Talk:Burford Methodist Church

Edit war

I have applied "sfn" templates to inline citations and "|ref=harv" parameters to book citations to facilitate navigation of this article, and increased the number of inline citations to improve verifiability. I also deleted the "Ethos" section which is User:GiacomoReturned's personal essay on the English Baroque and I do not believe belongs in an article about one building in one market town. However, GiacomoReturned has engaged in an edit war against this deletion and against the "sfn" formatting of the inline citations, and has broken the the three-revert rule.

I have therefore left the "Ethos" section in place and tagged it instead. I still recommend that this article is the wrong place for it: if it belongs on Wikipedia, it should be in the English Baroque article, which is underdeveloped and might benefit from GiacomoReturned's attention.

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, not anyone's personal website. Therefore articles should be developed by discussion, not crude reversions. Motacilla (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As I explained to you earler "I'm afraid there is little point about writing about a building of little note, if one does not expain why it is of note and of interest. I don't like you method of referencing and I don't use it. There's a whole world outside of Oxfordshire, one needs to explain to that world why that building is of note. I shall continue to revert you if you insist on sinking the page to the provincial. Good morning. Giacomo Returned 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)." Furthermore, Wikipedia is indeed a collaborative project, but it is also a project that seeks to educate. Just describing what one sees is all very well, but sometimes one has to explain why one is seeing it and why that is significant. I have also reverted your tags for citations for the obvious and well proven. Giacomo Returned 22:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that Motacilla is essentially right. The "Ethos" section belongs - with proper references that satisfy WP:RS - in the English Baroque article. And, though it may seem an unfortunate imposition to those who wish to shower articles with the benefit of their extensive but unsupported knowledge, WP:RS and WP:verifiability will always trump one editor's opinion as to what is "obvious and well proven". Even if the one editor in question then plays hard done by User_talk:Wetman#Methodists.21 Ghughesarch (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(The above link is to a brief remark at my User Talk page. How has Giacomo been followed there?Wetman (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

Actually, it is not necessary for every statement in an article to be cited, only those that are dubious. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new article, it would be rude to trash whole sections of it while the editor is still working. Perhaps given a little time some citations can be found. I'd also recommend submitting the article to one of Wikipedia's formal review processes to see what a larger number of editors think about it. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ghughesarch, I see that you have had prior content disputes with Giano. You following him here and joining this dispute on a page you never edited before is probably a bad idea. I recommend you let Giano and Motacilla work this out, rather than escalating the dispute with your involvement. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to withdraw for the moment, except that Giano / GiacomoReturned has shown in the past that he has difficulty understanding WP:OWN, WP:RS and so on. I've avoided getting involved with this article until now simply because of that previous experience. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That might be the case, but this page isn't the place to discuss general problems with an editor. Let's focus discussion on this article and try to de-escalate the dispute and get the parties to work productively rather than in conflict. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just passing-by, but as a general remark I find this type of edit summary harsh and incivil: diff Undid revision 469966951 by GiacomoReturned (talk): inline citations vandalised again for no good reason. After 8 years on WP have you still not learnt to use templates? I do not think it is civil to accuse an established editor of vandalism in the edit summary simply because they don't like the sfn-type of citations and in addition linking their years of service with an obligation to learn to use the sfn-type of citations is uncalled for. I don't care to know how to use this type of citations which I find obnoxious and I wouldn't like someone talking to me this way. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept that I was terse. That is because of the contrast between my work and Giano's: I had deleted one section and patiently reworked the whole of the rest of the article, thus retaining much of Giano's work. Giano simply threw the two largest sections (including the one I deleted) in reverse, thus deleting a large proportion of what I had contributed. I am not battling to WP:OWN the article, I am trying to refine it.

While accepting criticism, I wish to remain focussed on my central concern: should an article about one individual English Baroque building include an essay on the politics of the Baroque in England and examples of the Baroque in Rome? If so, then every time I write a description of a medieval Church of England parish church what is to stop me from including an essay on the relevant phases of English Gothic architecture and the corresponding architectural phases in French Gothic architecture? — Motacilla (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. I understand your points and I will not press the matter further since, as you mentioned, the focus should be on improving the article. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr. K, would you be willing to read the article and leave feedback? Is it interesting? Are any sections excessive? What areas would you like to see expanded? Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jonathan for your invitation and for your efforts to settle this dispute. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on architecture and therefore I am not sure if I can help out in any substantive way. I can check the article overall and if there are any problems that I can detect with its general structure, I could leave a note. I'll see what I can do. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

Gentle editors, would you please submit this dispute to WP:3O or WP:RFC. I believe it would be the obligation of the editor wishing to make a disputed change to fill out the dispute resolution "paperwork". Things tend to default to the status before the dispute. To change that status somebody needs to do a bit of work to generate a consensus. Two editors struggling against each other for control of the article does not make any sense; it is a situation that can never reach stability. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Job done, with pleasure — I've referred to WP:3: Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. — Motacilla (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your response in the discussion below where I ask you to confirm agreement with the 3rd opinion. I'm going to unlock the article without further delays. Please don't take any actions that go against the opinion rendered without first obtaining a consensus on this talk page. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

As requested. 1) On the citations. WP:CITE is absolutely clear:

• If there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor;

• if you think another system or style would be more appropriate for the article than what is already in use, to propose the change on the talk page, and wait for consensus to emerge.

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change

-it is amazing that some editors kick up a fuss when their cite-banditry is reverted. Motacilla made his changes without any attempt at consultation, and has shown no willingness at all to "defer to the style used by the first major contributor".

2) The "Ethos". The title of the section is a little odd. There are two paragraphs, one general to the English Baroque, and one specific to this building, but following on from the first. The first para might usefully be copied to the very short English Baroque, but that doesn't mean it should go from here. The whole thing could be added into the lead, or perhaps retitled "Background" or "Context". Some references would of course be nice, but personally (& not recalling the building, though I must have seen it) I don't see anything very controversial or outrageous. Motacilla has added some useful links, & a very little text which should be kept. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If both editors can live with this 3rd opinion I will unprotect the article so you can make the suggested changes and then continue making improvements. Please indicate whether you agree, and feel free to ask questions or seek additional feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the remarks about the citation format, especially when changing to the sfn variety which I find really obnoxious. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Johnbod is a well-respected editor of European cultural history. And even without WP:CITE to support collegial behavior, surely we may all be permitted the consistent use of any standard reference style. In general, blanking perfectly relevant sections of any article is not editing.--Wetman (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As a founder member of the "B-G clique", I will state upfront that I am unlikely to be unbiased in my views on the behaviour here. I should say, however, that I find {{sfn}} and {{efn}} extremely helpful, particular on large pages which are heavily edited, since tools exist to track errors when these are used. Nevertheless, it is completely unacceptable to force that mode of citation onto any article that does not use it without prior discussion, and an editor of Motacilla's experience has no excuse for being unaware of that. The whole purpose of "defer to style used by the first major contributor" is to avoid back-and-forth edit warring between two editors' personal preferences, and Giano was perfectly within his rights to insist on deference to his version. There will always be a tension between "ownership" of an article and open editing; but open editing does not confer a right to make changes that ultimately boil down to a personal preference, no matter how well-intentioned. Motacilla owes Giano an apology and the removal of the inappropriate warning templates; he also owes the community an assurance that he understands the purpose of the injunctions expressed within WP:CITE, and a promise that he will discuss first in future. A mature editor will understand when he is in the wrong, and take steps to make amends. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, Motacilla may take her silly template from my user talk page and place it elsewhere. Frankly, I am not bothered how she choses to cite a page she writes, but to arrive on a page that I have just created - rewrite it (badly) and remove half the content (because she doesn't think it necessary) is quite frankly unacceptable behaviour. That such people as Ghughesarch (who I make a point of avoiding, but seem to follow me anyway) are now showing up here merely confirms my view that Wikipedia is deeply flawed and it's content is doomed to second rate, incomplete and over-simplified as a consequence. It is not necessary to cite facts on well proven facts, such as describing the 1st Duchess of Marlborough as formidable – when history conclusively records have as one of the most difficult and meddlesome women of the 18th century. This building is remarkable for being Baroque in a small English town and retaining its original setting and environment - nothing more. Therefore, that has to be accentuated in the page because if this building were in the middle of a south European city, it would be so unremarkable as to be deleted as non-notable. People have to be informed as to why they are reading a page on this particular building and not a page on a semi-detatched house on the outskirts of Burford. Giacomo Returned 10:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take that as an agreement with the 3rd opinion, which said that changing citation formats should not be done without prior discussion and consensus. Giano has not objected to renaming "Ethos" to something like "Context" or "Background", and it is implicit that he wouldn't object to copying (not removing) paragraph one of that section to the English Baroque article and having a link from here to there. Motacilla, for the sake of peace on wiki, would you please go to Giano's talk page and remove the warning template. If you confirm agreement with the 3rd opinion, I will unprotect the article and editing will proceed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As a clarification, I did not realise that this article was recently created by Giano when I offered to give my opinion regarding its structure etc. I thought it was a long-standing article which was the subject of a recent editing dispute and this is what motivated me to offer my opinion. Since now I know better and my respect for Giano as an editor is very high, I think that he does not need my help to develop a great article, especially in an area where he is an expert. I may still offer my opinion but mostly in relation to any future conflicts which may arise with other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)