every detail and stretch this discussion to Easter 2035, it might be an idea to look first at the original chapter that got us here. That chapter, with the name "Health and safety" contains two subsections, each discussing several subjects. During the discussion on the talkpage, I suggested to split it up. Not surprisingly, two editors gave a blanket "no" against it. I suggested to split up and reorganize the chapter "Health and Safety" to the following:
WP:MEDRS should cover 2.1; WP:SCIRS should cover 1.1 and 2.2; WP:RS should cover 1.2, 2.3 and 3. I am still convinced that this split can help to find a way out of the deadlock, that is why I bring the suggestion in here. Remember, this is a line of thinking, not the Holy Grail. The Banner talk 22:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we ALL do agree on one thing: We are looking at the edit dispute in the "health and safety" section. However, the problem is that we also have, as part of that section, a "Nutritional value and taste" section. So maybe, let's look at the low-hanging fruit (pun intended): Does the "nutritional value and taste" section require MEDRS compliant cites, or merely WP:RS cites? (Which may include agricultural journals, or for that matter,
Ladies Home Journal) And if not, perhaps that should become its own full section (delete an = from the markup syntax) and be placed outside this discussion altogether? Then, can we all at least agree that the scope of this discussion is ONLY the "Consumer safety" section and the health issues mentioned therein?
Montanabw
(talk)
19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to return to discussion about reliable sourcesI note that uninvolved editor TransporterMan made a suggestion at the top of this discussion section which has been endorsed by several editors, and not opposed by any with regards to proper sourcing. Can we all agree with that framework with which to discuss sourcing and move on? Until we nail down what appropriate sourcing will be we're going to be here forever. Yobol ( talk) 22:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Completely arbitrary section breakSomewhere in the above mess, Banner suggested that we need the third party volunteers to kindly step back in and try to sum up what's going on and make some sense of this situation. I have also said this. As far as I can tell, we are going in circles and are nowhere close to any kind of a solution. I think three of the four primary editors here are showing some evidence of movement, and Krem offered us many, many good sources, but we appear also to have one editor who has not moved from his/her original position. So: volunteers: can you help us see if there is ANY consensus from the four of us (me, Banner, Yobol and Wolfie), and if any movement at all, what appears to be the most workable areas where we might get to an agreement, and what areas appear to have irreconcilable differences? Montanabw (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary Section Break the NthOk, I've looked at this dispute for a significant while and I've seen no real concise explanation of what people might be willing to accept amongst the reams of WP:TLDR material. As a volunteer at DRN I think that this is too large for DRN to deal with therefore I propose that a widely advertised RfC be conducted to determine what sourcing guideline should be used in relation to claims in this article. Pending significant objection, I intend to close this filing (which has gone on for far too long) in 24 hours from my signature Hasteur ( talk) 18:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Appears to be resolved. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Russian Patriarchy website does not say anything about Stalin (copy/paste from WP:ANI) Russian Patriarchy website does not say anything about StalinContent disputes are beyond the scope of ANI and should go to
WP:DRN.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER
11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. In [10] I was accused of being irresponsible because I have removed a reference which has to show that an icon flown at the orders of Stalin has repelled the enemies of the Soviet Union. The problem is that, as far as I can see using Google Translate, the source does not mention Stalin and it does not mention anything about an icon having repelled the Nazi invaders. Perhaps Russian speakers may kindly show me where the source says "as ordered by Stalin" or "the icon has repelled the enemy". Otherwise, the accusation itself may be flawed. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? discussed it on the talk page, asked in WP:ANI, but it was the wrong place. How do you think we can help? First, Russian speakers could exactly decide if the source says anything about Stalin or an icon having repelled the Nazi army. Second, the matter should be decided here in order to avoid an edit war. Opening comments by Michael2012roEven the link does not say anything about Stalin , clearly shows that there was a flight with an icon above Moscow in december 1941 with this specific purpose to help Russian army. There is also a commemoration of this flight. So, I think the reference helps to understand better this urban belief and also helps as a link to further informations about intervention of Stalin in this issue. This article is also about a religious belief and the reference obviously helps in confirming and understanding this belief.Thank you. Talk:Theotokos of Vladimir discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Comment from uninvolved editor: Here is the text that is in dispute:
|
Closed as stale, abandoned, or improvidently filed. May be refiled if needed. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute in question is between two camps with Antidiskriminator and I (i.e. tulipsword) representing one, and Peacemaker67 and Dianna representing the other. The dispute of interest, as you will see, is primarily between Peacemaker67 and me. Peacemaker67 insists that Serbs be removed from a list of “victims” within the template titled “The Holocaust”. His argument – which is extremely problematic – is that the genocidal campaign that was carried out against the Serbs during WWII by the Independent State of Croatia is not part of the Holocaust. A major problem with his argument is that he has not defined what he means by “the Holocaust”. Given that Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah’s witnesses, and others are included under the list of interest without objection, it is clear that what has been implicitly accepted by all users is that the list of interest represents the wider spectrum of victims of the Holocaust. Wikipedia operates according to consensus. Antidiskriminator and I have many times expressed our disapproval of Peacemaker67’s decision to continually disregard our protests as well as our arguments. For the reasons that I have provided on the Talk page of interest, I do strongly recommend that “Ethnic Serbs” be re-added to the list of “victims”.
I have recommended that we try and make the template consistent with what is written in the Wikipedia article “The Holocaust” since the two are directly related. Establishing consistency between the two would require us to re-add “Ethnic Serbs” to the list of “victims”. Further, I have proposed that we specify that what is meant by “victims” in the template is the wider spectrum of victims. Peacemaker67, as you will clearly see, is just totally ignoring everything I write. How do you think we can help? Specify, by way of a footnote or something like that, that what is meant by “victims” in the template is the wider spectrum of victims. The re-adding of “Ethnic Serbs” under the list of “victims” should be clearly authorized by a dispute resolution editor who will confront Peacemaker67 who is not listening to any of us. Tulipsword ( talk) 15:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Peacemaker67Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Essentially I agree with Dianna, and would be amused by Tulipsword's serious case of WP:HEAR if the subject wasn't so serious. The lead of the current The Holocaust article defines the Holocaust as "was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory" and cites 10 separate sources supporting that definition, including from books written by:
among others The article lead also indicates that some scholars include the mass murder of Romani people and people with disabilities in their definition of "The Holocaust" and cites two sources for those additions, an article by Professor Henry Friedlander, Professor in the Department of Judaic Studies at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, and also Wytwycky, Bohdan (1980). The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell. The Novak Report. No reliably published scholarly sources have been produced that widen "The Holocaust" any further (with the deepest of respect for the opinion of Simon Wiesenthal). It was Serbs that caught my eye on the template (because I have a particular interest in the Balkans), but the template should be taking its lead from the article, and the article definition (even the expanded one) does not include Serbs (and some other groups). I am proposing removing all groups that do not fall within the definition currently used in the article, accepting that Romani people and people with disabilities could arguably be included on the basis mainly of Friedlander's work (although it is probably debatable given the weight we would naturally give all those eminent Holocaust scholars that use a narrower definition). That's all I have for now. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AntidiskriminatorPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This dispute is a related to Peacemaker67's (somewhat supported by Diannaa) struggle to change the context of the article about Holocaust (as explained on the talk pages of The Holocaust article and template) to be focused to Jews and Jewish victims. The Holocaust is of such great significance that almost all of its sections are covered by separate articles. Some of the sections and articles are appropriately listed within the sidebar template with collapsible list (which corresponds with template documentation).
I don't believe that editors who want to delete non-Jewish victims (and started with deletion of Serb victims) struggling for the their context of The Holocaust will gain consensus for their position. Still, I don't share Diannaa's optimism about resolving this issue and the quality improvement because the real issue here and the real cause of this dispute is out of the scope of this noticeboard. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by DiannaaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Recently I became aware that my local library has a couple of high quality new books on this topic, so I decided that I would undertake an overhaul of the article once I am done my current project. Initial copy edits were started on November 13. I noted my intention on the article's talk page on December 3 and received a positive response from other interested editors. Preliminary discussions are underway on the article talk page as to structural changes, which will likely be the first step in improving the article, hopefully all the way up to a GA standard. A lot of things may change about the article, including the definition of the Holocaust that is used therein, depending on where the sources lead us. So to add things to the template in an effort to match the article at this point in time does not make sense, in my opinion. On December 13 I suggested that the article was not in very good shape, being due for a total overhaul, and told him about my long-range plan. Later that day I decided to discontinue participating in the discussion on the template talk page as it seemed to be going around in circles and I felt my concerns were not being heard. Later I noticed this post on user talk:Antidiskriminator, so I posted there my actual reason for not participating any further in the discussion. Template talk:The Holocaust (Inclusion of Serbs in template) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. The editor who filed this request, Tulipsword, is a newcomer who edited for several days, but has not edited Wikipedia since filing this request. Antidiskriminator, the other editor with whom Tulipsword says that he/she was most aligned says, above, that he does not believe this filing is appropriate or needed. Discussion appears to be proceeding at Talk:The Holocaust. In that light, I or another volunteer will close this request unless someone makes a strong case for leaving it open within the next 24 hours after the date on this post. It can be refiled later, if needed. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The instructions here say that this is not a forum for disputes which are under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. This has also been listed at WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and WP:ORN. Please let those discussions come to a resolution and then refile here if the dispute has not been resolved there. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On multiple occasions, various Wiki editors, some of them anonymous, have used questionable self-published sources or no source at all to claim that the subject of this article, ResearchGate (a social network for scientists), sends spam that "gives the misleading impression" that the messages are personal invitations triggered by ResearchGate users. Most often cited as a source for this is a blog post by someone named "Erich." I have edited this criticism out a couple of times on the grounds that it is not properly cited by a credible, third-party source. I have posted 'citation needed' on this page as well, but two months later, no one had offered a citation. Whenever I edit out the spam criticism, other editors are quick to undo my edits. In addition, some Wiki editors have asserted that ResearchGate's claimed user numbers are 1.9 million but its Twitter profile has only about 4,000 followers. I have contested this on the grounds that it is irrelevant, improperly cited, gives undue weight and is not in NPOV. It is not a citable fact; it is in my mind a subjective correlation. My edits have been quickly undone by other editors here as well. I am trying to make sure this Wiki article only states proven, verifiable facts that can be cited by credible, third-party sources. By reading this article's talk page, it's clear that a number of Wiki editors contributing to this article don't like the company and regard them as spammers. But everything I've seen and read elsewhere about this company shows them to be a legitimate organization.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have requested semi-protection for the page, because some of the edits have been made by anonymous users, but it was denied. How do you think we can help? I would like a third-party to evaluate the spam criticism statement as well as the statements relating ResearchGate's members to its Twitter following, and to give an opinion on a) are these relevant statements that should be included in the article; b) are these statements properly sourced; and c) are they written in NPOV? If not, I would appreciate advice on next steps to prevent any further back-and-forth edits. Opening comments by 91.52.11.82Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by BlueMoonletI am a longtime WP editor and a professional scientist, and I have been watching this page since I received an email from ResearchGate that purported to be from a respected colleague. That is, of course, original research on my part, but for what my word may or may not be worth, the criticism is in fact true, though hard to properly cite. The reason it's hard to cite is, paradoxically, that the company is only marginally notable and thus has attracted practically no critical coverage from reliable sources. The paltry coverage it has received has basically been parroting the company's own press releases. There is a problem here with the WP:RS policy, but I certainly don't know how to fix it. A number of people have shown up who are more upset about these emails than I am, and who know less about WP than I do, and have added material about the topic. I have mostly refrained from contesting the removal of this material, as I have found it hard to rebut the criticism that it is ill-sourced, but I have to admit that I have been sympathetic. Most recently, however, someone found this source and posted it. I did contest the removal of this source, because I think it fits the WP:RS policy. The fit may be marginal, but this whole case is marginal. It is inaccurate for User:JNorman704 to call this source "a blog post by someone named 'Erich.'" The author identifies himself as Erich Schubert, a researcher in mathematics and computer science. He even gives his CV, which is modest IMO but at least arguably qualifies him as " an established expert on the topic of the article." I now note that he has added a disclaimer to the original blog post that modestly declines the status of RS for WP purposes, but (as I've just said) I'm not sure I agree with him. The bottom line is that this is a marginally notable article subject that engages in practices that are questionable to say the least, but about which little has been written. To quote only the mainstream sources, which have not noticed the subject enough to be critical of it, is to unfairly bias the article towards the subject. It's a tricky issue, and I don't know the best solution. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 02:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by 138.246.2.177Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Martin.ueckerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
ResearchGate discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Material presented doesn't have sources that meet WP:MEDRS and consensus is against inclusion of the material at present time Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 16:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The editor of the Talk Page is preventing the addition of the content regarding a different theory of Pain. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed several times on the Talk Pages How do you think we can help? The editor on the Talk Page needs to allow addition of this other Theory of Pain Opening comments by Doc JamesMedical hypothesis has been deemed to not be a reliable source when it comes to discussing main stream current medical positions. Unless these theory is discussed in secondary sources independent of it creator probably not ready for prime time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AnthonyhcoleThe question is whether to mention in
Pain the relatively new theory of pain thoroughly summarised by Medicinechief
on his talk page. The theory was enunciated by Omoigui in:
and these two journal articles
Citations Among citations of the two 2007 journal articles, Google Scholar finds these 18 articles which appear to have been published in peer-reviewed journals:
and one or both of Omoigui's 2007 articles are cited in each of these 3 books:
Thoughts Omoigui's theory was first proposed in a book published by State-of-the-art Technologies, Incorporated, which appears to only publish books by Sota Omoigui. It was subsequently proposed in two articles published in the journal Medical Hypotheses, which does not peer-review. The theory has not been reviewed in detail by an independent authority in a peer reviewed journal or textbook. I can't support mentioning the theory in Pain until it has had considerably more authoritative review. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC) User talk:Medicinechief#Text_in_question discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi there, I volunteer here at DRN. That doesn't mean what I say is more important and carries more weight than others. I'll try mediate this dispute and bring around an amicable resolution. Once the other two parties have posted their opening statements we'll press onwards Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 13:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Section has been merged into main article with better sources and major edit warrior has retired. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 05:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Multiple users (including myself) has been trying to remove the criticism section on the article Stack Exchange Network on the grounds that it's based only on blogs and other non-reliable sources. Discussion of the section and the sources has taken place between may-july 2012, as well as december 2012. I attempted a rewrite of the original section, but concluded that after removing everything not properly sourced, virtually nothing was left. Based on this I removed the section from the article on december 6th, and left a note on the talkpage. The day after I removed the section, User:Yparjis reinserted a shorter version based on the sources left after my rewrite, I commented on it and questioned the sources further before removing the section yesterday (december 13th), only to be reverted again. Other users have also tried to discuss the issue only to be reverted when they tried to remove the section. Note: User:Manishearth has admitted to having a slight COI, and a request from him on IRC (#wikipedia-en-help) for a third opinion was the reason for why I entered into this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked for additional opinions from other users on #wikipedia-en-help, User:Nathan2055 responded by removing the section citing Completly unreliable sources only to be reverted. User:Dreamyshade didn't comment on the sources, but mentioned that a better solution would be to incorporate the section into the rest of the article. How do you think we can help? Take a look at the sources and the criticism section, and see if any of us are being unreasonable. Do the sources cover the issues as described, and are the sources considered reliable in this context? Opening comments by YparjisPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Personally, I have been maintaining the entirety of the article. Personal contribution to the entirety of this page can be verified by looking throughout the history of this article, but let me summarize it here to facilitate everyone: 1. cleaned sources in all sections of the article 2. corrected grammar and other language issues 3. removed sections that promote the subject 4. detailed SE history 5. introduced the criticism section In the past 3 years this article has been attacked a number of times by users , allegedly or admittedly affiliated with SE either by being directly or indirectly affiliated with SE operations. This has been either by: 1. Adding content that promotes SE with the purpose of transforming this WP article into an advertisement post for SE. 2. Removing the criticism section all together without sufficiently justifying in the Talk page. 3. Alter the criticism section in order to impair it. This is my impression, but I will not try to make a hard case for this. Specifically, to the case: 1. Claim that : The article in its entirety is based on non WP:V or non WP:RS (a) "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities," , clearly source [15] is as such and [16] may be considered. (b) source [20] is WP:RS and WP:V since it points to cnet.com (c) source [15] is WP:V and obviously WP:RS since it is a verification of the claim in criticism section from the creator of the website. sources [21] and [22] may well be removed along with the corresponding claims. 2. Undue weight, may have been true, but the section has been shortened to an extent that now is proportional its weight. Further modifications can follow, given that time permits. It currently takes up 1/4 of the article but may be shortened to 1/5, especially if other sections grow. 3. "A little Googling suggested..." , This is truly an undue claim, google searching cannot stand in a logical argument since it employs stochastic algorithms and personalised searching to present results. This only demonstrates the user's clouded judgement. Finally, I cannot adhere nor deny the validity of the claim as is, since that would increase its information content, and may disorientate from the content of the article itself. 4. Claim: "Sources are outdated". Even if outdated, sources may document criticism past and present. However, most of the sources are currently up to date. Conclusion : Criticism section is a vital documentation wrt SE as is its history. It is based on WP:V [15,16,20] sources and WP:RS [15,16] sources and some sources that may not be WP:V. In the past there have been links to meta.stackoverflow.com that further documented the claims in the section, but have been removed upon demand of the involved users as non WP:V and WP:UNDUE ( I do not disagree with WP:UNDUE). The latter have been included to present criticism of SE based on user opinions, This may be justified due to the nature of the section itself. Proposion: 1. Leave the criticism section , 2. engage in a constructive discussion on a source by source basis in the talk page. 3. I would appreciate if the involved users would aid in any other part of the article just to demonstrate that they are not WP:NPOV . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ManishearthPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
As mentioned, I indeed have a COI here. In retrospect, it was indeed a bad idea to just blank the page (I _did_ plan to rewrite it with better sources, but I couldn't get the time), with said COI being in existence, but I thought that it would be OK (at the time) if I cited the relevant policies. Of course, I was wrong -- I have been semi-retired for a while now (though I never got to updating my userpage), and I'd forgotten the nuances of the policies. My concerns about the section (at the state it was in when I first saw it) are:
In the end, I find myself in agreement with Dreamyshade's comment-- having a section known as "features" with the positives and negatives of each would be a nice idea (and it's OK if some features have only negatives). I would like to help make such a section as well -- except that I'm rather bad at finding good sources (If you check my WP contributions they're more cleanup-oriented). Plus I'm extremely busy for a few weeks. ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 17:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by SirtaptapPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Honestly I don't see a huge debate here; I see numerous users trying to remove a section with zero verifiability and major undue weight, and a single user repeatedly reversing multiple editor's edits. The section's just a bunch of blog posts and rants from assorted, non-noteworthy sites. It should have been blanked long ago and would have been if a single user weren't insisting on an edit war. But it's not an edit war I care to partake in, nor do I feel these debates will help much; I'm convinced the original editor will continuously watch the page and edit the criticism section back in (as they have done for months) so I'm more or less abandoning this discussion and dispute. The section shouldn't be there as-is but I have no time to edit war to correct it.-- Sirtaptap ( talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Stack Exchange_Network discussionHello, I volunteer here at DRN and I'm opening this up for discussion. Just because I volunteer doesn't mean what I say has any extra weight over any other editors but I'm coming into the dispute as an uninvolved third party and will do my best to broker a resolution. Cheers Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 10:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC) As far as I can understand the dispute revolves around the inclusion of the criticism section of the article. When reading the discussion on the talk page this statement jumped out at me: "The current Criticism section takes up half of the page on the network, that is clearly a lot of undue weight". I would suggest that, in that case, instead of removing criticism, expand the rest of the article.
Drive-by comment from another dispute resolution volunteer: Right now the criticism section does not meet Wikipedia's standards, and I am concerned about the fact that this problem was not corrected by the first editor who read it. To be specific, he section says: "The founder Joel Spolsky recently invited on his blog to make the site a 'welcoming, friendly place'[15], while continuing parenting users with a 'how to be civil' indication [16]." Really? It's OK to make the parenting users claim in Wikipedia's voice as if it was an established fact? It's OK to present a blog post as if it were a reliable source? whether telling people how to to be civil (something we do a lot here at Wikipedia) is "parenting" is a PERSONAL OPINION. the personal opinion that telling users telling people how to to be civil is part of making the site a more welcoming, friendly place is equally valid. Everybody involved in this page needs to read WP:V again and to kill obvious policy violations like the above on sight. Criticism needs to be properly sourced, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the recent discussion on User talk:Yparjis#Username, it seems this editor has decided to retire. Do other people have concerns with the current state of the article? (Perhaps this is resolved now?) Dreamyshade ( talk) 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Conduct dispute. This forum is only for content disputes. Report conduct disputes at WP:ANI — TransporterMan ( TALK) 03:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I am reporting a violation of AGF. I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? ? How do you think we can help? I am unregistered therefore I am unfamiliar with the details of how WP works although I do understand some of its policies. I think it could be made clear, at least to zeng8r, that it was not proper to use the word "bogus" to describe my WP work, nor to insinuate that I am a vandal and/or a sockpuppet. I, of course, am open to being further educated on WP policies etc. if I am doing something wrong. Opening comments by zeng8rPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Most_played_rivalries_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
So complicated (and encumbered by TLDR postings) that it is not feasible for this board to try and pull it apart. Advice was offered on how to move forward with a RfC to funnel down the herd of cats into a manageable consensus. Hasteur ( talk) 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview An editor wishes for the sourcing for (at least parts of) the article Organic food not to be subject to the WP:MEDRS guideline, and/or there is an unresolved question as to whether particular article content should fall under the WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussion on the article Talk page. How do you think we can help? Help us guide the discussion to a resolution. The article is full-protected until 14 December and we need to be well on the path to having a productive discussion so that the content dispute does not return to the article after unprotection. Opening comments by MontanabwPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
My position is on the talk page already, but I will restate it here: As I see it, the first problem is use of the WP:MEDRS standard to create an NPOV problem: the removal of material with a pro-organic food slant, leaving only material with an anti-organic food slant. The second issue is if MEDRS should be applied to this article at all, not at all, or somewhere in-between? I would refine this question further: if MEDRS applies to this article at all, should it apply a) to ALL aspects of the article (including, e.g. farming methods, chemistry questions, etc.) ; b) only to "medical" or "health" claims (whatever those are, but this issue arose over a question of whether pesticide residues on non-organic foods have a cancer link, so let's focus on that one); and if b) applies, then c) Is the question of pesticide residue entirely a medical claim subject to MEDRS in the first place or is it also a non-medical question involving politics and other issues? if so, are these relevant to balance the NPOV of the article? My position is that WP:RS is suitable, perhaps WP:SCIRS though, clearly, MEDRS sources are great - when available. Further, the edit I suggested (at talk) clearly identifies the sources and their POV so that the reader can assess the information for themselves. To me, the concerns raised are akin to early claims linking smoking to lung cancer or carbon emissions to climate change; mainstream researchers first debunked these claims, but now, with time, have upheld them. Most such concerns are raised long before there are sufficient mainstream studies, thus narrow MEDRS adherence may in fact violate NPOV. Further, my own position is stated at MEDRS itself: "sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." Montanabw (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by The BannerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
A short respons: Focus of the conflict is a blatant refusal to allow more reliable sources into the chapter "Health and safety". It is rather weird that in an article about producing food and part of the WikiProject Agriculture, no agricultural sources are allowed to references statements about health, safety, nutrients and taste. Those agricultural sources, although of the highest standard, are treated as completely unreliable. The blanket ban of these sources has led to an article that is POV and one sided. It gives undue weight to the medical side of growing food, due to the fact that only medicals sources ( WP:MEDRS) are allowed. Every statement using agricultural sources to back up claims in the chapter "Health and safety", are consequently removed. Discussion about this point was as walking into a concrete pillbox and proved utterly useless. The Banner talk 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by YobolPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The focus of the dispute seems to be about proper sourcing for portions of the article dealing with nutritional content and safety of organic foods. My reading of WP:MEDRS finds that any health claim in any article, whether about food or not, falls under WP:MEDRS, including Organic food. Others in the dispute have claimed that since this is a food article, WP:MEDRS doesn't apply in the article at all. Clearly MEDRS does not apply to non health related matters (such as specifics of farming). However, discussion of nutritional values and safety are clearly health claims, and therefore fall under WP:MEDRS. I would like sourcing of material to be appropriate for the content; medical/nutritional sources (in this case WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing) should be used for medical/nutritional claims; agricultural sources used for agricultural material. A related side dispute has focused on the neutrality of the article, specifically regarding whether there is a bias about the conclusions from sources. The position of WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing is fairly clear in that there is no significant nutritional or safety benefits from either organic or conventional foods. Some have claimed that since "pro" organic food claims are not sufficiently represented, there is a bias, and therefore inferior sourcing needs to be added to adjust for this bias. I think this is putting the cart before the horse; this argument has neutrality and weight determined before hand, and sources found to support that bias, rather than letting the sources dictate what the neutral point of view is. This is clearly an inappropriate way to write this article from a neutral point of view. We should summarize what the best (MEDRS) sources say, no matter what the outcome; we should not artificially adjust the weight to some predetermined outcome and use inferior sources to justify them. If none of the best MEDRS compliant sources support organic food as superior, then that is the neutral point of view, and trying to shift it with inferior sourcing is POV pushing and has to stop. (I note that at no point has there been a presentation of a MEDRS compliant source to support the superiority of organic food; just the arguing of the use of non MEDRS to be used to justify that conclusion). Yobol ( talk) 19:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by The Four DeucesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This may be a diversion. Since no one has presented any sources that meet the policy of neutrality, MEDRS does not arise. If we find that there is consensus in the literature of agricultural sciences that organic food is superior in nutrients, then this would be reflected in the literature in nutritional sciences, making the point moot. Only in the event that there was disagreement between different sciences on the same facts would MEDRS become an issue. But then we would expect reliable sources covering the dispute and could address the problem then. TFD ( talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by IRWolfie-Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Noone has focused on the actual content under dispute. Here is the content under dispute: [1]. As you can see it is full of claims about regular food being a cancer risk etc, thus WP:MEDRS sources are required. As you can also see, it's a WP:SYNTH being used explicitly to counter the MEDRS sources above it. Montanabw has been pushing that their is a large conspiracy to thwart small organic producers by "big grain" [2] sourcing it to "Motherearthnews" and Cornucopia.org, commondreams.org amongst others, and that we shouldn't use MEDRS. The Banner has refused to clarify whether he think MEDRS sources are required for cancer risks. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by bobraynerKeeping it short - DRN can involve a lot of reading and I don't want to make life harder for people. Opening comments by uninvolved MrADHDWP:MEDRS is a guideline to cover medical content, such as medical facts and medical claims. Any use of MEDRS outside of medical content is a WP:GOODFAITHed misuse of MEDRS. From a very brief brief look at this dispute it may be the case that people on both sides of the dispute are not interpreting policies and guidelines appropriately.-- MrADHD | T@1k? 22:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Organic food discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. MedRS only applies to parts of articles relating to medicine, and WP:RS is for other things. High-quality reliable references are good, but avreage RSs are also good as they are reliable nontheless. I would like a list of the references of which this dispute is centered upon. We will still wait though for the two other parties before discussion.
To The Banner ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), your last edit, where you have a diff showing IRWolfie- threatening an AN/I thread is not about the content dispute, but rather the behavioural side. I suggest you remove it. ~~ Ebe 123~~ → report 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Another third party editor here. I think that Zad68's proposal of judging the sources on a case by case basis is promising. Perhaps the parties should list all of the contested sources? Then we'll discuss each source individually.-- xanchester (t) 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Specific exampleHere is an example identified above as a primary example of the dispute:
Perhaps we could shift from speaking in generalities, and start focuing on this particular paragraph? -- Noleander ( talk) 16:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it sounds like there may be consensus to create a subsection on historical opinions about purported health benefits. I guess the next step would be to identify specific sources and discuss them here. Publications by proponents/opponents should - ideally - be supported by WP:Secondary sources that discuss/analyze those publications. However, secondary sources are not needed to support publications by major proponents/opponents when the publication is cited merely to demonstrate the existence of the publication (contrasted with material which interprets the publication's contents, which would require 2ndary sources ). -- Noleander ( talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict:
The neutral folks see the problem here. I think it is accurate to say that the above two editors will not budge from their positions much and have an unfortunate tendency to misstate others (No, Banner and I are NOT claiming that "regular food causes cancer" - the issue is far more nuanced than that). What I understand to be Noleander's compromise is to create a "historic" section. I don't quite agree, as I believe that additional research since that time can be added, the concerns about pesticide residues in conventionally-raised foods is still out there. I think a better structure is along the lines of "prominent
More sources neededAt the top of the prior section are two sources (NRDC report and "Cancer and non-cancer health effects") that are proposed for inclusion in the article - either in a "Historical Opinions" section; or a "Various opinions" section. It would be really helpful if those editors that want to include those sources could supply additional sources here, including: (a) sources that discuss/analyze/use those two sources; and (b) other sources that suggest that O.F. improves health. Go ahead and provide sources of all kinds: scientists, farmers, advocates, dietitians, etc. Speaking as an uninvolved editor, it is hard to form an opinion based on just two sources, so seeing 10 or 20 sources that buttress each other will help uninvolved editors form an opinion. -- Noleander ( talk) 02:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Note I generally share Yobol's views here. The fact that there are indeed
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that address the specific biomedical claims being considered by the article should really put an end to the question of whether we need to use more relaxed sourcing guidelines, which can only lead to the article having statements supported by lower-quality sources possibly alongside better-sourced statements, and this is a clear problem with the
WP:MEDRS guideline and
WP:GEVAL policy.
Organic foods movement material?Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all modern scientific secondary sources have determined that there is no concrete health benefits derived from organic foods (I'm not saying that is so, this is just a hypothetical). I'd like to then return to the proposal made above: Should the article contain historical information about the proponents of organic food? Something like:
The question is: would such information about the arguments of proponents of organic food (presuming sources exists to support the above text) be relevant to the organic food article? (It is noteworthy that WP does not yet have an article on Organic food movement). -- Noleander ( talk) 18:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Would something like this create a structure from which to plug in the source material? Montanabw (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Back to square oneInstead of discussing every detail and stretch this discussion to Easter 2035, it might be an idea to look first at the original chapter that got us here. That chapter, with the name "Health and safety" contains two subsections, each discussing several subjects. During the discussion on the talkpage, I suggested to split it up. Not surprisingly, two editors gave a blanket "no" against it. I suggested to split up and reorganize the chapter "Health and Safety" to the following:
WP:MEDRS should cover 2.1; WP:SCIRS should cover 1.1 and 2.2; WP:RS should cover 1.2, 2.3 and 3. I am still convinced that this split can help to find a way out of the deadlock, that is why I bring the suggestion in here. Remember, this is a line of thinking, not the Holy Grail. The Banner talk 22:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we ALL do agree on one thing: We are looking at the edit dispute in the "health and safety" section. However, the problem is that we also have, as part of that section, a "Nutritional value and taste" section. So maybe, let's look at the low-hanging fruit (pun intended): Does the "nutritional value and taste" section require MEDRS compliant cites, or merely WP:RS cites? (Which may include agricultural journals, or for that matter,
Ladies Home Journal) And if not, perhaps that should become its own full section (delete an = from the markup syntax) and be placed outside this discussion altogether? Then, can we all at least agree that the scope of this discussion is ONLY the "Consumer safety" section and the health issues mentioned therein?
Montanabw
(talk)
19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to return to discussion about reliable sourcesI note that uninvolved editor TransporterMan made a suggestion at the top of this discussion section which has been endorsed by several editors, and not opposed by any with regards to proper sourcing. Can we all agree with that framework with which to discuss sourcing and move on? Until we nail down what appropriate sourcing will be we're going to be here forever. Yobol ( talk) 22:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Completely arbitrary section breakSomewhere in the above mess, Banner suggested that we need the third party volunteers to kindly step back in and try to sum up what's going on and make some sense of this situation. I have also said this. As far as I can tell, we are going in circles and are nowhere close to any kind of a solution. I think three of the four primary editors here are showing some evidence of movement, and Krem offered us many, many good sources, but we appear also to have one editor who has not moved from his/her original position. So: volunteers: can you help us see if there is ANY consensus from the four of us (me, Banner, Yobol and Wolfie), and if any movement at all, what appears to be the most workable areas where we might get to an agreement, and what areas appear to have irreconcilable differences? Montanabw (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary Section Break the NthOk, I've looked at this dispute for a significant while and I've seen no real concise explanation of what people might be willing to accept amongst the reams of WP:TLDR material. As a volunteer at DRN I think that this is too large for DRN to deal with therefore I propose that a widely advertised RfC be conducted to determine what sourcing guideline should be used in relation to claims in this article. Pending significant objection, I intend to close this filing (which has gone on for far too long) in 24 hours from my signature Hasteur ( talk) 18:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Appears to be resolved. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Russian Patriarchy website does not say anything about Stalin (copy/paste from WP:ANI) Russian Patriarchy website does not say anything about StalinContent disputes are beyond the scope of ANI and should go to
WP:DRN.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER
11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. In [10] I was accused of being irresponsible because I have removed a reference which has to show that an icon flown at the orders of Stalin has repelled the enemies of the Soviet Union. The problem is that, as far as I can see using Google Translate, the source does not mention Stalin and it does not mention anything about an icon having repelled the Nazi invaders. Perhaps Russian speakers may kindly show me where the source says "as ordered by Stalin" or "the icon has repelled the enemy". Otherwise, the accusation itself may be flawed. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? discussed it on the talk page, asked in WP:ANI, but it was the wrong place. How do you think we can help? First, Russian speakers could exactly decide if the source says anything about Stalin or an icon having repelled the Nazi army. Second, the matter should be decided here in order to avoid an edit war. Opening comments by Michael2012roEven the link does not say anything about Stalin , clearly shows that there was a flight with an icon above Moscow in december 1941 with this specific purpose to help Russian army. There is also a commemoration of this flight. So, I think the reference helps to understand better this urban belief and also helps as a link to further informations about intervention of Stalin in this issue. This article is also about a religious belief and the reference obviously helps in confirming and understanding this belief.Thank you. Talk:Theotokos of Vladimir discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Comment from uninvolved editor: Here is the text that is in dispute:
|
Closed as stale, abandoned, or improvidently filed. May be refiled if needed. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute in question is between two camps with Antidiskriminator and I (i.e. tulipsword) representing one, and Peacemaker67 and Dianna representing the other. The dispute of interest, as you will see, is primarily between Peacemaker67 and me. Peacemaker67 insists that Serbs be removed from a list of “victims” within the template titled “The Holocaust”. His argument – which is extremely problematic – is that the genocidal campaign that was carried out against the Serbs during WWII by the Independent State of Croatia is not part of the Holocaust. A major problem with his argument is that he has not defined what he means by “the Holocaust”. Given that Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah’s witnesses, and others are included under the list of interest without objection, it is clear that what has been implicitly accepted by all users is that the list of interest represents the wider spectrum of victims of the Holocaust. Wikipedia operates according to consensus. Antidiskriminator and I have many times expressed our disapproval of Peacemaker67’s decision to continually disregard our protests as well as our arguments. For the reasons that I have provided on the Talk page of interest, I do strongly recommend that “Ethnic Serbs” be re-added to the list of “victims”.
I have recommended that we try and make the template consistent with what is written in the Wikipedia article “The Holocaust” since the two are directly related. Establishing consistency between the two would require us to re-add “Ethnic Serbs” to the list of “victims”. Further, I have proposed that we specify that what is meant by “victims” in the template is the wider spectrum of victims. Peacemaker67, as you will clearly see, is just totally ignoring everything I write. How do you think we can help? Specify, by way of a footnote or something like that, that what is meant by “victims” in the template is the wider spectrum of victims. The re-adding of “Ethnic Serbs” under the list of “victims” should be clearly authorized by a dispute resolution editor who will confront Peacemaker67 who is not listening to any of us. Tulipsword ( talk) 15:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Peacemaker67Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Essentially I agree with Dianna, and would be amused by Tulipsword's serious case of WP:HEAR if the subject wasn't so serious. The lead of the current The Holocaust article defines the Holocaust as "was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory" and cites 10 separate sources supporting that definition, including from books written by:
among others The article lead also indicates that some scholars include the mass murder of Romani people and people with disabilities in their definition of "The Holocaust" and cites two sources for those additions, an article by Professor Henry Friedlander, Professor in the Department of Judaic Studies at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, and also Wytwycky, Bohdan (1980). The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell. The Novak Report. No reliably published scholarly sources have been produced that widen "The Holocaust" any further (with the deepest of respect for the opinion of Simon Wiesenthal). It was Serbs that caught my eye on the template (because I have a particular interest in the Balkans), but the template should be taking its lead from the article, and the article definition (even the expanded one) does not include Serbs (and some other groups). I am proposing removing all groups that do not fall within the definition currently used in the article, accepting that Romani people and people with disabilities could arguably be included on the basis mainly of Friedlander's work (although it is probably debatable given the weight we would naturally give all those eminent Holocaust scholars that use a narrower definition). That's all I have for now. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AntidiskriminatorPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This dispute is a related to Peacemaker67's (somewhat supported by Diannaa) struggle to change the context of the article about Holocaust (as explained on the talk pages of The Holocaust article and template) to be focused to Jews and Jewish victims. The Holocaust is of such great significance that almost all of its sections are covered by separate articles. Some of the sections and articles are appropriately listed within the sidebar template with collapsible list (which corresponds with template documentation).
I don't believe that editors who want to delete non-Jewish victims (and started with deletion of Serb victims) struggling for the their context of The Holocaust will gain consensus for their position. Still, I don't share Diannaa's optimism about resolving this issue and the quality improvement because the real issue here and the real cause of this dispute is out of the scope of this noticeboard. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by DiannaaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Recently I became aware that my local library has a couple of high quality new books on this topic, so I decided that I would undertake an overhaul of the article once I am done my current project. Initial copy edits were started on November 13. I noted my intention on the article's talk page on December 3 and received a positive response from other interested editors. Preliminary discussions are underway on the article talk page as to structural changes, which will likely be the first step in improving the article, hopefully all the way up to a GA standard. A lot of things may change about the article, including the definition of the Holocaust that is used therein, depending on where the sources lead us. So to add things to the template in an effort to match the article at this point in time does not make sense, in my opinion. On December 13 I suggested that the article was not in very good shape, being due for a total overhaul, and told him about my long-range plan. Later that day I decided to discontinue participating in the discussion on the template talk page as it seemed to be going around in circles and I felt my concerns were not being heard. Later I noticed this post on user talk:Antidiskriminator, so I posted there my actual reason for not participating any further in the discussion. Template talk:The Holocaust (Inclusion of Serbs in template) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. The editor who filed this request, Tulipsword, is a newcomer who edited for several days, but has not edited Wikipedia since filing this request. Antidiskriminator, the other editor with whom Tulipsword says that he/she was most aligned says, above, that he does not believe this filing is appropriate or needed. Discussion appears to be proceeding at Talk:The Holocaust. In that light, I or another volunteer will close this request unless someone makes a strong case for leaving it open within the next 24 hours after the date on this post. It can be refiled later, if needed. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The instructions here say that this is not a forum for disputes which are under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. This has also been listed at WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and WP:ORN. Please let those discussions come to a resolution and then refile here if the dispute has not been resolved there. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On multiple occasions, various Wiki editors, some of them anonymous, have used questionable self-published sources or no source at all to claim that the subject of this article, ResearchGate (a social network for scientists), sends spam that "gives the misleading impression" that the messages are personal invitations triggered by ResearchGate users. Most often cited as a source for this is a blog post by someone named "Erich." I have edited this criticism out a couple of times on the grounds that it is not properly cited by a credible, third-party source. I have posted 'citation needed' on this page as well, but two months later, no one had offered a citation. Whenever I edit out the spam criticism, other editors are quick to undo my edits. In addition, some Wiki editors have asserted that ResearchGate's claimed user numbers are 1.9 million but its Twitter profile has only about 4,000 followers. I have contested this on the grounds that it is irrelevant, improperly cited, gives undue weight and is not in NPOV. It is not a citable fact; it is in my mind a subjective correlation. My edits have been quickly undone by other editors here as well. I am trying to make sure this Wiki article only states proven, verifiable facts that can be cited by credible, third-party sources. By reading this article's talk page, it's clear that a number of Wiki editors contributing to this article don't like the company and regard them as spammers. But everything I've seen and read elsewhere about this company shows them to be a legitimate organization.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have requested semi-protection for the page, because some of the edits have been made by anonymous users, but it was denied. How do you think we can help? I would like a third-party to evaluate the spam criticism statement as well as the statements relating ResearchGate's members to its Twitter following, and to give an opinion on a) are these relevant statements that should be included in the article; b) are these statements properly sourced; and c) are they written in NPOV? If not, I would appreciate advice on next steps to prevent any further back-and-forth edits. Opening comments by 91.52.11.82Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by BlueMoonletI am a longtime WP editor and a professional scientist, and I have been watching this page since I received an email from ResearchGate that purported to be from a respected colleague. That is, of course, original research on my part, but for what my word may or may not be worth, the criticism is in fact true, though hard to properly cite. The reason it's hard to cite is, paradoxically, that the company is only marginally notable and thus has attracted practically no critical coverage from reliable sources. The paltry coverage it has received has basically been parroting the company's own press releases. There is a problem here with the WP:RS policy, but I certainly don't know how to fix it. A number of people have shown up who are more upset about these emails than I am, and who know less about WP than I do, and have added material about the topic. I have mostly refrained from contesting the removal of this material, as I have found it hard to rebut the criticism that it is ill-sourced, but I have to admit that I have been sympathetic. Most recently, however, someone found this source and posted it. I did contest the removal of this source, because I think it fits the WP:RS policy. The fit may be marginal, but this whole case is marginal. It is inaccurate for User:JNorman704 to call this source "a blog post by someone named 'Erich.'" The author identifies himself as Erich Schubert, a researcher in mathematics and computer science. He even gives his CV, which is modest IMO but at least arguably qualifies him as " an established expert on the topic of the article." I now note that he has added a disclaimer to the original blog post that modestly declines the status of RS for WP purposes, but (as I've just said) I'm not sure I agree with him. The bottom line is that this is a marginally notable article subject that engages in practices that are questionable to say the least, but about which little has been written. To quote only the mainstream sources, which have not noticed the subject enough to be critical of it, is to unfairly bias the article towards the subject. It's a tricky issue, and I don't know the best solution. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 02:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by 138.246.2.177Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Martin.ueckerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
ResearchGate discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Material presented doesn't have sources that meet WP:MEDRS and consensus is against inclusion of the material at present time Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 16:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The editor of the Talk Page is preventing the addition of the content regarding a different theory of Pain. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed several times on the Talk Pages How do you think we can help? The editor on the Talk Page needs to allow addition of this other Theory of Pain Opening comments by Doc JamesMedical hypothesis has been deemed to not be a reliable source when it comes to discussing main stream current medical positions. Unless these theory is discussed in secondary sources independent of it creator probably not ready for prime time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AnthonyhcoleThe question is whether to mention in
Pain the relatively new theory of pain thoroughly summarised by Medicinechief
on his talk page. The theory was enunciated by Omoigui in:
and these two journal articles
Citations Among citations of the two 2007 journal articles, Google Scholar finds these 18 articles which appear to have been published in peer-reviewed journals:
and one or both of Omoigui's 2007 articles are cited in each of these 3 books:
Thoughts Omoigui's theory was first proposed in a book published by State-of-the-art Technologies, Incorporated, which appears to only publish books by Sota Omoigui. It was subsequently proposed in two articles published in the journal Medical Hypotheses, which does not peer-review. The theory has not been reviewed in detail by an independent authority in a peer reviewed journal or textbook. I can't support mentioning the theory in Pain until it has had considerably more authoritative review. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC) User talk:Medicinechief#Text_in_question discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi there, I volunteer here at DRN. That doesn't mean what I say is more important and carries more weight than others. I'll try mediate this dispute and bring around an amicable resolution. Once the other two parties have posted their opening statements we'll press onwards Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 13:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Section has been merged into main article with better sources and major edit warrior has retired. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 05:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Multiple users (including myself) has been trying to remove the criticism section on the article Stack Exchange Network on the grounds that it's based only on blogs and other non-reliable sources. Discussion of the section and the sources has taken place between may-july 2012, as well as december 2012. I attempted a rewrite of the original section, but concluded that after removing everything not properly sourced, virtually nothing was left. Based on this I removed the section from the article on december 6th, and left a note on the talkpage. The day after I removed the section, User:Yparjis reinserted a shorter version based on the sources left after my rewrite, I commented on it and questioned the sources further before removing the section yesterday (december 13th), only to be reverted again. Other users have also tried to discuss the issue only to be reverted when they tried to remove the section. Note: User:Manishearth has admitted to having a slight COI, and a request from him on IRC (#wikipedia-en-help) for a third opinion was the reason for why I entered into this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked for additional opinions from other users on #wikipedia-en-help, User:Nathan2055 responded by removing the section citing Completly unreliable sources only to be reverted. User:Dreamyshade didn't comment on the sources, but mentioned that a better solution would be to incorporate the section into the rest of the article. How do you think we can help? Take a look at the sources and the criticism section, and see if any of us are being unreasonable. Do the sources cover the issues as described, and are the sources considered reliable in this context? Opening comments by YparjisPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Personally, I have been maintaining the entirety of the article. Personal contribution to the entirety of this page can be verified by looking throughout the history of this article, but let me summarize it here to facilitate everyone: 1. cleaned sources in all sections of the article 2. corrected grammar and other language issues 3. removed sections that promote the subject 4. detailed SE history 5. introduced the criticism section In the past 3 years this article has been attacked a number of times by users , allegedly or admittedly affiliated with SE either by being directly or indirectly affiliated with SE operations. This has been either by: 1. Adding content that promotes SE with the purpose of transforming this WP article into an advertisement post for SE. 2. Removing the criticism section all together without sufficiently justifying in the Talk page. 3. Alter the criticism section in order to impair it. This is my impression, but I will not try to make a hard case for this. Specifically, to the case: 1. Claim that : The article in its entirety is based on non WP:V or non WP:RS (a) "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities," , clearly source [15] is as such and [16] may be considered. (b) source [20] is WP:RS and WP:V since it points to cnet.com (c) source [15] is WP:V and obviously WP:RS since it is a verification of the claim in criticism section from the creator of the website. sources [21] and [22] may well be removed along with the corresponding claims. 2. Undue weight, may have been true, but the section has been shortened to an extent that now is proportional its weight. Further modifications can follow, given that time permits. It currently takes up 1/4 of the article but may be shortened to 1/5, especially if other sections grow. 3. "A little Googling suggested..." , This is truly an undue claim, google searching cannot stand in a logical argument since it employs stochastic algorithms and personalised searching to present results. This only demonstrates the user's clouded judgement. Finally, I cannot adhere nor deny the validity of the claim as is, since that would increase its information content, and may disorientate from the content of the article itself. 4. Claim: "Sources are outdated". Even if outdated, sources may document criticism past and present. However, most of the sources are currently up to date. Conclusion : Criticism section is a vital documentation wrt SE as is its history. It is based on WP:V [15,16,20] sources and WP:RS [15,16] sources and some sources that may not be WP:V. In the past there have been links to meta.stackoverflow.com that further documented the claims in the section, but have been removed upon demand of the involved users as non WP:V and WP:UNDUE ( I do not disagree with WP:UNDUE). The latter have been included to present criticism of SE based on user opinions, This may be justified due to the nature of the section itself. Proposion: 1. Leave the criticism section , 2. engage in a constructive discussion on a source by source basis in the talk page. 3. I would appreciate if the involved users would aid in any other part of the article just to demonstrate that they are not WP:NPOV . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ManishearthPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
As mentioned, I indeed have a COI here. In retrospect, it was indeed a bad idea to just blank the page (I _did_ plan to rewrite it with better sources, but I couldn't get the time), with said COI being in existence, but I thought that it would be OK (at the time) if I cited the relevant policies. Of course, I was wrong -- I have been semi-retired for a while now (though I never got to updating my userpage), and I'd forgotten the nuances of the policies. My concerns about the section (at the state it was in when I first saw it) are:
In the end, I find myself in agreement with Dreamyshade's comment-- having a section known as "features" with the positives and negatives of each would be a nice idea (and it's OK if some features have only negatives). I would like to help make such a section as well -- except that I'm rather bad at finding good sources (If you check my WP contributions they're more cleanup-oriented). Plus I'm extremely busy for a few weeks. ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 17:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by SirtaptapPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Honestly I don't see a huge debate here; I see numerous users trying to remove a section with zero verifiability and major undue weight, and a single user repeatedly reversing multiple editor's edits. The section's just a bunch of blog posts and rants from assorted, non-noteworthy sites. It should have been blanked long ago and would have been if a single user weren't insisting on an edit war. But it's not an edit war I care to partake in, nor do I feel these debates will help much; I'm convinced the original editor will continuously watch the page and edit the criticism section back in (as they have done for months) so I'm more or less abandoning this discussion and dispute. The section shouldn't be there as-is but I have no time to edit war to correct it.-- Sirtaptap ( talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Stack Exchange_Network discussionHello, I volunteer here at DRN and I'm opening this up for discussion. Just because I volunteer doesn't mean what I say has any extra weight over any other editors but I'm coming into the dispute as an uninvolved third party and will do my best to broker a resolution. Cheers Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 10:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC) As far as I can understand the dispute revolves around the inclusion of the criticism section of the article. When reading the discussion on the talk page this statement jumped out at me: "The current Criticism section takes up half of the page on the network, that is clearly a lot of undue weight". I would suggest that, in that case, instead of removing criticism, expand the rest of the article.
Drive-by comment from another dispute resolution volunteer: Right now the criticism section does not meet Wikipedia's standards, and I am concerned about the fact that this problem was not corrected by the first editor who read it. To be specific, he section says: "The founder Joel Spolsky recently invited on his blog to make the site a 'welcoming, friendly place'[15], while continuing parenting users with a 'how to be civil' indication [16]." Really? It's OK to make the parenting users claim in Wikipedia's voice as if it was an established fact? It's OK to present a blog post as if it were a reliable source? whether telling people how to to be civil (something we do a lot here at Wikipedia) is "parenting" is a PERSONAL OPINION. the personal opinion that telling users telling people how to to be civil is part of making the site a more welcoming, friendly place is equally valid. Everybody involved in this page needs to read WP:V again and to kill obvious policy violations like the above on sight. Criticism needs to be properly sourced, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the recent discussion on User talk:Yparjis#Username, it seems this editor has decided to retire. Do other people have concerns with the current state of the article? (Perhaps this is resolved now?) Dreamyshade ( talk) 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Conduct dispute. This forum is only for content disputes. Report conduct disputes at WP:ANI — TransporterMan ( TALK) 03:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I am reporting a violation of AGF. I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? ? How do you think we can help? I am unregistered therefore I am unfamiliar with the details of how WP works although I do understand some of its policies. I think it could be made clear, at least to zeng8r, that it was not proper to use the word "bogus" to describe my WP work, nor to insinuate that I am a vandal and/or a sockpuppet. I, of course, am open to being further educated on WP policies etc. if I am doing something wrong. Opening comments by zeng8rPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Most_played_rivalries_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|