Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:20, 22 June 2012

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union

See closing comments Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

BP

• BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I am noticing bias on the BP article. There is only one other editor active on the page and we do not see things the same way. He sees my edits as POV pushing and continues to undo them. I see his editing as POV pushing and obviously pro-BP. He is having a hard time refraining from sharing his displeasure with me, which makes discussion a dead-end venture.

Here is the discussion: ] Here is the edit in question: ]

I took the problem to and received only one reply, which was in complete agreement with my stance. But this did nothing to help the situation.

There is an edit war going on as he has reverted my edit 3 times, and I have done the same (not in a 24 hour period though).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rangoon11 (talk · contribs)
• Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BP}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion and POV noticeboard

• How do you think we can help?

Please give suggestions for where to go from here. We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing, and perhaps to ban them from editing the page, to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Misplaced Pages article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.

petrarchan47c 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BP discussion

Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me and . petrarchan47c 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective.Coaster92 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We aren't administrators here, but we are volunteer mediators. The goal here is to reach agreement. Right now I am waiting until both parties have posted their arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Following Petrarchan47's comment above in which they state that 'to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Misplaced Pages article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.', and in view of their repeated attempts to impose changes to the lead of this article, despite having been reverted for very good reasons and a discussion being ongoing on the article talk page, I am unwilling to enter into any further discussion with them.

I have made over 130 edits to the BP article. Anyone is free to compare the state of the article when I started working on it and the position today. My edits speak for themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't have the time to follow links to various discussions, I thought I would give a summary. Reading the intro to the BP article, the third paragraph stopped me in my tracks. It was one sentence mentioning that BP has had some environmental and political problems. That is well known, and flushed out in the body of the article. But in the same paragraph was a diatribe about BP's green energy investments. To me the structure of this paragraph seems to be a statement that is not favorable to BP followed by a rebuttal. I cannot see any other reason for these two ideas to be bunched together. To remedy what I saw as POV, I separated the 2 ideas, and added the most recent petrol investments I could find at the end to give a more rounded picture. From the body of the article: "BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget, but they have since closed their alternative energy headquarters in London. As such they invest more than other oil companies..." to give some idea of just how out of balance is the 3rd paragraph of the intro.

This edit has been undone 4 times now, and I have been told to "go get a blog" based on this edit. As you can see from the discussion, I was labeled a POV pusher based on my editing after this and my earlier edits, which consisted of updating the "Solar" section. BP ended its Solar programme at the beginning of the year and posted their reasoning on their website, saying it was no longer profitable. I updated the article with this information, making statements past-tense. The article still had a section about Solar in the present tense, with a picture of Solar panels. Rangoon11 immediately deleted BP's stated reason for ending it's Solar programme but did not explain why he did so. I added it back. I also removed the image of solar panels as it gave a false impression. This edit was not disputed.

Based on these edits, Rangoon had this to say: " Your edits to this article to date are very concerning as they all appear to be motivated by a desire to push a certain POV rather than to actually develop the article. Breaking out the sentence 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' into a one line paragraph is about as classic an example of POV pushing as I can imagine, designed purely to emphasise a negative aspect of the company.

...I also find it interesting that you think that that sentence and the remainder of the paragraph are so unrelated that they should not even be in the same paragraph, but then wish yourself to make a highly POV linkage between the amount that BP invests in renewables and in oil and gas through the use of the words 'By comparison'. I fully expect that you will fail to see the hypocrisy of this but I personally find it offensive.''"

In my opinion, to not break out the sentence (and yes, it should be flushed out a bit, i imagine it used to be a fuller argument but has been whittled down over time) is to hide the sentence, and to mute the facts. To follow it with BP's 4% investments in Green Energy is pure POV and more specifically "greenwashing".

Rangoon11 rebuttal above is alarming as well. The number of edits one has made to an article does not in any way give that editor ownership or privilege. But this editor does appear to have an attitude of ownership over this article. He is also working somewhat closely with a BP employee who is giving editing advice - I add this for your information but I am not claiming that this is a problem. I don't see it as such yet, but it is interesting how friendly Rangoon11 is with the BP employee compared with his attitude towards me.

"My edits speak for themselves" "I have made over 130 edits to the page" This gives me pause based on certain edits. One of the most noteworthy facts about the BP oil spill is that is was the largest in US history, and the largest accidental marine oil spill ever. This is a well known and easily verified fact. Yet Rangoon11 saw fit to erase this statement from the BP oil spill section of the article. I brought this up on the talk page asking why. His response was to insinuate he was unaware of any sources verifying this, and asked me for proof. My understanding of Misplaced Pages is that the editor, before removal of statements, should do their own research to find verification. I cannot believe Rangoon11 is being honest about his motives being NPOV, and that he saw fit to remove this bit from the oil spill section because, if I am reading his statement correctly, he hadn't been able to find supporting refs. I gave him 3 refs and he did not respond.

Another edit in question was the removal of a large section detailing the aftermath of the oil spill as it relates to BP's stock, etc. This was a big part of the history of the spill. I have been told that before removing sections from a Misplaced Pages article, editors are to bring the section to the talk page to discuss. His reasoning for the removal included it being "out of date" - but he told me "this article is about BP throughout its history and not merely the present day" when we were discussing me edits to the now defunct solar programme.

I hope someone can tell me how Misplaced Pages deals with companies that might be trying to edit Misplaced Pages articles to better their image. I have a hard time believing it's left up to individual editors who notice POV to deal with it on their own - as you can see it is not easy or effective. The snarky attacks are not fun either.petrarchan47c 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the above violates the request to 'keep it brief'. Let me know if it's better to move this to my talk page, with a link. Thanks. petrarchan47c 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, can I ask why you have actually come to this noticeboard at all when you are in parallel simply attempting to force your proposed change to the lead of this article (which is long standing and has been stable for a long period of time, and was the result of discussion)?

Rangoon, I have already stated my reasons for bringing this dispute to this noticeboard. The length of time that the paragraph has been in place is irrelevant. The paragraph either is or is not POV. Outside help is needed as you and I see things quite differently. petrarchan47c 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is highly relevant. The existing lead is long standing and therefore has the weight of accumulated consensus. It was also the work of multiple editors in discussion. You are attempting to make a non standard and bizarre change, which would create a one line, in fact considerably less than a line on my screen, paragraph, right in the middle of the lead, which is designed purely to give heightened emphasis to negative aspects of the company's history. You have admitted as much yourself, when you say that you feel that the text is currently hidden.

Whilst discussion is underway on this proposed change which has been reverted by an established editor for very good reasons please refrain from your efforts to impose the change through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never come across this type of grief or 'longstanding' (ie, "carved in stone") argument when making changes to the lead of any other article on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages articles are always a work in progress. I am not alone in seeing the paragraph and your attitude as problematic. You think your reasons for reverting my edits are good ones. I do not. Changes to articles are not based on whether the editors are or editors like me. That's what I love about Misplaced Pages. It is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people" and edits are to be based on their NPOV - not on who did the edits or on how long the edits have gone unchallenged. I can see why no one would want to challenge edits on this article based on my experience thus far.petrarchan47c 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have to date have around 140 article edits on WP, I have substantially over 100 times more. I have worked on the leads of I would guess hundreds of company articles and you appear to date to have worked on only that of BP. I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks. However I do ask that you stand back and ask yourself, "why is Rangoon so anti this particular edit, and yet has not reverted 90% of my edits to the BP article?". My genuine, sincere goal is to make the BP article as good as possible and to make WP as good as possible. A half a line paragraph right in the middle of the lead would draw huge attention to that text, in much the same way as if the text were in bold or italics. Why make that sentence into a single paragraph rather than any of the other sentences? Why not adhere to the usual WP approach of having no more than four paragraphs in the lead? I can't see a good reason for it.

And I don't in any way believe that the current lead is perfect. For example it should in my view have more detail about BP's history. It currently has essentially none. However this particular change would not in my firm view be a step in the right direction.

I would like to add that I do recognise that you have an expertise on Deepwater which I personally lack, and is no doubt rare, and in that regard your recent edits to that section of the article are most welcome. The section was much in need of work. aRangoon11 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine the lead is important to you as it is the most-read part of any article by far. As for the single sentence, I stated above that I believe it was probably a larger section that was scrubbed down. And I believe it should be flushed out a bit as it's quite awkward right now, even as it stands with your reversion of my edit. Perhaps you would agree that it needs to be expanded before the change is made. I have no problem with that. I have seen many a lede on Misplaced Pages where a single sentence stood alone in the intro. Over time these things get worked out. The 4 paragraph intro is not a rule, but a recommendation. From In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. The stand-alone sentence does violate this suggestion but that's easily remedied. The sentence should be expanded to reflect it's importance within the body of the article. The Green Energy part should be whittled down for the same reason. Take a look at the sections within the article to see what I mean.

I am glad you are willing to join the discussion. But, I cannot believe that your sincere goal is to improve the BP article if you would remove important information about the oil spill without doing an ounce of research. You can highlight the sentence and do a Google search in 1 second. Though I have 1/100th of your experience, I would never think to remove a statement from a Misplaced Pages article unless I had a good reason and had done some research first to back up my moves. You never answered me as to why you removed the oil spill information. I assume based on your statements it was to improve the article and Misplaced Pages? Obvious POV is obvious - one needs zero editing experience to recognize it.petrarchan47c 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that specific edit, I can see how it might have put that thought into your head. Please note however that the text 'and caused the biggest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry' was removed from the "Safety record", where I felt it had no relevance, and was purely duplicative of the very long section on Deepwater in the Environmental record section earlier in the article, which deals with the size of the spill. My edit summary of 'dealt with at length higher up' was perhaps unclear on the point, and I should have explained it on the Talk page when you queried it. However I was annoyed by what I felt to be your confrontational attitude in terms of repeatedly making your desired change to the lead despite having been reverted for good reason, and so instead was terse.

I do stand by that specific edit though, that wording is not needed in the safety record section.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way it reads now, the Deepwater Explosion caused (only) the deaths of 11 people. That's it, no other consequences you can think of? It also caused the oil spill, which is hinted at with the redirect to the oil spill article. But that is whitewashing if you ask me, and not fair to those who come to seek information. The Deepwater explosion caused a pretty big oil spill and that fact should be added. As it stands now, this is a single sentence section. How can you defend that after all the grief over a single sentence in the lead? Further, I have seen a few examples in your edits of late that scrub data about the financial after effects of the oil spill. This is history and very relevant to this article. It was daily news for about 6 solid months. There is no reason to delete the info altogether. Unless we aren't here to build encyclopedic knowledge but rather to - for whatever reason - mold this Misplaced Pages article into something favorable for BP's image.

The spill is dealt with at length in the (excessively long) Deepwater section in the Environmental record section just a little higher up in the article. Repeating that information again in the Safety record section would be pure duplication. Some of the financial impact of the spill on BP should probably go in the History section. We need to be careful to avoid duplication and overlap however, and be aware that the amount of content on Deepwater in the article is already excessive and undue.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section:

• The section is 1 of 26 sections in the BP article
• The section consists of 3 small paragraphs, the 3rd and largest one discusses BP's Solar programme which is no longer in operation
• Renewable energy is
• 5 sentences in the body of the article are dedicated to current renewable energy projects

Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: " also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power."

3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." < ie, 4% >

The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here.

The intro is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines for . This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss.petrarchan47c 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead is there to provide an overview of the topic. That does not mean that the length of sentences in the lead or number of sentences should try to exactly mirror that of the article.

For me the lead most requires improvement through the addition of a brief summary of the company's history. We need to avoid the lead becoming too long however, it is already about right in terms of length.

The first and second paragraphs of the lead provide a good overview of the company's operations and the company's place within its industry. The third paragraph is where I would propose adding in some more historical info. As part of this I would be prepared to lose all of 'In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period'. Key points which in my view should really be in the lead are: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Iran connection, nationalisation and privatisation, and the acquisition of Amoco and ARCO.

This needs a bit of thought and work however.

The BP lead is by the standards of company articles in WP already pretty good though, and certainly better than peers such as Total S.A., or Chevron Corporation.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To begin addressing some of the above issues, I made the following edits:

• Added citation needed tag on the "major" renewables claim in the first paragraph of the intro. I don't expect a 4% investment can be described as major, but I could be missing something. When using a descriptive term like "most people", Misplaced Pages guidelines say that a supporting ref must accompany the statement.
• Flushed out the "Deepwater Explosion" section, which recently was scrubbed by Rangoon11 of all but one sentence: "Killed 11 people". I took a few sentences directly from the intro to the main Deepwater Horizon explosion article so that it now reads: The explosion killed 11 workers and injured 16 others; another 99 people survived without serious physical injury. It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl. I assume this information has passed the test of POV and reliability since it comes from an established article.

Luckily there are to help us get the intro balanced out.petrarchan47c 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11 removed the word "major" from the renewables claim, along with the citation tag. Seems like a good move to me.

Rangoon11 also removed the last sentence from my addition to "Deepwater Horizon explosion" section, giving the reason that it was duplicated elsewhere in the article.

This is the sentence that was removed: "this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl". This claim is NOT made anywhere else in this article. That is a lame excuse and was not even applied uniformly - that the explosion caused the oil spill is also a duplicate. To me this edit is POV pushing/cleansing/whitewashing with no valid argument to support it.petrarchan47c 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Intro, from Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style/Lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article....In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body."petrarchan47c 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is getting exceptionally tedious that, whilst this discussion is ongoing, you are going to the article and making edits which you know are disputed. What is even worse is that, once reverted, you are simply making the edits again. And again.

Secondly, the Safety record section is about SAFETY. We have an Environmental record section in the article, which has a *very* long (excessively, unduly, long) section on Deepwater. That is the place for discussion about the spill and its environmental impact. It is questionable whether Deepwater should be repeated in the Safety section at all, but if it is, this should be very brief and concern only the explosion and the related fatalities.

You have unhelpfully completely ignored most of the points which I just made above about the lead. Perhaps you could now reply to them.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I ignored your suggestions, when actually you and I were writing at the same time, and when I hit "enter", I received and "edit conflict" notice as you had just entered your bit. I was not responding to you because I had not seen your contribution - look at the time stamps. You and I are both editing during this dispute, shall we both put all edits on hold and discuss them here first? That sounds good to me.

Secondly, I have not seen any mention of the single sentence and it's need to be expanded with references. What do you suggest for fixing the problem of undue weight?:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence" without any refs (violating Wiki rules). This sentence is roughly 1/13th of the intro yet the subject matter is roughly 1/3rd of the article.petrarchan47c 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your suggestion for the lead, it is not becoming too large given the size of the article. As for the body, I can cut some of the 'fluff' from the oil spill section. As for addition of history and acquisitions to the intro, as long as it follows the guidelines for "undue weight", I am fine with whatever you choose to do. As you know, my issue with the intro is bias. I agree the statements about green energy could be removed from the intro, but not deleted. They should be moved into the body of the article. In general, for an encyclopedia, the more information offered, the better. I have concerns with the deletion of material for no good reason. petrarchan47c 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to not make any edits to the article whilst this discussion is ongoing. I may do so if edits are made by others which I feel need to be either reverted or corrected, but otherwise will not go to the article to make any changes myself.

Although the lead is at the moment not too long, and could get a bit longer, if the history content which I have suggested above were added to the current lead then I feel that it would become too long. However if those two sentences which I have identified above were simultaneously removed (and yes am happy for them to be moved elsewhere in the article), I think the length would probably be OK. I think that the removal of those sentences and addition of the history content would go a long way towards addressing any possible concerns about the lead having an excessive amount of content on renewable activities, and would provide a much better summary of the article and overview of the topic.

On the point of a citation for the sentence "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence", in my view this is more than adequately supported by the citations within the body of the article.

On the point of weight, a lead does not need to contain a direct proportion of content relative to the size of sections. This is generally impossible and impractical given the small size of the article lead and to attempt to do so would merely create a low quality overview. The lead is there to both provide an overview of the topic (since many people will only read the lead) and a summary of the article. We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length. In terms of significance to the topic, which is a company, that company's own operations and the most significant details of its corporate history are of much greater relevance than important but secondary issues such as environmental record, safety record, sponsorships and the like.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Environmental Record IS BP History, perhaps keep that in mind. The sentence mentioning BP's environmental and political controversies violates Do not hint at startling facts without describing them....the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. ....(and for our perusal:) In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources....The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

"We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length." That's certainly debatable, but not surprising these are your views. petrarchan47c 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47c 02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47c 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate with interest and do not really have strong views on the subject. That said I think the third paragraph of the lead is very well crafted:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."

It makes the point that BP has been found wanting but then shows balance by going on to say what BP is doing about it. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Balance is the goal, but we aren't here to defend a company - only to present facts without bias. It's a matter of scale. First of all, know that the statements about green energy above are going to be moved to the body of the article, as agreed to in this discussion further up. The statement about BP having been found wanting is in violation of WP:Lead for the reasons I outlined above. The paragraph and general tone of the intro was heavily biased. The second reason for this dispute resolution was to show that the editor who initially defended this paragraph as being perfect and beyond reproach is pushing POV on the page and should be banned from the topic, imo. To show the bias, I offer the following:

"BP had 518 safety violations over the last two decades, compared with 240 for Chevron and even fewer for its other competitors. Since those statistics were compiled, in 2009, OSHA has announced 745 more violations at two BP refineries, one near Toledo, Ohio, and the other in Texas City, Texas, where 15 people were killed and 170 injured in a 2005 explosion. In the last decade, OSHA records show that BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company." Per OSHA ]

"Analysis found that their green campaign overemphasizes their investments in alternative forms of energy, when those investments are just a blip on their history of huge investments in and profits from fossil fuel energy. In the first quarter of 2010, they made $73 billion in revenue, $72.3 billion of that came from the exploration, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas. Only $700 million came from solar and wind energy.]

Another assumption that, albeit well structured, paragraph forces upon us is that these investments in green energy (which peaked at 4% of BP's budget - and that was before BP Solar was shut down) do help and were meant to help 'fix' BP's troubles or the environment. BP pulled out of Solar Energy because it was not profitable ~ showing BP is involved in green energy for the same reasons it's involved with petrol; the positive environmental effect is irrelevant to BP if profits aren't there. Further, it has not been established that their green energy efforts have improved anything, so it wouldn't be right to give the impression that they have.

A tiny list to give an idea of the negative impacts BP is having, to help with scale - these are new stories from just the past month or so:

petrarchan47c 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

petrarchan47c 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dormskirk, it looks like you changed the third paragraph. I was responding as if you had quoted the version I'm used to, the one that includes "BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." That is how it reads now.petrarchan47c 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time a few days ago and since I was familiar with BP from my work on the Gulf spill article, I was extremely surprised, to put it mildly, to read the following in the lede:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.

I put a note on the talk page to say that I planned to edit the lede and was directed to this discussion. If the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of the article for the reader, this information regarding BP's environmental record is laughable - I don't know how else to say it. I really can not imagine that anyone could read the environmental sections and references and still say that one vague line in the lede is adequate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst Dormskirk and I edit on a very wide range of company articles, and on all aspects of their activities, it is fair to say that the other two editors in this thread are primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities. And primarily with increasing the emphasis on environmental impact in the article. There is zero interest being shown in the operations, corporate affairs and general history sections. That's fine, but this is an article on a company not on an environmental topic. The core of the article is about the company's own operations, corporate affairs and corporate history. Many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all. Personally I don't take that approach, but do recognise that this is secondary information, just as information about sponsorships would be.

Dormskirk and I have also made by far the greatest contributions to the BP article in terms of number of edits. Yes that should count for something in a discussion like this.

There are also plenty of criticisms of the article being made, but few constructive suggestions. I made what I felt to be a pretty reasonable suggestion above as to how to move the lead forward. It would be good if either we could get a consensus for that suggestion, or hear some other suggestions. Otherwise we are just going round in circles. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have run across many editors that believe that "many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all" because you have done so much work on company articles which, not surprisingly, would prefer to skip criticism sections. I would assume that most editors do believe that a corporation's environmental record is an important part of its article, not something to be left out or treated as of less importance. Regarding your suggestion that the editors with the most edits should be given special standing, in all of my years of editing I've never seen that suggestion on any talk page. I would have thought that it is obvious that Misplaced Pages does not work that way. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you either (a) support the proposal made above for moving the lead forward; or (b) have any other constructive suggestions?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:

In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident. In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.

In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a company with a 100 year plus history and with global activities. A paragraph in the lead on Deepwater would be grotesquely undue in the context of the overall history of the company and its whole scope of activities. It would be both highly recentist and highly slanted towards the U.S. It would also place a subjectively large emphasis on the environment. For example, more people died in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster and the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion. Neither of those belong in the lead in my opinion, but I am puzzled why you think Deepwater deserving of an entire paragraph and show no interest at all in those events. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of America is far longer, and in BP's short history it has managed to create the largest oil spill ever for the US, and what most sources call America's largest environmental disaster ever, while others say it was second only to the Dust Bowl (a fact which you think had no place in the article) as well as ranking number one largest accidental marine oil spill in the entire world. These facts are undisputed. Your reasoning above in not in accordance with WP:Lead "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" I am frankly sick and tired of trying to reason with someone who clearly does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by Misplaced Pages. No editors should have to deal with this if they are simply trying to update an article or fix obvious bias in the article - whether it happens to be that of a large company or otherwise. You were fine with mentioning environmental impact in the lede when it made BP look good. Now when confronted with facts, you declare that companies should not have to even mention environment. There are many updates to be made as the aftermath of the oil spill and the various court cases hit the media, as they doing now. I do not want to have to deal with this nonsense in order to update the article. The POV on your part is clear, and given your behaviour including bullying and lying as well as your self-appointed position as owner of this article, this will likely need to be taken to the Admin board sooner rather than later.petrarchan47c 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer Rangoon's question about changes for the lede:

I don't think the DWH spill should require it's own paragraph. It should be mentioned in the lede as the single sentence mentioning BP's 'troubles' gets flushed out in accordance with WP:Lead. BP's troubles should merit a single paragraph and should not be followed immediately by a rebuttal.

Rangoon suggested removal of BP's green/climate claims from the lede and we agreed on that.

Rangoon suggested to replace the green claims with more about BP's history particularly it's acquisitions. He also said the single sentence about BP's troubles is fine the way it is. I disagree with both points. I would need to be shown why more about BP's history and acquisitions merit space in the lede. These arguments only seem valid from the POV of BP or someone hired by them to make sure BP looked good on the internet. But maybe I'm missing something?petrarchan47c 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amusing that despite your taking such great offence at being called a POV-pusher, and insisting that I desist from this, you have since made a plethora of personal attacks in this thread, including saying that I am working for BP and that I am a liar. I have made an effort to engage you in a constructive discussion, despite my views on your very narrow agenda regarding this article and complete lack of interest in the great majority of its content, but it is proving fruitless and very time wasting. Now you are threatening to take me to the Admin board, but simultaneously accusing me of bullying.

There are a number of highly significant aspects of BP's history which are not currently in the lead and which should e.g. mention of its foundation, nationalisation, privatisation, the acquisitions of Amoco, ARCO and Burmah Castrol, and the TNK joint venture. I propose adding in this information, and removing the sentences about BP being the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and its investments in renewables. This is a more than reasonable proposal, and yet since it was made all that has followed is unconstructive comments, absurd suggestions such as putting an entire paragraph on Deepwater in the lead, and multiple personal attacks.

I will now make a further proposal, that, in addition to my proposed changes described above, a mention of Deepwater be made in the following way:

'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is from the intro to the Resolution Dispute: "We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing". I am not bullying or threatening you by saying this should go to the administrators, I am simply repeating a claim I made originally. As for saying you worked for BP, I am questioning it. My claim in the intro to this DR was "it looks to me like he is working on behalf of BP" but I have not said that you do.

As for the narrow focus with regards to this article, I have also stated that right now I am focusing, to the exclusion of all else, on the bias in the Intro and on remedying that. There is absolutely no clause anywhere in Misplaced Pages supporting your grief about my narrow focus. I would prefer if you were to use arguments that could be supported by Misplaced Pages guidelines, it makes things simpler and much faster.

Here is where you indeed told an untruth. When I pointed out that it was not located anywhere else in the article, you switched your reasoning for the edit with "not relevant to section - which is about SAFETY" and proceeded to let me know you weren't pleased I was still editing whilst in discussion. If your edits are valid you would not have to dance around looking for a valid sounding excuse for them. If you had no bias, you would not have a problem with leaving that statement in the Deepwater explosion section, as the section is very short, the information is important and well-sourced. The Deepwater explosion happens to be in the SAFETY section, but that is not justification for your removal of the sentence. Secondly, your argument makes no sense as you left other remarks in that would also need to be removed if your reasoning was valid. It does feel like you are wasting editors time by not being honest.

Keeping in mind "due weight" I stand by my recommendations for the third paragraph re environmental and safety incidents and disagree it should remain one single sentence. You don't like single sentences, anyway.petrarchan47c 06:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that since your proposal to add BP history no one has commented. I said that as long as it abides by guidelines for weight, add anything you like. I also asked you to support the claim that BP's acquisitions and history deserved more space in the lede. Those facts might be important to you, but why are they important to Misplaced Pages? The reason this is all so hard is that your additions all seem geared toward minimizing BP's negative side and bolstering it's positive and neutral aspects in the article. I would like to work with editors who want to update the page with plain ole facts regardless of how it makes BP look. In fact, I did want to keep the mention of BP's recognition of climate change. Since they are the first oil company to do so, it is notable in my opinion.petrarchan47c 06:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy to keep the reference to BP being the first major oil company to recognise climate change if there is space in the updated third paragraph.

It would be good to hear the views of the other participants in this thread so that we can implement the proposed changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This should help. Perhaps take a quick glance at BP, note the sections, their content, and weight (space) in the article.

From WP: Writing better articles] If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

Based on this and other Misplaced Pages guidelines, let's make a very rough draft for an unbiased Lede, starting with 'the third paragraph'. petrarchan47c 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, what are your problems with the essay? It seems reasonable to me and I think that a draft proposal would be a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Essays are not policy or guideline and it is really rather tedious to have chunks of them copied and pasted in here, replete with bold text. The same thing has happened on the BP talk page. Just another example of what a tedious, timewasting exercise this discussion has been.

The question is, do we have a consensus on what should be included in the revised third paragraph. I am particularly keen to hear the views of Dormskirk, who has great experience in company articles and previously said that they thought the lead perfectly fine as is.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, company articles have no different guidelines at Misplaced Pages than do other types of articles. It's easiest to refer to the Wiki guidelines when going forward, which is why I continue to quote them here. Otherwise we're arguing "I'm right, you're wrong and my friend agrees!" which could take forever.petrarchan47c 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I am sorry to hear that you consider this discussion tedious and a waste of time. Though you have no interest, I'd still like to try to work for a reasonable lede. Petrarchan, could you go ahead and present a rough draft as you have suggested? Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Before we go any further, where are the official guidelines/policies for Leads? We need get on the same page. Also, is there a different policy for writing an article about companies? (Seems I've been referring to essays rather than official policies.) petrarchan47c 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, here is an idea of the facts I am considering when trying to create a balanced Lede. (Or, just scroll up to my June 13 entry/response.)petrarchan47c 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please reread Dormskirk's comment, you have misquoted them. They referred solely to the third paragraph and changed it slightly before saying it looked fine.petrarchan47c 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47c 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead.

As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning.

As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power.

Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I only have experience with one other corporation, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. Note that the lede contains an entire paragraph regarding controversy, and the largest paragraph at that. I believe that it must be repeated: BP was found almost totally responsible for the largest accidental marine oil spill in history and one of the worst environmental disasters in the U.S. To suggest that it doesn't even need its own sentence is preposterous. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The company has more than 100 years history and there is a number of things being the first, largest etc, which even not mentioned in the lead, not talking about their own paragraph. Deepwater Horizon has its own section and right now it is mentioned in the lead. By my understanding this is present in the balanced way. Beagel (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am content that the latest drafting shows some good balance:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."

I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think when seeking balance, context is required. "BP has been involved in a number of accidents" --> "In the last decade, BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company"]; BP's "culture of recklessness" was found to be the reason for this, and this understanding should be mentioned in some form. I agree with Gandy that the DWH disaster does deserve it's own sentence(s) with context - "it was the biggest...". What I find truly helpful is to imagine we are writing for a printed Encyclopedia. I grew up with those. They were pure facts and I never saw evidence of bias in them. This is how I judge my contributions to Misplaced Pages and to this discussion. More, not less, information - especially if it provides context - is encyclopedic.

The "company wide target to reduce greenhouse gasses" - if that is mentioned, it should be more than a 'plan' - what were the results? Remember, BP also promised to put up a $20 billion escrow after the DWH disaster, but now is trying to settle for $15B. I would disagree that a plan (target) is worth mentioning in the Lede, unless it was implemented and reliable sources show that the results were a big deal. Otherwise it might be better placed within the body of the article, rather the Lede.

I still see the placement of these 2 ideas within the same paragraph as biased, as that is bordering on greenwashing. I don't see how they relate except in terms of a rebuttal, which violates NPOV.

Again, would someone point me to the Misplaced Pages guidelines for Lede? Also if there are different guidelines for articles about companies we need those as well. We all seem to have have slightly differing ideas regarding these guildelines and it would help to begin by getting on the same page. Thanks. petrarchan47c 04:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to mention of BP investments in alternative energy, it was agreed to earlier in the discussion to scrap those sentences. If we did mention it, I would rather it be in the form of a percentage (context), as 1 Billion sounds like a lot, but actually even before BP quit Solar, their investments were never more than 4% of annual budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed sentence about renewable energy investments. So, having mentioning Deepwater Horizon and removing renewable energy investments, it seems a decent compromise between different POVs. As for Deepwater Horizon – for the context we have a long section, not taking about the series of Deepwater Horizon articles. Beagel (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Beagel is sidestepping the real issue here when he suggests that a decent compromise has been reached with one sentence regarding environmental issues (now with a mention of the spill) and the following sentence praising BP's good work for the environment. BP's extremely long list of negative environmental practices and events, as listed in the lengthy sections of the article, need a separate paragraph in the lede rather than be combined with mention of their efforts to combat greenhouse gases, which has very little copy in the article. One could make an argument if BP had a long history of environmentally friendly activities with many references to back it up, but that is not the case at all and to give equal copy in the lede, in the same paragraph, and immediately following their poor environmental record, is very misleading. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion and, although I defer to the experienced editors here on the issue of balance in the article's introduction, I thought I might be able to help with some of the figures that are getting confused. Before I get into that, Petrarchan, here is the link to the Misplaced Pages article guidelines for companies, and a couple about writing introductions:

• Misplaced Pages:Companies, corporations and economic information
• Misplaced Pages:Lead section
• Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles#Lead section

Regarding the figures quoted by Petrarchan for Deepwater Horizon: BP has spent almost $23 billion on the response and claims, including $8.5 billion on claims, advances and other payments so far, not counting the $7.8 billion additional claims that have been estimated as part of a legal settlement. The escrow amount that BP committed to put aside was $20 billion. The $15 billion figure that has been in the news is just speculation — as you can tell from the wording of news articles that mention things like "an unnamed source familiar with discussions" — and is not related to BP's announcement of the $20 billion set aside right after the spill.

In response specifically to what Petrarchan was saying, that it shouldn't just be a plan for reducing greenhouse gas that's mentioned in the lead, I think the following release provides the information he's seeking here:

• BP Beats Greenhouse Gas Target By Eight Years And Aims To Stabilise Net Future Emissions, 11 March 2002

I hope that this information is helpful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Arturo, your help is greatly appreciated. As for the greenhouse emissions, the article from BP may not be enough to warrant inclusion in the Lede, I believe we would need a reliable secondary source. As for the $20B Escrow, Feinberg was planning to spend $6B and return the remaining $14B to BP, so it gets confusing.

Thank you also for the 3 links. The Company article guidelines show that there is no different set of guidelines when writing an article about a company. The essay about Ledes is good, but Rangoon has suggested essays aren't really relevant as they aren't official guidelines, so it is of no use to us here. The article about Ledes is what I have been referring to. Here is the section which shows our one single sentence mentioning environmental issues and the spill is not sufficient: the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The 'explaining' part is why I suggested adding context to the accidents.

Beagle, I do agree we will have to compromise at some point. But the article is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 dedicated (rightly so) to environmental and political issues. The intro is supposed to let folks know what they'll be reading in the article. This is why to dedicate a paragraph to these issues in the Lede seems appropriate.petrarchan47c 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To newer editors to this discussion, note this is focused on the Intro, but I also brought up the fact that content was being removed from the article, and that the POV problem does not end with the Intro. Please see my first comment in this discussion... petrarchan47c 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, the guidelines for the introduction refer to a standard for an ideal form of article. The BP article as it stands is not in perfect shape and much information is missing about its operations, leading to an imbalance of information about environment and politics. Would it not be better to generally improve the article first, then return to the introduction later once the other issues in the article have been addressed?

Meanwhile, here are some secondary sources for the reduction in greenhouse emissions:

• Energy Policy Journal, 2006
• Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2005 (footnote 10)
• The Climate Group, 2005 (page 4-5)

There were also some news articles, but these tended to report meeting the target as "the company announced" or "Lord Browne announced". Hopefully the above sources work well enough. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually peer reviewed sources are favored, so if a reliable source published an article about BP's reduction in greenhouse gasses, that would help. Then we would need to prove it belonged in the Lede. This discussion is focusing on getting the obvious bias out of the Lede. Other improvements can be done in time, but it's best to keep focused for now as this is dragging on longer than anyone wanted.petrarchan47c 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial. Thank you to Petrachan47 for bringing the issue to DR. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family

4 days without any comments by any involved editor. Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

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

Dispute overview

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

I am editing a highly controversial article which is subject of intense debate. The debate has intensified over the last months following the involvement of a group of 2 or 3 editors who seem to be editing the article in a WP:GAME fashion. One editor in particular, IRWolfie, refuses to allow a WP:BALANCE to develop in the article by allowing edits to remain that are contrary to the edits he is making. The insertion of the material would bring a more WP:NPOV to the topic but by refusing to allow this material to be inserted it leaves it somewhat one sided.

The material I want to insert is based on a book, published by Oxford University Press, written by an theologian of repute and subject matter expert named Hvidt. Furthermore, Hvidt was a primary witness this material which makes him an invaluable source.

Here is a summary of what occurred:

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

Now that IRWolfie has put full focus on WP:WEIGHT, I remain certain that even if I was to prove WP:WEIGHT regarding Hvidt, IRWolfie and certain other editors would likely resort to consensus to block any text based on Hvidts work as there are at least 2 other editors in the article that share his questionable views. Their prejudice against Hvidts work was also noted by Fifelfoo, who commented that "the treatment of Hvidts work was appalling". I have not included the other editors in this dispute as their activity seems to have subsided ever since the Hvidts source was approved in the RSN about 10 days ago, and it is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text, hence this DR is addressed to him alone.

Furthermore, IRWolfie has inserted material based on a source which he himself criticized (see comment 14:20,3 June 2012) which begs the question if IRWolfie is capable of WP:NPOV on this article or does he have a WP:COI? Either way, this, combined with his continued denial of Hvidt as an RS seems to indicative of tendentious editing.

With IRWolfie being a more experienced wikipedian than myself I would have hoped that WP:DONTBITE would have applied to my being WP:BOLD in editing my first wiki article. The edits I have made to this article had taken it from a rather undeveloped page a couple of years ago to a more comprehensive version which was live until a couple of months ago following which numerous edits performed in a rather WP:GAME fashion resulted in the article being trimmed to this version. During the cdf tlig debate I revealed that I had comparatively in depth knowledge of the Rydens dealings with the Vatican and mentioned that it was necessary to have such knowledge of the subject matter to edit the Church Stance section of the article. When I did so, it was automatically assumed that I was a WP:COI. My points regarding wikipedia guidelines were ignored and instead the WP:SPA card was also played on me (see comment 12:51, 24 May 2012). As a result I went ahead and explained why my wiki contributions have been primarily focused on this article and where my knowledge came from.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

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

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Vassula Ryden}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Absolutely. The talk page speaks for itself. The discussion has lasted at least 3 weeks and also involved an RSN post. The steps that were taken to attempt to resolve the dispute can be read in points 1 to 5 in the Dispute Overview section.

• How do you think we can help?

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

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

Vassula Ryden discussion

This whole DRN is phrased as an attack focussing on me and not on the issues. Note that there were a number of other individuals involved in the discussion who appear to have not been informed. Note also that two other SPAs have been pushing this issue, one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Note also I never claimed the source was unreliable at RSN, nor did I refer to it being an unreliable source post RSN for the claim that the meeting occured (that I can see anyway). I suggest other uninvolved editors look at the diffs and links posted above by Arkatakor rather than taking them at face value as there are a number of misrepresentations of my actions. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, I have not included the other editors in this dispute as they have not been involved in editing the article nor have they actively posted in the article's talk page since Hvidt was approved as an RS 10 days ago. It is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text which cited an approved RS and who commented accordingly. As the CDF text is the primary focus of this DR post, this DR was addressed to him alone. However, if the commentators feel its necessary to alert the other users, I will go ahead and do so, though it seems that they have opted out of this article. I will not refer to IRWolfie's other points, rather I will leave that to the commentators. Arkatakor (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You specifically mentioned that there were other editors in your above statement. There are other reasons why besides reliability that text is rejected. Per WP:BEANS it's good to not mention every issue all at once, just because a source is reliable source for a sentence doesn't mean we should add that sentence. It is not the job of RSN to form a consensus about inserting material, and noone did so. Note that you also misunderstand what noticeboards are for, they pool interested editors together into a single board, they are there to offer a second opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: "one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden" - My text and reference differs substantially from that of Sasanack. This has already been explained to you in the RSN - see my comment dated 14:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Arkatakor (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dominus;

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

1. The commentators of the RSN were given the link to the Catholic Stance section so they could check the sources for themselves
2. The commentators of the RSN stated that they were aware that Hvidt was a follower of Ryden. One of them even said "I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.". All these comments have been linked in this DR report.

RE: "not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents" and "His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available.". Which other reliable sources? EWTN? The only official Vatican document used to back up the Church section is the 1995 notification. Everything else that discusses the Vatican's views is backed by EWTN, a confirmed primary source, strictly prohibited in BLP's.

It is rather interesting that IRWolfie and Dominus continue to deny that Hvidt is an RS in this discussion. In doing so they have further showed how they refuse to get the point. Yet they seem content with leaving text in the article that uses primary sources like EWTN. Being greater in number does not make you right, nor does it mean that the users that you listed are necessarily adhering to wikipedia guidelines. Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am a regular editor at RSN, and I commented on the original RSN question brought there. I received a note on my talk page, and after looking at the comments here, I have a couple of things to say.

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

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

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN and I closed the previous discussion about this issue. Let me start by saying that we are not going to discuss COI, SPA, puppetry, failure to get the point, tendentious editing, or other conduct issues here and I will close this discussion if any such discussion continues. Talk about edits, not editors. Next, I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source. I do think, however, that the WP:WEIGHT issue is plausible and, indeed, I raised that issue indirectly in the prior discussion. My comment and the listing editor's response are as follows:

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

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

Because my comment was rhetorical at the time, I did not choose to comment on Sasanack's reply, but I must say now that I find it to be unconvincing and would like to hear from Arkatakor what it is that he feels that it adds to the article and why he feels that the section is NPOV without it in light of the 2007 statement. The use of the term "doctrinal judgment" by the 2007 statement could not seem to be any clearer and while its prohibition on participation in Ryden's prayer groups can be seen as a contradiction of Ratzinger's earlier statement about following the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops it is in fact not logically a contradiction of Ratzinger's statement, especially in light of the fact that Ratzinger's response was being sent to (per the desired addition diff'ed above) "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings". In light of that clarification by Hvidt, if the addition is correct in making that clarification, then Ratzinger's 2004 letter would appear to be to be wholly inconsequential and it's inclusion would be to invite a false interpretation of its meaning by incautious readers. In short, it would appear to me that it's inclusion would invite a misreading of the Vatican's position and rather than preventing the section from failing NPOV would instead invite a false NPOV reading. Finally, in accordance with this section of the consensus policy the burden to obtain a consensus for the inclusion of challenged material is on those seeking its introduction. Unless there is a policy which mandates its inclusion, which would not seem to be the case here, challenged material must be supported by a positive consensus and if the foregoing analysis is correct, then there is either a consensus against its inclusion or, at best a no-consensus situation, which gives the same result. (Finally , I would be remiss if I did not note that it would appear that every independent editor who has looked at the question of whether EWTN is a reliable source has opined that it is not and I tend to agree with that evaluation. In light of that, then it is not a reliable source for the Vatican documents being cited from it. The argument that "EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available" is false; a source is a source.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While EWTN is indeed unreliable for material it itself generates, it is quite reliable for the official Vatican documents it hosts. In any case, the document hosted on EWTN is available on more reliable sites, such as the University of Daytons's site: ], so changing the citation is a trivial matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I've inserted a sentence into the article based on the Oxford Univ Hvidt source, but was careful to present it in Hvidt's voice rather than the encyclopedia's voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. See the article's Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not up to editors to "assign weight" to a reliable source. The Hvidt source is discussing the relationship betwen AR and the Church, and anything he says on the matter is appropriate to include in the article. If the source is biased, the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy says that his bias must be mentioned. If the material is the author's interpretation of an document, the article can state that. But there is no policy-based reason to exclude material from an Oxford-published source that is directly relevant to the article. Your objections are unreasonable: first this went to RSN, and 3 of 3 uninvolved editors said it was okay; now would you like to take it to WP:NPOVN? Uninvolved editors there will reach the same result. Better would be to simply find some wording that satisfies all editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course we assign weight to reliable sources. That's part of our job. As for the rest of you post, it does not convince me to change my stand. The three editors on RSN most certainly did NOT say that it was OK to include this material. That is a complete misreading of their findings. As far as I'm concerned, better would be to omit the material altogether. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander: Whether Hvidt is biased or not, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply except to "Biased statements of opinion" and says that one way to avoid the issue is to "specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." Based on the diff at issue, this does not appear to me to be a statement of opinion, but a mere recitation of facts which should have been subject to fact-checking by this reliable publisher. Moreover, if the author is biased in favor of Ryden, it seems odd to me that he would specify that the recipients of Ratzinger's letter were "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings" and that Ratzinger clearly says that in the matter of the prayer groups people should follow the instructions of their bishops. Ratzinger's statements that Ryden's clarifications were "useful" is semantically neutral: they could have been useful in identifying her writings as appropriate or in identifying them as inappropriate, the letter does not say one way or the other. It is possible to read the letter as saying virtually nothing or as being negative in approving the negativity of the bishops to which it is being written, but it is not possible to read it as saying anything which contradicts the other statements of the Vatican. Whether neutral or negative, it adds nothing to the section but can be seen as violating WP:OR by inviting a misinterpretation at worst and making the section a prohibited WP:INDISCRIMINATE selection of facts at best. If the Vatican has contradicted itself, a reliable source needs to be found which says so. Inviting unwarranted conclusions is, in part, what WP:WEIGHT would seem to be intended to prevent. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan I was disappointed by your comments here after having expressed my thanks for your previous, constructive comments. You say, regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter (which is being kept from Misplaced Pages readers), "It is possible to read the letter as saying virtually nothing or as being negative in approving the negativity of the bishops to which it is being written, but it is not possible to read it as saying anything which contradicts the other statements of the Vatican." I'm sorry, but the Cardinal's letter is quite short and clear and states, "a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God", in which Mrs. Ryden supplies useful clarifications....". That is a very clear statement giving specific information which includes informing the bishops where the dialogue has been published. To continue to argue that the Cardinal's letter and the dialogue to which it refers is not relevant to the Roman Catholic stance seems bizarre to me.--Sasanack (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I have notified some other users about this ongoing dispute and have updated this discussion accordingly. @TransporterMan; I will get back to you in a later post regarding your points. Arkatakor (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You only notified the two other SPAs (one of whom has a disclosed conflict of interest related to this) and did not notify any individuals who disagreed with you that were mentioned above. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I received a note on my talk page regarding this DRN, as I read it, is it a fair summary to say the issues are as follows: 1) Hividt is a WP:RS? 2) Regarding insertion of text regarding the Ryden/Ratzinger (CDF) dialogue and subsequent 2004 Letter, is it significant in itself / WEIGHT? 3) Is Hividts opinion on dialogue and letter relevant/WEIGHT and if so is CONS required to put it in? Webwidget (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie: The status or not of another editor as a SPA is a conduct issue not appropriate for this forum. Feel free to issue whatever warnings and make whatever complaints you may feel to be appropriate at other, appropriate, places but do not discuss or mention them further here. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, but this is not the place to raise those allegations. Discuss only edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

@Webwidget: 3 arguments have been used against Hvidt in this discussion. First it was RS (before Despayre stepped in), then it jumped to WEIGHT, then back to RS (as soon as Despayre stepped out), then back again to WEIGHT and now finally its WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (Transporterman came up with this), the last which is based on the assumption that Ratzingers statement is either neutral, negative or otherwise does not contradict the 2007 letter in any way hence it has been argued that its inclusion could be misleading and Transporterman wants to know how it would contribute to the article. It is Transporterman who has come up with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV based on his interpretation of the CDF dialogue. Transporterman is the only person participating in this dispute who has been consistent and has not hopped from one argument to another, though I disagree with the conclusion he has come up with. I will go through the correspondence with Ratzinger and Ryden in more detail before I come up with an appropriate response and explain why having this text is helpful to the article. Arkatakor (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Transporterman: I have done some reading on the CDF dialogue topic, hence its taken me a while to get back to your points. RE: "Moreover, if the author is biased in favor of Ryden, it seems odd to me that he would specify that the recipients of Ratzinger's letter were "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings" and that Ratzinger clearly says that in the matter of the prayer groups people should follow the instructions of their bishops.". You made a very accurate observation. It was indeed correct to state that it seemed odd that Hvidt would specify the recipients of Ratzingers letter being negative if he was supportive of Ryden. He actually never stated that. For some reason I overlooked this when I cross referenced the book versus the actual text I was inserting into the article.

Below is an excerpt from paragraph 1 on page 119 of Hvidts book, the source of the CDF dialogue claim that I wish to insert into the diaolgue. Take note that the wording: '"to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén"' which appears in my proposed CDF text actually does not appear in the Hvidts paragraph below. I have taken a look at older versions of the article and it has been there for years yet I am unable to find a reference that specifies the aforementioned information. Here is what Hvidt wrote:

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

Note that the aforementioned text is exactly identical to the text I pasted in the RSN. I am stating this lest certain users in this discussion accuse me of some sort of manipulation. In my view the aforementioned does not seem as neutral or negative, rather positive, albeit cautiously positive. Being cautiously positive, it actually does contradict Levada's 2007 statement which states "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden.". Ratzinger says, "consult your bishop first", Levada says "Do not pariticipate". Thus according to Noleander, this contradiction warrants the inclusion of my proposed text under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV . At that point the following text: "to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén" would have to be removed and replaced replaced by Hvidts text. This would enable it to fall under WP:NPOV which states that all viewpoints from prominent sources must be included. If you agree with this, we still need to negotiate the text as there may be a couple of more reasons that I will eventually come up with to warrant its inclusion based on further research. Arkatakor (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan Inclusion of the CDF Dialogue text demonstrates that whist the 1995 Notification was issued without any prior consultation with Ryden, that the CDF then subsequently did engage in dialogue with Ryden (2000-2004) demonstrates the scope & process of that dialogue. (Since at the time of the issue of the 1995 Notification there was no consultation with Ryden nor any Catholic/Orthodox Clergy or Theologians of repute who supported Ryden.) Background to this In 1995 Ryden was given no hearing/right of reply. The CDF's issuing of such a Notification regarding an Orthodox Christian breaches the Balamand Declaration *29 (according to Fr. O'Carroll, see below)

“After the appearance of the Notification, I went as president of the Association based on Vassula’s writings, True Life in God, to plead her case in Rome.”

“On 5 December (1995) I saw Patriarch Bartholomew in London. He was aware of what had been done to a member of his Church in violation of the .”

Quoting Fr. Michael O’Carroll: “it seems to reject the spirit if not the letter, No. 29, of the Balamand Declaration.”

29. Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. When cooperation becomes necessary for the good of the faithful, it is then required that those responsible to an agreement among themselves, establish for this mutual assistance clear principles which are known to all, and act subsequently with frankness, clarity, and with respect for the sacramental discipline of the other Church. In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts. Webwidget (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyclogyro

"Page protected for two weeks. See closing comments by Guy Macon. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)"

India

• India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I am requesting that the infobox on the India page have an 'Establishment/Formation' section rather than merely an 'Independence' section. I am including the entire discussion that has happened thus far: Establishment/Formation

The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section. The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves. India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the modern country of India and as such didnt exist before 1947. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having information about the history before independence to put everything in context. But the present "India" in this article didnt exist before 1947 which was larger and different hence the information to put it all in context. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 114.143.116.232 (talk · contribs)
• MilborneOne (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=India}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

The discussion is ongoing but I believe more people need to get involved.

• How do you think we can help?

You could use the same template for the India page as is used for other country pages such as Germany or China or any other.

114.143.116.232 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

India discussion

First this forum is not for "ongoing" discussions and is not a place where you can "get more eyes". Second, are those years used as the formation of the People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Germany? Those dates on those articles need to be changed to match the political formation of those polities, and not India to change the other way around.Curb Chain (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Of course the InfoBox should include the formation date, if there is one prior to the official indepence events in 1947 and 1950. Multiple other articles set a good precedent: Germany, China, Italy, etc. India should be treated the same. Of course, any pre-1947 "establishment" or "formation" date must be supported by mainstream reliable sources; in other words, it is not sufficient that a WP editor believes that India was unified/established in such-and-such a year: reliable sources must state the year. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I posted this on the India talk page and am re-posting it here --- I am not arguing that the dates for other countries are wrong. Of course there can be different points of view on what constituted the beginning of a nation but those dates are more in keeping with the spirit of what I am saying. Which is that these current entities are merely the latest form of nations that have been around in one form or another for a long time. For India it might be worth considering the time of Ashoka as some sort of establishment date. One need only look at the map of Ashoka's India to understand this. Albeit that too will surely be contested with some saying it should be earlier. If for example it is decided to use 265 BCE (the Maurya Empire at its peak under Ashoka) as the date when the India that we recognize today truly came into being, then that would be the first date in the infobox and the significant subsequent periods could be mentioned under it, such as the Kushan Empire which followed the Maurya Empire, or the various Islamic ocupations, or the Maratha Empire, or the Sikh Empire, or the Company occupation, or the British occupation, etc. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details.

It appears to me that perhaps the problem here is trying to shoehorn a complex situation into a limited space infobox. Is it possible to resolve this by adding a few lines to the infobox - two or three different dates with different labels? How about no dates in the infobox and covering it all in the text of the article? I think we all agree that all the well-sourced dates relating to when this or that aspect came too being should be in the article. The question is how to best format the information. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Reliable sources all state that India became independent in 1947. Failing sources that assert it was established or formed on that date, I don't see this as a useful discussion. --regentspark (comment) 02:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep repeating the 1947 date. That the British occupation ended on that date is simple fact beyond dispute. That is not what I am arguing about. I thought I was fairly clear on what I was trying to convey, which is that 1947 does not mark the beginning of the entity known as India. As for the specific point of this article referring to the 'political entity', that is precisely why I have drawn everyone's attention to other country pages, which even though are also about current 'political entities' use ancient dates for establishment/formation. I would like to put forward the date of 265 BCE as my contribution for a possible 'first date' in the infobox. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Same issue. Sources? --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We could use the same source(s) that establishes the extent of Ashoka's empire in the year 265 BCE. I don't think there is any doubt that Ashoka's Empire covered all of India at that time is there? 114.143.119.26 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that won't work for two reasons. First, we need a source that unequivocally states that "India was established in 265 BC". A mere belief that Ashoka's empire covered all of India, or the belief that it identified itself as a nation state is insufficient. Second, and I'm looking at the extent of the empire as drawn in our Ashoka page, that empire is not the same as the modern India. It appears to include all of Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan but excludes southern India. The important takeaway is that India, as it is today, became a nation only in 1947. Any prior date of "establishment" is probably incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 18:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this is still being discussed at Talk:India#Establishment.2FFormation. Could we stick to a single venue, please. --regentspark (comment) 23:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' was a lot smaller than modern Russia. The Holy Roman Empire was a lot larger than modern Germany. Yet anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding of history will recognize that those two entities were precursors to modern day Russia and Germany respectively. The area that is today Pakistan (and Bangladesh) has always been a part of India. Even the Mughal occupation at its peak did not cover the southern tip of India. The notion that Ashoka's India does not qualify as India because it included present-day Pakistan is ludicrous. I have already covered the greater/lesser argument. The logic of what I am saying should be abundantly clear to any unbiased listener. It is fairly evident that what we have here is merely good old-fashioned India hatred. I believe I have sufficiently made my point. I will not press this matter any further. This issue can now be considered closed. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler This is a non-issue, mischief created and garbage dumped by an IP, who clearly doesn't have the courage to get a Misplaced Pages account and be responsible for his actions. As a long-standing contributor to the India page (since 2006), I can say without hesitation, that the Republic of India, the subject of the India page, was established in 1950 after India gained independence in 1947. There are all sorts of archaic and irredentist notions of "India." Hindu nationalists in particular, with their notions of Akhand Bharat ("Undivided India"), not only claim a provenance for their entity that even predates the beginning of recorded history in India, but also typically include many of India's current day neighbors in it. This nonsense should be brought to a speedy close. Like I said, it is mischief making. Productive editors shouldn't be made to waste their time on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 Group D

not a disputeCurb Chain (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomislav Nikolić

• Tomislav Nikolić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

There is a disagreement between which section title should be used for Nikolic's controversial statements in which he denied that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide. The content of that section is also disputed, but to a lesser degree. Please see this section for more information.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• PRODUCER (talk · contribs)
• Wikiwind (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Tomislav Nikolić}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

An unsuccessful request for 3rd opinion was attempted. 3O user refused to engage in discussion per his own "standards". It was recommended that the matter be taken to DR or RFC.

• How do you think we can help?

Provide assistance on discussion and neutral opinions.

◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomislav Nikolić discussion

Comment. My reasons for the current section title can be found on article talk page. PRODUCER has requested a third opinion and when he was not happy with it, he asked again and again. His requests for fourth and fifth opinion are justifiably denied. It should be noted that there is an ongoing similar discussion and RFC at Talk:Srebrenica massacre, also initiated after PRODUCER tried to change section title from Opposition to the description "genocide" to Genocide denial. PRODUCER should probably wait for the outcome of that RFC instead of trying to push his version across several articles.

--В и к и T 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting, and not to mention misleading, how you've chosen to portray the events Wikiwind. The 3O Wikipedian refused to engage in a dialogue per his own rules. He recommended that a 3O request be relisted, but later changed his mind and recommended a DR or RFC be undertaken. I followed his advice. For the record the majority of users support my proposed section title at the Srebrenica massacre talkpage. How discussing the matter at length on the talkpage and seeking user input constitutes "pushing", and how two articles constitutes "several" is beyond me. I'm flabbergasted that you've forcibly pushed in your preferred section title into the Tomislav Nikolić article and at the same time claimed that I'm the one pushing. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Loveland, Ohio

• Loveland, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

User:Nikkimaria and I are engaged in a dispute about some changes I recently made to this article. Nikkimaria (who has had no previous association with this article), objected to my changes and reverted them, on the grounds that I needed prior permission to make such changes. Over the last few days we have engaged in an unproductive discussion (thread here), which ended with me proposing that I should reinstate my changes and we would wait a few days to see if any of the established editors objected, and that in that eventuality I would self-revert and engage in discussion with them. However, this proposal has not proved acceptable to Nikkimaria, who has simply reverted my changes again. This type of change has already been examined at ANI (in connection with a different article) and found to be consistent with community consensus - here is the statement made by the closing admin:

Of the examples I have seen, these edits seem fine and I don't think it would be reasonable for someone to assume that these changes would first require community consensus. Indeed, they appear to already have community consensus: guidelines for citing newspapers do not include citing the publisher. All of the examples I have seen have been of the kind to remove "Associated Newspapers Ltd" as the publisher of the Daily Mail, "The Washington Post Company" as the publisher of the The Washington Post, "MTV Networks" as the publisher of MTV News, etc. These are clearly superflous and should be non-controversial. I suggest this thread be closed. (User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid)

What's more, I've made similar changes to a number of fairly high-profile articles (e.g. Jared Leto, List of awards and nominations received by Madonna) recently without any adverse comment whatever. My practice is that if the active editors on any article I've changed in this way feel strongly that they prefer the status quo, I'll try to persuade them to my point of view, but ultimately I'll back down if I can't overcome their objections. However, it's not acceptable for an uninvolved editor to prevent my changes being put to the test without his prior approval.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Colonies Chris (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Loveland, Ohio}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussions as noted above.

• How do you think we can help?

Insist that Nikkimaria leave my changes in place for a few days so that we can find out whether any of the established editors have an objection. I think it's important to establish the principle that changes made in accordance with accepted practice (see WP:CITE#Journal_articles) don't require prior permission from anyone - particularly not an editor who has had no previous involvement with this article. It would become impossible to make any large-scale improvements if prior permission had to be sought article by article.

Colonies Chris (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Loveland, Ohio discussion

My advice would be to take the issue to the Talk page of the article first; personally, I think WP:Cite on established style grounds applies here (the guidance you link to gives examples of what a typical citation should include, but does not claim to be exhaustive or proscriptive); it would be well worth raising the question on the talk page in the first instance before escalating to dispute resolution. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR is about whether you should use Harvard style citations or Chicago style, for example. It's not relevant to this - I'm not changing citation styles, just removing superfluous clutter from the citations within the existing style. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're removing an in-use parameter from the established citation format, so you are changing the style. What's more, you're doing it indiscriminately across multiple articles, despite multiple objections. That you "got away with it" in some places does not indicate that your edits are supported by either consensus or policy. (Also, as I've already mentioned to you twice before, the statement you cite above is not from the "closing admin" - the closing admin at the ANI discussion pointed to WT:CITE, where the ensuing discussion did not find consensus for your point of view). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I'm afraid that you are wrong when you conclude, "My practice is that if the active editors on any article I've changed in this way feel strongly that they prefer the status quo, I'll try to persuade them to my point of view, but ultimately I'll back down if I can't overcome their objections. However, it's not acceptable for an uninvolved editor to prevent my changes being put to the test without his prior approval." To the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable. Every editor has as much right to edit any article at Misplaced Pages as any other editor. To say that the regular or active editors at an article have some superior right over other editors violates the ownership policy. Any editor has the right to object to or revert any edit made in any article and unless such objection or reversion in some way violates policy or guidelines then the edit in question cannot be made until the editor wishing to make the edit establishes consensus for the edit. If a consensus against the edit is formed, or if no consensus one way or the other can be reached, the policy set out at WP:CONS#No consensus says that the edit cannot be made. If Nikkimaria objects to a particular edit being made at a particular article, she has the right to do so unless policy either mandates the edit to be made or in some way prohibits her objection, and she has as much right to make such an objection as the editors who customarily edit that article. If you believe that the regular editors of the article would support your position, you should raise the issue on the article talk page as suggested by Hchc2009 and see if they agree. If they do not, you can file a request for comments to bring the attention of the broader community to the edit you would like to make. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The requirement for consensus is not meant to allow a single user to block a change that's in line with policy just because they don't like it. Nikkimaria is claiming that there's a local consensus in favour of the status quo. Perhaps that's true, but I suspect that probably people don't much care either way. Making the change, and letting it stand for a few days, will determine whether there is any substantial objection or just one person's preference. And since Nikkimaria will doubtless object on the talk page, that would be giving a single intransigent person a right of veto over any changes. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is exactly what the requirement for consensus does: It says, in effect, get consensus for your edit or it doesn't go in. That's what Misplaced Pages is entirely based upon: consensus. Consensus can be presumed, weakly, from silence if no one objects to or reverts, but if someone does object or revert and there is no policy pro or con, then positive consensus must be obtained and that does, indeed, give a single editor the right of veto unless the person desiring the edit takes the necessary steps to invite others to the dance: talk page discussion and, if that fails, an RFP. I realize that when it's a change that might be advisable over a large range of articles that doing so at each article is a great burden, but the alternative to that is to use the methods set out in the policy policy to pass a policy or guideline requiring that the thing always be done that way. If you obtain such a policy or guideline, then when you go to individual articles the burden shifts to those who do not want it to be that way to either change the policy or create an local exception just for that article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan is right. If the edit is as good as you claim, you should have no trouble getting other editors to agree with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details

• German battleship Tirpitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I've found wrong source' usage in the article concerning of the details of K-21 attack. The initial article text deal with unexpected locution "K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes" and with the authors conclusion "both of which missed" regardless of the sole primary source (K-21 war log Template:Ref-ru, search for 18.01.30 time) deals with 4-torpedoes salvo. It's a perfect example of unreliable secondary source usage.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs)
• Zh.Mike (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately in spite of degree in History, Parsecboy is unable to identify the sources' correctness and does not follow the neutral point of view rules - any correction in accordance with the primary source he perceives as Soviet propaganda, and the admin rights allow him to impose his point of view despite the facts. As a result now after his indulgent additions the text of article consists of the unrelated pieces from the three different sources, so it's impossible to receive a clear picture the incident.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

(Moved from Misplaced Pages:ANI after advices to solve the problem in Misplaced Pages:DR) I have tried to resolve the dispute pointing out the discrepancy of the details in the text and the original report of the K-21 commander. Parsecboy cited several sources including Polmar & Noot who cite correctly the K-21 commander's report in English. But Parsecboy categorically opposed to any change, even from his own(!) source, despite the fact that I'm talking about the report, not the attack results.

• How do you think we can help?

The article mentioned the K-21 episode and provides the details of the attack, so I think it would be right to cite it properly. All secondary sources can be based only on the K-21 commander Lunin report, because there is no evidence by the Germans (the Germans claim that they did not notice the attack). My suggestion is to correct the report of K-21 attack in accordance with that sole source (I've made bold my corrections):

Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired four torpedoes at the ship and reported about two explosions heard by the crew through the hull. Therefore the Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship, although the attack was never noticed by the Germans. (Polmar & Noot, p. 115–116)

So, I need help the community to make that changes due to Parsecboy's admin counteraction.

Zh.Mike (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details discussion

This is a joke. Zh.Mike has been trying for over a year to insert Soviet propaganda and his own original research into the article. Why he has not linked to the discussion where he attempts to read things into the German war logs (such as this gem: "At 15:06 the speed was 24 knots (as Lunin said), at 18:58 it was 24 knots too, but at 18.16 as Murmansk radio said the speed was 10 knots and there is a remark in the log that it is true! Why!? And there are no any other initial records about 10 knots speed by the Tirpitz' officers! This means that the Germans had cut several records off the log (or just hadn't entered).") and other such nonsense I do not know. Another editor (again, I do not know why he was not included here; Zh.Mike apparently saw fit to include him just a week ago) and I vainly attempted to explain the problems with what Zh.Mike has been pushing for over a year now.

Soviet war logs are notoriously unreliable; apart from that, they are primary sources, which are generally prohibited from use here. There is one secondary source that says two torpedoes were fired, and there are a couple that say four. Both numbers are included in the article (which is the case for several other things in the article, for instance, casualty figures). All are from reputable naval historians. That the Soviet crewmen claimed to have heard two explosions and claimed to have made two hits on the ship are effectively the same thing, and do not need to be repeated. Besides that, it's patently false. The proposed edit seeks to imply that the ship was hit, which is not something supported by any of the sources on the matter; all categorically reject the possibility of a torpedo hit on the ship.

I'll let the personal attacks slide. Along with the insinuation that I have somehow abused my admin tools in this dispute. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Zh.Mike's proposed editing violates reliable sourcing policy in relation to historical articles, and they ought to introspect on why they wish to conduct original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy's antipathy towards Zh.Mike may be a case of mistaken identity. Parsecboy has written Zh.Mike has been trying for over a year to insert ... The facts appear to be that Zh.Mike opened his account and made his first edit on 27 March 2012 - that is less than 3 months ago. Whoever it was who was trying to insert Soviet propaganda a year ago, it wasn't Zh.Mike. Parsecboy also seems to have missed the point that Zh.Mike's name is a red link so he is probably a newby. When I check Zh.Mike's edit count I see he has made only 35 edits on Misplaced Pages. If Parsecboy had recognised all of this he would have welcomed Zh.Mike to Misplaced Pages or at least have made some helpful comments on his Talk page. Instead, all he has done on Zh.Mike's Talk page is try to bite his leg off with THIS edit. Not the sort of approach experienced editors take towards newbies.

Definitely a case of Parsecboy mistaking Zh.Mike for someone else, I think. Dolphin (t) 12:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Mike initially edited as 195.26.84.250, back in April 2011. I don't know why I have to keep having this discussion with you. I do not want to interact with you anywhere. If I need to, I will get an IBAN, because you appear to be unable to follow my simple request to leave me the hell alone. Please leave. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize with Zh.Mike. By any measure he is a newby. It appears he has been on Misplaced Pages for 3 months as Zh.Mike and less than 15 months from an IP address. English is not his first language so he is at a double disadvantage when interacting with experienced editors. It appears he is promoting information that has no more status than original research on Misplaced Pages. Looking at Zh.Mike's Talk page I see no-one from the military history fraternity has written to him to welcome him, explain the nature of his transgressions or explain the concept of verifiability. No-one should be surprised that Zh.Mike has come here to notify a dispute. To Zh.Mike's great credit, what he is pursuing is resolution of the dispute. Zh.Mike would benefit from a mentor; preferably someone from the military history fraternity. The fuel on which Misplaced Pages runs is collaboration and co-operation, not exclusion of those who are new or inexperienced. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We exclude no-one. Dolphin (t) 13:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution