The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Around 2005 I made the mistake of trying to add a link onto the global warming page. I found that there was an organised group of people who stopped others editing the article. After several years of trying to edit the article to better reflect the spread of evidence, I realised that more than likely the same people who write the wikipedia pages were also writing the articles, reviewing each others articles and preventing anyone with a contrary view from being published. As a result I am boycotting Wikipedia (with one recent exception). However, I still feel I should be able to raise areas which should be added even if to attempt to add them will result in a co-ordinated attack with the intention of removing me (as happened to many other people).
The simple fact is that the Kyoto protocol is coming to an end this year. I have read the protocol and it is very clear that the "commitment period" ends. There is nothing about a second phase and despite the editors oft used rule "It's got to be in the peer review literature", no one has even attempted to demonstrate any legal or other basis for saying there is a second phase to Kyoto. I know I cannot edit the article however, I do not see why this should not be properly discussed. But as usual, any discussion of any nature which contradicts the eco-political bias of the editors has been squashed. 82.14.206.26 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
An overview of the actions and intentions of Rachel Corrie on the day of her death is being repeatedly deleted from out of the lead section of the article on her. The deleting-editor gives as a reason for deletion that these specific details are disputed, but will not demonstrate how they are disputed nor provide reliable sources that confirm that contention.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
1. I've recently initiated four topics of discussion on the talk page specificly about the lead and these issues (two of which have been ignored). 2. I've asked for details of what exactly is considered to be disputed info. 3. I've reworded the contested info to attempt compromise and so that it meets Ankh's obections (i.e so that it does not imply anything that is disputed by the various sources).
How do you think we can help?
I'm new to this coming to this board so I don't know exactly. Perhaps help us decide how to get out of this apparent impasse?
Opening comments by Ankh.Morpork
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Rachel Corrie discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and will be helping to mediate this dispute. We are waiting for opening statements from the other editors before we can begin. ElectricCatfish15:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, on talk page, but I have concerns due to the limited pool of opinions.
It appears that this artice is in need of clean up, however, any edits done to improve the article are being reverted and at many times without cause. For example, any edits explcitly stating that William Wallace did not have an affair with Isabella of France are often reverted along with any edits that explicitly state that Edward III was not the son of Wallace. Instead, the article has a vague passage that Isabella was 3 years old at the time leaving the reader to infer that that an affair could not have happened without clear indication that the two were never involved even later in life. There is no reason for such a run around. For example, here, here, and here are just a few examples of this. In fact, even adding the fact this was historically inaccurate was a point of tension with the first mention of it being reverted without good cause despite its factual accuracy as seen here. Additionally, this article contains certain statements which seem bold to state without any reliable sources to back them up. An example is that the article makes the connection that the Stone of Destiny was returned to Scotland as a result of this film. A citation is going to be needed for this claim. Additionally, for some reason Anglophobia has its own section despite its light content and even though there is a cultural effects section where it could be merged into. I'm afraid that although the article has obvious flaws, the established editors of this article have gotten used to the status quo and are reluctant for any changes even for improvement and it would be difficult to solicit a neutral third party opinion on the article's talk page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk Page, but there is limited input due to only a select few amount of editors looking at the Braveheart page.
How do you think we can help?
The opinion of neutral third parties with no prior attachement to the page would be very helpful.
Opening comments by TheOldJacobite
This is ridiculous and unnecessary. Per BRD, Lou75 should have started a talk page discussion when he was reverted the first time, rather than reverting back to his preferred version. And when he was reverted the second time, he should not have reverted again. At least he did make a talk page post after that, but he should have allowed time for discussion before rushing off to dispute resolution. I have not even had time to read his talk page comments, much less had time to respond. It is really rather ridiculous to claim there is a dispute when there has barely been a discussion of the issues. ---The Old JacobiteThe '4519:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Gareth Griffith-Jones
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Braveheart discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
It looks like this dispute is a bit premature for DRN - it hasn't had much discussion on the talk page. I'm going to close this for the time being - I think having some extended discussion would be the best thing to do for the time being. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!11:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sockpuppet accusations go to WP:SPI, Conduct accusations go to WP:WQA (for the time being). Jumping on a significantly Dead talk page thread is not helpful. Closing as this appears to be a conduct issue. Hasteur (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A variety of IP users have stated that Steve Jobs should not be on the "list of people who have been called a polymath." One user repeatedly states that the IP users are probably the same user. When the user described an IP user as "probably the same user," I finally lost my temper with him. Several days later, this user made several statements implying that I was using those IP addresses as sockpuppets; I responded asking if he was accusing me of using those IP addresses as sockpuppets.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This is the first place outside of the discussion that I have done so because my computer's limited capability makes it difficult to search for the proper procedure. All help pages I have visited have implied that I should ask here because there's a dispute at the core of this.
How do you think we can help?
At the very least, steer me toward the proper procedure.
Opening comments by Dream_Focus
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
List of people who have been called a "polymath"
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In May 2012, I asked for guidance (on the Columbia University talk page) about adding a former professor (Jesus de Galindez) to the notable people section of the article. By September 2012, I had received no input, so I added a line in the "notable people" section of the article regarding Galindez.
Within four hours, user 69.120.203.168 deleted the information I added, saying "Galindez belongs neither w/political nor literary notables; in any event, polemical and unsubstantiated statement made is inappropriate heremadestatement."
Two days later, I asked user 69.120.203.168 to clarify the deletion both on his/her talk page ("69.120.203.168, I noticed that you did a wholesale delete of the information regarding Jesus de Galindez from the list of notable Colombia University people. There is a section in the "talk" area of the Colombia University page that has been open for more than two years. Perhaps you could post concerns there. Galindez is a very well-known author and political critic. Don't you think having his name in Time makes him pretty notable? The event of his forced disappearance was big news at the time because of his stature. Don't you think that makes it appropriate to add him to "notable people" from Colombia?") and on the Columbia University talk page.
Seven days later, after not having heard back, I re-added the information.
Eleven hours later, user 69.120.203.168 deleted it again, saying "Mvblair (talk)prior statement was clear; plus, prior 2 sentences about heads of state or founders of nations; subject is not that but a writer."
The following is the statement in the article that is in question:
Spanish political writer Jesús Galíndez, a visiting lecturer, was disappeared from Colombia University, allegedly for criticizing the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.
Other sources are corroborative, but not as concise.
Any help that fellow editors can provide in terms of resolving this dispute would be appreciated.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I left a section on the Columbia University talk page open for several months. After the deletions, I reached out to user 69.120.203.168 on that talk page and on his/her personal talk page. User 69.120.203.168 did not respond to either request for clarification.
How do you think we can help?
I would like to know whether or not the information I added is worthy of being in the article. If it is valid but not in the right place, should I create a new paragraph in the Columbia University notable people section to discuss Galindez?
Opening comments by 69.120.203.168
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Columbia University discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. DRN requires extensive discussion on a talk page before the dispute is brought to the noticeboard. It's a bit too early for DRN, the discussion so far has only occurred through edit summaries. Consider asking the IP to continue the discussion on the talk page, and if he remains unresponsive, it becomes a conduct issue.--SGCM(talk)00:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The editor OpenFuture has listed 'Innovation Journalism' for deletion, referring to it as a 'neologism'. OpenFuture turns it into a personal matter before even talking to me. One editor suggests, without providing any arguments whatsoever, that innovation journalism – a serious form of journalism covering innovation – is a synonym to yellow journalism. Instead of questioning the argumentation, OpenFuture responds to this "Oh, no, not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles. --OpenFuture".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
It's difficult for me to discuss the article after it has been turned into a personal matter.
How do you think we can help?
Please stop personal attacks. It is the article that must be discussed, not my person.
Opening comments by OpenFuture
Please limit to 2000 characters – longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Innovation Journalism discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments – continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Question – I'm a volunteer, and I'd like to help. One approach we could take here is to let the AfD run its course, and then we can see if there are any remaining issues after the AfD is over. In other words, the top priority now should be finding sources and presenting them in the AfD. After the dust settles from the AfD, we can see if there are any open issues. Does that sound acceptable? --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm here and I'm involved :-) There are a variety of processes that are available for dispute resolution: they are listed at WP:Dispute resolution page. This particular process here, the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" (DRN) process is primarily aimed at content-based disputes (e.g. whether an article should contain a certain sentence or not). For questions about the notability of the article, the AfD process (which is already underway) is the best path. Regarding the uncivil behavior of the other editor, the DRN forum is not the best place. Instead, if the behavior continues or escalates, the WP:ANI forum is for issues like that. However, my experience is that most behavior issues are intertwined with content issues. I recommend that you ignore the uncivil behavior and focus on finding excellent sources for the articles in question. See WP:Reliable sources for details on what makes a good source. Present the sources at the AfD. Stick to the sources and avoid commenting about other editors. If the uncivil behavior keeps for for a prolonged period of time, you can resort to the WP:ANI process, but I suggest that you wait for the AfD to finish first. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Noleander – thanks for involving! I will try to go through the links. I hope to get it right. There are being sources added, but the reason for deletion seems to be my involvement, not the article as such. I have been notified by OpenFuture that if I touch the article it may result in blocks or bans (on my user page). I am not an experienced Wikipedian, so I do not know who takes such decisions, but the statement as such is intimidating. If I go on adding sources, may I be blocked/banned? --dnordfors (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Generally, no, you won't be blocked or banned if you add valid material to articles. But make sure that every statement you add is supported by a valid source in a footnote, as explained in WP:Reliable sources and WP:Citing sources. The AfD suggests that there may be a conflict of interest, so if you have any personal involvement in the topics of the articles you are contributing to, you should read and follow the WP:Conflict of interest (COI) policy. That COI policy does not say you cannot contribute to such articles, but rather that you may need to disclose the relationship. If you are adding valid material supported by good sources, and if another editor harrasses you or threatens you in a way that is contrary to WP policy, you should file a notice at the WP:ANI forum. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Also: there is a special discussion forum for conflict of interest issues at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN). If the conflict of interest issue is raised again, and you want some uninvolved editors to discuss that particular issue, you can file a notice at WP:COIN. Again, your best path is to focus on finding good sources that support the material you want to add to the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Noleander – thank you for your clarifying remarks. I am relieved that I am not in any immediate danger of being blocked or banned. Looking forward to getting this sorted out. The comments about conflict of interest are also very useful. It seems that disclosure is the way to go, or otherwise a lot of experts would be prohibited to add content to articles in their fields. --dnordfors (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OpenFuture – you constantly resort to Ad Hominem like here above, i.e. my statements are not OK because I am saying them. You make demeaning statements, like "oh, no *not another* vanity article" one. You threaten me with banning and blocking when I edit the article in response to your complaints, referring to conflict of interest. You write on the AfD page that I am acting in conflict of interest, but when I suggest we turn "conflict of interest" into a discussion thread on the AfD, you say no – it should be discussed on my personal user page and other places – not on the AfD. With this type of argumentation it is very difficult for me to continue the discussion with you. We need mediation, and if that does not work, we will need arbitration. --dnordfors (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
dnordfors: As I explained above, this DRN forum will not mediate civility issues. Your task now is to find the sources for the Innovation Journalism article (it is best if they are not your own works) and present them at the AfD. If you feel that OpenFuture is violating the Wikipedia civility policy, you should gather together a history of their offensive edits and present them in a new case at the WP:ANI forum. As for this case here in DRN, it should be closed in a day or two, unless there is a specific content issue that is unresolved. --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Noelander: Additional sources have been provided. OpenFuture says he can not look at them for the next few days. The DRN process is helpful. It will be great if it stay open until the sources have been reviewed and the content issues are resolved. --dnordfors (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
We can keep this DRN case open for a day or two, but the WP:Forum shopping guideline strongly discourages multiple discussions on a single topic. For that reason, you both need to shift over to the AfD page and do all the talking there (sources and quotes form source are key). After the AfD finishes, if you still have issues, you can start another DRN, if you desire. --Noleander (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's do it this way. I reckon the link to this discussion remains the same, in case we need to refer to it in the future? --dnordfors (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolved? I put a notice on the PfD suggesting the dispute was resolved, since it can not be shown that Innovation Journalism is a non=notable neologism, suggesting removal of the deletion-tag in 48 hours unless anyone thinks otherwise. I do not know if this is the right procedure, please correct if needed. --dnordfors (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Site administrators close deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed. A deletion discussion runs for around a week before an uninvolved administrator evaluates the consensus, and decides whether to keep or delete the article. Consensus is based on the quality of arguments and not the number of votes.--SGCM(talk)11:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The other party ignores this case, but is active elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please, consider filing request for comments.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 [1])
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Family therapy
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
There is strong consensus against inclusion of the table either as image or as table. Please, remove image everywhere and just let it go. Once the table is prosified and merged into the rest of article's content, it might find its place in the article; or it may not find. Thus, discussion over appropriateness of this reference at all is a bit premature now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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.
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. ----SnowdedTALK04:12, 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. ----SnowdedTALK06:45, 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. Commentslike 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.—Kerfufflerharass stalk09:47, 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.
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. ----SnowdedTALK03:24, 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 Wikipedia 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. —Kerfufflerharass stalk03:57, 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 Wikipedia 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. ----SnowdedTALK05:29, 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]. 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)
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~~ → report10:55, 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~~ → report19:24, 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 [3] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, the tone of the article on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia citing the source is also neutral, is not a convincing one. The issue here is how the source is conveyed on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's policy on neutrality.
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 Wikipedia without explicit prior consensus on talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:43, 22 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. Wikipedia: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.
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
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.
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. ----SnowdedTALK19:13, 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. ----SnowdedTALK19:31, 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. ----SnowdedTALK19:58, 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.
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. ----SnowdedTALK20:25, 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.----SnowdedTALK20:27, 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. ----SnowdedTALK20:48, 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)
In fact adding more studies makes the synthesis and original research elements more than if you were referencing only one. This is now wikilawyering, you are ignoring what has been said. ----SnowdedTALK05:27, 24 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)
Dear SGCM, as I told here about a houndred times. There are houdreds of sources worth it to be mentioned in this issu. You can't mention every study. As I propose, It would be a solution to consult a gives an overview about the field, as the this book for example (but there should be much more). In this little article it would be better to have a little textpassage as to have an large chapter were 20 or 30 sources being cited. --WSC ® 05:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Stepping back and looking at the big picture
I am another DRN volunteer.
It says the following at the top of this page:
"What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction."
If we allow essentially the same conflict to come to DRN three times in rapid succession, under what circumstances do we determine that it is something we can't help with, and point the disputants in the right direction?
Let's do what we said we will do at the top of this page, face the reality that if two DRN cases fail to resolve a conflict a third is unlikely to succeed, and start discussing where to refer this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point, I'll probably move this over to third opinion. Just to quickly respond to some of the other issues raised:
It's not a synthesis it's the scientific consensus, those claiming it's synth haven't cited a single meta-analysis challenging the image.
The "images shouldn't be tables" is a guideline, not a policy. And if it mattered then it would've been immediate be cited to end the discussion, not this far into it.
If you could point to a good place to refer this dispute, it would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartoonDiablo (talk • contribs)
Agreed, its not really a dispute. Its one editor on a mission prepared to go to any forum, wikilawyering in the process, unable or unwilling to accept the communities views ----SnowdedTALK06:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am closing this DR/N as the wrong venue at this time. The workgroup is a better place to discuss this seemgly endless dispute. If the group cannot not work this out it may be returned to DR/N. It may be a good idea to use some of the suggestions made here, but this should have been taken to the project before it got out of hand at AN/I and DR/N.Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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.
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:
A [citation needed] 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.
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.[7], where the ref [7] 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".
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 Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ) is NO.
Self-determination discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments – continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I 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)
Dmitrij, before we begin, I would like to clear up the issue with involved parties. We should not be using the comments of Wikipedia 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 [4]. Wee Curry Monstertalk20:48, 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 [referring to Langus & me or just to one of us, I'm not sure] you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. [referring to P&P's pamphlet] 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 Wikipedia: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 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)
Reset this discussion to attempt rescue of this DR/N case
padding
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 [5]. Its worth quoting:
“
"The settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain". Yes, it was encouraged but not all of them accepted the "offer".
”
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 Monstertalk23:05, 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 [referring to Langus & me or just to one of us, I'm not sure] you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. [referring to P&P's pamphlet] 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 Monstertalk09:03, 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 yourWP: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)
Hiding off-subject comments
padding
Please do not begin discussing this filing until such time as all parties are actually added to the DR/N and have made opening statements or remove their statements entirely. Editors should not use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard as a vehicle to drag others into a dispute against their wills. DO NOT MENTION either the editor or their comments if they are not involved. It is highly innappropriate. If they are involved list them. If you think they will not participate do not list them and do not mention them or their comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The two editors quoted above are not a party to the dispute, they offered an independent 3rd party opinion at WP:NPOVN to a question. They're being quoted out of context to support a point they actually reject. I link the discussion in the opening to the talk page discussion. The above from Gaba p illustrates the problem, rather than addressing the question posed, he repeatedly makes a point ignoring the fact it has already been addressed and indulges in ad hominem attacks on editors rather than focusing on content. For information, I have already indicated why I'm not prepared to accept Lopez's comments, since he refers to the Akehurst memorandum, which is in turn based on Goebel, to make a claim that Goebel doesn't make see [6]. He doesn't even need access to the book, I've posted a link to the relevant section. The discussion doesn't progress simply because he constantly re-iterates the same point and ignores any comment that contradicts it – its a dialogue of the deaf. Fundamentally he is arguing that even if we know a claim made in a source is incorrect, we should include it anyway. Wee Curry Monstertalk12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The comments by those two editors are routinely misinterpreted by Wee to claim they support his behaviour when they clearly do not (I urge anyone reading this to go read the actual full comments in that page) Wee, pointing your hypocritical ways is hardly an ad hominem attack. I can't access the book you're pointing to, please copy/paste the section you are referring to as disproving Lopez statement. If it's actually a clear source then we can use it too, you'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. Pigna [1] is another historian stating that Pinedo and his people were forced to leave the islands, so there's another source we can add to the article. Oh and Wee, I only dismiss your WP:OR: sources or it doesn't count (which of course you know). I've told you several times already: go write a book mate! Then you can come back and cite yourself and all your amazing research on the matter. Until then: sources Wee, sources.
Also, the Argentinian claim is that the British expelled the original inhabitants (Argentinian) residing there[2], the British statement is that they only expelled a garrison but never have I heard an explanation of why they consider this garrison not part of the population. If they were living there as Argentinian citizens and were expelled then they count as part of the population. I bring this up because it appears to be the basis of the whole British argument (and thus, Wee's argument): "we only expelled a garrison", well, isn't that part of the population living there at the time too? I'm not sure if this garrison != population has any real basis except for the British claiming so. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 14:46, 16 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 Monstertalk14:34, 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)
This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina.
”
Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has been challenged before and supplied before [8]. 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?
Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. It is significant that only a proportion of people at Vernet's settlement were in fact from Argentina. A large number came from Banda Oriental[3]
”
Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has challenged before and supplied before [10]. 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 [11]
“
Self-determination is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution[67] and is a factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.[68] In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.[69] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.[70]
Argentina argues self-determination is not applicable, asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".[71] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[72] during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination.[73] Historian Mary Cawkell[74] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain[75][76], that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.[77]
”
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 [12], 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 Monstertalk22:54, 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)
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 Monstertalk12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
One more time, here it goes: you edited out (deleted , removed, made go away, etc...) the sentence mentioning Lopez research[4]. You removed both the source and the statement. Comprende? Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 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 Monstertalk12:52, 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
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)
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 Monstertalk09:36, 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 Monstertalk12:52, 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 Monstertalk09:36, 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)
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 Monstertalk09:36, 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)
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 Monstertalk22:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
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 Monstertalk14:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
More than suggesting this method you are FORCING US to use it: [16][17][18][19]
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 Monstertalk13:05, 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.
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.
Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis.
”
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.
“
Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina
On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison...
”
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.
Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.
”
Primary Sources
“
you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments
”
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.
“
I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased.
”
“
I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land.
”
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.
“
...those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before...
”
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:
[20] 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.
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.
“
Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos
[22] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“
This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina.
”
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 Monstertalk22:48, 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)
Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis.
”
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)
“
Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina
On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison...
”
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)
Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.
”
Primary Sources
“
you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments
”
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.
“
I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased.
”
“
I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land.
”
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)
“
...those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before...
”
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.
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.
“
Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos
”
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)
[24] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“
This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina.
”
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)
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)
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. [A concrete example follows of this error]"
"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…[remind us of] 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.
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 Monstertalk22:03, 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 [25]Wee Curry Monstertalk22:13, 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.
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 Monstertalk22:19, 19 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 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)
I have collapsed the majority of the discussion as having gone off the rails. This is an oppurtunity for some resolution on this case. If the disputing editors do not wish to continue then the filing will be closed as "failed" and suggested that the next logical course be formal mediation. It truly disapoints me that editors have refused to collaborate and have taken to such lengthy walls of text on several venues across Wikipedia that this case may well have just scared everyone away.
An unidentified clerk (center) tries to bring to an end a great edit war involving dozens of respected editors. At her feet, three bewildered newcomers are seen caught in the middle of the dispute.
So here is what we can do. Above you will see a suggestion from User:John Carter. It is the opinion of this editor that this makes excellent sense and at the VERY least is our starting point to continue from reset. I suggest taking this opportunity to resolve this dispute quickly and show the community your ability to put aside differences and work together or this may go into the record books as pretty lame.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
John, I'm sure the two editors will delight in that comment, especially the part about duress. However, like most things related to the Falklands dispute, the facts are not nearly so straight forward as the black and white statements of the protagonists.
As I've pointed out before there were two populations.
(1) The garrison, that had been there less than 3 months, that had mutinied after only 4 days. They were asked to leave by Captain Onslow of HMS Clio. Pinedo the commander of the ARA Sarandi considered armed resistance but ultimately complied as 80% of his crew were English mercenaries who wouldn't fight the Royal Navy. Is this duress? Perhaps backed by force of armed action but Onslow chose to proceed with diplomacy, even though the Argentine authorities had ignored the British protests at the establishment of the garrison. Diplomacy was tried first and in a way succeeded.
(2) Vernet's settlement, which was established in 1828. This was the rump of the population as the majority chose to leave in the USS Lexington asserting Vernet had misled as to conditions on the islands, which they asserted were miserable. Of those remaining, Onslow had great difficulty in persuading them to stay, as most wished to leave as they hadn't been paid in months by Vernet. Vernet also paid them in promissory notes, they could only by essentials at his store in his currency, at his inflated prices and they were thus indebted to him. Of those remaining most were happy for a British flag as they felt they could look forward to greater prosperity. Also desribing it as an Argentine settlement is somewhat of a misnomer; Vernet had sought permission from both the British and Argentine authorities and had sought for the British to provide protection for his settlement.
Its not as if the history is complex enough but as Beck observes, history has been perverted to favour modern sovereignty claims.
AN/I and conduct issues are not part of DR/N
padding
The issues forcing this to ANI are as I see it.
(1) Langus and Gaba fundamentally don't understand NPOV. They see NPOV as having what they refer to as the Argentine POV represented.
(2) Related to (1) they seek sources to represent their opinion, they don't look at a broad range of sources to reflect the range of opinions in the literature.
(3) Even where they find a source, they will use it in a way that is completely at odds with the meaning intended by the original author.
(4) They won't discuss matters, in response to a point made in talk, they simply respond by repeatedly accusing you of WP:OR and WP:SYN, this they then consider sufficient. Look at the debacle over Lopez, I simply pointed out that Lopez attributed a comment to Goebel, that Goebel didn't make. Did they listen and consider whethere this cast doubt about the reliability of the source? No they just shouted WP:OR and WP:SYN and didn't discuss it. They claimed it was not our place to consider the reliability of a source.
(5) They WP:TAG team all the time to force their opinion into articles. They accused me of frustrating them at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, I didn't. The sources contradicted the edit they wished to make and it was clear to many editors that their editing followed an agenda. They couldn't gain a consensus as a result. They can't accept they have to build a case and if their case is not sustainable according to our policies it is not accepted.
In the case I brought here that was relevant to Self-determination, neutral sources of all nationalities recognise the settlement wasn't expelled but acknowledge the garrison was. The Argentine claim is that the settlers were expelled to be replaced by Brits. Except they weren't expelled and there were no British settlers for 10 years. Gaba repeatedly changes this to be a British claim there was no expulsion – it isn't a British claim the neutral academic sources don't disagree. He then latches onto a source that is self-contradictory and uses ambiguous language, claims he has a mandate from RSN and ignores my comments to force the edit into the article.
If you can get them to understand NPOV we might stand a chance, fundamentally their incomprehension of our policy is the issue. They believe they should represent the Argentine POV, they don't realise that NPOV requires we described the Argentine position from a neutral perspective and if there is disagreement between what Argentina claims and what the historic record states we should report that.
Instead they choose to obscure the issue by using sources referring to the expulsion of the garrison, claiming this shows the population was expelled. And so on and so on and so on. They've raised the same issues on multiple arguments looking to WP:WIN.
If you can get them to address a comment put to them for once, without them simply using their standard response of WP:OR and WP:SYN, get them to understand WP:NPOV doesn't require us to represent POV but address them from a neutral perspective, you may have a chance. If you can't you'll just make the puppies and kittens sad. Wee Curry Monstertalk15:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I would have no objection to "under duress".
You are ignoring a great deal it seems. Humor is a way to defuse situations. Try it sometimes. You have agreed to a compromise. Thank you. We await the other editors to see if this is something they can live with as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean... I was referring to WCM's comments on editors that is now collapsed. I do appreciate the image and caption above, you gave me a good laugh :) --Langus (t) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I did think you were referring to that. I appreciate the effort you are making and hope this can be resolved. John Carter's suggestion may well be able to work and I am so glad he looked into this for us!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
John Carter are you referring to something like this?: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants left under duress following the British arrival". If so, I would have no issue with such a compromise. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
My comments covered a great deal more than material relevant to WP:ANI, I specifically addressed the comments about duress. As I pointed out there is great deal more to the situation than the black and white statements made by the protagonists. I don't accept John's suggestion for the simple reason it doesn't relate to the facts of the matter. The people of the settlement who left chose to leave, the people who stayed chose to stay, unlike what Argentina now claims those who remained looked forward to greater prosperity under the British. I can actually support this with cites. This isn't a compromise, so much as a complete cave in to a POV push.
Further, my comments about NPOV were very much relevant to the matter in hand. Pointing out someone doesn't understand policy isn't a personal remark. If you can't address how they're approaching their edits, how they source them and a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV, then dispute resolution can't go anywhere can it? Wee Curry Monstertalk21:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright. I see some movement. WCM has two points above. (1) Can we claim the garrison left under duress with a citation. Yes [26] "Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related Historical Events" By R. K. Headland (Cambridge University Press; First Ed edition (February 23, 1990) )states:
The remnants of Louis Vernet's garrison, who had mutinied and murdered the newly arrived governor from Buenis Aires, (Juan Esteban Mestivier), withdrew under duress and returned to Buenis Aires and British occupation was resumed.
(2) Can we claim the same of the "settlers"? I need more time to look into this (I need dinner) but hope the above is acceptable by WCM as a citation for the duress claim for the garrison. I will return a little later.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This could be a fail (no editor participation/no resolution) but I am closing, and kicking back to the talkpage as discussion seems to be taking place there and edit warring seems to have ceased. Amadscientist (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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
Please limit to 2000 characters – longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Maintenance templates are good, they draw attention to the issues and help solving them. There is no relevance timeout on Wikipedia, and there is a good reason to keep the tags as long as the corresponding issues are present: new sources appear, and editors who come to use these sources my simply go away because they don't want to avoid cluttering the text with citations. If the tags remain, chances are someone indeed takes time to add citations of secondary sources.
The problem with overwhelming primary sources in this particular article reflects the real world problem: the FSF's view on GNU (see GNU/Linux naming controversy), and apart from several small groups of developers (Nexenta, GNU/Hurd, GNU-Darwin, etc.) and several "GNU/Linux" distributions (as opposed to "Linux" distributions and other operating systems using Linux kernel) nobody actually cares GNU.
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)
Opening comments by SudoGhost
A specific issue wasgiven, 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. = SudoGhost22:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
GNU discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments – continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I 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 Wikipedia 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)
On September 19TH, 2012 the {{Primary sources|date=July 2010}} tag was boldly deleted by User:Reisiowith 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): [27]. This drew the attention of another editor, User:SudoGhost and was reverted: [28]. This revert was then reverted again by User:Reisio:[29]. This was then again reverted by User:SudoGhost, the first reverting editor:[30]. This was again reverted by the bold editor, User:Reisio: [31]. At this point, another editor, User:Lentower retuned the tag: [32] 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: [33] as well as deleting some content and sources from the lede. The tag was again added back by User:Lentower : [34], then reverted again by User:Belorn : [35], which was reverted once again by User:Lentower: [36] only to be reverted by User:Belorn : [37] which was just reverted by User:SudoGhost: [38] that was then reverted by User:Reisio : [39] just to be reverted again by User:SudoGhost: [40] that was reverted by User:Reisio : [41]. At this point another editor became involved and edited the page User:Czarkoff :[42] 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: [43]. At this point User:Czarkoff then added tags directly to text [44].--Amadscientist at 18:15, 23 September 2012
A few minor misses. Edit 33, did not delete some content/source from the lead, it added new sources. Wikipedia diffs are sometimes less than perfect so it is easy to missread. Edit 33 added 11 new unique sources (some of the 11 are used to support more than 1 claim), and removed the tag. Also, edit 37 do not exist. Edit 35 and 37 in above list is the exact same edit. In total, my edits above where: 1 edit that replaced an primary with secondary source. 1 edit that added 11 new sources and removed the tag. 1 edit that reverted the immediate inclusion of the tag after edit 33. Please do an edit the above history summery and correct it. Belorn (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Tanka prose
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Elvenscout742 on 09:53, 25 September 2012 (JST).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dispute overview
I am currently involved in a rather heated dispute at Talk:Tanka prose, and I am not sure what to do about it.
The dispute involves one user (User:Tristan noir) who created an article four years ago on the modern English genre of tanka prose. The article, however, made bizarre, unsourced claims about originating in ancient Japanese literature, despite the term being anachronistic in reference to pre-modern Japanese works.
He/she (from here on, for convenience, I will assume the user is male) basically claimed the article as his own, and almost any edit by other editors was immediately reverted.
When I first came across the article, I was very confused; I thought "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term uta monogatari, which literally means "poem (exclusively, tanka) prose-fiction", so I moved the article to that location, citing a lack of usage of the term tanka prose in reputable secondary sources on Japanese literature. He responded by blankly reverting my move and other edits, as well as User:Bagworm's removal of a few unsourced statements he had made.
He still refused to cite reputable sources that backed up his claims.
I responded by re-reverting his unsourced reversion, and posting a comment on the Talk page where I cited several sources and challenged what little literature he quoted (which was written by people with very little awareness of Japanese language/literature). He responded by finally admitting that he was writing based on modern English literature, and claimed (unjustifiably) that his article had never claimed to be about Japanese literature.
At around this time, he apparently called in an ally, User:Kujakupoet, to back him up. This latter user made personal attacks against me, and completely ignored the substance of our dispute. His arguments, on the substance, seemed to back me up more than Tristan noir, since he basically said that tanka prose is a modern English form and should not be critiqued in terms of classical Japanese literature. Kujakupoet suddenly appeared and made single comment, claiming to have "just happened to be" looking for a tanka prose article and been shocked by what he somehow knew was the work of one editor and knew to post on the talk page in response. This happened less than two days after the page move, and he immediately went to the talk page where there was already a heated debate occurring. It seems highly unlikely that this was a coincidence, especially considering that his comment basically ignored what I actually said. He more recently made a similarly irrelevant, ad hominem remark]. This seems very likely, under the circumstances, to be a tag team, since both users have made barely 100 edits in four years, on very closely-related topics.
At this point, I suggested a compromise, which Tristan noir immediately agreed to, that the article I produced at uta monogatari remain as is, and tanka prose (then a redirect) be rewritten by him to focus exclusively on the modern English genre, and not to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature.
However, I realized that his sources all made the same bizarre claims as his article had, and it would be difficult to construct an encyclopedia article without using these sources and making the same claims, so I posted a hidden remark on the then-redirecting talk page expressing this fear. I hoped that he would take this opinion into account in his rewrite, or reconsider producing a rewrite at all.
His new article made the same claims of ancient Japanese origin as before, in clear violation of our agreement. Except that this time, he had worded the article in such a way that it never directly stated that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but rather included a lengthy remark about so-called "prosimetra" (prose-plus-poetry) in ancient Japan.
I never disputed that ancient Japanese literature combined poetry and prose, but merely stated that the term "tanka prose" would be anachronistic, and is therefore not used in academic literature. His new rewrite, however, basically implied that the ancient Japanese literature discussed is intrinsically related to modern English "tanka prose". It used weasel words and cleverly worded sentences so as not to actually state that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but to distinctly imply it.
He included references to two apparently reliable sources on ancient Japanese literature, but one of them is very old and out-of-print in both Japan and the United States (a complete copy on Amazon.jp would cost well over 10,000 yen [46][47][48][49][50], and one in English would cost $500 dollars [51][52][53]) and is very difficult to access. The other, an article by Helen McCullough, has clearly been taken out of context (he cited earlier in the dispute its inclusion in a book about prosimetra as being in itself evidence in his support).
He continually refuses to provide quotations or specific paraphrases from these sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose" or their relevance to an article on said subject.
I initially tried to remove one very bizarre statement from the new article (which wasn't even in the previous version) that nikki bungaku (diary literature) includes fictional tales (monogatari) and poetry anthologies (shū). It is reasonable to discuss a certain small sub-genre of waka-shū (private collections that are written in a diary-style) as falling under the category of nikki-bungaku, but not allwaka-shū, which most notably includes Imperially-sponsored anthologies (chokusen-shū). (The statement included one reference to the aforementioned obscure/expensive source, but clearly was out-of-context, because no respected source on Japanese literature would make such a claim.) He immediately reverted my edit, apparently thinking that simply having a source that claims something remotely similar to what the statement claims makes this behaviour justifiable.
As of now, I have grown weary of being cautious in my edits, and I am tired of being attacked personally and professionally without being able to fight back (I have tried throughout to be civil). I posted on the talk page that, since a significant portion of the middle of the new article signified a clear violation of the previous agreement, I intended to delete it, before going ahead with it.
I am not sure about what Tristan noir's response on the page in question will be (he hasn't replied on the talk page, nor made any edits to the article page since), but when I posted this same notice on the Administrators' Noticeboard in which he basically attacked me for having an aggressive tone, but given the circumstances I have actually been far too subdued until now. The sources he has cited are, frankly, full of nonsense. Their claims about Japanese literary history are completely and utterly bizarre. I was wondering if anyone has any advice about this issue? The users in question clearly do not understand Wikipedia policies on civility and other concepts, and I have become very weary of dealing with their personal attacks. I know the dispute still isn't at the point of seeking arbitration, but I'm not sure about bringing in opinions from the Wikipedia community. Since he has cited "sources" (he appears to have read them with the prejudiced attitude of looking for sources to justify statements he had already formulated), and it may appear to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians who don't have access to those rare, expensive sources that his statements as they are now are justified.
For those who check all the lengthy background of this dispute, you will notice that I had harsh words for Jeffrey Woodward (the principle source for Tristan noir's claims) -- that he is non-academic, unreliable, offensive, etc. This might seem extreme out of context, but everything I have read by him contains major problems due to his ignorance of classical Japanese literature. It would be very difficult to summarize these problems here, but I actually wrote him an e-mail detailing them and politely requesting that he not repeat them in future publications (they are all recurring errors). I would be happy to post an appropriate portion of the text of this e-mail here or elsewhere on Wikipedia if anyone requires further details. (However, several of my principle complaints are already on the relevant talk pages.)
I apologize for the extremely long overview. I wanted to get this history out on the table first in case anyone gets the wrong idea. My hope is that, in posting this very long an detailed summary I will save myself having to engage in an even more drawn-out dispute on a trivial topic than I already have.
Opening comments by Tristan noir
The misrepresentations of fact, with respect to the compromise on content that was made and, indeed, as regards various other matters raised by Elvenscout in his remarks above, are so numerous that it would be tiresome to list them all here and offer a counter-argument for each. Suffice it to say that I did agree, as did he, to a compromise, but I did not agree, in the terms of that compromise, to avoid any mention of Japanese literature; I specifically stated that I would refrain, where possible, from discussing the subject. There is indeed a serious dispute about content as regards the article in question. I welcome the interest of any neutral third party, administrator or otherwise, in reviewing the discussions that Elvenscout alludes to here at the original Talk Page and here at the Talk Page where the revised article is posted; I would welcome a review as well of his comments in his Edit Summaries here and again here. I mention the later because the tone of his remarks in the Edit Summaries consistently echoes the tone displayed in his Talk Page comments. That tone is dismissive and disparaging, and is offered with a relentless parade of pejorative adjectives and adverbs. His comments, from the first, have not been offered in a spirit of cooperation or of joint work with a fellow editor but often revert to the personal level. There is also the associated problem that User: Elvenscout742 appears to have claimed ownership of all matters pertaining to the vast field of Japanese literature; no comment on the subject can be offered without a laundry list of objections from him and no sentence that touches even marginally upon the topic can appear without his say-so. In his latest action, he has removed half of the posted article in question, a major edit by anyone’s definition, and he has done so unilaterally. He did not attempt to challenge the citations or to refute them nor, in fact, to consult them. Instead, he imputes, in his usual personal manner, bad faith on the part of another editor (see the Talk Page again), and offers that as his justification for the unilateral move. Again, I welcome the interest of any neutral third party in this matter.
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Tanka prose
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.