Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 24 September 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 11:46, 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.

Self-determination

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs)
• Gaba p (talk · contribs)
• Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview by Wee Curry Monster

Although currently being conducted at Self-determination, its a reprise of a disucssion that has been raised by the same two editors User:Gaba p and User:Langus-Txt at Falkland Islands,Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and other articles such as Luis Vernet. It refers to a historical event in the Falkland Islands in 1833.

In 1833, the British government sent a warship to expel the Argentine garrison that had been there for 3 months. Whilst the garrison was expelled as planned, the existing settlement remained under the British flag. There are two contemporary eye witness reports on this incident, the reports of captains of the British and Argentine warships present. Both confirm the summary above and are verified by other records.

In its modern sovereignty claim, Argentina claims the entire population was expelled and replaced by British settlers. Noting the above, several prominent historians point out this is untrue.

Langus-Txt and Gaba p would like to replace a neutral text that summarises the above with text that re-inforces the Argentine claim. They argue it doesn't matter whether a source is contradicted by the historical record, what matters is that it is recorded in a source they can quote - even when the source references a WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source that makes a different claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Raised at WP:NPOVN repeatedly and at WP:RSN

How do you think we can help?

I would hope for a neutral 3rd party comment on the correct approach to dealing with a sensitive matter reflecting the differing national agendas from a neutral perspective, rather than as demanded to reflect particular national agendas.

Opening comments by Gaba p

As I see it Wee is engaging in WP:OR to attempt to present some sources as documented facts and others as untrue or invalid or just lies. The disputed source is the book Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands by Lopez. The source states verbatim: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". From Wee's perspective, the historical documents present a version that contradicts the above statement (WP:OR). My point is that we present the sources that make contradicting claims (as we already do: Cawkell and Harpers) but also present this one since there is no valid reason not to, other than it conflicting with sources Wee seems to like best.

The two edits of mine I assume Wee has a problem with in that article, are:

1. A tag for an official Argentinian claim. Wee attempts to source this claim with the Lopez's book claiming Lopez "is a political appointee, stating the Argentine Government position". I argue that that book represents the official Argentinian version as much as the books by Cawkell & Harper represent the British position. This for example is a valid source for an official Argentinian position. Lopez's is an investigative historical book just as those by Cawkell & Harper are.
2. I introduced the sentence: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British., where the ref points to Lopez's book. Wee removed this whole statement arguing that the author does not analyze British sources (accusing me of citation fraud). I responded that such fact is in the name of the book: Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

Opening comments by Langus-TxT

"The existing settlement remained under the British flag" is an erroneous statement, as some of the settlers did leave as a consequence of British seizure.

Having said that, the problem here is being misrepresented by Wee Curry Monster. The real issue is that he insists on doing his own interpretation of historical records to "select" which secondary sources are wrong and which are right. This is called Original Research. The proper guidelines for selection of sources is WP:IRS, where you won't find anything remotely similar to "whether a source is contradicted by the historical record or not".

The question was recently raised at Misplaced Pages:NPOVN#What_is_a_NPOV.3F, but only achieved tangential comments that didn't address the question. Fours months ago, the same question was raised by the same editor at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV. The comments that time were quite explicit, but WCM insists that they favored his call for original research.

So the real question here is: is it ok for us to pay attention at the "contemporary eye witness reports" and get ourselves in the analysis proposed by WCM in his opening statement? My answer (backed by the comments in the second thread and insight gained from Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ) is NO.

Self-determination discussion

Hi, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We await all opening statements before we begin, however, while we wait, Langus-TxT please do either of two things: Either remove comments from uninvolved parties or add the members to the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A question to parties: what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict? What is the most prominent viewpoint among modern historians? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dmitrij, before we begin, I would like to clear up the issue with involved parties. We should not be using the comments of Misplaced Pages members unless they are notified and included.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In reply to the above query. The prominent viewpoint among neutral modern historians reflects the contemporary sources. There were 2 populations present at the time.

1. A garrison sent some 3 months before to set up a penal colony for the Republic of Buenos Aires. This had mutinied killing the commander after only 4 days.

2. An established settlement, formed by Luis Vernet.

The prominent viewpoint is that the garrison was requested to leave by the British warship and complied, the established settlement was encouraged to remain.

Like I say thats the neutral academic sources, the Argentine Government publications repeat the claim of an expulsion. Lopez referred to above is an Argentine official and if you refer to the source he references, Goebel, Goebel makes no such claim but confirms the above see . Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist I left a comment in the talk page of both editors asking them if they could stop by. Is that what you meant?

Regarding the neutral modern historians viewpoint the problem is defining neutral. I have no reason to believe Lopez is not neutral more than I have to believe Cawkell & Harper are not neutral. Lopez is not acting as an Argentinian official but as an author, thus his book is by no means a statement on the official position of Argentina on the matter.

I'd like Wee to expose his reasons to believe Lopez is not neutral if he is in fact making such a claim. In the case that Wee should make the claim that Lopez is not neutral, I'd like to remind him that Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet, a highly biased source, is used extensively in all Falklands related articles; the use of which he has defended time after time.

Let me also quote Wee on a previous discussion regarding the inclusion of contradicting sources (Laver vs P&P's pamphlet):

"...On the one hand you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece...." Wee Curry Monster 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time, Wee defended the inclusion of a rebuttal or contradicting source when the other one (Laver) was used to back an Argentinian claim. I don't see what could be different this time between these contradicting sources. Gaba p (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the comments, and I apologize to the editors if they felt it was inappropriate. I'm leaving the links to those to threads as the matter discussed is exactly the same.

Before continuing I urge everyone to review Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. I question the idea of "neutral" sources mentioned by Czarkoff, as every writer I've read takes a side on the dispute, even if subtly. In fact, that's part of the problem here: that some of the civilians stayed on the islands is a fact that is remarked by British-biased authors, who prefer to ignore or downplay those who did leave and the whole Argentine garrison who was indisputably and wholly expelled. --Langus (t) 10:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where Czarkoff said that. I believe he asked about modern sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe Langus refers to Czarkoff's mention of "what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict?". He's asking for neutral & modern sources and Langus questions (as I did before him) the disputable neutral quality of any source (be it modern or not) As I said, I have no more reasons to believe Lopez's investigation is not neutral as I have to believe Cawkell's investigation is not. Gaba p (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, however if you look at the italics he is simply asking what modern scholars have to say about the subject. Neutral as in, don't look for someone who is taking a stand or forming an opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that approach is problematic, because sources that Wee Curry Monster calls "neutral" are pro-British texts to me, even if subtly, and vice versa. The intersection of "Neutral according to WCM" and "Neutral according to Langus" is probably an empty set.

As such, the only way we can have "neutral" sources would be if you decide it for yourself which of them are really neutral, or if you choose to believe Wee Curry Monster over me, or Gaba p over WCM, etc. --Langus (t) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it might help the mediators to understand Langus's issues with any source I propose if they refer to this post of his . Its worth quoting:

You encourage someone to stay but if they choose to leave, then they were apparently expelled. Fundamentally I think the problem here is that rather than seeing the Argentine position described from a neutral perspective, Langus and Gaba want the article to give the Argentine POV and thats why there is a conflict. When you use a source to describe the Argentine POV from a neutral perspective they falsely claim it is WP:OR because it doesn't represent their POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What if I take over your house at gun point claiming that it's mine from now on but you're welcome to stay as a guest? If you leave then it's because you are choosing to do so, right? I mean, I encouraged you to stay. This analogy is intended to demonstrate how you attempt to ridicule and minimize an invasion.

I think the problem actually is your double standards, let me present your comments once again:

"...On the one hand you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece...." Wee Curry Monster 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Merely four months ago you defended the inclusion of a rebuttal or contradicting source (and a quite biased one, it is worth noting) when the other one (Laver) was used to back an Argentinian claim. Now the tables turn and so do you, something I'm sadly already used to. Gaba p (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You are of course forgetting that Vernet frequently expressed a preference for British protection of his settlement, Vernet had sought British permission for the venture, the multinational nature of the venture and the number of Britains involved. But this is your WP:OR and we express the opinions expressed in sources not WP:OR. My point Gaba is that the neutral sources are not contradictory and the one source you have suggested attributes a claim to the author that the author doesn't make. By all means include a rebuttal but one based on reliable sources that make verifiable claims. OK? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that my friend is that no source will ever be neutral to you if it backs an Argentinian claim, as you are demonstrating right now. You are deciding which sources are neutral based on your WP:OR and you are deciding Lopez is not neutral while giving us no source to account for that claim. It's quite hard to argue with that you know? Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Argentine claim is the entire population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers. It seems people wish to confuse the mediation process by claiming something different from what they were previously arguing so I encourage the mediators to look at the rather rambling and confusing talk page discussion.

Further if you look at my edits I do not favour either British or Argentine sources; I judge sources on their merits and you will never hear me reject a source solely because of its nationality. Neutral academic sources of all nations reflect the summary above. Further it isn't a British claim "we only expelled a garrison", in fact no part of the justification for British sovereignty refers to whether the population was expelled or not. That is completely unsourced WP:OR by Gaba and Langus in an attempt to lower the historical record to be a British claim in line with the modern Argentine sovereignty claim. Whereas as I've pointed out above, neutral academic historians of all nationalities suggest that the Argentine claim is false.

The only reason I would reject the use of a source, is on those occasions where the source makes a claim that fails verification. Again in the case of Lopez, the claim attributed to Goebel does not reflect Goebel's research; ie the author has committed citation fraud. Despite clearly indulging in WP:OR themselves, Langus and Gaba loudly accuse others of doing the same for checking the reliability or otherwise of a source.

Currently the article now reflects what Gaba and Langus now acknowledge - that Argentina claims the population was expelled but that historians only note the expulsion of the garrison. Langus and Gaba wish to add a statement that, according to Lopez's book, the population was expelled and this is confirmed by British sources. My issue with that claim is (A) it relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN since the argument is that since Lopez's book is supposedly based on British sources ergo the claim must be confirmed by British sources and (B) Lopez refers to Goebel who does not make the claim attributed to him. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Argentine claim is the entire population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers", source for this entire claim of yours please? I ask because I have not seen this in the official UN release used as a source in the article. Could you provide a source?

"Neutral academic sources of all nations reflect the summary above", source please?

"in the case of Lopez, the claim attributed to Goebel does not reflect Goebel's research; ie the author has committed citation fraud", source? Starting to see a pattern here Wee? (Hint: WP:OR)

"Currently the article now reflects what Gaba and Langus now acknowledge - that Argentina claims the population was expelled but that historians only note the expulsion of the garrison", misleading in every possible way. The conflicting sources state that settlers were expelled versus only a garrison was expelled. This is nowhere to be found in the article because you edited it out, remember? Even more, the Lopez book is used (because you put it there) as a source for the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination", an edit whose logic I still can't understand.

The issue here is very simple: Wee refuses to accept the inclusion of the sentence "On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British." (sourced by Lopez's book) because he dislikes or disapproves its implications. Sadly for him, that's not a valid reason to keep a source out nor is it his extensive WP:OR on the matter.

I recommend Wee to please go check WP:ASF because I believe it states clearly the path to follow in these cases, ie: present the sources and attribute them clearly. Gaba p (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly and I quote:

Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has been challenged before and supplied before . This habit of demanding cites repeatedly for the same thing is hampering any move forward in the discussion.

Again you're accusing me without justification of conducting, WP:OR no that is not WP:OR, it is verifying the claim made in the book. If Lopez refers to Akehurst, where he attributes a statement to Goebel and when checking that statement we find it contradictory, we shouldn't be using it. If I were to conduct my own research of WP:PRIMARY sources and conclude that Lopez were wrong that would be different, Lopez did the research I am merely checking his claim and finding that it doesn't match. The simple question arises here, why would you use a claim made in a source you know fails verification?

Neutral academic source

Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has challenged before and supplied before . I've lost count, what is it, 10 or 15 times now?

Just to be sure, you're claiming I've edited that out of the article. Current version

Rather plainly I have not.

Were you to apply WP:ASF, the claim made by Lopez is attributed to Goebel, as I have pointed out repeatedly, Goebel does not make the claim ascribed to him. To do so is citation fraud. See , again this cite has been supplied repeatedly. The only reason for objecting to that statement I have already pointed out above, your response is nothing but an accusation of bad faith and you haven't addressed the main reason why - the statement is falsely attributed to Goebel.

I've also repeatedly pointed out to you, it is not a British claim, it is not part of the case made for British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, its what neutral academic historians point out and I've asked you for a source to back up your assertion its a British claim rather than a reflection of what neutral histories state. You have not supplied any such source, further you are unable to provide any source to verify any such claims.

As pointed out to you at WP:NPOVN back in May, we do not present matters from the British and Argentine POV to achieve a NPOV, we achieve a NPOV by describing the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• No Wee, I asked you for a source stating precisely the entire part you claimed. This one does not so you were wrong before or purposely twisting words just a tiny bit to adjust to what you want them to say (as usual) That said, this is a correct source for the Argentinian claim that the population was expelled, including the garrison which of course is part of the population. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Wee my friend that is the definition of WP:OR. If you have a source then present it, do not put forward your own analysis as a fact. And you haven't addressed my request of copy/pasting the part that proves Lopez is committing citation fraud. Could you please do so? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Correction: neutral academic source says Wee. I have no reason to believe you that Cawkell is a neutral source any more than I have to believe you that Lopez is not. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Wee you have. You edited out (deleted , removed, made go away, etc...) the sentence mentioning Lopez research: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British. You deleted the mention to Lopez research and then used it as it were an official Argentinian source to reference the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination", an edit that I still can not understand. What is it that you are not comprehending? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• That is WP:OR since you have absolutely no source to back that statement up. As WP:ASF says: "Undisputed findings of reliable sources can be asserted without in-text attribution. In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree". Sources disagree hence we present both sources. You are trying to wikilawyer a source out based on WP:OR and WP:SYN. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• The British claim part was not present in the version of the article you defiled (go see for yourself) so I have no idea why you keep insisting on this. Perhaps to divert attention from the fact that you are hell-bent on obscuring a source you disagree with? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Achieving a NPOV is very hard to do when you keep biasing this and other articles to suit your British preference Wee. Gaba p (talk)

The source does verify the claim and could you please point to the edit where I removed the source that the entire population was removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What? I never said that. It was you who brought that point up, who knows why. I just pointed out that the garrison is a part of the population hence the Argentinian claim is backed by British sources. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You've accused me of removing that source, it was in my edit of 24 August, could you point to it, please. And again your claim now is different from the one you were making in talk. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One more time, here it goes: you edited out (deleted , removed, made go away, etc...) the sentence mentioning Lopez research. You removed both the source and the statement. Comprende? Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect I have repeatedly addressed that, I even provide a link to the correct page in Goebel using Google books. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And I told you it was inaccessible to me and asked you to copy/paste the part where you understand it disproves Lopez as a source for everyone to see. Is that so hard to do? Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you've told me that, could you please point out where? I can of course copy the text at some point this evening if I have the time and would have done so already if I'd reaslise you requested it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"I can't access the book you're pointing to, please copy/paste the section you are referring to as disproving Lopez statement", Gaba p (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC). Asked two days ago. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have given you a couple of reasons why Lopez is not a neutral source, Lopez is a former Argentine ambassador responsible for the pursuit of Argentina's sovereignty claim. Secondly the claim attributed to Goebel isn't made by Goebel and I've provided you a link. You have given no reason as to why you consider Cawkell a none-neutral source.

"Lopez is a former Argentine ambassador" <-- wikilawyering + ad hominem

"the claim attributed to Goebel isn't made by Goebel" <-- still no source presented for this claim. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The preference is for neutral academic sources, that is simply the point I was making. And I have provided a source - repeatedly. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy/paste the exact part that claims Lopez is either committing citation fraud or is wrong in his analysis/conclusions, not just a link to a book. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No the edit above reflects the comments in this discussion. And I've given reasons why I removed the comment attributed to Lopez - it relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN and it fails verification. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You removed a sourced statement that doesn't adjust with you pro-British position, as you routinely do in every Falklands related article mate. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the statement is attributed to Goebel but Goebel doesn't make the claim. You can't report Lopez attributing a statement to Goebel that Goebel doesn't make. This is not WP:OR or WP:SYN, simply WP:V and WP:RS a claim has to be verifiable and this one is not. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One more time (10th time now?): present the source where this is stated please. How hard can it be if it's so clear? Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I've presented it, as far as I can see its only today you've claimed you couldn't access it. Its not hard at all - I've already done it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You've presented nothing but your own WP:OR and WP:SYN Wee. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please cut the personal attacks. Your assertion this is a British claim as opposed to historical record needs a source. It isn't part of the British case for sovereignty at all. Simply put WP:V and WP:RS a claim has to be verifiable and this one is not. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My assertion? Where am I stating that it is a British claim? It's the name of the book, I'm not asserting anything Wee. Really, at this point you're either being purposely dense or willingly trying to waste people's time. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit asserting this to be a British claim for which you refuse to provide a reliable cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ans as I already pointed out that claim was already gone from the version of the article you defiled. One. More. Time. Go see for yourself.

Again a NPOV is reporting the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective, the personal attacks and bad faith accusations are not needed. I have repeatedly addressed the same point you've made and you're refusing to address my concerns. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed each and every one of your points while you keep diverting to side issues. You still have not presented a source to disprove Lopez but yet you still keep saying it is not valid as a source. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A) You have not provided a source for your assertion this is a British claim as opposed to historical record - and the histories are in agreement. Only in political texts are historical facts disputed.

I don't need to provide such a source because it's not in the version of the article I edited. I'm sure now that you are playing dumb, this must be the 3rd time I say this. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

B) You have not answered why you would wish to use a claim made in a source that the original author did not make but which is attributed to him. You accuse me of WP:OR and WP:SYN but don't address the question at all.

I have no access to any source claiming that Lopez is wrong or committing citation fraud. You say you do so you present such a source along with the copy/pasted part where this is stated. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

C) Rather than addressing the concerns expressed about your sourcing of material you simply make accusations of bias.

The concerns about that source are your own based on your own WP:OR and WP:SYN. You have yet to provide a source that claims Lopez is wrong or committing citation fraud as you claim it does. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For info, raised at WP:RSN see . Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a source, only today as far as I can tell did you complain you couldn't read it. I remain unaware of a previous occasion where you told me, I would be grateful for a diff please.

Note I have provided a source below, so I would be grateful if you would now address the question please. Specifically, why you would wish to use a claim made in a source that the original author did not make but which is attributed to him? Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK found it, I apologise I missed it. Had I not done so I would have responded immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, do you own a copy of Goebel's work? --Langus (t) 03:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, do you? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Break

As long as this is a clear point of view dispute, I would ask party to present the modern sources on topic, so that DRN volunteers could make their mind without diving into your chat. Please properly format the citation, so that assessing the sources wouldn't involve hunting for the information about their authors, publishers, publication dates, etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the breaking down of sources along national lines to be helpful. Nationality of the source shouldn't be a factor. If you're going to break this down I would suggest academic and political (national Governments). Wee Curry Monster talk 14:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More than suggesting this method you are FORCING US to use it:

Czarkoff proposed a path and WCM disobeyed. I'm not going to participate in a dispute resolution driven by the same problematic editor who brought us here in the first place (who wants us to analyze PRIMARY SOURCES!!! --> WP:OR). --Langus (t) 12:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop being a WP:DRAMA queen, no I am not forcing anything and I quote "I'm prepared to change them according to nationality ", neither you or Gaba have the right to refactor my comments. You're both trying to disrupt the mediation process. I've removed Gaba's rubbishing comments, they were of no relevance and were ignoring the request for the mediator. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. First you device your own argumentative process disregarding completely the path suggested by the editor and now you deleted my edits commenting your presented sources as if this article belonged to you and (a WP:OWN behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop in several articles). I'll take the time to re-introduce all my comments in a new section, but note that it was you who started writing your comments into my comments which now you present as refactoring and act as if I was doing something reprehensible. Can't say I'm surprised, sadly. Gaba p (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Did I comment on your sources? Answer no. Did the mediator ask you to comment on other editors sources? Answer no.

Did the mediator ask us just to provide sources? Answer yes.

Am I prepared to use the same format as the mediator suggest? Answer yes but for a good reason I feel it is unhelpful, if you check most of my sources aren't British.

Can you both just stop the needling, it doesn't help matters. The goal here is to write an encyclopedia not behave like children in a playground. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't comment on our sources because we listened to the mediator and did what he told us to, ie: just presented the sources. You tried to outsmart everyone by creating your own rules and then expected everyone else to just shut up move along. This would not have happened if you would've done what the mediator asked you to do in the first place.

It's funny how you accuse both of us of acting as children and yet is you who refuses to follow the simplest of guidelines in a DR you opened. Gaba p (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources suggested by Wee Curry Monster

I do not propose to list sources by nationality, as I base my use of sources on their individual merits and whether the claims made by sources are verifiable. My preference is for neutral academic sources but where I use sources with a POV slant I use them cautiously and attribute opinions to individual authors.

Neutral

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.

Empahsis added

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Emphasis added

Please note that this is the source for the claim made in López below and please note this does not reflect the claim attributed to it.

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Primary Sources

Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow. Captain Onslow was commander of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio that carried out the order to remove the Buenos Aires Garrison. His orders clearly precluded any action against the settlers.

Onslow's report.

Onslow's report and orders are in the archive at Kew Gardens, ref PRO Adm 1/2276, and PRO FO 6 500. Onslow made two reports one for the admiralty and one for the Charge d'Affaires in Rio.

The above is an extract from the report made by Pinedo at his court martial. Both eye witness reports corroborate one another - ie there is no difference in the contemporary record. Source: Argentine National Archive, Buenos Aires, Ref: AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22

Another primary source, Thomas Helsby on wikisource:

This gives a list of the residents at Port Louis in August 1833 (some 3 months after the supposed expulsion). The settlement was a diverse mix of numerous nationalities including British, Irish, French, German, Charrúa, the majority of the Gauchos came from what we now know as Uruguay. All were brought to the islands in the service of Luis Vernet. Antonio Roxas is still recorded in the Falklands census of 1851 as a resident and major land owner. Source would be Falkland Islands Government archive, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Sources I use with Caution

Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Destéfani with caution due to the circumstances in which the book was published. In 1982 during the Falklands War over 100,000 copies were printed and distributed free to various academic institutions to make the Argentine case for sovereignty.

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Tatham with caution as it contains a series of papers written by a number of authors. It is however referenced by many neutral academic sources.

Source for the British Government position

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

Conclsion

I trust that is satisfactory to the mediator, I'm prepared to change them according to nationality but I truly don't think that's helpful. The point I make is that neutral academic sources report the same history. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Sources suggested by Wee Curry Monster by Gaba (bullet points)

• I understand this adds a massive amount of repeated content to the section, but I was forced to do this after Wee deleted my comments added to the section above. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

• Do note that this is neutral according to Wee and nobody else Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.

• It did? Sources for this claim Wee, so we can see they are not all British praises? Also note that this source confirms that the Argentine soldiers were expelled. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Empahsis added

• It is not clear to what author the above cite should be associated with. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Emphasis added

Please note that this is the source for the claim made in López below and please note this does not reflect the claim attributed to it.

• The Lopez book refers to "(S. 25, p. 131)" (which, if I'm not mistaken refers to this book) from where it quotes verbatim what it's stated in the book. This is the source to refer to if you wish to claim that Lopez is committing citation fraud. How is that source you presented supposed to prove your (quite serious) accusation? Could you please explain the relation?
• Note that this this source in no way disproves the fact that settlers were expelled, it isn't even conclusive on whether the soldiers were expelled or not; at least the vague minimal sentence you are quoting.
• Also note that Argentina has never made a distinction between soldiers and civilians, only the British sources have. Argentina claims the population was expelled which is clear in pro-British sources only they refer to the expelled garrison alone and claim the settlers were not expelled (which this one even does not). Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Primary Sources

Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow. Captain Onslow was commander of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio that carried out the order to remove the Buenos Aires Garrison. His orders clearly precluded any action against the settlers.

Onslow's report.

Onslow's report and orders are in the archive at Kew Gardens, ref PRO Adm 1/2276, and PRO FO 6 500. Onslow made two reports one for the admiralty and one for the Charge d'Affaires in Rio.

• There is a great difference between the supposed orders given to Onslow and what actually happened. Could you provide a link for this source please? Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The above is an extract from the report made by Pinedo at his court martial.

• Could you please provide a link to where you got this Pinedo quote from so we can see it in it's full form? I could not find it anywhere. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Both eye witness reports corroborate one another - ie there is no difference in the contemporary record.

• WP:OR + WP:SYN, we don't do that Wee. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources I use with Caution

Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Destéfani with caution due to the circumstances in which the book was published. In 1982 during the Falklands War over 100,000 copies were printed and distributed free to various academic institutions to make the Argentine case for sovereignty.

• 1- Destéfani clearly states a frenchman, not an Argentinian citizen. 2- I quote from this book by Reginald & Elliot: "The Sarandi sailed on the 5th. Onslow himself returned to Britain a few days later, leaving William Dickinson, the senior British resident, in charge..." Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Tatham with caution as it contains a series of papers written by a number of authors. It is however referenced by many neutral academic sources.

Source for the British Government position

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do. <-- Wee's claim.

• The sentence above is quite simply a lie. There is no distinction made between civilians and the military living in the islands, they were all part of the population that had settled there. This is a made-up artificial distinction pro-British agents like to stress. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"British" theory sources

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

"Argentina" theory sources

• Oliveri López, Angel M. (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...
• Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833. In 1841 the Falklands became a Crown colony and ten years later had been settled by 287 British subjects. By the end of the century the Falkland Islands, still claimed by Argentina, were occupied by some 2,000 people and 800,000 sheep. Note: although the word "settlers" is not used, this source depicts how the distinction between "garrison" and "civilians" is irrelevant to the fact that Argentina was expelled, and the islands later colonized by British subjects.
• Laver, Roberto C. (2001). The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 86. The historical records show that the Argentine departure from the islands in 1833 was a forced exodus and not a voluntary abandonment. First, the instructions to Onslow show that he was to force any troops stationed in the islands to leave; second, Onslow, pursuant to his instructions, gave Pinedo an ultimatum to leave the islands; third, Onslow referred to his superior force and the lowering of the Argentine flag. Only under such circumstances did Pinedo leave the islands...
• This issue was brought to the RSN board by one of the editors. There I pointed out another reliable source: Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287. Michael Risman is the Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale University. The higher quality of the source (credible author, credible publication) makes the discussion on the original source moot. Page 306 says "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders." The editor who brought the issue to RSN argues that should be read in conjunction with pg. 300 which says: "... two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison." The editor claims pg. 300 is inconsistent with pg. 306. There is the possible interpretation that the warships went beyond their explicit orders or that their orders changed; including those interpretations will be likely OR and SYNTH; however just including the literal statement on pg. 306 with attribution doesn't seem to be an out-of-context quote or inaccurate from an attribution perspective. I will not be posting more here, since I was looking at this mainly from a WP:RS point of view; but I do think this source should be considered in the dispute resolution process. Those who need the article can ask either me or at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Churn and change (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of "Argentina" theory sources

See WP:RSN.

Oliveri López, Angel M. (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...

As one of the poster at RSN turned up an independent academic review of Lopez:

"Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…"

"The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. "

"Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book"

"This publication, like its pro-British counterparts… the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake…"

"readers would learn far more from the writings of the Argentine historian, Carlos Escude', whose research on the islands' title deeds led him to conclude that 'Who is right and who is wrong is not an obvious matter' (Buenos Aires Herald, 27 November 1985). This seems a far more balanced Argentine view than that articulated in Key to Enigma."

The reviewer is Peter Beck, considered an appropriately qualified academic at WP:RS. The consensus at WP:RSN is that it is not considered a reliable source.

• Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833. In 1841 the Falklands became a Crown colony and ten years later had been settled by 287 British subjects. By the end of the century the Falkland Islands, still claimed by Argentina, were occupied by some 2,000 people and 800,000 sheep.

The claim made by Argentina is that the settlement was expelled and replaced by British settlers. The comment here is just moving the goalposts and anyway the statement in the article simply reflects.

Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287

I would have added this source myself. I don't see the problem is the sources reliability but the language is ambiguous. Whether it supports the claim made is open to interpretation. It can easily be misinterpeted. I would have thank Churn for adding it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Observation

It seems quite obvious that in the quotes above (at least those without clear bias) the words "Argentina" and "Argentinians" are used to name the garrison (this is consistent with labeling people on duty in other contexts), so I would conclude that "British" theory is the one most supported by reliable sources. This is my cut at WP:NPOV issue. Questions?

Excuse me but the dispute was never which theory seemed more plausible. The argument came about because the editor Wee refused to accept the inclusion of other sources stating a contradicting claim with that of the British. Please take a look here where Wee opened another discussion and is told by 2 different editors that he is in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN and that the source by Risman should be used instead of the Lopez book. The point is that the claim that the population was expelled can't be obscured just because an editor feels it is untrue when there are several sources that state otherwise.

Also, could you expand on your comment about which quote in particular you feel refers only to a garrison and nothing else and why? Thank you. Gaba p (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you but your labelling is what I've a problem with. Its not British vs Argentine rather its what the neutral academic sources say. Gustafson and Goebel are American, Cawkell is British, Destefani Argentine (and I would agree with Peter Beck regarding Escude.) I am going to suggest that I remove reference to Cawkell in the article, in preference to using Gustafson as a clearly neutral source. See Wee Curry Monster talk 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You can take it to WP:RSN of course but Risman is to ambiguous to support the claim you're attributing to him. It would fail verification in that sense. Its an interesting paper and I would recommend you read it in full.

Just to also point out the claim the population was expelled isn't obscured but we're reporting on the claim from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Great so we agree Wee? You change Cawkell to Gustafson and I change Lopez to Risman, both better sources for each claim. Gaba p (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope we don't agree, Risman does not unambiguously support that claim. See p.300 of the same source. I suggest reading it in full, in fact when accessing any source, I would always suggest you have access to the whole source where possible. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This thread has been stale for some time - does it still need assistance from a volunteer? Steven Zhang 00:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to start over under your guidance, if every party truly submits to cooperate. Note, however, that this issue has already made its way to WP:ANI... --Langus (t) 01:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that one of the involved editors please point to or suggest a compromise that could reset this discussion in a direction of resolution. Points have been well made but no one is willing to budge and that is not at all collaboration. We need to begin resolving this dispute and refrain from further walls of text. Please use brevity and concise wording to to best move forward in a timely manner. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm John Carter, another of the volunteers here. Having looked over the above, I see that, potentially, there might be at least a partial dispute about the word "forced." Some of the quotes I read above said, basically, the British told people to leave, and they left. At least to some eyes, mine included, that may not rise to the level of "forced" departure. "Forced" departure, to my eyes, entails the departing people being taken out involuntarily. It seems that many of these people left, perhaps grudingly, but voluntarily, generally knowing that the departure might be done less pleasantly and involuntarily, like in shackles, later. If I'm right in this, then, maybe, one option might be to say they left "under duress" or something similar. But, if there are differing opinions as to what constitutes "forced" departure, and I think there might be here, then changing the language to drop that word might be a step in the right direction. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadsword (disambiguation)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs)
• Trofobi (talk · contribs)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) and application of MOS:DAB. The disputed content is the disambiguation between the types of swords that might have been referred to as "broadswords".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Well aside from trying to discuss it, I put this on Wikiquette assistance, but nothing much had happened except for , until the process of Wikiquette assistance was eliminated, recently.

How do you think we can help?

I dunno. That's why I'm asking for help.

Opening comments by ZarlanTheGreen

You did so without bothering to get me to do so myself. You asked, but did not allow me to do so, as I clearly stated I would. I shall restore a part of the opening statement, which DID discuss content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

a significant edit to Broadsword_(disambiguation). I found it to remove a lot of information and removing certain good distinctions that was present in the old version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Trofobi

The changes I made were according to the MOS:DAB (like I understand it), especially the clear and simple formatting and wording shown in the examples there. I have seen by the edits of George Ho and JHunterJ, that I there were better ways to interpret the MOS:DAB and fully agree with their changes. The previous version(s) (123) had some MOS:DAB-unsupported or outdated links (long/great/short-sword redirs and other), missing links (the ships & Jethro Tull), and in my eyes especially a confusing formatting and wording. Can give more details & difflinks if required, but have not much time for that within the next days.--Trofobi (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by JHunterJ

Disambiguation page cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB. Entries not ambiguous with "broadsword" removed, remaining entries formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadsword (disambiguation) discussion

I am a dispute resolution volunteer 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.

Right now I am waiting for opening comments by JHunterJ and Trofobi before opening this up for discussion, so please be patient. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the "guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a reminder on Trofobi's talk page that we are waiting for him. If I don't get a reply in a day or so we will proceed without him. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that everyone has weighed in, I am opening this for discussion. First I would like to ask, did everybody read "Guide for participants" at the top of this page as I requested? Did you read the part that says...

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

ZarlanTheGreen, your initial statement doesn't contain a single word explaining what you want the page to look like and why you want it that way. It is 100% about the behavior of other editors. You need to go back, delete it, and re-write it so that it does not contain the words "He" "Him" "They", or the names of any other editors. What I would like to see is a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be. (if you don't know how to make a diff, just give the exact time and date of your edit.) Then add a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

Trofobi, much of your initial statement is rebutting ZarlanTheGreen talking about other editors. While this is a natural thing to do, I am going to ask you to instead ignore any such comments. They will be removed, (if not by the person who writes them I will remove them myself), and responding just encourages the unacceptable behavior.

I would also like to see from you a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be and a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

JHunterJ, the first half of your initial statement is just the sort of thing I am looking for. Could you delete the later comment about user behavior and expand a bit on what part of WP:MOSDAB we are talking about? I think I know, but I want it from the participants. When someone says a policy is being followed and another editor says it is not, I always like to focus on the exact wording showing which part of the policy and the exact wording of the edit in question.

What I am asking you all for is specific versions of content and specific wording of policy, with no references to user behavior. After we get the content dispute straightened out, if there are still user conduct issues I will advise you as to where to go with those.

Thanks for your patience. We will get this resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not fully understand the function of this noticeboard, thus the... "inappropriate" opening comment. Sorry about that. I still would like to report the behaviour, but it seems that has been deemed unproductive, and I can't say I don't understand. Either way, I'm quite willing to go the route of talking about the content. As to replacing the opening comment... Is that really appropriate? Amending what I say, sure, but replacing it sounds a bit like rewriting history. If you insist, I nevertheless will. It should be noted, however, that I did, if briefly (though to be fair, that is at it should be, for the opening comment) comment on the issue of the content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you deleted those parts, with the motivation that asking for the voluntary removal got no result. That is ridiculous! I questioned if it should be done, but nevertheless stated that I still would do so, if you indicated that you insisted it be done, despite my misgivings.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted part of my statement above by request. No problems with the current entries have been identified, and the removed entries were removed because they are not ambiguous with "broadsword" according to the linked articles (see MOS:DABMENTION; I also added a line to WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created based on the discussion at Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)). I am not aware of any policy-based problems with those removals, nor any other problems with the page, so I'm not clear what dispute needs to be resolved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, MOS:DABMENTION deals with how to include topics that do not have an article of their own (which is not true of any of the topics that are, or where, linked to, on the page discussed) and not what should or shouldn't be included. Thus it is completely irrelevant. The line in Misplaced Pages:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created, however, is highly relevant, but it can hardly be said to reflect proper wikipedia practice, policy or guideline, given that it was just put there. It might become an accepted guideline, but I wouldn't really count it as such, just yet. Besides, doing so would open the door to winning these kind of arguments, simply by making up, or changing, rules oneself. While one should assume good faith, the rules should nevertheless be set in such a way as to avoid the consequences of the inevitable occasions of bad faith ...not to mention that actions that has the same result as those made in bad faith, can be made in good faith. Now could you please mention any bit of policy or guideline that supports you, which is relevant or accepted?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, ZarlanTheGreen? Can you cite a specific edit and a specific policy it violates? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Well, lets see...

• The old version grouped different types of things. The newer edits (any other than my reverts) just puts all links as a mere list, in a seemingly arbitrary order, without any apparent from of organization (which goes against MOS:DABMENTION#Organization).
• The entry Arming Sword was removed I still object to the removal, and argue that several other sword types should be added (for the same reason), though probably not with individual links to all, but rather an explanation of the qualities that they share, or something.

There may be more, that I can't think of right now, but that should cover most of it, I think.

I would also like to add that the removal of the Jethro Tull song was a somewhat clumsy oversight, which I would have appreciated if someone had pointed out to me before. I agree that, that entry should stay there. Thank you Trofobi, for pointing that out (if a bit late).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To the points:

• MOS:DABORDER uses groups (sections) for long disambiguation pages (#2), and the broadsword disambiguation page is not long, so it's faster for the reader to keep the few entries in one group (just a mere list), and arrange the entries there (not arbitrarily but) per MOS:DABORDER (#3) -- topics with articles first, with the synonyms like Dao next, and the mentions last (and the newly-added surname holder in a separate section).
• Add the information about arming swords being known as broadswords to the article Arming sword, and I'll be happy to restore the entry to the dab page myself.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• You say it's not long? Why? I say it's certainly long enough. Just look at other disambiguation pages of similar length. As to the order... "Dao next"? Are you kidding me? There are several ships and even BroadSword Comics (neither of which can be called "synonyms", by any stretch) before Dao (Sword) appears! What you say, clearly isn't true.
• Please explain why Arming sword has to mention them being called broadswords. Please point to some wikipedia policy or guideline (that hasn't been just recently been added, but which is clearly an accepted part of wikipedia), which verifies this. If you do so, I will thank you for informing me, and gladly back down on this point.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created has been clarified based on your misunderstanding of the disambiguation guidelines. Please point to some Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity. "Dao" is a synonym -- it does not have the word "Broadsword" there. "BroadSword Comics" is not a synonym. "Who published that comic? BroadSword." And I am not kidding you; see if you can ratchet down the rhetoric. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created was not clarified. Before your edit, there was absolutely no mention of any requirement that it be mentioned in the article being linked (if you disagree, then please show me where such a mention existed). Thus you did not clarify something that it already said, but rather added something that wasn't previously present. I have no need to point to some Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity ...as I have not made no such claim. I have no need to defend a position that I do not hold, or have ever held. Also, as you can see here (especially in my replies to Czarkoff), I have no problems with having to verify that the topics belong in the DAB, and I have never said or claimed anything to the contrary. As to Dao being a synonym and BroadSword comics not being a synonym... That's exactly what I said. Neither the ships, nor BroadSword comics, are synonyms (nor is Dao, but it's at least somewhat closer to being one). Also note that it says the "recommended order", not the "required order" ...and MOS:DABORDER#When_to_break_Wikipedia_rules: "However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them." You need to consider the reasons behind the recommendations, instead of just sternly demand that they be followed to the letter. Why should it be in the current order? Why is the old order bad? The issue to consider, is the usefulness to the reader. How clear and easily readable it is, that is. As to my rhetoric... What rhetoric? Me saying "are you kidding me"? If so, then your standards are extremely strict and you break them yourself, and not just in that comment ...but that's beside the point, is it not?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, so we're in agreement that there's no reason to include "arming sword". Yes, recommended order, and lacking any reason to do so, you need to stop sternly and extremely strictly demanding that all other editors leave your edits alone. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did I ever say that Arming Sword shouldn't be included? Quit putting words in my mouth! As to other editors "leaving my edits alone"... What on earth are you talking about? What edits of mine? I did not make an edit that I am defending. Trofobi made an edit that you are defending, and I am criticising. I am defending the old consensus against what I see as bad modifications (right now there is no consensus. There is discussion, i.e. this, to get to one). You still haven't shown that the DAB isn't long, or explained why it this ordering is better. Surely Dao should come before such things as ships? When one thinks of "broadsword", the first thing that comes to mind is a sword.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for interjection, but in my opinion this particular dispute boils down to two questions:

1. Do the reliable sources support the claim that removed entries (Arming sword and Dao (sword)) are indeed referred to as "broadsword"?
2. If so, does this statement belong to DAB page or broadsword article?

I would kindly ask parties (primarily ZarlanTheGreen, per WP:BURDEN) to provide the succinct answers to these questions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can answer the second question: the statement(s) belong on Arming sword and/or Dao (sword), and once there, the (brief) entry or entries would be added to the disambiguation page as Misplaced Pages topics ambiguous with the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are great amounts of sources that say that arming swords (and longswords and the such) are called broadswords. In fact wiktionary rather annoyingly only gives that meaning, for the term "broadsword" (much like merriam-webster, dictionary.com, oxforddictionaries.com ...not to mention several books about the middle ages, and most fiction within the fantasy genre (just noting a few examples): fantasy games, such as World of Warcraft, Diablo, pretty much any fantasy role playing game (including all editions of Dungeons and Dragons)... tons of books about the middle ages (or swords or history), but that's a bit harder to verify, with just google. Also, I would like to point out that it is used this way in this clip from a notable (if not accurate) "documentary". If nothing else, I should say that those sources (which are merely the tip of the iceberg. A few of the examples I could find, on short notice) prove that it is a common enough use of the word "broadsword", to be notable enough to merit mention on the disambiguation page, I think (I'd understand being asked to verify that this use of the word broadsword is inaccurate, but that it isn't common? I am surprised that anyone would doubt it, quite frankly). As to Dao (sword)... well if you disagree, then I suggest you take it up its own article, where it is noted that Dao are "/.../often called a broadsword in English translation/.../"--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Both "Arming sword" and "Dao (sword)" had been marked "" since 6 July 2011 - no change or discussion had been on that issue since then, therefore I felt safe to remove the "Arming sw." link, where in the whole article is no mention of "broadsword". And as I have added both links to Classification of swords & Types of swords, any visitor looking for any kind of "broad" sword will now easily find the relevant existing articles.

As to Guy's request for a difflink to the version I prefer: the current version (compared to that how I found the article on 28 August 2012)‎. For a brief explanation why it should be retained pls see my opening comment. --Trofobi (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@ZarlanTheGreen: could you please explicitly name secondary sources unambiguously connecting term "broadsword" with "arming sword" and "dao sword"? We can't make judgment on "plenty" of sources, and those you've linked are very ambiguous. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your request. The sources I linked to, pointed out that countless sources say that straight, cutting, swords (a category into which arming sword, quite clearly, falls), are classified by many, as being "broadswords". Why should they be precise in specifying arming swords? They cover a variety of swords, which clearly includes arming swords. As to Dao... Seriously, just put the words "Dao" and "broadsword" into google, and you'll see that its a word commonly used for it. I'll find you some specific sources, but I've got an appointment I've got to get to right now, so I'll do it later today (or tomorrow).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The way you connect these is known on Misplaced Pages as improper synthesis. I request sources that explicitly include into definition the terms you want to add to the DAB page in question. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Improper synthesis deals with improperly combining information from several different sources. That is clearly not relevant. The sources I cited all, individually, state much the same thing. One of them (the documentary) even goes so far as to say "broadsword", when talking about what is clearly an arming sword. An Oakeshott type XIV I'd say. That or a type XVI (can't be anything else, other than maybe a blade outside the typology, which happens, but I doubt it). This is also true of the Diablo and WoW references. Many of the sources state that straight cutting swords are broadswords. Arming swords are straight and cutting, thus they are clearly included. If you wish to claim that this conclusion is original research (to my mind, it's like saying that cucumbers have a feature, because a source says all vegetables do), then that's fine. You'll have to use something other than WP:SYNTH to argue that, however. Either way, this could be solved in a way I suggested earlier: "I still object to the removal, and argue that several other sword types should be added (for the same reason), though probably not with individual links to all, but rather an explanation of the qualities that they share, or something.". I.e. put in a mention of "straight cutting swords" instead (maybe not with that exact wording though. I suspect it can be expressed better). Note that this would not be removing arming sword. Sure there would no longer be an arming sword link, but it would simply be included in a different way. I assume you would have no objection to that?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, I'd rather not expand this DR to the content of arming sword. The sources belong there, not on broadsword (disambiguation). If that article arming sword says that they are known as broadswords, then the dab page includes it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I am not an involved party if there's a dispute over whether arming sword is to say so. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily IMO. I would better disambiguate the possible meaning in broadsword article and generalize the DAB if such sources are found. Anyway, the issue is a bit wider then this DAB, and I want to get it settled here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't disambiguate different topics in articles (except in hatnotes). But if we want to discuss the contents of broadsword instead, then I should be removed from the involved parties list, since I am not involved in any content dispute for broadsword. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than fighting over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) why not work together to improve Classification of swords and Types of swords, and then make Broadsword (disambiguation) say whatever those two pages say? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about making the dab page say what those articles say. Not all types of swords would be ambiguous with "broadsword", and little or nothing of the classification of sword would be usefully "sayable" on the disambiguation page. Classification of swords and Types of swords can certainly be improved by interested parties, but unless new "broadsword" ambiguity is introduced, those improvements wouldn't affect a navigational page that already links to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Because that is a separate, if connected, issue. I also agree with JHunterJ and Trofobi on this. Thanks for the suggestion though.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that both articles (Classification & Types) really need improvement, both having multiple issues – the now removed merge proposal seems no bad idea, but just like the May 2007 ref request noone cared. Perhaps someone could ask some of the earlier main authors like Dbachmann to take it up again? (That cleanup should also include List of bladed weapons#Swords.) But I, too, don't expect effects on this DAB page discussion. Like R'n'B stated earlier: The question is if there are reliable sources that "Zoobie" is also called "broadsword" - if so, this info belongs into the Zoobie article, which then will rightfully be mentioned in the broadsword DAB.

So is that now the final remaining question - if "Arming sword" be added or not? And then this will be settled? --Trofobi (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. There is also the issue of the order and grouping (or lack thereof) of similar things. It is the more important issue though, IMO, and one on which I suspect I have dealt with all objections in my response to Czarkoff above, so that it will not only be included, but in a better manner than it previously was ...or so I hope.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We already have an answer regarding " the issue of the order and grouping (or lack thereof) of similar things." MOS:DABORDER is quite clear: "Long dab pages should be organized into subject sections, as described below." and "Longer pages should be broken up by subject area." This isn't even close to being a long dab page, and thus there should be no grouping of similar things. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not even close? Oh, I dunno about that Moss_(disambiguation), ] (dunno why this link won't work. It says link exists when I try to include it, and everything), Oakes, Jackson_Square and Gaja_(disambiguation) (to take a few examples at random), are quite close. Indeed some of them are quite a bit shorter. I say that the broadsword DAB is long enough to merit breaking up in groups of topics of a similar nature, and many a DAB of similar length, or shorter, are organized in such a manner. Why? Because that is more reader friendly, gives you a better overview. MOS:DABORDER isn't as clear as you claim. It says "longer". It doesn't say what longer means. Not only does it not give a specific length (probably because such a thing would be regarded as a bad idea), but it doesn't even give any form of indication of how long "longer" is. Thus you cannot say that MOS:DABORDER clearly says that it isn't longer. What matters is, if it is long enough, so that groupings would assist readers and/or if a lack of groupings would negatively impact readability, rather then the exact length (and if the exact length is the issue... well check the examples I noted).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Thank you for clarification, Guy - so could you perhaps sum up, which questions on Broadsword (disambiguation) you still regard as unsolved? And as already asked on the talk page: Shouldn't this section here be renamed WP:DRN#Broadsword (disambiguation) instead Broadsword? Also for later archiving/search options. --Trofobi (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ShelfSkewed has, obligingly, clearly demonstrated that articles linked to, need to mention the disambiguation(as per WP:DABRELATED). Thus I now accept that, that requirement is, indeed, an accepted guideline of wikipedia. I still argue for the compromise above, about mentioning "straight cutting swords". However, there is an issue of where that should be verified. That it can, easily, be verified, is quite clear. I have done so above, with great ease. The only issue is where. By the same token, Dao should clearly be there, as the article prominently mentions that it is often translated as "broadsword". Any need for verification should obviously be dealt with, in the article for Dao, rather than the DAB page. As long as that is fixed, then the issue of which topics should be in the DAB should be dealt with. The only remaining issue is the organization.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the issue of where to verify that "straight cutting swords" are, inaccurately, called broadswords has already been answered, in that it already is verified. An arming sword certainly is "A cutting sword with a broad blade", so it is verified, though as I suggested (as I have done twice before), one could add something along the lines of "Any cutting sword that is broader than a rapier" (while mentioning that it is a modern usage, that was not used historically), as individual mentions of all swords that qualify, might not be the best idea.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...also, I noted that arming swords are, indeed, explicitly mentioned: "It must be noted, that the term broadsword was never used historically to describe the one-handed arming sword or short-sword. The short-sword was wrongly labeled a broadsword by antiquarians as the medieval swords were similar in blade width to the military swords of the day (that were also sometimes labeled as broadswords) and broader than the dueling swords and ceremonial dress swords." (I would argue that the term broadsword was never used historically to refer to swords for two hand either ...and that short-sword is also an erroneous term, but that is to be taken up at Classification of swords, not here)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So, is there any chance that we have arrived at a compromise that everyone can live with? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Family therapy

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Family therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marschalko (talk · contribs)
• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute relates to the validity of a table created by User:CartoonDiablo, which he purports is an accurate reproduction of information contained in a table in the original source that he cites. I maintain that it is not, for the reasons stated on the talk page. The issue was also subject of a related dispute at Talk:Psychoanalysis. CartoonDiablo maintains that that dispute was resolved in his favor, but I do not think that is clear. In any case, my dispute relates to specific aspects of CartoonDiablo's table, that were not addressed explicitly in the previous dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page at Family therapy.

How do you think we can help?

Preferably, obtain an opinion from someone with expertise in the correct interpretation of scientific research and, in particular, meta-analyses.

Opening comments by CartoonDiablo

Marschalko summarized it pretty well, to the best of my knowledge that image is as accurate of the study as I could make it. The point of contention seems to be the "no effect" in the image which follows the study; it stated that if the treatment was not "proven" or "presumed" effective then it had no significant effect and thus "no effect." CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by previously uninvolved user Snowded

This is a wider issue than the article referenced. CartoonDiablo is pushing this table on several articles, and seems to find it difficult to engage with arguments. We just get a mantra type response relating to this single study - see my comments to him here. The issues is one of balancing sources and over reliance on one source (itself six years old) to give status to a controversial technique. If it is to come to dispute resolution then its more than one article and other editors are involved. ----Snowded 04:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to add in the light of comments below. As far as I can see there has never been a consensus to include the table. I've PoV tagged it for the moment but have asked its promotor for evidence of consensus which I doubt. Otherwise I agree prose makes more sense, but even then is over balanced to this one old summary. It needs pruning and balancing. But lets deal with the picture first then that can be handled on the articles concerned. ----Snowded 06:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Family therapy discussion

Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer. There was a similar case here concerning the very same table. (That time it was in editable format.) In that case it was decided that the table should be rewritten in prose. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be done in this case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Another DRN volunteer here. I was also involved in the previous case. My position remains the same, prose is still the best option because it is more neutral (not giving WP:UNDUE weight to any single study) while conveying the same information.--SGCM (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Some background on the dispute: I brought up the proposal of changing the table to prose in the second DRN, based on the proposal by Noleander in the first DRN (including this DRN, there have been three DRN requests so far), or the use of an image as a possible compromise, to replace the inappropriately large table originally placed in the article. The image compromise was struck down, and most of the editors, including me, agreed that prose remained the best option. There appears to be some misunderstandings over the DRN. DRN is an informal noticeboard, without binding decisions, and DRN resolutions cannot be enforced. DRN only serves as a venue for establishing consensus. Comments like this are inaccurate, most of the editors in the second DRN did agree that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE were at issue here. The edit warring between Widescreen and CartoonDiablo after the DRN should not have occurred, regardless of who was right or wrong.--SGCM (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this area, but I can say for sure that the table is WP:OR, and does not accurately represent the results in the paper. Therefore, it should be removed. I believe WSC's other complaints about the text also have significant merit. It does seem that the spirit of the earlier DRN result was violated by leaving the table in place, even if it is just an image.—Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to leve a comment here? The prose CartoonDiabolo left at the article is wrong an not balanced. The prose contains fatal errors. He did also in other articles about Psychotheray. I think this is disrupting behavior. The "prose" also have to removed. The DRN seems to be not capable to save articles for these wrong statements. --WSC 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To repost some of what I said in the talk:

• The "no effect" is not based on absence of evidence, the study made clear that if it is not considered "proven" or "presumed" that it is considered ineffective and mentioned it explicitly which treatments have "little or no effect".

My proposal thus is for editors to point where the image incorrectly says "no effect" when its supposed to be "Unknown" for lack of data on the effectiveness. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I would note that shortening "little or no effect" to "no effect" is unambiguous misrepresentation of source, and thus violation of No original research policy. Furthermore, the text of study explicitly states that "little to no effect" refers to two studies only.

That said, the inclusion of the table either as wikitable or as image results in improper weight on this meta-analysis, which itself contains quite a bit of errata.

Overall I have to note that I fully concur with all the other participants in all three DRN cases (except you, obviously), that this table should not be present in the article in whatever format. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a case to be made that some outcomes are unknown as opposed to having no effect but I think that the difference between "little or no effect" and "no effect" is negligible and the idea that its existence itself is undue seems a bit much. Size wise, it's a small image and it's the largest review of studies that exists on the subject and is by a reliable source.

By that standard for instance, this image is undue since it fits identical criteria. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no disagreement within the medical profession about the link between smoking and lung cancer. There is however considerable debate about CBT and the nature of evidence presented for it. Prof. Andrew Samuels, writing of House and Loewenthal book Against and for CBT, for example challenges (and I quote) "the epistemological underpinnings and the methodological validity of the 'evidence-based' ideology in which CBT and its supports have become accustom to basking". Our role here is the reflect the literature not take once side in an ongoing debate within Psychology. Shifting from removing the table to text was stage one. Stage two is to balance that text with a more up to date summary of scientific views of CBT. I plan to do some work on that next week. ----Snowded 03:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All we can infer is that the NIH thinks there is a cause between smoking and cancer and since the NIH is a reliable source and representative of scientific opinion generally, that that's the basis for it. It's literally the same for INSERM. That aside, no one is questioning the validity of the INSERM study, just how its presented in the image.

I'd ask the editors who think the image is inherently undue how its different from the NIH image which has virtually the exact same circumstance as this one. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a bogus question. Whether the other image is right or wrong is irrelevant, because existence of one bad thing in Misplaced Pages does not justify another. Also, I want to note here that anyone who hasn't read the DRN talk page may have missed part of this discussion. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

NIH image linked above only shows two graphs, and it doesn't even try to represent viewpoint that smoking and lung cancer are connected. It is used just as a graph to illustrate the statistical point which can't be demonstrated in prose without implicated judgment or interpretation. Your table, on contrary, is used to represent one viewpoint, and is prone to alteration of statement. On the scale of inappropriateness these two images represent the opposite poles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'd be a good idea to re-post it here. Also I know Misplaced Pages doesn't use precedent but the other image seems pretty good which is why I brought it up, not because its bad and therefore this should pass.CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that the image is WP:UNDUE. The subject is controversial among experts, so highlighting one viewpoint affects the neutrality of the article. The same can't be said of smoking. Prose remains the best way to convey the information.--SGCM (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok there's two problems with those arguments because a) this image is not trying to convey a POV and b) the NIH image is itself the proof of consensus for smoking and cancer since the NIH represents the consensus of science (which is why having it as evidence is not undue). There's no external proof of consensus to justify the NIH image.

What this implies is that a) I'm intentionally making a POV image and b) INSERM is not a valid source for scientific consensus. I don't happen to think either is the case. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There are much more problems with your so called "resulution". CartoonDiablo takes the result of the last DRN-Conflict taklshow as invitation to establish a texpassage which is totaly wrong and reveals his minor understandig of psychotherapy research once more. In the editwar below he be adamant that it was prose he has given like DRN decided. Yes CartoonDiablo, that was prose. Wrong and POV prose and some informations were pure imaginary but it was prose.

DRN really judged to change the POV-table in prose, whatever that mean? The DRN don't judged to issue a neutral and correct chapter about the effeciacy of CBT or merely correct and ballanced prose. Thats the main problem with the proceed here: You try to enclose a disput not establish neutral article contents. --WSC 01:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@CartoonDiablo. The use of the image highlights the results of one source (that favours CBT over psychoanalysis and family therapy) in a subject that that is still considered controversial, and thus is WP:UNDUE. My suggestion is to keep the information as text, and only as text.

@Widescreen. The text should be written in an impartial and balanced tone. Because the prose was created after the second DRN was closed, the issue of the neutrality of the text has not been raised on DRN yet (the previous DRN cases focused on the table). Please elaborate on your concerns so that the DRN can address it. Keep in mind that DRN is an informal noticeboard, and not a court that can issue binding decisions.--SGCM (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say that so. But no One of you drn-guys have an idea of psychotherapy research. You have no, or just a superficial understanding of scientiffic work. Anderen you didn`t understand what wp:NPOV really means. I think you shoundn`t decide such komplex issus. --WSC 08:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look to everyone concerned I get that it's most likely the case that a good deal of the outcomes are probably unknown as opposed to no effect and I admit I made a mistake there, and I get that its probably easier just to say the entire image is NPOV or Undue and avoid this dispute. But when you look at things like the NIH image, (when its properly done) those grounds simply don't work and I don't think expediency should be preferred to making a good article.

Either tomorrow or the next day I'll revamp the image and make it as accurate as possible to the best of my ability. Then I think we should have another (and hopefully) final look at it here in this dispute. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Its still original research for you to create something from one study and its PoV to give that study prominence when there are other sources which challenge it. I've already given one and plan to edit the text to give both sides of the argument. ----Snowded 05:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I trust Snowded, he can create such a chapter. The efficiacy of CBT is relatively well evaluated. But you can't constitute this by cite only one study or survey. The french survey contains some fundamental problems. 1. In evidence based medicine, only one rtc pooves the efficiacy of a treatment. It don't matter how effectively the treatment is. In psychotherapy research cohan's d ist the most choosen effect size scale. You just have to reach a signifficant outcome abouve the placebo-effect and the treatment is considered as prooven efficiant. The studie ignores the result of single rtc or underrated them. But the good result of a really high-quality rtc has more significance than a meta-analysis of 10 rtc with low-quality. For example the . 2. Futher it seems like the survey ignored high-quality meta-analyses wich has been publicated befor 2004. A reason is not obvious. --WSC 10:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources that are critical of the French survey can be used in the article to provide balance.--SGCM (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Really? What makes you believe this? Is it your expertise of psychotherapy research? Why don't we take a chapter from a textbook, like this one. Is there a need to use this special study? Because there are no other? Or is it just because CartoonDiablo is one party of the conflict? And why the textbook I've linked abouve doesn't cite the INSERM-Study, when the study is so importend? --WSC 10:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, I do not think anyone appreciates how you phrased your comments, and it is bad for discussion. Could you tone it down a bit in the future? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I tone it down when I'm confident the DRN-Team will not make resulutions on false pretences by one conflict-party when they even don't understand the conflict. You have to accept your so called resulutions have far reaching consequences for the neutrality of articles. So you can't work in such a superficial and rush way. I mean, I think if I tone it down, you don't see problems on that case. Like last time, I try to argue carefull and your so called "result" only causes problems in articles. --WSC 11:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN is an informal noticeboard with no binding resolutions. During the last DRN request, the issue was the table, and the consensus was that the table should have been removed, a resolution that you agreed with. If you're irritated at the CartoonDiablo's behaviour after the request was closed, don't blame it on DRN. It's not the noticeboard's fault that he misinterpreted the consensus of the previous DRN case.--SGCM (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as I said. You don't understand the conflict. If you, you havn't a resulution, to turn this "table into prose" or "change the table into prose". I've tryed to explain, why this study is problematic. But you won't listen to me. I don't know why you closed the DRN after my last statement. I think you are not interested in my arguments. I think that was insolent, against me. You don't even try to understand my point and ignore my statements or don't take them seriously. Now I want to make sure, you even see where the problem is. But again, you find no access to the conflict. --WSC 12:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your argument to not tone down your comments are unrelated to the request (and they are immature). If you stay calm, this would have an effect. You seem to not understand that. So if you think we do not understand the dispute, clarify it for us. You are one of the conflict party and you should understand our way of consenus and saying "too bad" when something doesn't go your way. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Another editor, Czarkoff, closed the DRN case, keep in mind that there are multiple volunteers on DRN and there is no "DRN team." Your statements weren't ignored. There was an agreement that highlighting one survey excessively is not considered WP:NEUTRAL. If you have more points to raise, then feel free to do so here. No one is discouraged from discussing, and everyone is invited to participate in resolving a dispute.--SGCM (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that part of the problem here may be that these debates are already contained partly in higher-level articles, such as Psychotherapy#Criticisms and questions regarding effectiveness, Common factors theory, Dodo bird verdict, and Evidence-based practice, and that IF any summarizing table or substantial prose were to be appropriate anywhere, then it would be in one of those articles, and not in the articles covering the particular therapies (which have been the venue for the current disputes).

Further, because evidence-based practice, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials - at least as they have been done hitherto - do tend systematically to favour CBT, then any summarizing table or prose based on those approaches will inevitably make CBT look better; and because the validity and applicability of those research methods is itself disputed in psychotherapy, it makes it problematic to insert such a table (even an accurate one) into even a higher-level article without extensive discussion of the relevant methodological issues.

And, not surprisingly, I just discovered that CartoonDiablo had already inserted his table and accompanying prose into the Dodo bird verdict article as well (on 6 Sept, without acknowledging the insertion in that edit summary or in the current dispute). If this dispute resolution is to be continued in good faith then, presumably, CartoonDiablo should disclose now any further occurrences of his table that he is aware of. Marschalko (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, because of WP:UNDUE concerns, the table should not be included. All the pages that use the image are listed on the image's File page, below the File Usage heading.--SGCM (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I think you have understand my point. Now my thoughts about this conflict. Of course the tabel is pure POV because the field of psychotherapy research is much lager than ONE tabele found in only ONE study. Someone in this discussion call it cherrypicking. I think thats a good lable. I think a real resulution would be as I wrote in the 2nd. DRN (everybody ignore it): all who are interested in, write a chapter about the efficacy of CBT (and maybe Family Therapie and Psychoanalysis). First step is to collect reliable sources. Everybody, including CartoonDiablo, can put up studies for discussion. Next step would be to write prose. On talk-page for first. --WSC 10:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Revised image

Here's the revised image for the study. As it turns out the only thing that was concluded to have no effect was schizophrenia with psychoanalysis. All other studies were inconclusive because they were either based on combined therapies or not consistent enough to draw a conclusion. And again for the nth time, this isn't just "one study" it's a review of 100+ secondary studies so you would have to consider 100+ secondary citations or thousands of primary citations to be undue weight as well. It's why the NIH image has no problems with undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@CartoonDiablo. Again. Thers no explicit mention of the nubers of studies they've choosen. So your assertion there are more than 100+ secondary citations and thousends of primary "citations" (whatever that means) is complete fictional. Prior I told you, what the difference between a primary and a secondary source is. I'm glad to see, you've accept that. There is futher no need to select exactly this special survey as source. --WSC 16:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I was the one that told you the difference between a primary, secondary and tertiary source but more to the point, what you said was a complete argument from ignorance. The fact that they don't summarize how many studies looked at did in a single number (other than "1,000 articles and documents") doesn't mean its impossible to count how many they did. And again, no one else is disputing the original study other than you. What this dispute is about is the validity of the image. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

But the picture is just the pick of the iceberg of your POV-attack. I think the it's important to show how you work. The next imagination is, that you told me the meaning of the sources. Your original research contribution like count the meta-analyses by not knowing if they are listed twice is just a sign of your pov-pushing. The point you want stop this and work together with authors here, have a clue of psychotherapy research just shows your intransigence. --WSC 18:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you might want to look up assuming good faith especially after I changed the image to address some of its problems. More importantly, your entire argument is based on the idea that this is a bad source which no one else believes. We settled that point two DRNs ago. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't found anything makes me believe in AGF after your ignorant POV-pushing. And no, my entire argument is, that there are a lot and much better sources. The little survey is ridiculous. Your contributions on Dodo-Bird-Verdict are pure POV grwon an original research. I think it would be better you beeing blocked. Infinite. --WSC 18:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read "Please keep discussions here calm, concise, and on topic...This page is not the place to flame other users."? I think you owe me an apology for that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@CartoonDiablo. A source is not synonymous with the number of sources that it cites. The study analyses the sources, however many, to reach one conclusion, and thus counts as one source. Encyclopedias use thousands of sources, but it would be erronenous to say that encyclopedias are equivalent to thousands of sources.

@Widescreen. Although there are POV problems with the article, insulting CartoonDiablo is not going to convince other editors that you're right. Please, keep it cool here and remain cordial. The best approach is to find reliable sources that demonstrate that the French study is controversial, and cite them to balance the tone of the article. Snowded has already brought up a few.--SGCM (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Right but for analogy's sake you're saying that if an encyclopedia on a specific subject did something like define that subject, that it would be undue since its just one source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference. Defining a subject and other technical details are usually not controversial. Making the claim that one psychotherapeutic approach is better than two competing approaches is. Articles on Misplaced Pages must remain neutral.--SGCM (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing, neither this study nor image ever claims one is better than the other. The data is neutral (or to use the analogy the image is the technical detail) and how people intercept it is on them them. The POV in this instance would be to assume the neutral data has a POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to let the table speak for itself. It's quite apparent, even to third party editors, that the table is being used to make the point that cognitive behavioral therapy is a better approach than psychoanalysis or family therapy. Highlighting the results of one survey is not considered due weight, especially if the topic is controversial. The study is notable enough that it should be mentioned in the article as prose, but the tone must be impartial and balanced, as per Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality.--SGCM (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No offense but we're an entire dispute resolution past the table, and not only that but in this very section (called "Revised image") the point was that the image was changed because I mistakenly took unknown to mean "no effect" and thus eliminated any possible bias. Any semblance of a POV is gone.

There seems to be a disconnect, on the one hand you said its undue for giving the position of something controversial but on when its shown to be neutral it's still somehow undue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As Czarkoff has said, the table is still there, only now as an image. The data itself is not undue, and I have never asserted that it was. The image is undue because it highlights the results of one survey to make a point, and thus is not neutral. WP:NPOV refers to how sources are represented on Misplaced Pages, the tone of the article on Misplaced Pages must be impartial and balanced. The consensus that has emerged in the past two DRN cases, by all of the DRN volunteers, has been to only use prose. I agree that the source is notable enough that is should be mentioned, but the source must be presented neutrally.--SGCM (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your making a distinction where one doesn't exist, you can't have a situation where the "data is undue" but the image "makes a point," the only point of the image is to present the neutral data of the study.

Like you said, using an encyclopedia (a tertiary source much like the image) for a technical detail (in this case the effectiveness of different psychotherapies) would not be undue weight because its a large source that cites others and only presents neutral information. So what exactly is the difference? CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a source, by itself, and how the source is represented on Misplaced Pages. WP:NPOV requires not only the use of reliable sources, but also the balanced and impartial representation of the sources. The argument that the source is neutral, ergo anything written on Misplaced Pages citing the source is also neutral, is not a convincing one. The issue here is how the source is conveyed on Misplaced Pages. Highlighting the claims made by one source with an image is considered undue, because it emphasises the claims of one source. The consensus of the second DRN was that the information should only be conveyed as prose.--SGCM (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

We are back in square one: the table (as wikitable or image) isn't ballanced regarding the total amount of sources, and the wording "No effect" misrepresents the phrase "little or no effect" (pretty obvious that little effect is some effect, which doesn't intersect with "no effect", isn't it?). Probably now it is time to close this case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this DRN case is merely a reiteration of the arguments made in the previous two DRN cases. There is one editor that wants to highlight the claims made by a source, and another that wants it removed entirely. Neither approach is appropriate. The opinions of the third party editors, throughout all three DRN cases, have been remarkably consistent:

• The source is notable and reliable, and should be mentioned.
• But it should be conveyed only as prose (not as an image or a table), so as not to overemphasise it, and presented with a balanced and impartial tone as per Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality.

As for closure, I'm hoping there isn't a fourth DRN case.--SGCM (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that this was the outcome of previous discussions and the closing comment of this case (before it was reopened). I would close this case again right away with recommendation to go to WP:AN/I if the table is found anywhere on Misplaced Pages without explicit prior consensus on talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You might like to look at the misleading edit summary here then. ----Snowded 05:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats why I hate the DRN: It assess and asserted always things anybody can understand wrong: Yes the RS is reliable. but that doesn't mean it has to mentioned. There are a lot of studies like that. But not with such a pithy result. --WSC 08:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now why is CartoonDiablo a POV-pusher and should be blocked? He has overstate his french survey so much. He, CartoonDiablo itself, found that his little study is ponderous enoght to be mentioned as only study in the hole article. I know such nominees. Misplaced Pages:LAWYERing in excess. CartoonDiablo deletes the table and replace it by a picture of it and such things. This style is not barable. Nitpicking without a clue about the issue. --WSC 08:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Second Revision/additional studies

Per the other objection here's the second revision to the image. The other point I think isn't true as well, the image is presented neutrally on a technical point from a large tertiary source (the largest of its kind in fact). Saying this is undue is akin to other example, saying that a topic encyclopedia on a technical point is undue. Actually I think another good step will be to collect another study for each outcome of this one. That way it'll amount to about a dozen sources given the definitions used here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Citations for extra verification of the image:
Psychoanalysis
Schizophrenia

• Mamberg, L.; Fenton, M.; Rathbone, J. (2001). "Individual psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis for schizophrenia and severe mental illness". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001360.
• Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team, http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/schzrec1.htm

Panic disorder

• A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy for Panic Disorder http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=97873

PTSD

• A Multidimensional Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapy for PTSD http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177317

Personality disorders

• The Effectiveness of Psychodynamic Therapy and Cognitive Behavior Therapy in the Treatment of Personality Disorders: A Meta-Analysis http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=176313

CBT
Schizophrenia

• Psychological treatments in schizophrenia: I. Meta-analysis of family intervention and cognitive behaviour therapy http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/2119/

Depression (hospitalized and moderate)

• A meta-analysis of randomized trials of behavioural treatment of depression http://dro.dur.ac.uk/8228/1/8228.pdf
• A meta-analysis of the effects of cognitive therapy in depressed patients. J Affect Disord. 1998.
• Medications versus cognitive behavior therapy for severely depressed outpatients: meta-analysis of four randomized comparisons. Am J Psychiatry. 1999.

Bipolar disorder

• The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy in bipolar disorder: a quantitative meta-analysis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19852904

Panic Disorder

• A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Medication for Primary Care Panic Disorder http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1237029/
• Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18363421

PTSD

• Cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment of pediatric posttraumatic stress disorder: a review and meta-analysis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21458405

Anxiety disorders

• Cognitive behavioral therapy in anxiety disorders: current state of the evidence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22275847

Bulimia and Anorexia

• Cognitive behavioral therapy for eating disorders http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20599136

Personality disorders

• The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for personality disorders http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138327/

Alcohol dependency

• Cognitive-behavioral treatment with adult alcohol and illicit drug users: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19515291

Family/Couple's therapy
Schizophrenia

• Psychological treatments in schizophrenia: I. Meta-analysis of family intervention and cognitive behaviour therapy http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/2119/
• The Effect of Family Interventions on Relapse and Rehospitalization in Schizophrenia—A Meta-analysis schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/73.abstract

Bipolar disorder

• Family-focused treatment for adolescents with bipolar disorder. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15571785
• A randomized study of family-focused psychoeducation and pharmacotherapy in the outpatient management of bipolar disorder. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12963672

Anorexia

• Family therapy for anorexia nervosa. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20393940

Alcoholism

• Review of outcome research on marital and family therapy in treatment for alcoholism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22283384
• Family therapy treatment outcomes for alcoholism http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00176.x/abstract

Oh, CartoonDiablo now stops to interpret the french survey wrong. Now he beginns with his own research. Now he mixed up the results of the french survey, if a treatment is proven or not with other studies which evaluate the evidence state or the hight of the effect. You know, the french survey only mentioned if the treatment is proven, that means well evaluated (by meta-analyses optimally) und the efficiency is abouve the Placebo-effect. Other meta-analyses and RCT's of course rate the efficacy of the measured teatments. The most of them use the cohans d. Effect size (abouve 0.2 is a small, abouve 0.5 is a moderate and abouve 0.8 is a high effect). Now he found a RCT about Schizophrenia and others and mixed it with the results of the french survey. I should rather say, the results CartoonDiabolo thinks the survey gives.

That means, CartoonDiabolo starts his own littel psychotherapy research review. Who needs reliable sources? I always thought this is called WP:OR here? But, who knows, maybe he can file his resarch at a peer reviewed magazine? --WSC 17:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Then which is it? Is it "one small study" or is it WP:OR? The fact is you can't have both meaning now we have "one study" of 100+ meta-studies and 24 separately cited meta-studies.

As far as I can see there is no possible objection to the image via NPOV or Undue because now its 25 sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious what other autors say about that. --WSC 18:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For all the volunteers' sake, each study is a meta-analysis so I'm fairly confident it can't be synth because it's 24 reviews. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Straight down the line original research and synthesis. Your advocacy of one method is showing here. If you want to write that stuff up and get in published in a peer reviewed journal then, and only then, could be use it. ----Snowded 19:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No those are the outcomes of the reviews, if they were primary studies then they would be advocacy and OR. That aside I don't see how you can simultaneously believe that "one study" with 100+ secondary reviews is Undue but when its 24 different reviews it's synth? CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not that the material may not be appropriate (although we have to check for Weight). The problem is your synthesis of the material into a table and using that to give undue weight to one perspective in a controversial issue. You have had this explained to you by several editors, but you persist in trying to improve the table; seemingly not realising the nature of the objection. Per multiple responses the text is valid (but needs to be balanced) the table is not. ----Snowded 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's not one perspective, it's the consensus of the studies as exemplified by the US and French governments. If you can find one meta-analysis that shows Psychoanalysis is effective at treating schizophrenia than the table can be shown to be doubt and only offering "one perspective." CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The table is your synthesis of material that you have selected. The empirical basis of CBT has, as you should know, been challenged (I've given you some reference on that). Its the claims of your original research in creating the table that are being contested, not the validity of alternatives. ----Snowded 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already answered that. If it was my position as opposed to the scientific consensus held by both the US and French governments (which incidentally, it is) then where are the meta-analyses I'm excluding? And no, I haven't seen you present any secondary or tertiary reviews challenging the image.

The fact is, this is the scientific consensus, not a POV and not a synthesis. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try once more. You have studies that support CBT, we correctly report those in the body of the article. Your table is your synthesis of those sources and it original research. It gives the impression that the studies you have selected to summarise reflect the whole field, which they do not. When you ask for the names of meta-anlyses you are excluding you give further evidence that you have not understood the objection to the table. It is not your role to provide that summary. ----Snowded 20:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Further you are ignoring the consensus reached over past DR references. The objection has not been that you got the table wrong, its that the use of table is wrong (while the text is OK). Your attempt to move a table to an image, then argue that the image would be OK if you just changed the content a bit misses the point entirely and could easily be seen as wikilawyering and/or refusing to accept consensus.----Snowded 20:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what you're not getting, (and hopefully this will be the last time we debate this exact point) the fact that I found the studies does not inherently make this OR, and there's nothing wrong with displaying an image provided it shows the scientific consensus. What would be wrong, is if the image excluded studies in favor of a point of view or gave undue weight to specific studies (which it doesn't do).

And yes it it summarizes the consensus of the meta-analyses. If you don't think so, then show how its not representative of the consensus by providing examples of secondary studies. Otherwise, there is no fault. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And no other experienced editor to date has agreed with your interpretation of the rules. If you check back they have not asked you to improve the table, they have said that the material belongs in the article as text. The reasons have been clearly stated several times and your 'improving' the table does not change that. ----Snowded 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That was for when it was "one" study, this changes the entire debate. Because now its no longer one large tertiary source but about 25 different sources showing the scientific consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tables should not be images on Misplaced Pages. Regardless of other problems with this image, there is no possible revision that can be included. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@CartoonDiablo: And the field is much wider than you think. Your self made table of your synthesis of your understanding of psychotherapy research contains still the scales of the french survey. E.g. the term Depression (hospitalised). Bipolar disorders (with drougs) etc. Futher I

I've not the same opinion that the french survey have to mentioned at the articles because it's so unimportant and not expressive. It's possible to mention it, in a well balanced overview. --WSC 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A source can be mentioned as long as it's reliable and notable, and portrayed with a neutral and balanced tone. @Czarkoff. Agreed. Image is trying to promote a point of view. WP:SYNTHESIS should be avoided. Prose still remains the best option.--SGCM (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Pendulum

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Chetvorno (talk · contribs)
• Maschen (talk · contribs)
• Martinvl (talk · contribs)
• 193.233.212.18 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum. The article is very long and there is a second article, Pendulum (mathematics), for the mathematics, so the policy of the editors on my side of the dispute has been to keep the math in the article to a minimum.

User:193.233.212.18 has repeatedly inserted a second equation for the true period of the pendulum. His equation is already included in Pendulum (mathematics) but he feels it should be in Pendulum also. There have been 6 revert-restore cycles since Sept 9, including 2 within the last 24 hours so he is up against the WP:3RR. There has been consensus on the Talk page from the beginning, with 5 editors opposed to inclusion of the equation and only User:193.233.212.18 in favor. He hasn't answered the detailed criticisms of the equation on the Talk page, only said that his equation is the best and therefore it must be included.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss it with User:193.233.212.18 in a nonconfrontational manner on his Talk page, but he hasn't replied. He may not have a static IP; I think I've seen him with other IPs, but he doesn't sign his posts

How do you think we can help?

User:193.233.212.18 seems not very familiar with WP standards; he says edit warring is OK as long as the issue is important, and doesn't seem to understand the 3RR. If a mediator could convince him that these are serious standards, it could prevent him from getting blocked.

Opening comments by Maschen

I also tried explaining to the IP at User talk:193.233.212.18 and talk:pendulum, and have reverted the IP number of times, and intend to stay out of it since the explanations have no effect. The IP doesn't seem to understand/may be ignorant of WP policy, and possibly WP:COI applies.

Opening comments by Martinvl

Misplaced Pages's first duty is towards the reader.

There are two articles related to the equations for the period of a pendulum, one is the article Pendulum and the other in the article Pendulum (mathematics). The second of these articles leads on from the first and is a more detailed account of the mathematics behind the pendulum. As a part-time physics tutor, I believe that 90% of Misplaced Pages readers researching pendulums will only read the first of these two articles and few will understand the second article.

At various times, four different formulae have been given in this article:

${\displaystyle T\approx 2\pi {\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}}\qquad \qquad \theta _{0}\ll 1}$

${\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}T&=2\pi {\sqrt {L \over g}}\left(1+{\frac {1}{16}}\theta _{0}^{2}+{\frac {11}{3072}}\theta _{0}^{4}+\cdots \right)\end{alignedat}}}$

${\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}T&=2\pi {\sqrt {L \over g}}\left(1+{\frac {1}{16}}\theta _{0}^{2}+{\frac {11}{3072}}\theta _{0}^{4}+{\frac {173}{737280}}\theta _{0}^{6}+{\frac {22931}{1321205760}}\theta _{0}^{8}+\cdots \right)\end{alignedat}}}$

${\displaystyle T={\frac {2\pi }{M(\cos(\theta _{0}/2))}}{\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}},}$

where ${\displaystyle M(x)}$ is the arithmetic-geometric mean of 1 and ${\displaystyle x}$.

My analysis of these formulae is as follows:

• The first of these formulae is the formula that is taught to 17 and 18 year-old physics students. (I am a part-time physics tutor for this age-group).

• The second of these formulae shows an approximation to the correction needed when the angle θ is not small and is a real-life example of the Taylor series, an essential part of university level maths for engineers and scientists. In practice this formula will ensure that a longcase clock is accurate to better than 0.1 second per day.

• The third of these formulae adds nothing to the second other than additional accuracy - of the order of microseconds per day.

• The fourth of these formulae give an exact solution, but its relationship to the first equation is rather cryptic. In addition the function M is not one that is taught in a standard engineering or physics degree course.

From the reader’s point of view, it is essential to include the first of these equations in the article as this is the formula that is always taught at school or university. Thereafter, either the second or the third is highly instructive (I prefer the second), but the fourth equation is only really of interest to applied mathematicians and in practice is only encountered in university maths classes, never in university (or school) laboratories. I feel therefore that the fourth of these equations is out of place in a general article about pendulums, but is ideal material for the article Pendulum (mathematics). Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 193.233.212.18

The dispute is being based on an ill posed question of whether or not the best formula ought to be taken out. I understand that the dark ages may have not entirely missed a few avid advocates for removing it but none of their desperate arguments can withstand a slightest healthy criticism. Personally, I do not care much either way since I've read the reference and I do know the reasons which make the formula "best", as I've repeatedly and patiently claimed. Yet, I'm surprised to find out that the avid arguers for removing it have presented no understanding whatsoever of the formula they are so adamantly fighting against, as is occasionally evidenced by wrongly labeling it as obscure. Too much non scientific and hardly graceful efforts are being invested by them supporting a faulty premise. I'll be much amused to see this dispute being resolved in their favor against the best formula. Yet, the most natural outcome, as I see it, is to leave the best formula available to all readers, whether or not pseudosceintists like it. Their wasteful energy is better directed elsewhere so as I spend no more time on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pendulum discussion

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. Edit warring is usually not something that DRN handles. Consider taking this to WP:ANI or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if it continues. It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page, so there's not much else that DRN can do.--SGCM (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Chetvorno 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM: You wrote "It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page". I looked at the article talk page, and there were discussions 13 Sept to 18 Sept, and the final comment (18 Sept) was "I've initiated a DRN case". After that, there are no more comments on the article talk page. So it looks like the parties have simply shifted the discussion here to DRN and would like some uninvolved editors to help reach consensus. Or is there another talk page I'm overlooking? --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The "Period of Oscillation" section of pendulum should be a summary of the entire Pendulum (mathematics) article (per WP:SUMMARY STYLE). I would expect to see the 2 or 3 most important formulae represented in that section. My opinion is that the two most important formulae are:

${\displaystyle T\approx 2\pi {\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}}}$

${\displaystyle {d^{2}\theta \over dt^{2}}+{g \over \ell }\sin \theta =0}$

The other formulae, including the infinite series, seem a bit too arcane for a top-level summary ... because they do not occupy a position of prominence in the Pendulum (mathematics) article. I guess my point is that the underlying differential equation should be included in the top-level article before resorting to the infinite series or the "M" arithmetic-geometric mean formulae. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander, in the discussion, of the four involved users, only User:193.233.212.18 supports inserting the following formula into the article, and has been edit warring to keep it in:

${\displaystyle T={\frac {2\pi }{M(\cos(\theta _{0}/2))}}{\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}},}$

Which, as the discussion indicates, has no support from any of the other five editors. The consensus seem to be that the formula should remain in the Pendulum (mathematics) article and should not be placed in the Pendulum article. The Dispute Overview of the case states that the DRN case was filed mostly to stop User:193.233.212.18 from edit warring, which is something that DRN is not equipped to handle. If desired, I have no objections to the continuation of the DRN case--SGCM (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your view, @Noleander, I agree. As you pointed out, SGCM, this is not the venue for dealing with the editwarring problem, since we have consensus, so I would be agreeable to terminating the dispute resolution process. Sorry, I guess I should have read the requirements on this page closer. --Chetvorno 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to get picky, but ... :-) The first sentence of this case is "The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum." And the case was filed by one of the "majority" participants, not the IP. It is often the case that a majority will "gang up" on a single editor, yet sometimes the single editor is correct (I am not saying that is the case here). DRN is supposed to be a haven for such persecuted souls. For that reason, the case should stay open a few days and let the IP present some source-based arguments on why the AGM formula is important. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Don't have any objections.--SGCM (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, good idea. --Chetvorno 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by 114.147.131.50 Sorry to involve myself in this dispute, but I was astonished to see an exact formula for the pendulum period. It is true that it is not in the standard school or university programs, but for the very simple reason that - no exact formula existed so far. The power of Misplaced Pages is in its evolution. As science has advanced to give us the exact formula, it should be with no doubt be mentioned here at the top, with the traditional school formulas below as a simplified formulas as it is done is any other article. 1:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.147.131.50 (talk)

Just to clarify, the exact formula that you mentioned used the arithmetic-geometric mean, which is just a handy way of writing the converging series approximation for the period (an elliptic integral) which has been known for a long time (1850ish I think). Pretty handy though. a13ean (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@IP: To justify inclusion of that AGM formula in the pendulum article, we need to see some source books that mention the AGM formula pretty prominently. For example, I'm looking at the Halliday/Resnick college physics text, and it includes the approximation for small angles; and it includes the infinite series, but it does not include the AGM formula. So that book suggest the AGM is not as important. If you could find a few introductory physics books that present the AGM formula with equal or greater emphasis than the infinite series, that could be persuasive. --Noleander (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear a pure soul able to appreciate the exact formula. Everyone else better stop wasting time searching for it in textbooks as is well explained in the AMS(59,8) article. Now that Chetvorno discovered that I'm qualified, I must admit I rarely see highly qualified or even relevant comments made by pitiful souls desperately advocating a concealement of a formula rightfully described as "should be with no doubt mentioned here at the top". And by the way, once a13ean reads the referenced article he would not have to think of approximate dates but would join me, I hope, to advocate spreading the knowledge we would then share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A possible compromise here is modify the pendulum article to state, in prose, that an "exact" formula exists based on the arithmetic-geometric mean, and link to the formula in the pendulum (mathematics) article. But I'm not sure about the word "exact" ... it may imply closed-form expression to some readers; but the AGM is generally not closed form: it usually requires infinite iteration. So the word "exact" may be misleading. How about "The period of a pendulum may also be calculated using an iterative algorithm, based on the arithmetic-geometric mean, which converges much more rapidly than the infinite series above." How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Noleander's "compromise" suggestion seems acceptable to me mainly because it doesn't merely entail removing the best formula (that's simplest and "much more rapidly convergent" as is now being rightfully noted and properly emphasized). Furthermore, it's well referenced as I, long ago, noted but hardly influenced some people whose irrelevant and thus excessive writings seem to be much disbalanced with their negligibly too little reading. Now, I expect these to panic since concealing the truth seems to be their preferred method for battling it. Certainly, they will experience much harder times once the formula, being discussed, comes to light again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, Chet, Maschen (the other parties): Do you have any comment on the proposal to insert a prose sentence explaining the AGM formula and why it is significant? --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@114.147.131.50: "Exact" is misleading. There is no closed form formula for evaluating the arithmetic–geometric mean. It may converge faster numerically though. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Innovation Journalism

The primary issue is being addressed in Articles for Deletion. After the AfD finishes, if any issues remain, another DRN case can be initiated. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, see this and that sections in the talk page.

Location of dispute

• Minorities in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Filanca (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is an old one, closed without resolution, probably due to my inability to edit here. See

The issues we have:

• Rearranging the sections. Currently minorities are grouped under there sections: 1- Religious minorities, 2- Other minorities and 3-Linguistic and cultural communities. Turks are a subtitle of "Religious minorities" while I propose (since Turks are an ethnic group, not a religion) placing it together with other ethnic minorities like Jews, Armenians and Macedonians. There is no need for two separate sections for "other minorities" and "linguistic and cultural communities" since the distinction is not clear.
• There is no allusion to the lack of a mosque and cemetery in Athens. This is a well-known problem for the muslim minorities in that city and of encyclopedic significance. Athens is the only capital in Europe without a mosque and has a significant muslim population, some of which are Greek citizens. (See )
• Attacks against the Turkish minority is not mentioned in the article, yet this is an issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, see the links to the talk page of the article and the previous dispute resolution request in this page.

How do you think we can help?

An experienced, neutral Misplaced Pages editor's opinion would greatly help. This dispute resolution request was deleted here twice due to no attempt made in the talk page of the disputed article. Please examine the above links to see the attempts made previously for a resolution. Filanca (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from party Athenean

Discussion

Comment: This case was initiated manually, and does not follow the normal DRN section layout precisely, but that is okay. Still waiting for party Athenean to post an opening comment. --Noleander (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know how to do follow a "normal DRN section layout". In the comment made during deletion of my previous request there was reference to a "form" so I though it would be fine to imitate the previous examples. Filanca (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you click the "Request Dispute Resolution" button at the top left of this page, it will lead you through some question and create a new DRN case section for you. --Noleander (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting know. This case looks fine now as it is, so I will not start a newer one unless you ask for it. Filanca (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User Athenean did not receive a notification of this DRN case, so I just posted one on their talk page. --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

GNU

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Belorn (talk · contribs)
• Lentower (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)
• Reisio (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The template tag primary source is discussed. No specific issue or disputed text was raised, just a request of less primary sources and more secondary sources. After requesting more specificness, no answer were given. When secondary sources was adding (including a world published book and university publications), those was disregarded as not following WP:RS. The total count is as standing 20 non-primary sources of an total of 30 source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking for specificness. If I know what claim/text/source was specifically the issue, I could work with it. Now there is not much there beyond trying, and then get the attempt thrown back by a blank "NOT RS" answer.

How do you think we can help?

Multiple things. A Third-party opinion. A alteration to the discussion. More sources *might* help, but I suspect it wont until the issue is identified.

Opening comments by Lentower

Opening comments by SudoGhost

A specific issue was given, I was never aware that this was unclear. The article is based on primary sources, hence the tag. Adding three sources to an entire article does not resolve this, so I'm unsure as to why this DRN was even brought up. = SudoGhost 22:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Reisio

The original template was added by a single editor acting alone, whose corresponding explanation on the talk page was opposed. Its presence in the article was therefore not the product of consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

GNU discussion

Hi, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here at DR/N. Before we begin it should be noted that the use of tags represents content on or in a Misplaced Pages article and therefore does indeed require a consensus of editors. This is the appropriate venue for this dispute. I do have a question for the filing editor. Why have all parties in the dispute not been listed? We await the answer to the volunteers question and the opening comments of participants before we begin. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Reisio, thank you for participating. Please make your opening comments in the above section provided. We will wait for all involved parties before we beging discussion in full.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have particularly anything else to say at the moment, and cannot find any description of what opening comments are for on this page. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is OK. We can assume your fist comment is your opening statement. I believe the section to be self explanatory as in "Comments made at the opening of the filing", however, if you have any concerns or questions you may feel free to ask here or on the DR/N talkpage for assistance. I am going to move your comment to your opening section reserved for you. Please feel free to add to it if you feel fit! Any other comments can be made in this section.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake of not including Reisio. Did not view him as a participant at that time, but that was my fault of becoming a bit narrowed in my focus during the discussion. As for any person contributing in the editing (but not on the talk), I do/did not know if those should be included. Belorn (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ideally you should have pointed everybody involved to the talk page before filing this request. As the case is already opened, and some discussion already happened, you may just use {{DRN}} on the talk page to notify everybody watching the article about this case, and only list here editors who participated in talk page discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Included the template, and informed Reisio. Thanks for the suggestions. Belorn (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute overview

On September 19TH, 2012 the {{Primary sources|date=July 2010}} tag was boldly deleted by User:Reisio with the edit summary: (if two years doesn't do it, then the template isn't serving any more purpose than ordinary wikipedia guidelines on the matter, and therefore is a waste of space here): . This drew the attention of another editor, User:SudoGhost and was reverted: . This revert was then reverted again by User:Reisio:. This was then again reverted by User:SudoGhost, the first reverting editor:. This was again reverted by the bold editor, User:Reisio: . At this point, another editor, User:Lentower retuned the tag: and then made a seperate edit to the "see also" section of the article. This drew the attention of yet another editor, User:Belorn who adapted one primary source to a secondary source (I have not looked at the source at this time) and then made an additional edit removing the tag once again: as well as deleting some content and sources from the lede. The tag was again added back by User:Lentower : , then reverted again by User:Belorn : , which was reverted once again by User:Lentower: only to be reverted by User:Belorn : which was just reverted by User:SudoGhost: that was then reverted by User:Reisio : just to be reverted again by User:SudoGhost: that was reverted by User:Reisio : . At this point another editor became involved and edited the page User:Czarkoff : who appears to have attempted something of a compromise with a different tag {{multiple issues| {{citation style|date=September 2012}} {{linkrot|date=September 2012}} {{ref improve|date=September 2012}} }} with more specific concerns. This was followed up by an edit by User:Derek R Bullamore who addressed citation concerns and replaced the previous tag with {{Refimprove|date=September 2012}}. Then User:Reisio removed that tag accusing the editor of "driveby tagging" in the edit summary: . At this point User:Czarkoff then added tags directly to text .

Dispute discussion

Diego Maradona

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Diego Maradona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lsw10 (talk · contribs)
• Kevin McE (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user has repeatedly deleted many of my sources and descriptions on the article. My version of the article uses more references than his and still allows his to be included with making contradictions. His version makes impossible to add other popular views on the player. On top of that, the user has edited a section of the FIFA Poll made in 2000, only leaving the part that supports his views(the online poll) and leaving the FIFA magazine readers votes, and the experts votes out. There is no Website in the world that only refers to the online poll leaving out the rest. Pure vandalism. Another dispute of ours in the same article is that he has reverted my editing on an irrelevant reference from an article using the Castrol Rankings Website comparing Pele and Maradona. The article and Website did not support the description on the Misplaced Pages page saying "Maradona is the best ever" and it actually rated several other players above him. http://www.castrolfootball.com/legends/

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing with the other user in our talk pages and in the articles talk page.

How do you think we can help?

-Not permit deletion of legitimate references. -possibly make the article semi-protected if that will help, as it has also received vandalism by users who are not logged in.

Opening comments by KevinMcE

Diego Maradona discussion

• Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and will be mediating this discussion, after we get opening statements from all parties involved. Also, please see WP: BRD. Electric Catfish 17:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Innovation Journalism

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Innovation Journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dnordfors (talk · contribs)
• OpenFuture (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We need help to end the RfD. It was previously subject for Dispute Resolution which was constructive. The Dispute Resolution has been closed. However, the dispute seems to continue on the RfD page. The editor who initiated the RfD says I have no right to suggest that the RfD should be considered resolved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Previous Dispute Resolution was successful in bringing the issue forward.

How do you think we can help?

Stay in the loop until the RfD is resolved. Please check the RfD page.

Opening comments by OpenFuture

Innovation Journalism discussion

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. As Noleander said in the last DRN case, please wait for the AfD discussion to run its course before bringing this to DRN. An AfD discussion cannot be closed (although there are rare exceptions) until a site administrator closes it. A deletion discussion runs for around a week before an uninvolved administrator evaluates the consensus, and decides whether to keep or delete the article. For more information, see Misplaced Pages:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed.--SGCM (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

3. Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Self-determination&diff=next&oldid=512661642

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