Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 50
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Michael Welner
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No record that filing editor, 174.48.216.197 (who at least implies that he is neither Jcally66 nor stewaj7), has discussed this on a talk page; moreover, requested relief of page protection is not available through this forum (use WP:RPP instead). — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statesment about peer review being controversial, without any appropriate reference was included. In the middle of discussions about contentious edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934. - disregarding discussions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussioon talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette. How do you think we can help? Protect page until editors agree upon new edits. I think Jcally66 and stewaj7 can resolve this with a little patience. Or get more editors to pitch in. Opening comments by Jcally66 and stewaj7Please 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.
I think that the issue is that I was not in the courtroom for this case as was Jcally66 and I was not so closely attached to this outcome so my only point is that we keep the page free of biased reporting - keeping in mind that this page has a history of bad faith editing. I raised issue with Jcally66 edits because in accordance with WP:ORIGINAL reliable, verified references must be included to support your statements about peer review being controversial. Concluding from your review of a source(s)(that are not available to the public via a citation) that peer review is controversial is not WP:NPOV but rather vested interest commentary. Wiki editors are cautioned to avoid such practices in biographies of living persons. In accordance with WP:NPOV introducing points of contention (either positive or negative) that are reliably sourced should be balanced. I think we should be sure to remain neutral so that you don't introduce contentious content just for the sake of controversy.I also think the point of a BLP is to be factually informative - it is not the forum to argue forensic peer review or other opinions about practice. Just because an expert is question about peer review as Trestman, Marcopulos and others were does not make something controversial. Please remember that experts are questioned about their opinions all the time. This is the nature of being an expert.Stewaj7 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Michael Welner 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.
|
Fall River, Massachusetts
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No discussion on talkpage. Before filing with DR/N, extensive discussion is required. Note: The filing also lists Massachusetts as part of the dispute and is actually not involved while another town/city, New Bedford, Massachusetts is noted in a single post to an editor's talkpage. Amadscientist (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview User keeps changing intro paragraph for Fall River, New Bedford and Brockton to include multiple "distances from" other cities that are irrelevant and detracting from the main articles. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted in the talk page for Fall River, contacted the user on two occasions, and he keeps changing. How do you think we can help? Contact the user. Opening comments by Id420xPlease 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.
Fall River, Massachusetts 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.
Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. A discussion should take place on the talk page before the dispute is brought to DRN. If the user remains unresponsive after repeated contacting, it can become a conduct issue.--SGCM (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Long s#Historical_Usage_Graph
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A graph, Historical Usage of the Long S, was created by myself, Farry, based on data published in Google's web n-grams database, and placed in the Long s article. User Prosfilaes, supported by user BabelStone, believed it to be unsuitable, but I believed it to be acceptable by Wikipedia's self-creation criteria for diagrams (as opposed to article text). The graph remained in place and no further comment was made there for nearly 2 years. In the meantime, two people gave appreciation for the graph on my talk page, and somebody added the graph to the French article. Then recently, I noticed that Prosfilaes had deleted the diagram from the Long s article. Since two people had spoken against it, I would have let it go at that point, were it not for the evidence that other people did approve of it. Not wanting to lose something that people found useful, I reinstated it, and explained why. Prosfileas didn't agree and deleted the graph a second time, and now a third time. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussions are now at a deadlock. How do you think we can help? Some approve of the graph and others don't. As the creator, I'm too close to be dispassionate, so I'd be grateful for an assessment of its acceptability. Opening comments by ProsfilaesPlease 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 graph is original research and is only being used because of some exception for OR in images; it would be vastly better to summarize the results of the graph as saying in English, the transition between long s and medial round s started around 1790 and was more or less complete by 1810, if we could use OR or find a cite. It's a graph from Google Ngram Viewer; due to how it was produced, a lot of what the reader sees is really about "last" not the long s. More unfortunately for our purposes, the OCR transcribes LAST as last and sometimes laſt as last instead of laft. The bubbles in the round s/last around 1720 and 1780 are pure noise. Moreover, it was labeled "Replacement of long-s with short-s in English documents from 1700 to 1900", giving absolutely no idea to the reader of the article that the top line was meaningless and movement in the bottom was frequently noise. (All labels are unreadable at thumbnail sizes.) Even the label on the graph, "Incidence of the word-forms "laſt" and "last" in English documents from 1700 to 1900", is inaccurate; this is raw data and can't be trusted. It's original research; it's being presented as an image only because OR rules stop us from saying what it says in the article uncited. It's bad data; we're showing a bunch of curves that reflect trends in "last" or OCR issues as if this were a graph about the long s versus the medial round s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Talk:Long s#Historical_Usage_Graph 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. It seems to me that policy prohibits this image. The policy in question is Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images, which says in pertinent part (emphasis in original):Since the research needed to produce the chart has not been published in a reliable source, the chart is prohibited. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's that then. Thanks all. --Farry (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Frances Hugle
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion prior to filing DR/N. See guidelines above. Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Regarding the history of Frances Hugle, a female scientist. This article (Frances Hugle) was repeatedly corrupted by Lhugle who introduced a number of factually incorrect statements and deleted others she personally did not like. One of her reasons was: protect the identities of living relatives. In an article of this type, names of children are often given in Wiki articles, for instance, read the articles on Wilkins and Watkins, discoverers of the helical structure of DNA. Frances was an esteemed female scientist, not a criminal requiring all those related to fear for their lives or reputations. Additional info was also included regarding education, career path and hobbies. These inclusions in the original Frances Hugle article though were deemed 'irrelevant' by Lhugle who protested certain inclusions to Wiki staff and had them removed. I am not attempting to be exclusive. I told her repeatedly that I welcomed her contributions and corrections but not the introduction of personal biases and intentional corruptions of the record. For instance, she edited the education section, deleting at first some parts and then falsified the record to state that Fran had earned a 2nd degree in Chem in 1957. The facts are, all course work for both degrees, Fran's PhB and S.B., was completed during or before 1947. Lhugle had the facts but appears to have wanted to sabotage this article (because it was not initiated by her?). This is not the only case in which her 'corrections' can be proven to be false. Others involve the development of Fran's career, where Lhugle's assertions contradict Fran's own writings and that of her former boss. Therfore, I respectfully request that these sections of the original article be reinstated for they provide insight into the life and times of the actual inventor of the IC and Microprocessor: Family Frances Hugle was born Frances Betty Sarnat in Chicago on August 13, 1927 to first generation immigrants, Lylian Steinfeld from Romania and Nathan Sarnat from Poland, both of Jewish descent. Frances was the eldest child. Her siblings are Irwin (now deceased, b. 1930), Sheila (b. 1935) and Marlene (b. 1938). She married William Hugle in June 1948 and had four children: Margaret Hugle Harris (b. 1949), David Hugle (b. 1951), Cheryl Hugle (b. 1952) and Linda Hugle (b. 1954). In addition to two sisters and four children, she is survived by 6 grandchildren; Jacob Loomis (b. 1972), Tabashir Nobari (b. 1974), Brandy Loomis (b. 1974), Nassim Nobari (b. 1978), Frances Elizabeth Harris (b. 1982), Tracy Hugle (b. 1984) and 4 great grandchildren. Education and teaching She attended Hyde Park High School in South Side Chicago, where she participated in many of the school's science clubs, including the chemistry, physics and biology clubs. In the spring of 1944, just before her graduation, she was selected to represent Hyde Park High in Chicago's Math Contest, where she took first place. Following high school, she attended the University of Chicago. She received a degree in chemistry with minors in physics and mathematics. She also did graduate studies in crystallography including studies in x-ray diffraction techniques at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY. In 1960, she received an MS degree from the University of Cincinnati. Her thesis is Cathodic Deplating of Rhodium.[28] She also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Montreal. In the mid 1960s, she taught physics and math courses at Santa Clara University. Hobbies and personal interests Frances enjoyed many outdoor activities, including camping, skiing, gardening and hiking, as well as competitive games and sports such as water polo and ping pong (at which she excelled). After reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, she took an interest in organic gardening. In the mid 1960s, she bought the book Europe on 5 Dollars a Day, and used it to travel alone for six weeks throughout Europe. She enjoyed reading on a wide range of topics, from botany to political science, and often gave the impression of having an encyclopedic mind. She also enjoyed science fiction and the occasional crime or romance novel. She preferred simple Danish designs in furniture, but also fashioned some of her own furniture from salvaged doors and made hanging lamps from Mexican pottery. Frances enjoyed the counter culture experience of Haight-Ashbury and would dress in Mexican painted skirts and serapes whenever she visited. As a rule, she never wore make-up except lipstick on occasion, but when visiting Haight-Ashbury, she would draw dark, wide and dramatically extended lines around and her eyes and across her temples. Just before she discovered she had stomach cancer she had decided to begin studying law.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussions on the edit page. A protest email sent directly to Lhugle. How do you think we can help? Reinstate some of the sections of the original article that were deleted following objections by Lhugle or deleted by me (one) since they were targets of repeated corruption. Opening comments by LhuglePlease 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.
I won't respond to the personal attacks but rather to two threads: 1. The conflict of interest guidance for Wikipedia users 2. Accuracy of sample information discussed by CH 1. There is a substantial conflict of interest issue with the Frances Hugle wikipedia entry. Both CH and I are daughters of Frances. For reasons I will not discuss here, CH believes and has posted elsewhere online that Frances was murdered by the CIA because of secret military work she did. Her research is dedicated to proving that assertion. I have no wish to engage in conflict but am concerned that information is being publicly disseminated that is inaccurate and for which edits are rejected outright and with personal attacks. In the current climate, it is not possible to contribute. 2. Much of the entry created by CH is accurate. Where there are inaccuracies, I took considerable time to list the specific sources of information. CH uses Frances' college record as an example. It's a good one. I have (and scanned and sent to CH) a copy of the UC transcript which clearly shows her graduation with honors, earning a PhB June 14, 1946. Additionally, the same document shows an SB in Chemistry conferred Dec. 20, 1957. This particular detail may not be of particular importance but is illustrative of the type of conflict occurring over this edit. I would be more than happy to provide a pdf of the transcript to the moderator if requested. Finally I have only asked that edits be permitted and that personal attacks not result (nor hostile emails broadcast far and wide within the family) whenever they are submitted. The merits of the evidence ought to determine what succeeds and what is replaced. If this cannot be achieved, I question the validity of having an entry for our mother created by either one of us. Thank you for your time and for your volunteering and dedication to an open internet. Frances Hugle 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.
User:Cheryl Hugle I am Amadscientist, a regular volunteer at the DR/N. Before we get started I need to make two requests of you. First, please edit your opening for brevity and remove the prose from the article (or version) itself including the names of all living persons (the children) from your opening comments and replace with links or diffs. I would also ask that you strike through or remove the accusation made of the other editor about "the record" that is beyond incivil and makes an accusation without basis. In fact you should only be discussing the content not the contributer. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
|
24 Game
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Filing editor refused to engage after case opening. Amadscientist (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The page is about a card game, and included links to a blog post asserting the number of possible playable hands and other facts. Editor Uucp added links to a second blog asserting corrections to the first one and offering computer code showing all solvable hands, among other things. Editor 24guard reverted this, saying that the new blog post was too recent and must therefore be viewed as "spam". This began a revert war with editor Uucp, who disagreed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Comments in the edit changes and on the talk page. Both sides seem set in their views, though the discussion has remained civil on both parts. How do you think we can help? 24guard has changed his grounds for reversion over time, variously claiming that recent blog posts are not allowed, that the content could not be linked to as he could not prove it accurate, or that the blog post constituted original research and should therefore not be allowed. In his most recent change, he removed both blog posts; I'm not sure why. I think a cool head can help resolve this. Opening comments by 24guardOn September 26th, 2012, a blog post appeared on wheels.org (which has an Alexa global ranking of 7,202,473), titled "A perfect solution to 24 game". On September 28th, 2012, I reverted Uucp's edit per wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies. On September 28th, 2012, Uucp reverted my reversion and claimed his source is "superior" to the sources (2 other blog posts) before his edit. I checked the sources, and decided to remove all these blog posts per wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies. As of October 2nd, 2012, Qwyrxian and Paddy3118 further cleaned up the 24_game page and I have no problem with the current version. 24guard (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC).24 Game discussionOK. The site 24theory.com is not a reliable source. It appears to be self published with no editorial oversite and no fact checking, and that isn't even the blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I, like Amadscientist, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Wikipedia policy clearly says that blogs are not acceptable reliable sources except for (a) certain newspaper and magazine blogs which are acceptable because they come under, and are subject to, those publications general editorial and fact-checking policies and (b) "[s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per the self-published sources policy. Indeed, blogs are so generally unacceptable as sources that one of the nicknames for the self-published sources policy is WP:BLOGS. If an editor wishes to use material from a blog, therefore, it is incumbent upon that editor to establish which of the two exceptions to the self-published sources policy applies to that material. @Uucp: Which of those exceptions applies in this case, and how does it apply? If neither applies, how do you contend that these blogs are acceptable sources under Wikipedia policy? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Torah
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion prior to filing DR/N. See guidelines above. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The following section Orthodox, Sphardic, a majority of Israeli Jews [25], many of whom are not observant [25], and other Jews, maintain that the Torah was given to Moses by God. The Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24,25 and 26, as well as the Talmud (Gittin 60a, Bava Basra 15b), states that Moses wrote the Torah, and The Mishnah[26] asserts the divine origin of the Torah as one of the essential tenets of Judaism.[27] Many Jews also accept the 13 Principles of Faith that were established by Maimonides, one of which that states; The Torah that we have today is the one dictated to Moses by God.[28] Is a mistepresentation of the source, and OR. I have rewritten it to reflect what the source actually says, as follows. An opinion poll of Israeli Jews [1], showed that a small minority (55%) accepted the statement that the Torah was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24,25 and 26, as well as the Talmud (Gittin 60a, Bava Basra 15b), states that Moses wrote the Torah. The Mishnah[2] asserts the divine origin of the Torah as one of the essential tenets of Judaism.[3] Many religious Jews also accept the 13 Principles of Faith that were established by Maimonides, one of which that states; The Torah that we have today is the one dictated to Moses by God.[4] However the misrepresentation keeps being added back in.
None How do you think we can help? Explain to the other parties that unsourced claims can not be made. Advise if admin action is appropriate should they continue. Opening comments by 208.84.53.129Please 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 Learned69Please 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.
Torah 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.
|
Turkish Cypriots
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As the filing editor admits, the case is currently burdened with conduct problems. Please, try to resolve the issues with each other's conduct (WP:AN/I seems most appropriate right now), and try DRN again once the content issues are separated from conduct. Alternatively, try to move on other articles for now and give this dispute a fresh start on the article's talk page after some time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:05, 6 October 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 In September 27th part of article deleted with argument "some infos not stated in source given". And after deleting that part only one user manipulated article and filled with unreliable and subjective informations. And today with adding new sources, i turned article back to old version again. But after few minutes E4024 user undo my edits with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". With current situation article is looking highly under Turkish nationalist ideology, subjective, weak sourced and far from reality. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to ask whats his reason to undo my sourced edits on users talk page and i didnt get reply. Also I opened section in talk page of article again with giving reliable sources and try to explain situation. But only thing that user did was making fun. How do you think we can help? You can look at current situation of the article (objectivity, reliability of sources and info) and also look edit that i tried to do today (again objectivity, reliability of sources and info). Also in Talk Page of an article you can check last two title to understand situation and perspectives. And help to protect one Wikipedia article. Opening comments by E4024Please 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.
Turkish Cypriots 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.
Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party editor and a regular volunteer on the noticeboard. I have a question: the September 27 edits were made between User:23x2 and User:Turco85. The editing between User:Ghuzz and User:E4024 occurred on October 4th. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are all four users involved in the same content dispute? If so, the first two users should be listed as involved users, and notified of the DRN.--SGCM (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Lorena Bernal
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion prior to filing. See guidelines above. Amadscientist (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There has been a slow edit war for more than a year over this person's age/birthdate, eye color, height, weight, etc. I attempted to create a discussion of the age issue on the talk page four weeks ago, but there were no responses at all, and the slow edit war continues. Note that there are around 20 distinct users who have participated in this mess over the last year. I am only including the 5 who have participated in the last 3 months. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to initiate discussion on the talk page, and also added a comment in the actual page mentioning the talk page discussion. No response. How do you think we can help? Help identify reliable sources of this information or other ways of resolving the dispute. Opening comments by 95.16.191.188Please 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 66.186.69.50Hello, let me begin by saying (Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Comment removed by DR/N volunteer, Amadscientist) I have simply corrected misleading information in the stats of Lorena Bernal that what seems like many others have continuously reverted back to uncorrect untruths designed to make her look like a liar. The stats I inputted are the very same stats given by Ms.Lorena Bernal herself on her own personal website, as well as being stated upon many a reputable site, sites that are not as simply changed by people that dislike her. She is in fact 5'8" tall, Brunette with Blue-Green eyes, 90-76-96(although she had 2 babies recently, that may have changed since, as she has not restated her measurements, naturally) She was born May 12 of 1981, do the math, she was barely 18 in 1999 when she won Miss Spain. Look at all of her photos, her eye colour is the same in all, look at photos of her & her husband, he is slightly taller than her in all photos where she is not wearing heels as he stands at 5'9". MATH & SCIENCE DO NOT LIE. (Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Comment removed by DR/N volunteer, Amadscientist) Contact PePe London, Freixenet or Miss World/Miss Spain CO. Ask around, scour the net, you will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.69.50 (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC) User:66.186.69.50, you are encouraged to participate in this DR/N discussion, but please refrain from further personal attacks. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by 95.16.188.126Please 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 Marcoplo78Please 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.
Lorena Bernal 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.
|
Hachikō
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion prior to filing at DR/N. See guidelines above. Amadscientist (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A number of users have requested a photograph of a statue which is in a public place in Japan. Initially image was uploaded to commons and was rightly so removed as the photo is of artwork still under copyright. However Japan copyright rules [5] does allow for non-commercial use. After myself and others advising of this on the talk page I decided to upload an image to Wikipedia. The image however as been removed from the article each time I have added it. As you can see from numerous discussions on the talk page some people believe that it is fine to use a Non-free content image others believe it is not or are unsure and believe removal is the correct course of action. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Statue in Japan User talk:Oda Mari#Hachikō statue photo User talk:7&6=thirteen#Hachikō statue photo
Someone who can give an authoritative interpretation on image copyright status for use on Wikipedia. Opening comments by Oda MariPlease 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 MasemPlease 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.
Hachikō discussion
|
Buck Owens
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Withdrawn by filing editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Msc_44 has made significant changes to the Buck Owens article. These changes seem to be referenced to a biographical book that I don't have access to. The problem is that many of these changes directly contradict multiple reliable sources that are available on the internet. Examples include claiming that he had multiple female children when publicly available obituaries from multiple sources indicate he only had male children, and claiming he had more wives than other available sources indicate. I'm not disputing that some of the changes may be correct. I simply would prefer the editor to engage in discussion on the talk page before making such controversial changes to the article. I have reverted Msc_44 3 times and Tbhotch has reverted him twice in the last 24 hours. He/she has reverted back to their preferred version after every attempt. I have opened up a new talk page section to discuss the changes, but my requests to discuss have been ignored. I don't want to report them for 3RR violation because he/she appears to be a new user and probably doesn't understand the way we do things. Their edits seem to be in good faith. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to engage the editor on the talk page of the article. They have not responded. Tbhotch has warned them about vandalism of the article, (and I disagree with that assessment,) to no avail. EDIT: While writing this, the editor has now engaged on the talk page. I will try to work this out there now. Sperril (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC) How do you think we can help? I would like to see if uninvolved editors have more luck than I have had in drawing Msc 44 into a conversation about their edits. Opening comments by Msc 44Please 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 TbhotchPlease 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.
Buck Owens 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.
|
Gangnam Style
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale or abandoned. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In this section of the talk page of Gangnam Style, I believe the quote should be removed. Other editors (User:Castncoot and User:A1candidate) believe the quote should be restored My arguments are policy based. Theirs are not. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have used edit summaries when I removed the quote (which has been done in several versions). How do you think we can help? I need more editors to provide a consensus. Otherwise, I will file a RfC. Opening comments by CastncootPlease 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.
Please see the talk page of the article in question. User User:Curb Chain at this time appears to be the lone holdout carrying his or her viewpoint, while four others (including myself) have arrived at the conclusion that the quote should be restored. It is informative, constructive, and well-cited exactly as a quote which was indeed stated, if one views the citation properly; no more and no less. I believe that Curb Chain is misinterpreting a policy; otherwise, four others would not hold an opinion in opposition of him or her. Castncoot (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) My apologies, correction - two other editors, not four. I should mention, however, that this quote has held up for a matter of either many days or weeks now before this dispute - obviously many other editors were in agreement with it. Castncoot (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by A1candidateGiving undue weight to an opinion only applies if that opinion is held by a small minority. In this case, ABC News isn't by far the only one who reports about "Gangnam Style" taking over/conquering/spreading over the entire world (I can quote from Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, any respectable newspaper you can think of) Gangnam Style 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. Let me begin by noting that one of the more interesting things about this dispute is that no one has noted that the quote is misstated. The quote comes from a point at 3:13 in the video and the reporter clearly says "intrawebs" (sic, both as to the term and its plural use), not "Internet". I disagree entirely with Curb Chain's analysis of the matter, which he asserts to be policy-based, which is set out in this edit. WP:SYN has no part in deciding whether or not sources are reliable; while undue weight could have some application here, I do not believe that it does; and, similarly, the fact that the quote is taken from a larger context could also have some application if the way in which it was extracted causes it to be misleading as to the entire content, it does not do that. Since the quote is set off in a box by itself, it serves the same function in the article as does an image, to illustrate the article. Since the section of the article to which this is attached is about the widespread popularity of the song and video and, in particular, the Internet meme and the flash mobs which have been inspired by it, I'm of the personal opinion that the quote would have been an acceptable illustration for the article as it is presently, incorrectly, stated with the word "Internet" included, instead of the correct word, "intrawebs". However, if it is corrected to say "intrawebs", rather than "Internet", as it must be, then I think that its use is potentially confusing and that, at best, the use of "intrawebs" is distracting and my personal opinion is that it ought to be removed from the article for those reasons. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC) To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" (in this particular context) appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs". All in all, it isn't a perfect quote, but adding it to the article would do more good than harm, in my opinion -A1candidate (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the matter that serious? It's just a nice quotation, it looks good there in the box. Could Curb Chain explain what exactly he or she doesn't like in the quotation? That "Gangnam Style" took over the world? (just guessing) By the way, I think that the article needs some criticism. It's strange that everyone likes the song. Why hasn't any publication received the song without enthusiasm? It's completely unrelated to the dispute, though. --Moscowconnection (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
|
English Vinglish
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Dispute dissolved, editors moved on to other tasks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:23, 9 October 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 dispute is for the promotion part, the self published legal owner websites, blogs, facebook and twitter which are normally only source to identify the issue is questioned against the newspaper or electronic media post who does not post, print news without the help of legal owner post in self published pages. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have tried to convince the user to understand that the post published in media is just after the post published by the legal owner on there self published pages, facebook profile and twitter accounts. so the self published source in this particular post is most reliable to refer for the actual date How do you think we can help? to let the user convince that the wikipedia verifiability policies does not blame in clear that self published post and youtube facebook or twitter account can be questioned for the reliability and authenticity specially when the post is about something whose details can be most reliably obtained by there self published post Opening comments by VivvtDispute?? That's interesting. I've been asking editor to use free references like newspapers than social media, then it becomes dispute!! Editor is consistently providing all the non-RS sources like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Is date of promotion disputable? Not for me. As long as you provide free references, any date should be OK. 14th or 15th June does not matter to me. What matters to me is the sources editor is providing. Use the newspaper sources and go ahead with the desired date. FB, Twitter, Youtube and social media is not considered as reliable source. Again, I do not own any page for that matter, so any discussion need not "convince" me for anything. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC) English Vinglish 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, a volunteer at DRN. I suggest reading WP:RS. I think the two parties will be able to discuss a resolution here. We will not try to convince anyone at DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC) hi. i have read the wp:rs also wp:sps and there its also said that when the context is related to the person or body or company for whom the article is all about then the self published sources along with the social media content can be used as source instead if they are published by the authentic publisher also on newspaper source is concerened news agencies are always dependable on the same self published sources. here the date is not an issue rather its an issue of fact that why in the basis of context of article we can not use the social media if that source is most reliable for that particular context. its in same way ask the person directly for whom the article is all about. aditionaly i provided the additional non facebook twitter and youtube sources to other user for the same date issue.its not to convince him over page on date, it is the matter to use some wp:sps based on context and the dispute is about using wp:sps and wp:rsvkdlms (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As I get it, the problematic date is September 14, 2012 as a release date. If so, probably this source could be used to verify this information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Antisemitism#Usage
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | While the filing editor has attempted to discuss the question, the other editors have not responded. Per the instructions, there must be extensive discussion, before coming to DRN. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The usage section of "anti-semitism" lacks a neutral point of view and does not make careful use of the source material and references. False arguments are being used to block changes. There is clearly a conflict between the origin and etymology of antisemitism and it's modern usage. It was originally coined by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider to mean "anti-Semitic prejudices", with Semitic people being those who speak Semitic languages - people ("&languages) descended from Shem (one of Noah's sons), included Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, etc. It was popularised in 19th century Germany to refer to Jews (presumably there were few other Semitic peoples in Germany). As well as being a misnomer, the modern definition is offensive to non-Jewish Semitic people. From a NPOV the article should at least acknowledge this before going on to discuss the horrendous antisemitism directly towards Jews. I tried to include a quote from the lede in the Encylopedia Brittania article on anti-Semitism, and this was irrationally rejected as lacking neutrality. "Although this term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites." There is no dispute that antisemitism usually means hostility to Jews, but there is dispute about whether this definition is appropriate, particularly as noted in the quote. A NPOV requires this to highglighted NOT censored.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to discuss the issue with Singularity42 & Rainbowofpeace. There is discussion of ways of including the changes, just outright rejection. How do you think we can help? Arrive at a NPOV for the lede and usage sections of the article that recognise that the modern usage of antisemitism is a misnomer, and so its blind use in the context of other semitic peoples is potentially offensive. Opening comments by RainbowofpeacePlease 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 Singularity42Please 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.
Antisemitism#Usage 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.
|
Michael Welner
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Parties noted that no further assistance is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:35, 10 October 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 My apologies as I was not logged in when I filed my earlier dispute - though I thought I was. Regarding Michael Welner page, this page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statement about peer review being controversial, without appropriate referencing was included. Jcally66 statments are unsupported by the source that she lists. When this was brought to Jcally66 attention, the editor noted their personal knowledge of events as a source and the court opinion which only vested parties have access to - non verifiable. In the middle of discussions about edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934 - disregarding discussions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette. How do you think we can help? 1. Opening comments by Jcally66I made a 3 sentence addition to the BLP for Dr. Welner in the section "The Forensic Panel" where it states: "Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of its forensic consultation." The wiki BLP and subject's use of the term "peer review" flatly contradicts all accepted definitions of the term by scientific and medical professionals. I cited a recent, publicly-available, federal court ruling that threw out a "Panel" report that hinged on their conflation of terms 'peer review" with "co-authorship" or "consulting". I have only used Wiki references to define "peer review" and only used publicly-available sources to make statements of fact. I considered this necessary to add since the ruling was for a capital criminal sentencing and because this issue has been on-going focus of controversy since 2006 (the Andrea Yates trial, which I also referenced.) All accusations of vested interest or bad faith are unfounded. Michael Welner 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, a volunteer at DRN. I will help with this dispute. I will remove all comments about conduct and users. We can start when the other party responds. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Stewaj7 here. I have asked Jcally66 to chime in on their talk page, but have not heard back. We have been engaged in more discussion on the talk page. They were kind enough to remove their edits while discussions were ongoing.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Jcally66 here. I'm not sure how this works - first edited 3 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcally66 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been and continues to be extensive discussion on this issues both prior to and during the initiation of this dispute (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#Revisiting_New_Edits). However, the dispute resolution was initiated when Jcally subverted discussion to post content on the BPL. While initiating this resolution indirectly helped curb that behavior, the issues about the content still remains. I ask that you please take a close look at the most recent edits both by Fladrif reinstating Jcally66 misrepresentation of her sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&diff=next&oldid=515706246.Stewaj7 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Syrian civil war
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The other side of the dispute failed to advance the opening statement. If further assistance is required, consider WP:RS/N. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:28, 10 October 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 eyewitness without last name is been disputed as reliable source. Have you tried to resolve this previously? How do you think we can help? Interpretation of the WP:Disputed statement regarding source. Opening comments by I7laseralPlease 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.
Syrian civil war discussionHello! I'm a DRN volunteer. Given that the dispute mainly boils down to reliability of a source, may be Reliable sources noticeboard is a better venue to gather input? People there are better prepared to judging on sources then we (DRN volunteers) are. Note, I don't defer this dispute, but if my suggestion makes sense to you, feel free to open a thread there (and don't forget to notify us of doing so!). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Deism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Dispute resolution is premature at this step, as a healthy discussion is happening on talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:24, 10 October 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 Deism lede is in need of updating, and we've been working on this for many days. no one seems to be willing to help constructively other than rejecting every version for one reason or another, rejecting references and giving no alternative answers. This is a religious or belief philosophy topic, with multiply references for multiple views. from modern to ancient times. we should be concerned with the current views, not the outdated historical views. since deism is an evolving belief system, based on science and observation. We need help. simple as that. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lots of time in talk:Deism (see Talk:Deism#New Lede Description Fresh Start) How do you think we can help? Help verify or find new References for content of Lede description of Deism. Opening comments by JDefauwPlease 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.
I agree with Bkonrad. Dispute resolution is not yet necessary. We need to be patient. We all agree that the lead sentence of the article does not adequately answer the simple question: "What is deism?" I do not have any strong opinions about what the lead sentence should say as long as it is 1) NPOV 2) reasonably clear 3) is not misleading or inaccurate 4) tells us what sets deism apart from other religions that also believe in a creator of the world, and 5) is acceptable to all the other contributors who are knowledgeable about the topic and are acting in good faith. I believe that JimWae is knowledgeable about the topic and that he is acting in good faith. I also believe that he is trying to be helpful. I do not believe his comments were too long to read. We need to take the time to seriously consider his proposed lead sentences and his later comments. After we have done so, if we still cannot settle our disagreements, we will be ready for dispute resolution. Opening comments by JimWaePlease 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 Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser)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.
At present, I don't see that dispute resolution is necessary. So many diverse proposals have been suggested by Dsomeone (and to a significantly lesser extent JDefauw and others) in relatively short order that it is difficult to follow any continuity in development. The various proposals seem to make wholesale changes based on interpretations of single remarks. If anything, DR might help in exercising some control over how the proposals are made and discussed. I don't have any strong preference with regards to how the lead is presented apart from expecting it to be 1) NPOV, 2) verifiable, and 3) that it reflects the entirety of what the topic Deism encompasses. older ≠ wiser 21:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Deism 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.
|
Jobie Hughes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No discussion, moot. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Constant edit warring as well as accusations of bias and vandalism from another user. I have backed up my editing with reliable sources and have written in a neutral manner. Despite this, Ohioana has constantly reverted the edits (which include blatant copyvio) with the justification of "this is incorrect", while never actually stating why it's incorrect or providing anything to prove that it is. We're expected to take the user's word for it rather than given any evidence. Part of what is being removed are parts of the article that aren't outright glowing praise, such as the coverage of Hughes's contract with Frey and Full Fathom Five. This is necessary to keep in since this takes up a large portion of Hughes's coverage in the news. Most of his coverage has been in relation to the contracts FFF had their authors sign, in specific the part of the contract that required that Hughes remained anonymous as the author of the Lorien Legacies series. To not include it shows a bias towards the author as well as doing the article a disservice because it makes it incomplete. So far I've reported this on the edit warring forum as well as the admin board, to no avail. Other than someone other than myself saying "please don't", Ohioana has consistently been reverting the article for at least five times in the last 24-48 hour period... with no repercussions. There was also some ongoing revert warring over the article At Dawn (novel), which is filled with some copyvio (although not as much now), overly promotional content, and other things that would fill WP:NOT. I was originally just redirecting it to the author's page, but Ohioana has reverted it constantly to where I'm listing it at AfD since redirecting isn't an option for them. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've contacted Ohioana on the article page, their talk page, yet they have not actually responded except to revert my edits and the edits that any other user does back to an article that contains only glowing praise and copyvio. They have yet to explain why the information is incorrect other than "I said so" and "I don't like it". How do you think we can help? I hate to say "please block", but this editor is bent on having the Hughes related articles only say what they want to say, which is predominantly promotional in nature. I suspect a conflict of interest here due to the highly promotional nature of their edits and to be honest, this is getting to the level of vandalism now because this has been ongoing for so long with no intervention. They're not going to stop even after being warned multiple times. Opening comments by OhioanaPlease 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.
Jobie Hughes 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.
Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm an uninvolved volunteer. Extensive prior discussion has to occur before a dispute can be brought to DRN. If an editor is refusing to discuss, it's considered a conduct issue as per WP:UNRESPONSIVE.--SGCM (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Nair
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No talkpage discussion. There has been no discussion about this article for over a month until the listing editor posted a comment (diff) to which no one has yet responded. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is wide difference of opinion between some of the users and others, the latter being able to exercise some editorial power over the former. This is fundamentally detrimental to the overall objective of Wikipedia. There is a possibility that many of the opinions of the wider user group is being ignored in pushing forward the POVs of some of the users. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have written a note in the talk page, which has merited no comment from others - this was done before i registered here How do you think we can help? an independant verification of the points of view of the various participants in this debate, or an arbitration by parties who may not have any connections with any of the users or the subject matter Opening comments by situshPlease 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 vettakorumakansnehiPlease 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 Bdb484Please 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 QwyrxianPlease 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 Nritop1983Please 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 MatthewVanitasPlease 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 Boing! said ZebedeePlease 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 CNRNairPlease 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 RajithmohanPlease 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 sreekanthvPlease 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 VipinhariPlease 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 SidhardhRameshPlease 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 Anandtr2006Please 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 NaveenpfPlease 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 KjrajeshPlease 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 ARUNKUMAR P.RPlease 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 SineBotPlease 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 vekramadityaPlease 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 PprasadnairPlease 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 byPlease 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.
Article "Nair" 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.
|
hell
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | False filing by editor who thought it was a mock up/sample Amadscientist (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview no Have you tried to resolve this previously? large steps How do you think we can help? close wp Opening comments byPlease 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.
hell 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.
|
Bow Wow (band), User talk:27.33.143.93
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion. Amadscientist (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview User repeatedly removes a sourced statement of the band's ranking on a list by Rolling Stone, claiming it is fancruft. I have explained to them that Rolling Stone is a reputable music magazine, therefore it is reliable and as such is used on thousands of Wiki articles. Yet the user insists and constantly reverts its addition. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Explained it to them on their talkpage and previously reported them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but it was deemed a content dispute not vandalism. How do you think we can help? Third opinion so the user knows it is not just me who believes it is a notable achievement. If they still remove it, allow their actions to be labelled vandalism so they can be blocked. Opening comments by 27.33.143.93Please 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.
It is clearly stated on the magazines cover that the list is arbitrary and biased, as can be seen here [15] with the sentence 独断と偏見で選んだ. It is a random list created as an article to fill in pages for that issue, and Rolling Stone have made that perfectly clear and even noted that on the cover of the magazine (which is a dignified act for a magazine to do) It is not an achievement, award or anything of merit such as being given a medal of honor or the Order of the Rising Sun etc for accomplishments in music. It is just a random (literally) top 100 list which was not even written by a noted music critic and is just a journalists random pick. It provides no information to the article and does not belong on the wikipedia, shall we start adding VH1 top 10 lists and so on to music articles as well? It is fandom nonsense.27.33.143.93 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Bow Wow (band), User talk:27.33.143.93 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.
|
Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion. --Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka was nominated for deletion by another user. During the Afd discussion a number of editors pointed out that the article has a number of issues, not least of which was NPOV. The result of the Afd was "keep and improve" and the closing admin noted that "this article is deeply flawed and written from a particular perspective". The same admin then tagged the article for NPOV. I then placed other tags (citations needed, factual accuracy, original research) and left a detailed note on the talk page explaining my tagging. Since then very little effort has been made to address the issues. Himesh84, the creator and main author of the article, has removed the tags, stating he is "happy about current content". He has also asked me to "pin point" the problems. I don't believe the tags require pin point explanation. The issues are self evident. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried discussing the issue on the talk page but Himesh84 refuses to budge and has challenged me to "raise the concern to administrators". How do you think we can help? Decide who, according to Wikipedia policies, is in the right. Opening comments by Himesh84Please 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.
Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka 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.
|
Abar Bochhor Tirish Pore
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Article has been PROD'd. Consider taking this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if the PROD is rejected. SGCM (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I came across this page looking at recent changes. The page was originally not at all an encyclopaedic account and had no references. I do not know anything about the event discussed. I have added a NPOV and a Citation needed flag, I also tried to clean up the language a bit to make it more neutral. However each time I mark anything in the article as citation needed or change the language my changes are reverted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried to talk to the user making the changes (Prat bose) and on the talk page for the article but he seems to think that the article is non biased and does not need any reference. How do you think we can help? I would like someone to have an objective look at the page. I realize I may be to strict in my following the wikipedia rules, so I would be fine with someone saying the page is fine as it is I don't know how objective i am at this point since it irks me if someone just removes tags that i feel are justified. Opening comments by Prat bosePlease 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.
Abar Bochhor Tirish Pore 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.
Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm an uninvolved volunteer. The article has currently been PROD'd by another editor. If the PROD is rejected, consider taking this to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Articles without references establishing the notability of the subject may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline.--SGCM (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Consensus reached for replacement prose. Some remaining wording discussion to be referred back to article talkpage. Participants are commended for civil collaboration! Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview A few months ago I wrote an article regarding the use of technology to improve sporting performance in the cycling at the London Olympics (Technology in track cycling). Since then there has been intense editing and attempts at removal of the article. There are three main views amongst editors.
There have been other editors which have been briefly involved in the early stages of editing, although the article has changed since then.
According to Sport&Politics is is the excessive use of combining sentences to generate the impression that the GB team had cheated or was bad in some way. Sport&Politics also claimed that the concerns of French team was not warranted, it was simply not a controversy more of a conspiracy theory, and the incident was not widely quoted in the Anglo press. According to 88.* it was initially the lack of evidence that the subject was controversial since the references to the French teams complaints were not included at that stage. When I did include these French comments, then 88.* said that the section could be included, but it should be moved away from controversies to the technological doping section (a term which encompasses all technology related improvements to performance not just training enhancements). 88.* claimed that the use of the 20,000 person survey was too general to justify the article in the 2012 controversy section. To answer these criticisms I removed all references to issues not connected with the 2012 Olympics and cycling such as the LZ lasersuit and included the direct comments of the French team as reported in the press to show it was a controversy. However I still felt that the background material regarding the survey, the professional cycling body (UCI) principles, and the the recent rule changes was necessary to place the French concerns into perspective. I hope this is a fair reflection, and explains the dispute accurately --Andromedean (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? There has been a long and protracted discussion on the talk page, and it has also been subjected to a RfC without any additional outside comments to the best of my knowledge. I have attempted a dispute resolution before but this wasn't allowed during an RfC and was rejected. The Rfc has now finished so hopefully this process can be started. I have also briefly spoke above this on the teahouse page. How do you think we can help? Clarify if any significant breaches of Wiki protocol such as Synthesis or No original research was used, to justify the articles inclusion, modification or removal. Clarify if the background information from cycling regulations and the public survey mentioned in the IMechE technical paper help to clarify the context, and so if this should be included. Clarify if the issues mentioned are specific enough to the London Olympics for inclusion in this section.
Opening comments by ShowmebeefPlease 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.
I believe that this section warrants its inclusion in the article for the following reasons:
The assertions I made above are backed by various sources as referenced in the section. In particular, the article Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers provides scientific evidence from years of research into the subject. That it was published around the time of the Games is no coincidence. I would also like to draw the attention of the reviewers to a previous similar technology doping case (LZR Racer swim suit) where the technology employed, although LEGAL prior its banning, is so overwhelming it led to its ultimate banning years later. One notable difference is that one dominant technology is the main contributing factor, and it is available to ALL who have the financial resources to secure them. Note that the controversy is prominently covered in 2009 World Aquatics Championships, dubbed the "Plastic Games" where 43 World Records were set which were largely attributed to the use of the suits. That the contribution due to the wide coverage and discussion of the controversy which led to its ultimate banning cannot be underestimated. It is for this reason also that I appeal that this section be included. Showmebeef (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Sport and politicsThis section, (not article) which was written by Andromedean was subject to an Rfc and there was outside input. The problem is it was mainly opposing what Andromedean had put in and called for its removal. The Rfc though was not formally closed. This section is nothing more than trying to make out GB cycling cheated and is based up taking snipets from losing athletes, unrelated cycling events where the events and participation rules are different, such as the World Championships where more than one competitor can be entered per event compared to the Olympics where only one can be entered per event. Claiming that extra funding was a form of cheating and that using technology itself was a form of "doping" by providing an "unfair advantage". None of these claims are substantiated and the main source used is a academic industry report, where the section on technology doping is referring to athletes in hyperbaric oxygen chambers and not bicycles in anyway. This section violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines on topic relevance, POV, undue weight, synthesis of sources, misrepresentation of sources, original research and what Wikipedia is not (not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal). The section must be removed as it makes unsubstantiated claims based on cherry picking of information to suit the POV which Andromedean is trying to further. Further to this Andromodean has made claims of conflict of interest and that there is "an agenda of censorship" from those disagreeing with them, none of which are a demonstration of good faith editing from Andromodean. Before the Wikkequette was closed a thread which can be found here was initiated laying out some more of the issues in this section. This section should be removed forthwith due to the number of Wikipedia guidelines and policies violated. Sport and politics (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see the response below to the questions asked above: 1Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. Do not uncollapse. <span id="Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. Do not uncollapse.">
There has been a little bit of the missing of the point here. The section itself is about the 2012 Olympics, it is not a commentary on what GB cycling did during the 2012 track cycling season. Making the comparisons between the two events is not an accurate representation of the happenings at the 2012 Olympics. Why has only a comparison with the 2012 World Championships been made and not other events which took place closer to the Olympics. Why is there also no mention of the Test event which took place at the Olympic Velodrome which showed the Velodrome itself was fast, with world records being broken at the test event. Velodrome lives up to its star billing In this source the tack itself is praised for being fast in and of itself The velodrome wowed visitors and competitors alike during February's World Cup test event and it got a worldwide audience on Thursday when Australian Ron Webb's design proved to be the super-fast track everyone had hoped for. This source praises again the track itself for being a fast track London 2012 - Velodrome passes Olympic test This source states the home crowd were advantageous to compitiors from the UK including GB cycling team membersLesson for Rio: Prepare the minds to exploit home crowd. These sources provided counter to the claims levelled one sidedly that it is purely the bicycles which have made the difference, the sources clearly demonstrate the advantages of being in London to GB cycling and the speed of the Velodrome itself. Sport and politics (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
2Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. Do not uncollapse. <span id="Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. Do not uncollapse.">
3Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. Do not uncollapse. <span id="Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. Do not uncollapse.">
4
5
6
For the readability of the over all dispute this addendum will be collapsed after replies are made but may still be commented on.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by 88.88.167.157 alias 88.88.166.111There may be a case for inclusion of some parts of the section, hence my final opinion in the RFC. That said, I think most of the (includable) information in the section ought to be in other articles (e.g. technology doping, WADA, doping and track cycling). I also consider the information that belongs elsewhere as the most encyclopedic (e.g. general information on WADA's stance on the use of technology) and therefore the more includable information. (In light of the description in the "Dispute overview" I must add that move =/= remove.) Comments by (previously uninvolved) HiLo48I'm confused. Did User:Andromedean write an article as he/she says, or simply a new section for the already existing article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics? I regard articles like Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics as disaster areas. They inevitably attract lots of crap, largely comprising the personal whinges of editors with nothing better to do and no idea of WP:UNDUE. I have been waiting for the dust to settle and for most editors to forget about it, before I started to get rid of some of the real dross. This dispute, however, has delayed the arrival of that time. As for this dispute, it does seem to be about a very narrow, technical issue related far more to a particular sport than to the Olympics. My opinion matches that of User:Sport and politics. It should go. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments by DRN volunteer HasteurThis again?!? Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 44#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics are previous attempts to get DRN to issue a ruling Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by AndromedeanFor the record it was Sport & Politics who suggested the DRN should be opened not myself. I thought RfC --Andromedean (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC) only lasted a month, and I assumed it was closed when the attempted removal of the article took place. I'm unclear why you are raising these points Hasteur, when I already stated this in the opening, are you intending to be involved in this again? Please, remember my request.--Andromedean (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Two previous cases mentioned above were closed without hearing due to then-ongoing RfC. Since the RfC is now archived, and at least two sides of the dispute are represented, the case will be opened 08:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC) or after all parties make their comments (whatever happens first). Parties are welcomed to summarize uninvolved editors' input at RfC if applicable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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.
Per czarkoff, the case is now open. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask parties whether there are any references relating the last three paragraphs of the section (as it is now) with these particular games. I only see a direct connection between the event and the statement "All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code". Is there any published analysis of British technology compliance with the other mentioned rules and opinions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The statement was taken from this IMechE report which seems to be prepared with the games in mind. There is a background to British cyclings historic compliance (or lack of) at the bottom of page one and two of Britain's mysterious Bikes --Andromedean (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I only mention this because there are six references to the 'London 2012 Olympics' in the report (and many more to the Olympics in general) and it was published one month before the games. However, it is unlikely that the original source of the survey has a direct connection with the games, so I see your point. The overuse of synthesis criticism seems to be on ongoing theme in this section since it provides an excuse to remove sentences which editors simply don't like. I have raised these concerns with other Wikipedeans, who believe most articles in Wikipedia contain a degree of synthesis, it can rarely be avoided. As a consequence most of the material in this section now consists of direct quotes, but of course that doesn't prevent editors using synthesis as a blunt weapon for criticizing virtually any comparison between sentences. That's why we have rules in Wikipedia such as use common sense and make reasonable assumptions. The reason for the background information is to place the controversy in context. Without this, we would be saying to the reader: 'your team won, my team didn't so I will accuse you of cheating.' This seems to be the agenda by one editor who also wanted the title changed to Irrational French Criticisms are something similar. The key background information includes the principles of the UCI "The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine" and WADAs consultation on "Technology doping’ which is now officially recognized as a threat". These place the French concerns into context, especially when components were being conspicuously covered up during the games (something which perhaps we should mention). In fact the removal of these contextual sentences seems to create a bias. We could claim the same for the survey since it reflects natural feelings of 'justice' but the link is admittedly more tenuous, and providing it doesn't lead to the Hemorrhaging of other text, and in the interest of compromise, I would agree this could be removed. --Andromedean (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC) An alternative would be to insert a summary rather than the entire text of these statements. For example in the mysterious bikes link there is this: "the IOC, and the UCI, [also] have a philosophy that the athlete should not only be paramount, but that technology should influence sports as little as possible --Andromedean (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
S&P The section begins with: The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), established in 1999, has the remit to “promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms” [17] . For a technology to be considered for prohibition from sport, WADA sets three conditions [18] : 1. Is the technology harmful to health? 2. Is it performance-enhancing? 3. Is it against the spirit of the sport? So by suggesting this only refers to hypoxic chamber training it is you who are cherry picking. The point of the section of the IMechE report was to indicate that WADA was for the first time actually investigating technology doping, and hypoxic chambers happened to be its first technology target, it is no way suggests it will remain limited to hypoxic chambers. Incidentally Hypoxic chambers are widely used for training by professional cyclists. --Andromedean (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Some observations:
Does any involved party argue any of these observations? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Czarkoff It's useful to receive a fresh unbiased perspective on the article because it may read differently to those who have gradually developed and read in a hundred times! I have stressed your first two points many times in the discussion. Your third one is interesting
I recall earlier versions did precede with the background information. Are you saying you would be satisfied if it preceded the other statements? I am still of the view that without at least some background information, before or after, it makes the incident appear as pure 'sour grapes' rather than a deep seated grievance within the sport which has been festering for decades, but came to light most prominently at London 2012. A further thought regarding the 20,000 survey quote. I placed that in at the end to confront claims that the issue wasn't controversial in nature and attempts to remove it on those grounds. This was before the quotes from the French were added. --Andromedean (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I will add to my opening comments here, since I can't seem to edit them Prose/section in dispute
--Andromedean (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
We have been over that ground already, it is all areas of technology, not just biochemical see P.16 in the report in the references ^ "Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage?".--Andromedean (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
With regards the Sports engineering link although previously talking about hypoxic chambers, they are reasonably clear "From this point on, physical apparatus created by sports engineering would be subject to the same scrutiny as biological & chemical HETs. ‘Technology doping’ was now officially recognised as a threat"--Andromedean (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
To the DRN volunteers: As illustrated with bold above I want the last paragraph to be moved (or, more correctly, I have already moved it; see diffs at the top of the discussion) to Technology doping as it consists exclusively of information on that subject. I also added a link to that article.
Response to Sport and Politics answer to questions from volunteer by AndromodeanI have a few comments regarding Sports and Politics objections, Note we attempted to include results of the cycling world championships in April of this year before the new bikes were introduced in a previous edit, but this was rejected for dubious reasons in my opinion. Of course the respective teams would probably have been competing using different equipment here as well! --Andromedean (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I will start at point 3 since the volunteer seems to have addressed most of the issues regarding the first two. Point 3) This is just a direct and key quote which Chris Boardman chose freely to answer without complaint which confirms what the French team were saying. Regarding being secretive, the British cyclists caused suspicion by conspicuously hiding the wheels whilst preparing the bikes. Whether this was a psychological ploy or otherwise it weakens the argument that they were not secretive! The French certainly said they are secretive so that is a third source! Note, all the really important aerodynamic data will be kept under wraps possibly indefinitely whether the equipment is eventually made available or not. It’s the testing of it and how the helmet, suit, cycle and orientation of the rider is used together which is important. Point 4) Any implication of blatant cheating is refuted by the last sentence, place it first if there is any doubt. However, the widespread use of different technologies between competitors, combined with the delays to marketing them, strongly implies that the spirit of the UCI (and IOC) are not being adhered to. So this is highly relevant. Point 5) These are of course quotes from the original report . And the report clearly indicates the expansion of WADAs remit to including technological enhancements as well as biological and chemical enhancements, and it in no way suggests that this will be limited to hypoxic chambers. (For example they might extend it to the electrically heated muscle warmers used by some competitors mentioned in the references) Hypoxic chambers are however a case of using technology to aid performance which is widely used by cyclists. Neither does the inclusion of this quote in any way indicate that only British cyclists are using enhancements. If there is any doubt simply precede the paragraph by another stating
Point 6) Is sport and Politics seriously suggesting this University researcher and peer reviewed report is less reliable than the average material referenced in typical Wikipedia articles? Here is the original primary source DM James, 2010, The ethics of using engineering to enhance athletic performance, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Engineering of Sport – Engineering Emotion, (Eds A Sabo, S Litzenberger, P Kafka & C Sabo), Vol 2, pp3405–3410 --Andromedean (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposed solution (IP)1) The section is included (as a separate section) in the article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics.
Sorry but I had drafted this out before your latest comments and thought there was a preference for a mention of the LZracer. See what you think anyway. The Bold is just to indicate the parts in which I have attempted to create more balance by deflecting any blame from the British team and is obviously not intended to be highlighted. The references aren’t complete but sure I can find these. Not sure what the character count is either. Be aware that all cycling teams will use both embedding and enabling technologies and both can be controversial.
--Andromedean (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Proposal by 88.88.167.157Use of technology in sports is common, but occasionally secret or new technologies are controversial. The use of technology is regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency and the governing body of the sport in question. A controversy surfaced in the London 2012 games when the British cycling team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[132] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the governing body of cycling and passed fit for use under its sporting code[137], and no clear advantage had been demonstrated. The British team outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[133] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[134]
--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer proposalTechnology in track cyclingCycling has received attention due to an impact of technology that may be similar to the now-banned FastSkin swim suits used at the Beijing Games. Aerodynamics and lightness are more important in equipment than any other Olympic sport. The search for refinement is relentless. While opting out of their use at the world championships earlier in the year, the British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics.[1] They outperformed rivals, Australia and France with margins, greater than expected.[2] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[3] The director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested subterfuge, and a little discussed, cutting edge technology was used to produce the quickest bike. British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the UK Olympic Cycling team to French news, "Of course there is no cheating," he said. But France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded the U.K.'s secrets be revealed.[4] French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment as well as stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect."[5] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[6] British Cycling is secretive. Its technology is built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [7][8][9] The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI recently amended its interpretation of the sports rules to allow a nine-month grace period after first competition use to bring a product to market.[10] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code.[6]
--Amadscientist (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
A few problems, The background stuff is not needed as this is about the 2012 Olympics and not sports technology in general. The swimsuits are not relevant to the 2012 Olympics, as they were banned well before the 2012 Olympics. "Aerodynamics and lightness are more important in equipment than any other Olympic sport. The search for refinement is relentless." This is again more background generalities with no direct bearing on the 2012 Olympics as it was happening before the 2012 Olympics and is continuing after the 2012 Olympics. The statement "British Cycling is secretive." is presented as a fact and as if no other national is secretive or that being secretive is a GB cycling phenomenon. Trade Secrets and Patent Laws are in existence for precisely this reason and please see the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, where being secretive is not a controversy it is an expected part of the "business of sport". I do not see the relevancy of where Team GB have their stuff built unless it can be shown it is so completely out of comparison with other similar nations. The other uses of the same technology in other industries and sports must also be relevant to the 2012 Olympics or it is just again a general statement on technology. "The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI recently amended its interpretation of the sports rules to allow a nine-month grace period after first competition use to bring a product to market." This just a general statement on bicycle availability and the rules surrounding bicycle availability. it is not specific to the 2012 Olympics it is a general Cycling statement and this is an article on the 2012 Olympics. Also recently when, the date the code was amended is needed, though the whole statement is not relevant as it is just a general statement on bicycle availability. There is also no mention anywhere in the section of the track itself being fast or home advantage being a factor. Sport and politics (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Sport and Politics revised proposalTeam GB Cycling introduced new bicycles for the London 2012 Olympics.[1] They subsequently outperformed rivals, Australia and France with margins, greater than those nations had expected.[2] The director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested "subterfuge", and little discussed "cutting edge technology" was used to produce the quickest bike. British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the UK Olympic Cycling team to French news, "Of course there is no cheating," he said, but France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, "demanded the U.K.'s secrets be revealed".[4] French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment as well as stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect."[5] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked "if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage[?]", he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[6][7][8] Home advantage for GB cycling was also mentioned as a possible reason as to why the British performed better than other nations had expected with Kerin gold medlaist Victoria Pendleton stating "You're so lifted by the noise. It carries you. It really does inspire you" and Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott stated "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home."[9] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale and passed fit for use under its sporting code.[6]
--Sport and politics (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
One issue which has always worried me about this article is that some editors seem to want to make it appear as if the controversy was merely a difference of opinion, a clash of cultures, or 'bad sport'. However, there is something very fundamental to sporting controversies of this type and how fairness is judged by the authorities, and we can't dismiss their rules. It is assumed that in competitive cycling and olympic sport generally, that as a fundamental principle (unlike motor sport) that all athletes are competing on a level playing field. Hence it is important to mention this text, at least briefly, to avoid bias. I believe this is was what the French team were really annoyed about and the British teams long protracted battle with the regulators who have attempted to establish a level fair playing field, which seemingly failed at these Olympics. Compare the UCI rule with Chris Boardman's statement; this explains WHY why this is very controversial and not just sour grapes! We must remember that the rules state that athletes and teams are expected to conform to the spirit of the sport allowing natural athletic ability to dominate over technology. now were does it say this? hopefully not tucked away in a reference were no-one will see it? Remember 88 and S&P have been determined to hide this bit away for much of the talk page discussion, that was the main difference between myself and 88 all along. I also think that S&Ps version reads like a publicity article, or political statement. Surely we only need to mention that the British view was that factors such as training, preparation and home support were also vitally important in establishing their dominance. (The marginal gains mantra was a key point repeatedly made by them). --Andromedean (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
the version I suggested addressed all those issues very clearly, so the reader would be presented with the real reason why this was controversial. This is just reverting the article back to a row between one nations pride verses another, and a more subtle attempt to give the impression of the 'Irrational French Views' title you suggested. I don't believe you want the information removed for any other reason than obscuring the important fact that their is a rule which states there should be a level playing field for all athletes, and this clearly has not been adhered to. Also judgements which are legal and controversial today doesn't mean they will be legal tomorrow. We will see what Showmebeef thinks about it anyway. I was attempting to encompass both our views in that the article should place the controversy into context, address fairness issues in this sport, and not attack any one nation.--Andromedean (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is another slightly compact version, with the 'doping bit removed' I am not too bothered about that bit. How do you put it all in a box? A controversy surfaced in the London 2012 games when the British cycling team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[132] Although no clear technological advantage has been proven, the team subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[133] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[134] However, all bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the governing cycling body and passed fit for use under its sporting code[137] The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment with new bikes, skinsuits and different wheels.[136] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team seemed to confirm the importance of technology. When he was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[137]. However, the British team also stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’ in many areas, including training, preparation and home support in the case of the Olympics. British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery, and is secretive about the various technologies adapted from Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [138][139][140] Many sports teams and athletes try to gain an advantage by using technologies which help to enhance or fine tune athletic performance or improve the sporting equipment used in competition. The rules state that athletes and teams are expected to conform to the spirit of the sport allowing natural athletic ability to dominate over technology. However, the degree to which this principle can be legally breached is vague, and occasionally the authorities may first allow, then ban a particular technology. One such case was with the LZracer swimsuit used in the 2008 Olympics which allowed swimmers to achieve marginally faster times and was subsequently declared illegal for future use. The public, whilst generally supportive of technology in sport are still concerned that sports engineering could create unfairness between athletes and countries.[143]'' --Andromedean (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
S&P we all know that rule is central to this whole controversy, and is precisely why you want it removed. If you think it unimportant, why not just allow it? I'm sure you wouldn't go to all this trouble for the sake of categorising a paragraph. That one statement transforms the whole argument from one of 'bad losers' to 'Ah, they have a good point' especially if there had been a 10 year argument in which the UCI threaten to ban them for blatant refusal to obey rules, then they just manoeuvre around the same rules again, a part I have agreed to take out. We don't need to go over all this again. I know you (both) know what is wrong with it.--Andromedean (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Break
--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Input from ShowmebeefSorry I was away for the weekend and it looks like a lot of exchanges have happened in between. I am trying to digest them, but I might have missed some. Here's some of my input:
OK, so here is the original version with your suggested tweaks without the home advantage angle and a slight edit for brevity: --Amadscientist (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Prose being replaced The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[1] They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[2] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[3] Isabelle Gautheron, director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested Britain's gold streak may have been aided by subterfuge, and cutting edge technology to produce the quickest bike. Also France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded that his British rival divulge the U.K.'s secrets.[4] The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment. They have new bikes, new skinsuits and different wheels.[5] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[6] British Cycling is secretive about its cycling technology. These are built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [7][8][9] The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase, however, it amended its interpretation to allow a nine-month period after first competition use of a product to bring a product to market, and there is no limit on delivery time.[10] The UCI code also states that "Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine".[11] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code.[6] The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers prohibiting technologies if they are "performance-enhancing" or "being against the spirit of the sport". In 2006 WADA initiated a consultation on ‘Technology doping’ which is now officially recognised as a threat, whilst the decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.[12]: p. 15 A report released immediately before the Olympics quotes a extensive public survey that shows that people fear that sports engineering could: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.[13]
Support. Some context is OK to have. Perhaps gold medal winners are too central to mention home advantage angle but section still seems balanced and nuetral this way.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-- 88.88.167.157 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid I cannot accept that. I have pointed out where there are flaws in including "context" and unnecessary "background", this is a 2012 Olympics article not a general technology or cycling or GB cycling article . There is also too much paraphrasing from some sources. I am not going to re-state my position over and over it has been done enough. I think we are unstoppingly off to mediation
Last-ditch effortShowmebeef and Andromedean:
You cannot reasonably argue that you have made greater concessions than he has if you accept this version. I truly believe this version
It's not the French who specifically mentioned it, it was in the American Bicycling publication however we have already agreed to quote that, and this also provides broader coverage. It also mentions the IOC, so it is far more directly appropriate. :But both the IOC, and the UCI, also have a philosophy that the athlete should not only be paramount, but that technology should influence sports as little as possible. The UCI’s noble ideal behind its rules is to keep the sport accessible to all, limiting the role of money and technology in creating a performance advantage. The irony in Team GB’s black, logo-less bicycles is that while they conform to the letter of the UCI rules, they make a mockery of the spirit. The UCI’s rules have successfully hemmed in traditional manufacturers to a degree, but it’s far less clear that it’s done anything to limit well-funded groups that have no commercial interest. I also think that is the wrong reference, it is this one: dated 1/7/12 [[ http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34033&LangId=1%7C:Section 2: bicycles Preamble]] Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine--Andromedean (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
--Amadscientist (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Chris Boardman said that the UCI had declared the British bicycles and equipment legal and fit for use. However, Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that while they conform to the letter of the UCI rules (which state that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing ref) they make a mockery of the spirit. --Andromedean (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
BreakI really don't want to appear to sabotage an effort at reaching a consensus here. However I do want to emphasize that there is probably a few time zone's difference between me and the rest of the editors. That plus the fact that I (probably others) have a daily obligation to fulfill to support a livelihood and family life. There have been so much going on between last Fri and now (for a total of 72+hrs of which 2/3 fell on a weekend) that just keeping track on the exchanges is a task for me (which I haven't been adequately maintained even now). I therefore appeal to other editors' patience as I try to provide my feedback here and would like to deflect the urgency (to some degree) as implied by the title of this section. With that said, I would like to propose that we put each subject in contention in each separate section so we don't let the discussion become protracted and bogged down with back and forth discussions that often include so many other subjects as to make it unyielding just to follow. I have seen it worked well in other talk sections. Once we have reached a consensus on the subject, we can put it back into the main piece. Note to volunteer: I hope by now you would have realized how contentious the discussions around this sensitive subject has been--if the current and past (archive of the talk section) level of discussion is of any indication, hence the necessary guidance of the DRN. I hope you can allow us the latitude to fully express our opinions, the desire to reach a quick consensus notwithstanding. Thanks! All editors: please put each subject you would like to discuss down here in each separate section. Thanks! I will start one here and will add more as I find more time.
Appeal for a level of civility in the discussionAs I've repeated several times in the discussion here, we should focus on the content. We should maintain a level of civility while discussing the viability and relevancy of the subject matter under debate. However, there have been several occasions already that the principle of good faith is not practiced by some editor and disparaging words or phrases have been used repeatedly. e.g.
I also want to point out that a certain 3-letter word has been employed more than its fair share here in the discussion. Remember this--we are all here to make a point, as long as it's valid and relevant. Showmebeef (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on "Home Advantage"(I took the liberty of moving the existing discussion by various editors on the subject here. If I missed some, please do it yourself. Thanks) I don't agree with the addition of "home advantage" as a reason for the performance improvement, especially in such short and timed competition (it may in judged events or long distance events). The quote of Pendleton and Trott is especially irrelevant as it not only gives undue weight for the augment in such a short section, but there is absolutely no data (please provide source if there is one) to support the claim. Showmebeef (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
In any case this is an irrelevant discussion as what matters is whether the British cyclists mentioned this as an alternative explanation; the sources say that they did. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The issues are:
2) is there evidence to suggest that technology could potentially make one team faster than another irrespective of any other differences? yes, it is well documented that at the speeds of modern racing cycles, small differences in aerodynamics can have large effects on times. Remember we censored the information in a previous edit? Even the technical director admitted as much 3) does this mean any team breached the spirit of the cycling code? Clearly yes, due to point 2) and the code which states Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine so do issues of home advantage have any relevance? non at all do we have to attribute the relative benefits of home advantage, athletic ability, and technology no -Andromedean (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how the currently proposed version is in any way unbalanced or biased, and I urge all parties to accept it in principle, even if you wish to discuss some of the wording, or whether to quote or paraphrase. (A lot of the recent discussion is about wording.) If anyone has any further inclusions they wish to add, I ask that we defer discussing them until after we have reached an agreement that none of what is in the currently proposed version has to be completely excluded. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC) References, claims, due weight and compromiseBelow is the current volunteer proposal, seperated into disussions. Try to be brief if possible and expalin if you support or oppose and if the is a way it can be rescued for spport. I will try to show how the references are supported and their strength and RS and we should decide if the weight in the section is proper.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
1
The first reference is The Wall Street Journal and is a reliable source and supports the claim. This is a compromise, as the full claim was about an earlier event, this source indicates that these bikes were not used by the team earlier as an option. "The bikes used by the British team, which has won five of seven gold medals in track cycling here, were newly introduced for these Games after the team opted to keep them under wraps at the world championships in Melbourne, Australia, this April." I think this should remain as it is. The second reference, Super Sport - Cycling news appears to have editorial oversite and is also RS supports that margins were greater than expected."I think they felt that it was going to be touch and go, the margins were going to be very tight, the medals would be spread right across the different nations."--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
2
3
4
--Andromedean (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC) There does though need to be a realisation of Weight of sources and only portraying one side is undue weight in earlier drafts the statement was as follows which is more that what you have placed up there to further your dramatically warped POV the GB cycling can only win by "technology cheating", there is also nothing in that which as you bizarrely claim "Concord's full statement makes a mockery of the home advantage theory" I am not sure who Concord is as I am referring to Bernard Cocquard. The fuller previous statement is as follows "French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment as well as stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect." The source is also critical of the way other nations produce their bikes by stating the following "Kévin Sireau, a silver medallist in the team sprint, added: "They always have innovative stuff. We often struggle to get our kit in time [for racing]. Our bike is good but we didn't have it early enough and had to get used to it quickly." There is also defending of the British position not to release equipment earlier and stating that Cocquard would have done exactly the same "Since Beijing, we haven't seen those wheels. But I can see why. If we had a seven-league boot we wouldn't bring it out at the world championships". As for your drugs claim the Sources states clearly the flowing that François Pervis "was certain the British were not using drugs". Andromedean you are again cherry picking to push your own POV please stop and provide sensible balance and not your own insistence that there is something awry about GB cycling at the 2012 Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 5
6
Before you complain about the inclusion of home advantage consider that the argument you have presented about it not being proven works equally well against the claim of cheating. In both cases the reason for inclusion is that one side claims it as an explanation, based on interviews in reliable sources. Also, it seems that this is the last bit that is controversial in anything more than wording so if you can agree to this we're practically done. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
QuestionAre we agreed that "home advantage" is the final issue that is not a wording issue? (I include the decision on whether to quote or paraphrase as a wording issue.) In other words, is this the last issue that anyone is arguing for the exclusion of? 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
|