![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
![]() | A thread was simultaneously opened at WP:ANI. [1] DRN does not allow overlapping discussions at multiple venues. If the behavior issue is resolved, and there continues to be content issues, then you may refile a case here. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 04:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Case closed as there has been no significant prior discussion and participants are unable to clearly delineate the content under dispute. Participants are recommended to go to the article talk page and discuss the issue and relevant WP policies and guidelines. If there is no resolution please consult WP:DR and WP:DRR to explore other dispute resolution options. — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | No activity on this since the date of its filing. Also, the filing party does not outline a specific content dispute but instead makes general complaints about other editors. Likewise other participants summaries only complain about the filing party's behavior. In the meantime there was an ANI filed by an opponent of the filing party here which was inconclusive. I'm closing this case but Zapboer or others may feel free to open a new filing if and when there is a specific content issue that had significant talk page discussion and is still not resolved. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is discussion about whether an editorial in a well regarded physics journal is a secondary source, and whether it should be included in the article. For convenience, here is an extract from the editorial:
The following draft sentence has been proposed, but no consensus reached thus far: In 2011 the editors-in-chief of a reputable physics journal characterised the hydrino hypothesis as being worthy of further scientific discussion and debate while acknowledging the "reservations...expressed by some members of the scientific community".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Engaged in discussions on my Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Editors seem to be fairly polarised in their view of Blacklight Power on the talk page. It would be very helpful for people less interested in (or committed to) currently accepted physics to bring some dispassionate attention to the nature and quality of the source in dispute as such editors are less likely to be distracted by the implications of what BLP does in deciding on the issue of WP:RS.
Trying to torture meaning out of a flimsy editorial comment in order to big up a fanstastical claim which would re-write the laws of science. I don't think so. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The article in question is from European Physical Journal D, a mid to high quality journal that consistently ranks in the top or second quartile related to other physics journals. It is unusual for a journal such as this to publish an editorial justifying a decision to publish a paper. The reason for doing so is that one potential interpretation of the results would have a profound impact on our understanding of quantum mechanics and the Standard Model. However, there could be other interpretations that would not be as impactful, but could still introduce new science. However, how will these interpretations be resolved if the results are summarily suppressed? How does it serve the scientific process to prohibit the mention of an article such as this? Ronnotel ( talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
One SPA disagreeing with all others]
This argument about a source for a fringe free energy claim hardly deserves a serious response. Going fForum shopping when prospects at the article talk page dry up? Priceless.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If something is "worthy of further scientific discussion" it will be discussed and maybe then we will have something to add to the article. Let us wait for a discussion! Most wikipedia topics are worthy of discussion and obviously we don't state that in an article. Being "worthy of discussion" is not a notable thing, and also the quote is from a primary source. Bhny ( talk) 03:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:BlackLight Power shows a large amount of activity focused on attempts to find something that might be added to the article to boost the impression that the company may be on the verge of a scientific breakthrough that will provide endless energy at low cost. However, the talk page also has a large section at the top regarding "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" showing that scientific consensus determines what appears in articles, and by that guideline a throw-away editorial should not be used to suggest a positive result regarding hypothetical hydrinos. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in this particular dispute but have edited the article in the past. EPJ D is a fine journal (not first tier, but top quartile sounds about right), but the editorial in question is a good reason to continue treating the issue of hydrinos as outside of mainstream physics. Using this source as proposed would be to severely misrepresent it. If post-publication peer review shows interest from the relevant community of physicists, then we can talk about new physics. As it stands, this remains a WP:FRINGE claim. - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am doing a bit of research, reading all of the talk page comments before opening this up for discussion. This should take less than a day. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to address one point brought up in the above discussion: the value and authority of prior discussions. Some prior discussions, such as arbcom rulings and warnings by uninvolved administrators, are authoritative. We can point at them and say that they settle a particular issue. Noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- and indeed DRN itself -- can be good indications of consensus on a particular issue (if a bunch of uninvolved experienced editors say that something is or isn't a BLP violation, it is a good idea to listen to them), but the actual decision as to whether something is or is not a BLP violation must rest with an uninvolved administrator. It is, of course, far better for us to come to an agreement here rather than asking an admin to intervene, but BLP/N discussions -- especially ones with only a handful of participants -- are not authoritative. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few working definitions (subject to debate, of course: DRN volunteers purposely have no authority):
Re: "some companies and some theories are so closely associated with an individual that BLP protection extends to them" ← I don't believe that's in the policy, which reads to me as being tightly circumscribed to "living persons"
My reasoning is at as follows: Consider the following extreme case: A company consists of one person and the person and the company are intertwined in the public eye. Would Wikipedia really be allowed to say things about the company that would be BLP violations if said about the person? I think not.
Re: I don't believe that's in the policy, which reads to me as being tightly circumscribed to "living persons"
The very first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original). If we cannot accuse Randell L. Mills of fraud directly, we cannot call his theory a fraud either. And, as I pointed out before, Philip Warren Anderson is not a reliable source on the question of whether Randell L. Mills has committed scientific or financial fraud. WP:BLPGROUP specifically says: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."
I think that we have heard all the arguments on both sides of this issue, I am going to give it a bit more time for discussion, (I am really hoping for something from someone who has not already weighed in) and if we cannot arrive at a compromise that everyone agrees with I am going to close the DRN case and put out a call for a couple of uninvolved administrators to deal with what some experienced editors believe to be a BLP violation while other experience editors think it is not. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Extensive discussion is needed before filing here, however it is recommended that the request be referred to formal RFC if editors cannot find common ground. Mark Miller ( talk) 20:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Frivolous. Requesting editor has already been warned by numerous editors that the additions were not appropriate, were not sourced and were promotional. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. No extensive discussion. Editor is encouraged to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines on BLP, What Wikipedia is not, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Mark Miller ( talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | There is currently an open AN/I filing with these involved participants. While the AN/I thread remains open, DRN cannot take this request. Feel free to re-file after the close of that DR venue. Mark Miller ( talk) 21:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Participants have reached a consensus. Mark Miller ( talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Article is being discussed on Wikipedia:BLPN. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Closing after editors didn't comment for 5 days, and a subsequent 24-hour notice. Consensus was not reached. KJ Discuss? 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | This is very clearly a premature case filing. This does not approach "extensive talk page discussion". Cannolis ( talk) 06:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | The participants agreed on a new version of the text. Resolved. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | RFC now pending at the article talk page, so inappropriate to continue here. If RFC fails, you may consider refiling here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
![]() | A thread was simultaneously opened at WP:ANI. [1] DRN does not allow overlapping discussions at multiple venues. If the behavior issue is resolved, and there continues to be content issues, then you may refile a case here. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 04:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Case closed as there has been no significant prior discussion and participants are unable to clearly delineate the content under dispute. Participants are recommended to go to the article talk page and discuss the issue and relevant WP policies and guidelines. If there is no resolution please consult WP:DR and WP:DRR to explore other dispute resolution options. — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | No activity on this since the date of its filing. Also, the filing party does not outline a specific content dispute but instead makes general complaints about other editors. Likewise other participants summaries only complain about the filing party's behavior. In the meantime there was an ANI filed by an opponent of the filing party here which was inconclusive. I'm closing this case but Zapboer or others may feel free to open a new filing if and when there is a specific content issue that had significant talk page discussion and is still not resolved. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is discussion about whether an editorial in a well regarded physics journal is a secondary source, and whether it should be included in the article. For convenience, here is an extract from the editorial:
The following draft sentence has been proposed, but no consensus reached thus far: In 2011 the editors-in-chief of a reputable physics journal characterised the hydrino hypothesis as being worthy of further scientific discussion and debate while acknowledging the "reservations...expressed by some members of the scientific community".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Engaged in discussions on my Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Editors seem to be fairly polarised in their view of Blacklight Power on the talk page. It would be very helpful for people less interested in (or committed to) currently accepted physics to bring some dispassionate attention to the nature and quality of the source in dispute as such editors are less likely to be distracted by the implications of what BLP does in deciding on the issue of WP:RS.
Trying to torture meaning out of a flimsy editorial comment in order to big up a fanstastical claim which would re-write the laws of science. I don't think so. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The article in question is from European Physical Journal D, a mid to high quality journal that consistently ranks in the top or second quartile related to other physics journals. It is unusual for a journal such as this to publish an editorial justifying a decision to publish a paper. The reason for doing so is that one potential interpretation of the results would have a profound impact on our understanding of quantum mechanics and the Standard Model. However, there could be other interpretations that would not be as impactful, but could still introduce new science. However, how will these interpretations be resolved if the results are summarily suppressed? How does it serve the scientific process to prohibit the mention of an article such as this? Ronnotel ( talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
One SPA disagreeing with all others]
This argument about a source for a fringe free energy claim hardly deserves a serious response. Going fForum shopping when prospects at the article talk page dry up? Priceless.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If something is "worthy of further scientific discussion" it will be discussed and maybe then we will have something to add to the article. Let us wait for a discussion! Most wikipedia topics are worthy of discussion and obviously we don't state that in an article. Being "worthy of discussion" is not a notable thing, and also the quote is from a primary source. Bhny ( talk) 03:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:BlackLight Power shows a large amount of activity focused on attempts to find something that might be added to the article to boost the impression that the company may be on the verge of a scientific breakthrough that will provide endless energy at low cost. However, the talk page also has a large section at the top regarding "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" showing that scientific consensus determines what appears in articles, and by that guideline a throw-away editorial should not be used to suggest a positive result regarding hypothetical hydrinos. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in this particular dispute but have edited the article in the past. EPJ D is a fine journal (not first tier, but top quartile sounds about right), but the editorial in question is a good reason to continue treating the issue of hydrinos as outside of mainstream physics. Using this source as proposed would be to severely misrepresent it. If post-publication peer review shows interest from the relevant community of physicists, then we can talk about new physics. As it stands, this remains a WP:FRINGE claim. - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am doing a bit of research, reading all of the talk page comments before opening this up for discussion. This should take less than a day. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to address one point brought up in the above discussion: the value and authority of prior discussions. Some prior discussions, such as arbcom rulings and warnings by uninvolved administrators, are authoritative. We can point at them and say that they settle a particular issue. Noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- and indeed DRN itself -- can be good indications of consensus on a particular issue (if a bunch of uninvolved experienced editors say that something is or isn't a BLP violation, it is a good idea to listen to them), but the actual decision as to whether something is or is not a BLP violation must rest with an uninvolved administrator. It is, of course, far better for us to come to an agreement here rather than asking an admin to intervene, but BLP/N discussions -- especially ones with only a handful of participants -- are not authoritative. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few working definitions (subject to debate, of course: DRN volunteers purposely have no authority):
Re: "some companies and some theories are so closely associated with an individual that BLP protection extends to them" ← I don't believe that's in the policy, which reads to me as being tightly circumscribed to "living persons"
My reasoning is at as follows: Consider the following extreme case: A company consists of one person and the person and the company are intertwined in the public eye. Would Wikipedia really be allowed to say things about the company that would be BLP violations if said about the person? I think not.
Re: I don't believe that's in the policy, which reads to me as being tightly circumscribed to "living persons"
The very first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original). If we cannot accuse Randell L. Mills of fraud directly, we cannot call his theory a fraud either. And, as I pointed out before, Philip Warren Anderson is not a reliable source on the question of whether Randell L. Mills has committed scientific or financial fraud. WP:BLPGROUP specifically says: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."
I think that we have heard all the arguments on both sides of this issue, I am going to give it a bit more time for discussion, (I am really hoping for something from someone who has not already weighed in) and if we cannot arrive at a compromise that everyone agrees with I am going to close the DRN case and put out a call for a couple of uninvolved administrators to deal with what some experienced editors believe to be a BLP violation while other experience editors think it is not. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Extensive discussion is needed before filing here, however it is recommended that the request be referred to formal RFC if editors cannot find common ground. Mark Miller ( talk) 20:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Frivolous. Requesting editor has already been warned by numerous editors that the additions were not appropriate, were not sourced and were promotional. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. No extensive discussion. Editor is encouraged to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines on BLP, What Wikipedia is not, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Mark Miller ( talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | There is currently an open AN/I filing with these involved participants. While the AN/I thread remains open, DRN cannot take this request. Feel free to re-file after the close of that DR venue. Mark Miller ( talk) 21:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Participants have reached a consensus. Mark Miller ( talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Article is being discussed on Wikipedia:BLPN. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Closing after editors didn't comment for 5 days, and a subsequent 24-hour notice. Consensus was not reached. KJ Discuss? 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | This is very clearly a premature case filing. This does not approach "extensive talk page discussion". Cannolis ( talk) 06:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | The participants agreed on a new version of the text. Resolved. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | RFC now pending at the article talk page, so inappropriate to continue here. If RFC fails, you may consider refiling here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|