Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Kendrick mass |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 14:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Kkmurray ( talk) |
Parties involved | User:Kkmurray, User:Nick Y., User:Kehrli |
Mediator(s) | Lord Roem |
Comment | Parties leaving mediation - case closed |
There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that has been discussed at Talk:Kendrick_mass. Multiple secondary sources [1] define Kendrick mass as having units of Dalton (also known as the atomic mass unit). A primary source has been identified that can be interpreted as being consistent with a new Kendrick unit [2] but a the new unit is defined only by inference. No other primary or secondary sources defining a Kendrick unit have been identified, but one side argues that the definition of a new unit is more consistent with the general principles of metrology. The two sides of the dispute can be summarized as "Kendrick mass is in Dalton units" (Kkmurray, Nick Y.) and "Kendrick mass is in Kendrick units" (Kherli).
Identify appropriate primary and secondary sources on Kendrick mass per WP:VERIFY. Achieve a consensus on the definition of Kendrick mass as it appears in these sources. Identify minority views from the literature on the definition of Kendrick mass. Achieve a consensus on what is a balanced article content on Kendrick mass according to the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and appropriate coverage of alternate definitions of Kendrick mass. Achieve a consensus on the question of whether there is enough evidence supporting a Kendrick unit to justify calling the article "Kendrick (unit)" rather than "Kendrick mass."
A mediator can help by looking at the primary and secondary sources on Kendrick mass and applying WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV to help achieve the appropriate sourcing and balanced content in the article. There are numerous sources on Kendrick mass in the scientific literature, but the scope of the dispute is narrow.
I will be contacting the parties to see if they are accepting of the mediation process. If they do accept, I will need to read over alot of material so that I understand the full context of this case. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 06:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: What is the dispute?
Re: What would you like to change about this?
Wikipedia Manual of Style
I would like to note that Nick gave a very different statement here [5]. He wrote about the Kendrick mass: "There is no agreed upon definition and many sources define it very differently." Now he suddenly claims that there is a majority definition. Nick, if you are sincere you should change your vote to disagree because deep inside you know that there is no real majority view on this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kermit, the question was "Is this practice flawed in some manner or another or could use some improvement?", not "Is this practice a priori flawed?". Could you please answer the questions instead of weaseling out? By the laws of formal logic, with your disagree you state that there is no space for improvements on the terminology on Kendrick mass. This is so obviously wrong that not even you can believe that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Now you changed your opinion from Disagree to maybe. That is a start. Unfortunately after that you start weaseling again. This is not about the question whether applying a correct terminology will improve scientific results (truth). It is about the question whether Wikipedia should use ambiguous and faulty terminology that is not in line with the international consensus just because some researchers (verifiably) use it. Please answer the questions from Nick, nothing else. Kehrli ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have here a set of questions on which we hopefully can find a consensus:
I hope by answering these questions frankly with "agree" or "disagree" we will find common ground. Kehrli ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Kendrick mass |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 14:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Kkmurray ( talk) |
Parties involved | User:Kkmurray, User:Nick Y., User:Kehrli |
Mediator(s) | Lord Roem |
Comment | Parties leaving mediation - case closed |
There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that has been discussed at Talk:Kendrick_mass. Multiple secondary sources [1] define Kendrick mass as having units of Dalton (also known as the atomic mass unit). A primary source has been identified that can be interpreted as being consistent with a new Kendrick unit [2] but a the new unit is defined only by inference. No other primary or secondary sources defining a Kendrick unit have been identified, but one side argues that the definition of a new unit is more consistent with the general principles of metrology. The two sides of the dispute can be summarized as "Kendrick mass is in Dalton units" (Kkmurray, Nick Y.) and "Kendrick mass is in Kendrick units" (Kherli).
Identify appropriate primary and secondary sources on Kendrick mass per WP:VERIFY. Achieve a consensus on the definition of Kendrick mass as it appears in these sources. Identify minority views from the literature on the definition of Kendrick mass. Achieve a consensus on what is a balanced article content on Kendrick mass according to the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and appropriate coverage of alternate definitions of Kendrick mass. Achieve a consensus on the question of whether there is enough evidence supporting a Kendrick unit to justify calling the article "Kendrick (unit)" rather than "Kendrick mass."
A mediator can help by looking at the primary and secondary sources on Kendrick mass and applying WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV to help achieve the appropriate sourcing and balanced content in the article. There are numerous sources on Kendrick mass in the scientific literature, but the scope of the dispute is narrow.
I will be contacting the parties to see if they are accepting of the mediation process. If they do accept, I will need to read over alot of material so that I understand the full context of this case. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 06:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: What is the dispute?
Re: What would you like to change about this?
Wikipedia Manual of Style
I would like to note that Nick gave a very different statement here [5]. He wrote about the Kendrick mass: "There is no agreed upon definition and many sources define it very differently." Now he suddenly claims that there is a majority definition. Nick, if you are sincere you should change your vote to disagree because deep inside you know that there is no real majority view on this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kermit, the question was "Is this practice flawed in some manner or another or could use some improvement?", not "Is this practice a priori flawed?". Could you please answer the questions instead of weaseling out? By the laws of formal logic, with your disagree you state that there is no space for improvements on the terminology on Kendrick mass. This is so obviously wrong that not even you can believe that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Now you changed your opinion from Disagree to maybe. That is a start. Unfortunately after that you start weaseling again. This is not about the question whether applying a correct terminology will improve scientific results (truth). It is about the question whether Wikipedia should use ambiguous and faulty terminology that is not in line with the international consensus just because some researchers (verifiably) use it. Please answer the questions from Nick, nothing else. Kehrli ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have here a set of questions on which we hopefully can find a consensus:
I hope by answering these questions frankly with "agree" or "disagree" we will find common ground. Kehrli ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)