Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 34
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Contents
- 1 Cyclogyro
- 2 Comparison of rugby league and rugby union
- 3 Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family
- 4 UEFA Euro 2012 Group D
- 5 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprendre2.0
- 6 Liam Holden
- 7 India
- 8 Tomislav Nikolić
- 9 Loveland, Ohio
- 10 Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details
- 11 List of zombie films
- 12 Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
- 13 Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
- 14 Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis
Cyclogyro
 | "Page protected for two weeks. See closing comments by Guy Macon. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)" |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Variable IP (likely same user due to their comments including "again" and the like) keeps reverting changes without reason. Said changes were justified in the edit summary and on the talk page. IP has repeatedly been pointed to the talk page, but hasn't commented on or even acknowledged it. Diffs:
Comments in History referring to Talk Page: Users involved
I'm pretty sure the IPs are the same person, judging from their comments (use of "again", etc.)
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Yes. Via discussion on talk page, and edit summaries pointing to the talk page. I assume they're reverting in good faith but I can't get them to look at the talk page.
I'm not sure what to do, especially since it's a changing IP and they don't seem to read/see comments or the talk page. This is my first dispute so I really don't know. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Cyclogyro discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Followup: The IP has commented on the talk page here: Talk:Cyclogyro only to resort to ad hominem attacks. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor)Hi there. I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. I see this is your first dispute; I'll give you a bit of advice here. You're doing the right thing by trying to take this to the talk page first and by assuming good faith. First, even though the IP's methods of addressing you might not have been the best, have you taken the time to examine his/her concerns? Sometimes, editors come across as uncivil, but some of the things they say still have merit even though they are uncivil in their presentation. Second, if you have a valid reason for thinking that the information should be removed, your best starting point (if it is not attributed to a source) is to tag the objectionable material with "citation needed" tags. You can do this by adding {{cn|date=June 2012}} where you want to put the tag. If the tag goes for a long period of time without being addressed, the material can then be removed. If your addition of the tags is reverted, then present your case on the article talk page; if that doesn't generate some discussion, then your next option is to come here again. I will leave this case open for now in case the IP editor has additional comments. In any case, your edits are not vandalism - that's just a misunderstanding. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor)You can request semiprotection which stops ips from editing an article at WP:RFPP.Curb Chain (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) It seems to me you are removing a lot of material which shouldn't be removed, while the IP is restoring a lot of material that should not be restored. If you instead of just revert warring with the IP, remove things bit by bit, with good edit summaries as to why, and do so slowly and patiently (ie give the IP some time to respond) starting with the most flagrant problems, then this conflict could probably be turned into consensus. A lot of the removed material could stay if reliable sources are found, for example. Some of it, as the quoted text above, should clearly go. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to just tag the problems and not edit as suggested by Sleddog116, but the IP has decided that even that isn't acceptable ([Diff]). Would I be out of line if I did the following: 1) Removed only the most egregious problems (like the quote above) rather than my larger, earlier edit, 2) Flagged/Tagged the rest of the problems, 3) Requested partial protection since the IP has shown that they won't even allow me to add dispute tags, and 4) Encouraged the IP to make edit suggestions on the talk page for as long as it's protected? UnclaimedUsername (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Cyclogyro. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Comparison of rugby league and rugby union
| | See closing comments Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I (Aircorn) first came upon the general topic of the dispute after Gnevin posted at the Rugby union Wikiproject looking for help in dealing with a quote being in the lead. He also posted the same notification at the Rugby league Wikiproject. After some discussion the quote was moved out of the lead. There was still some disagreement about how the quote should be used or if it even belongs in the article. After both myself and Gnevin were unsuccessfully in trying to remove it, Gnevin found a similar quote and added it next to the original one. Gibson Flying V removed this quote and that has lead to a protracted discussion as to why one quote is valid but the other not. The original quote is pro-league, while the second one was pro-union. The diffs presented here are just a fraction of the reverting that has occurred over this issue. These two recent reverts [1] [2] (on slightly different issues) have convinced me to look for outside help. Users involved
Mattlore (talk · contribs) commented initially, but has not made any further comments. Two users also responded at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union over a related issue. That concern was the quote being in the lead, which appears to have been resolved now. I will notify Mattlore, but at this stage I have not notified the two users from the NPOV noticeboard. Let me know if that should be done.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union#Moving on and User talk:Gibson Flying V#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union are where the bulk of the discussion has occurred, but you might also like to read Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union#Quote in the intro for a bit more background.
We need more people with a neutral perspective (i.e. not in favour of one sport over another) to look over the dispute concerning the quotes and help us decide what the most nuetral way to present them is. The options are no quotes, both quotes or to just have one of the quotes. They could also be incorporated into the text of the article. The talk page discussions detail our particular preferences. Advice on any other issues would be a bonus and if possible it would be good to provide a way forward if other similar issues arise. Thank you to anyone who is willing to look into this. AIRcorn (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Comparison of rugby league and rugby union discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hello everyone, and thanks for bringing this dispute here. I'm a semi-regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, and I thought I'd try and lend a helping hand with this problem. This is quite an interesting dispute as the three editors involved are all regulars at Wikipedia, so we are all familiar with the policies and guidelines, and we have all probably been in a dispute or two before. An upshot of our collective experience is that naturally we all know the neutral point of view policy and have had the opportunity to put it into practice many times. Something seems to be going wrong somewhere in this article, however, as we are all claiming that our edits are neutral, but we are disagreeing about each other's interpretations of what being neutral actually means. So, before we look at any specific content issues, I would just like to throw out a suggestion for a guiding principle of neutrality as it applies to this article. Now, this is only a suggestion, and you are all free to disagree with it - that is absolutely fine. I would like us to discuss it first, though, as I think that once we have agreed about this general idea it will be a lot easier to find a resolution for the specific content issues that we have been having problems with. My suggestion is simple: I think that, in this article, we should treat rugby league and rugby union as having equal worth. That is to say, we shouldn't imply in any way that one of them is better than the other. Now, one sport may be faster than the other, and one may be more tactical, and mentioning that is no problem, as long as we can back it up with facts and statistics rather than leave it as assertion and opinion. The problems arise when we start to use these differences in the character of each sport to imply a subjective judgement of good or bad about either of them. Now, as far as I know (which is admittedly not very far), there is no way of objectively judging which sport is "better" than the other, and I make this suggestion because I think it would be best not to try. However, I would be interested to hear what you all think of this. If you think I have tripped up in my reasoning somewhere, then please let me know - that would be a great way to kick-start the debate. (Of course, it's ok to agree with me as well. ;) I'll be looking forward to hearing your opinions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Naturally I too agree with you, Mr Strativarius. While for most experienced editors it goes without saying, I think it's good for Gnevin and Aircorn to read what you said about avoiding subjective judgement of good or bad. Perhaps you said it because you noticed their use of colourful language such as "pro/anti-league/union"; "which is the better game"; "favour one code over the other"; "say a lot harsher things"; "show RL in a good light"; "horrible quotes"; "a pissing contest"; etc. It's also clear they're having trouble assuming good faith and have become a bit emotional about me personally, attempting to paint me as the villain with dramatic stuff like "fighting tooth and nail against consensus"; "your other slanted edits"; "Your [sic] adopting an entirely hypocritical approach"; "The charges you level"; "blatantly pushing the POV that RL is a superior game"; etc. One thing I'm particularly curious about is what Aircorn is suggesting above when he said regarding my user name: "As far as I know this board does not necessarily deal with user conduct, but this may be a path we have to go down." As (apparently) one of the "400 most active Wikipedians" I'll typically be undertaking more than one little project at a time. That I changed my user name during discussions about this article is purely coincidental. I don't think anyone would begrudge a user the right to change a 5-year-old ID that was comprised of their real name and year of birth, would they? Anyway, I'm pleased that Aircorn has brought more people into this, although I think it will bear as little fruit for him as his last attempt. I'm afraid we do need to get specific though, because the crux of it is this: Gnevin and Aircorn are on a mission to have the dreaded New York Times quote (and possibly other well-sourced content) not merely shifted, but removed from the article altogether. To help them achieve this, they've created some nice big chunks of text between the pair of them on various talk pages to make it appear as though there's a real debate going on (a tactic I'm sure you've seen before). I've done my best to refuse joining the party as most of this "debate" has centred around their intriguing view that a quote from a player who was at the time recently paid to leave rugby league and play rugby union is just as valuable and deserves equal prominence as a quote from a New York Times journalist (who I will go out on a limb and say is completely neutral and disinterested). They appear to be hoping that when the player's quote is rightly removed the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. The article was an unreferenced perma-stub made up of various anonymous IPs' POVs until I came along and started adding referenced content. When I was choosing sources, I set an especially high standard and used, amongst others, a sports science textbook and a reputable American newspaper. I decided that British/Australian/New Zealand newspapers would be unsuitable as even they are too close to the subject. Recently, I attempted to add the use of an article (about rugby union) from a Canadian newspaper, which I thought was another shining example neutrality, but was knee-jerk reverted without discussion. By comparison, when I removed the quote box containing the player's words, I then said on the talk page that it would be fine to use if properly contextualised. An option so far not taken up, apparently in favour of simply expelling all independent sources. Personally, I'd prefer to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The lead of the article should not include any quotes, nor should it contain any judgmental material. The reason is that there is not enough room in the lead to give the appropriate context which is needed to help the reader interpret the judgements. On the other hand, the body of the article can and should contain judgements and opinions of important commentators on rugby. The WP:NPOV policy requires that all viewpoints be represented fairly in the article. Generally speaking, editors should put aside their own prejudices and try to make the article as unbiased and objective as possible. Quotes from notable commentators are appropriate for inclusion, however, the quotes should not be hand-selected by editors; instead, any quotes used should be quotes that were selected by secondary sources. In other words, a quote should be included only if a secondary source writing about rugby mentions the quote. --Noleander (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am neutral on this topic. I'm not a fan and know little about the sport. Having read the discussion above, and considering the original request for help (options are no quotes, both quotes or to just have one of the quotes), I would suggest having no quotes. For me, much of this discussion has been on how to present these quotes, rather than on whether to include them in the first place. The struggle with how to handle them stems primarily from the fact that they are non-neutral, rhetorical commentary, i.e., "just one man's opinion". Keep them out of the article altogether. Coastside (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a new suggestion on how we might compromise on this. How about including a new section on attitudes towards rugby union and rugby league? I think a survey of attitudes towards the two codes amongst fans, athletes, and sports writers would be very useful for a good understanding of the subject, and that it would also be a perfect place to put subjective opinions like Thomsen's. Think of it as a section to document the various stereotypes that have arisen around both of the sports. I note that a similar suggestion was made on the talk page, but that it wasn't pursued very far. I think this would be worth considering seriously, though, as it has the potential to resolve the deadlock here. On the talk page there was a concern that a good section title might be hard to find, and I admit that we may have to choose a fairly long title - perhaps something like "Attitudes toward the two codes". Still, even if we have to go with a long section title, I think it would be worth discussing. Do people think this would be a good idea? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. So no one's willing to answer my question above then?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Gnevin, I can appreciate you might be feeling frustrated with the process here, but this kind of pointed remark is not helpful. It is only going to make things more adversarial, and decrease the chance of you all being able to cooperate to find a resolution here. And Gibson Flying V, this goes for you too - "we already knew Aircorn is seeking a double standard" fits fully into the definition of "personal attack" as found at WP:NPA. I said it before up above, but I'll say it again - pointed remarks and personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, especially not in a dispute resolution venue, and they need to stop right now. If you feel that you really can't get along with one another, then maybe you could consider taking a break from the article and removing it from your watchlist. The alternatives - WQA, RFC/U, and ANI - are not pretty. If you are willing to cooperate with each other, then I have a suggestion for how we can proceed. I think the next step should be to draft, on the talk page, some different versions of the history section. At least one of these should be without any quotes at all, and at least one should include the NYT quote, along with another quote to balance out the point of view of the NYT quote. You can add other combinations and permutations of quotes as you see fit. These quotes should be short and inline, as there seems to be a general consensus here, and in the manual of style, that short inline quotes are preferred to long quotes in quote boxes. It might be that you can find an agreement through the process of making these drafts, or if you can't find an agreement, you can use them as the basis for an RfC. Does this sound like a good plan to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
How about we get rid of the 2 quotes and replace with 2 quotes from the same source ? [10] ''Rugby Union is a complex game with certain closed skills like scrummaging and line-out lifting and rugby league requires a higher level of fitness to compete at the highest level.? Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
International Rugby Board, Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2007[11]
FWIW I have made a draft of two of the paragraph from the history section, including just a short quote from the NYT and an expanded international section. I do not think Gibsons Flying V's position above is tenable as it is based on opinion pieces. At the least I think we have enough consensus here to provide opinions as inline quotes. I would suggest if he still feels the consensus here over the presentation of quotes is incorrect he launch a WP:RFC to get a wider opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We are at 8,760 words and 21 days. Are we anywhere near a resolution? Is there anything that we DRN volunteers can do that we haven't done already? Or have we simply created an article with two talk pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family
| | 4 days without any comments by any involved editor. Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
[Personal attack deleted] Users involved
[Personal attack deleted]
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
[Personal attack deleted]
[Personal attack deleted] Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comments about user conduct deleted. This was prior to warning, so no criticism is implied --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
[Personal attack deleted]
[Personal attack deleted] XB70Valyrie, if you have a complaint against an administrator, go to WP:AN. This noticeboard is for discussing the content of the article --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
Per section 1: Agreed text is "Although still a small fraction of Koch Industries gross revenue (Approx. $100 Billion Ann.), $20. million was spent on lobbying efforts in 2008 and $20.5 was spent over the course of the following two years."
Per section 2: Agreed text is "In 2010 the firm employed 30 registered lobbyists."
Per section 3: Agreed text is ""Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation."
Per section 4: XB70's proposal is "...including lobbying to loosen regulations on potentially toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."
Per section 5: Agreed text is - "The Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science."
Per section 6: XB70's text is "Koch interests have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives."
Is that sufficiently detailed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note: This noticeboard has since its inception reserved the right to terminate a discussion due to incivility. In light of the effort of XB70Valyrie to manipulate the discussion process by making public accusations against Arthur Rubin via YouTube video and making complaints against him to the Wikimedia Foundation, I intend to take the unprecedented step of closing this thread without further discussion unless XB70Valyrie publicly apologizes to the Wikipedia community and takes down the YouTube video within 24 hours after this posting. I have not studied this dispute and do not know whether the accusations made against Arthur Rubin are true or false, but the means by which XB70Valyrie has pursued this matter are wholly unacceptable and it is my opinion that this noticeboard should not provide any additional assistance to him so long as he maintains this stance. Documentation:
If after examining the documentation any other regular mediator/clerk here at DRN objects to this intervention, please feel free to decline this notice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Update: XB70Valyrie took down the video while I was in the process of posting the foregoing note. I still intend to close the thread if an apology is not forthcoming, however. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I concur that with the indef block that there's not much point (and I doubt that XB70 will be allowed back without some form of contrition, in any event), and I withdraw the closing notice in light of same, though I believe Guy's idea has some merit and deserves some discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
|
UEFA Euro 2012 Group D
| | not a disputeCurb Chain (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Accused here of removing material, despite the accuser doing the removing. Received talk page messages on conduct despite not doing anything wrong, not even losing my cool. Had responses and explanations repeatedly deleted from other user's talk page. [14] [15] Had contributions called "crap" here. Plus my edit joining two paragraphs of together reverted and called "vandalism". Now being patronised about my inexperience and poor editing on my talk page. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Have tried to discuss but been treated like a child and had contributions called "crap"
UEFA Euro 2012 Group D discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprendre2.0
| | Not a content dispute. Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Changaco keeps on using personal attacks on me, stating that I decided to nominate this article for deletion because I did so on the French Wikipedia. The fact is I didn't take part to any vote, decision, nor discussion on this article on the French Wikipedia, so I removed the content that was clearly slanderous and told the user to please stop personal attacks on me. He keeps on reverting me and I'm asking for mediation. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I tried to explain the user that his comments where offending and personal attacks.
Blocking or preventing this user from attacking me. I understand he wants to keep the article, but he should use arguments not attacks. Koui² (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprendre2.0 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Liam Holden
| | Both editors agree that "Arrest and interrogation" is the better heading. All that remains are conduct issues and questions and this noticeboard is only for content issues. If you really want some advice or comment upon the conduct issues, then WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U is the proper venue, but it appears to me that both of you have made your point and that it might be better to just drop the stick. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is an article about a man who was arrested for murder in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and who underwent some degree of abuse whilst in custody. Specifically, he claims to have been waterboarded. The article contains a section heading "Arrest and torture". I feel it is somewhat jumping the gun to include the word "torture" in a section heading as, though I of course don't contest that waterboarding is torture, the only evidence that it occurred is the subject's own testimony. I'm not saying that we should completely discount it; it should be presented as one version of events, but we shouldn't portray it as irrefutable fact because he could easily have lied about it (and would have a clear motive to in his subsequent appeals against his murder conviction). What does everyone think? Users involved
The first user is the article author, the IP I believe to be him logged out.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on talk page but it's a fundamental difference of opinion.
We need to decide whether it's appropriate to use the word "torture" in a heading (which gives it an air of infallibility), when the only evidence torture occurred is the testimony of the supposed victim, who would have had motive to lie about it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Liam Holden discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
As I remarked on the Talk page there are multiple sources attesting that he was tortured. The heading is entirely WP:V compliant. Futhermore the basis of his conviction being quashed by the Court of Appeal was that he was indeed tortured. The court accepted his testimony. The basis of the original revert was "this is controversial and divisive - best to leave it to the reader to decide whether his treatment constitutes "torture"" i.e. to say the editor was querying not the validity of his testimony but whether the abuse he received was "torture". But the court did accept it was torture and the editor start his comments on the talk page by saying that he accepts that i.e. to say he flip-flops on the issue and shift the goal posts. 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
India
| | No discussion for four days. Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I am requesting that the infobox on the India page have an 'Establishment/Formation' section rather than merely an 'Independence' section. I am including the entire discussion that has happened thus far: Establishment/Formation The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section. The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves. India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. [Side note: I find it amusing that an Englishman is the presiding judge deciding on matters concerning the India page.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
The discussion is ongoing but I believe more people need to get involved.
You could use the same template for the India page as is used for other country pages such as Germany or China or any other. 114.143.116.232 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC) India discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
First this forum is not for "ongoing" discussions and is not a place where you can "get more eyes". Second, are those years used as the formation of the People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Germany? Those dates on those articles need to be changed to match the political formation of those polities, and not India to change the other way around.Curb Chain (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - Of course the InfoBox should include the formation date, if there is one prior to the official indepence events in 1947 and 1950. Multiple other articles set a good precedent: Germany, China, Italy, etc. India should be treated the same. Of course, any pre-1947 "establishment" or "formation" date must be supported by mainstream reliable sources; in other words, it is not sufficient that a WP editor believes that India was unified/established in such-and-such a year: reliable sources must state the year. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I posted this on the India talk page and am re-posting it here --- I am not arguing that the dates for other countries are wrong. Of course there can be different points of view on what constituted the beginning of a nation but those dates are more in keeping with the spirit of what I am saying. Which is that these current entities are merely the latest form of nations that have been around in one form or another for a long time. For India it might be worth considering the time of Ashoka as some sort of establishment date. One need only look at the map of Ashoka's India to understand this. Albeit that too will surely be contested with some saying it should be earlier. If for example it is decided to use 265 BCE (the Maurya Empire at its peak under Ashoka) as the date when the India that we recognize today truly came into being, then that would be the first date in the infobox and the significant subsequent periods could be mentioned under it, such as the Kushan Empire which followed the Maurya Empire, or the various Islamic ocupations, or the Maratha Empire, or the Sikh Empire, or the Company occupation, or the British occupation, etc. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details. It appears to me that perhaps the problem here is trying to shoehorn a complex situation into a limited space infobox. Is it possible to resolve this by adding a few lines to the infobox - two or three different dates with different labels? How about no dates in the infobox and covering it all in the text of the article? I think we all agree that all the well-sourced dates relating to when this or that aspect came too being should be in the article. The question is how to best format the information. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Comment: Reliable sources all state that India became independent in 1947. Failing sources that assert it was established or formed on that date, I don't see this as a useful discussion. --regentspark (comment) 02:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I don't understand why people keep repeating the 1947 date. That the British occupation ended on that date is simple fact beyond dispute. That is not what I am arguing about. I thought I was fairly clear on what I was trying to convey, which is that 1947 does not mark the beginning of the entity known as India. As for the specific point of this article referring to the 'political entity', that is precisely why I have drawn everyone's attention to other country pages, which even though are also about current 'political entities' use ancient dates for establishment/formation. I would like to put forward the date of 265 BCE as my contribution for a possible 'first date' in the infobox. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
We could use the same source(s) that establishes the extent of Ashoka's empire in the year 265 BCE. I don't think there is any doubt that Ashoka's Empire covered all of India at that time is there? 114.143.119.26 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kievan Rus' was a lot smaller than modern Russia. The Holy Roman Empire was a lot larger than modern Germany. Yet anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding of history will recognize that those two entities were precursors to modern day Russia and Germany respectively. The area that is today Pakistan (and Bangladesh) has always been a part of India. Even the Mughal occupation at its peak did not cover the southern tip of India. The notion that Ashoka's India does not qualify as India because it included present-day Pakistan is ludicrous. I have already covered the greater/lesser argument. The logic of what I am saying should be abundantly clear to any unbiased listener. It is fairly evident that what we have here is merely good old-fashioned India hatred. I believe I have sufficiently made my point. I will not press this matter any further. This issue can now be considered closed. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. Fowler&fowler, please read IPs are human too. Everyone, please read Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia is not about winning. If anyone wishes to complain about another user, don't do it here. Take it to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the issue, take it to WP:RFC/U, but please wait until the DRN case is closed. It often happens that solving the content dispute solves the user conduct issues as well. If you wish to discuss the article content dispute, we at DRN will be glad to help, but you need to stop talking about other editors now. Just stop. Don't post a last word talking about talking about other editors. Don't say that you agree or that you are sorry. Just start calmly discussing sources and contents as if no fighting had occurred. Further comments about other editors may be deleted with a note saying "try again, but this time only discuss article content." --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Tomislav Nikolić
| | No discussion for three days, The Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for resolving disputes about article content, not user conduct. Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a disagreement between which section title should be used for Nikolic's controversial statements in which he denied that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide. The content of that section is also disputed, but to a lesser degree. Please see this section for more information. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
An unsuccessful request for 3rd opinion was attempted. 3O user refused to engage in discussion per his own "standards". It was recommended that the matter be taken to DR or RFC.
Provide assistance on discussion and neutral opinions. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Tomislav Nikolić discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Comment. My reasons for the current section title can be found on article talk page. PRODUCER has requested a third opinion and when he was not happy with it, he asked again and again. His requests for fourth and fifth opinion are justifiably denied. It should be noted that there is an ongoing similar discussion and RFC at Talk:Srebrenica massacre, also initiated after PRODUCER tried to change section title from Opposition to the description "genocide" to Genocide denial. PRODUCER should probably wait for the outcome of that RFC instead of trying to push his version across several articles. --В и к и T 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Loveland, Ohio
| | Stale or resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:Nikkimaria and I are engaged in a dispute about some changes I recently made to this article. Nikkimaria (who has had no previous association with this article), objected to my changes and reverted them, on the grounds that I needed prior permission to make such changes. Over the last few days we have engaged in an unproductive discussion (thread here), which ended with me proposing that I should reinstate my changes and we would wait a few days to see if any of the established editors objected, and that in that eventuality I would self-revert and engage in discussion with them. However, this proposal has not proved acceptable to Nikkimaria, who has simply reverted my changes again. This type of change has already been examined at ANI (in connection with a different article) and found to be consistent with community consensus - here is the statement made by the closing admin:
What's more, I've made similar changes to a number of fairly high-profile articles (e.g. Jared Leto, List of awards and nominations received by Madonna) recently without any adverse comment whatever. My practice is that if the active editors on any article I've changed in this way feel strongly that they prefer the status quo, I'll try to persuade them to my point of view, but ultimately I'll back down if I can't overcome their objections. However, it's not acceptable for an uninvolved editor to prevent my changes being put to the test without his prior approval. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussions as noted above.
Insist that Nikkimaria leave my changes in place for a few days so that we can find out whether any of the established editors have an objection. I think it's important to establish the principle that changes made in accordance with accepted practice (see WP:CITE#Journal_articles) don't require prior permission from anyone - particularly not an editor who has had no previous involvement with this article. It would become impossible to make any large-scale improvements if prior permission had to be sought article by article. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Loveland, Ohio discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
My advice would be to take the issue to the Talk page of the article first; personally, I think WP:Cite on established style grounds applies here (the guidance you link to gives examples of what a typical citation should include, but does not claim to be exhaustive or proscriptive); it would be well worth raising the question on the talk page in the first instance before escalating to dispute resolution. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 25, 2012 at 19:24 (UTC) Reason: Stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details
| | No discussion for three days. This appears to be a case of one lone editor pushing his POV against consensus. If the behavior continues, take it to WP:ANI where the disruptive behavior can be dealt with with blocks. Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I've found wrong source' usage in the article concerning of the details of K-21 attack. The initial article text deal with unexpected locution "K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes" and with the authors conclusion "both of which missed"[16] regardless of the sole primary source (K-21 war log (in Russian), search for 18.01.30 time) deals with 4-torpedoes salvo. It's a perfect example of unreliable secondary source usage. Users involved
Unfortunately in spite of degree in History, Parsecboy is unable to identify the sources' correctness and does not follow the neutral point of view rules - any correction in accordance with the primary source he perceives as Soviet propaganda, and the admin rights allow him to impose his point of view despite the facts. As a result now after his indulgent additions [17] the text of article consists of the unrelated pieces from the three different sources, so it's impossible to receive a clear picture the incident.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
(Moved from Wikipedia:ANI after advices to solve the problem in Wikipedia:DR) I have tried to resolve the dispute pointing out the discrepancy of the details in the text and the original report of the K-21 commander. Parsecboy cited several sources including Polmar & Noot who cite correctly the K-21 commander's report in English. But Parsecboy categorically opposed to any change, even from his own(!) source, despite the fact that I'm talking about the report, not the attack results.
The article mentioned the K-21 episode and provides the details of the attack, so I think it would be right to cite it properly. All secondary sources can be based only on the K-21 commander Lunin report, because there is no evidence by the Germans (the Germans claim that they did not notice the attack). My suggestion is to correct the report of K-21 attack in accordance with that sole source (I've made bold my corrections): Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired four torpedoes at the ship and reported about two explosions heard by the crew through the hull. Therefore the Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship, although the attack was never noticed by the Germans. (Polmar & Noot, p. 115–116) So, I need help the community to make that changes due to Parsecboy's admin counteraction. Zh.Mike (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is a joke. Zh.Mike has been trying for over a year to insert Soviet propaganda and his own original research into the article. Why he has not linked to the discussion where he attempts to read things into the German war logs (such as this gem: "At 15:06 the speed was 24 knots (as Lunin said), at 18:58 it was 24 knots too, but at 18.16 as Murmansk radio said the speed was 10 knots and there is a remark in the log that it is true! Why!? And there are no any other initial records about 10 knots speed by the Tirpitz' officers! This means that the Germans had cut several records off the log (or just hadn't entered).") and other such nonsense I do not know. Another editor (again, I do not know why he was not included here; Zh.Mike apparently saw fit to include him just a week ago) and I vainly attempted to explain the problems with what Zh.Mike has been pushing for over a year now. Soviet war logs are notoriously unreliable; apart from that, they are primary sources, which are generally prohibited from use here. There is one secondary source that says two torpedoes were fired, and there are a couple that say four. Both numbers are included in the article (which is the case for several other things in the article, for instance, casualty figures). All are from reputable naval historians. That the Soviet crewmen claimed to have heard two explosions and claimed to have made two hits on the ship are effectively the same thing, and do not need to be repeated. Besides that, it's patently false. The proposed edit seeks to imply that the ship was hit, which is not something supported by any of the sources on the matter; all categorically reject the possibility of a torpedo hit on the ship. I'll let the personal attacks slide. Along with the insinuation that I have somehow abused my admin tools in this dispute. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Zh.Mike's proposed editing violates reliable sourcing policy in relation to historical articles, and they ought to introspect on why they wish to conduct original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details. The following is an example of a user conduct issue being moved to a more appropriate forum. DRN is for discussion article content not user conduct. I took the liberty of bringing up the "picture that illustrates the welcome, advice and guidance given to Zh.Mike" at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Parsecboy I am also concerned by the statement "So, I need help the community to make that changes due to Parsecboy's admin counteraction". Is this just a newbie who doesn't know the right terms to user, or has WP:INVOLVED been violated? If so, we don't deal with that sort of thing here, but I know where to send it. Getting back to the topic at hand - the article content - could one of you give me a rough count of the consensus on this, and maybe someone else confirming the rough count? Are the regular editors evenly split on this? Is it one against everybody else? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
|
List of zombie films
| | Consensus is strongly against removing the movies in question. Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This post was made at the suggestion of another user after I posted a note on the Admin noticeboard. A disruptive editor that tends to pop up every couple weeks has a long history of removing two films from this list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. These reverts have been in tandem with several discussions, which he participated in, reaching the consensus that the films belong on the list: 1, 2,3,4. Regardless of how many editors direct him to Wiki policies and explain that his interpretation of the subject matter matters less than notable, reliable, verifiable sources, but he continues to make ridiculous demands and say that the burden of proof is on everyone else, such as in this edit. Users involved
There are other users involved as well, as can plainly be seen in the article discussions linked above, but I don't feel comfortable dragging them into this just yet.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
In addition to the talk page discussions above, Ronnie has also received several warnings and cautions for his behavior there and in other areas.
Based on statements from another user on the Admin Notice Board, I should try to reach a consensus here before moving on. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Williamsburgland (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC) List of zombie films discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Ronnie42 (talk · contribs): Consensus is against you for removing the movies in question, which I assume is Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2. Editors have provided you with relevant policies/guidelines as to why they should be included. You have not rebutted any of those arguments using wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Stop editwarring or your editing privileges will be revoked in some form.Curb Chain (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC) You can add me to the list of those involved above if you like, I completely concur with your position Williamsburgland. He's completely impossible to communicate with.Number36 (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
| | This dispute has been carried out only through edit summaries and has not received substantial discussion on the article talk page. Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I have left a piece of information in the article Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters which is constantly being reverted by user MarnetteD. In short, I opened a new paragraph which a) emphasizes the fact that the film has not been shown in Japan due to an unofficial ban, but that b) a film on the same subject has been released in Japan which premiered regularily. I do see a connection due to the contradiction of one film being banned and the other on exactly the same subject being made available. Yet, I do not regard this as WP:SYNTH as I do not try to create new theories. (MarnetteD made remarks about seeing no connection AND WP:SYNTH, but obviously it can't be both. Also, M. stated: "So are we to infer that if Shrader's film had ever had a theatrical release in Japan that Kōji Wakamatsu would never have made his film." This is clearly not the case if you read carefully.) Also, links have been given to Imdb premiere dates (NOT trivia, I know of Imdb's unreliabilities) and the Cannes festival. MarnetteD disputes this connection, calls it laughable and reverts it constantly. (I am the main author of the German wiki entry of the film which was rewarded a "good article", so I think I know what 'm doing.) The last two or three reverts, MarnetteD left the info on the new film in, but moved it to a new seperate section ("See also") where it makes absolutely no point, because the connection between the two films is only evident when left in one paragraph (which I called "Legacy"). Robert Kerber (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes, in discussion section of film.
Resolving the dispute
Comments left with article reworkings, notes on film's discussion section.
Analyze arguments of users involved, also asking MarnetteD not to call my point of view "laughable" because he doesn't agree (or doesn't understand it). (I believe that M. does what he does out of good faith, though without understanding my point, but I do not accept ridiculing.) Robert Kerber (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Here is the history of this content dispute with my comments: 11:57, 22 June Robert Kerber adds some material:
[18] 16:34, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (1RR)
[19] 21:21, 22, Robert Kerber reverts. (1RR)
[20] 21:42, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (2RR)
[21] 21:50, 22 June 2012, Robert Kerber adds different material - same basic idea, but reworded and referenced
[22] 21:58, 22 June, MarnetteD reverts. (3RR)
[23] 22:37, 22 June 2012, Robert Kerber re-adds previous material with another citation.
[24] 00:23, 23 June, MarnetteD reverts. (4RR)
[25] 00:48, 23, MarnetteD's first talk page comment on this.
[26] 08:37, 23 June 2012 Robert Kerber first talk page comment (includes misplaced Notice of Dispute resolution discussion).
[27] 08:38, 23 June, Robert Kerber files case at WP:DRN
[28] 08:42, 23 June, Robert Kerber reverts (1RR)
[29] 15:00, 23 June, MarnetteD reverts (5RR)
[30] Dispute resolution volunteer closing comment: Because this was filed concerning a dispute which have been carried out only through edit summaries and which has not received substantial discussion on a talk page, I am going to give you time to read this, then I am closing this. Talk it over on the article talk page and seek consensus, don't edit war, and remember, WP:BRD is not WP:BRRD or WP:BRDR. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Completely uninvolved observer checking in; as a request for assistance was recently made, my recommendation is that this issue is content-related and revolves around the search for authoritative and verifiable sources. Can this issue be reverted back to a point where the original statement was submitted, to be tagged for further clarification or additional sources? FWiW, the continuation of the discourse on sources has mainly been polite and to-the-point, and should remain as a courteous exchange between two editors attempting to seek a resolution to a contentious issue. The discussion could remain on the article talk page but if only two contributors are involved, it could migrate to a user talk page. Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
| | Appears to be resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah put some sourced material on the pages above but delete the others which are also sourced. Then I wrote on his talkpage a note asking not to delete the other info. Then he put a message on my talkpage without a sign but signed by a bot stating that I put nonsense to Wikipedia and it is vandalism.Egeymi (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes.Egeymi (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolving the dispute
I tried to communicate with him on his talkpage.Egeymi (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You may allow to put the other sourced material that is described by him as nonsense although it is not.Egeymi (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
So user:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah he claims that you, user:Egeymi, put nonsense and vandalism in the article. How do you address these accusations? You didn't address this on his talk page; all you did was give him warnings.Curb Chain (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 26, 2012 at 15:22 (UTC) Reason: This appears to be resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis
| | No discussion for three days. Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The main dispute is whether or not to include a chart on the effectiveness of various therapy treatments including psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioral therapy. For reference here is the chart and here is the study. The chart is based on the largest study of the subject and used 45 meta-analyses (secondary sources) and 66 of it's own trials. It is also the only tertiary source on the subject that I can find. As well it has over a thousand citations (diff, diff). The main argument for excluding the chart (that has any kind of validity anyway) is that it would constitute Undue weight. I think it's the proper weight because it's the largest and most authoritative study on the subject. I have also asked repeatedly (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) for an(other) tertiary source(s) that would make it undue weight to use that single study for the chart alone. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I discussed it in the two talk pages of articles.
Deciding whether or not the chart can be used in the two articles per Weight etc. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
You may see some delays in getting to this issue. Please be patient. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not see myself as being involved of any "dispute" of any kind over this subject. I made a comment on the article's talk page - that was all. Sorry to disappoint, but I want nothing more to do with this issue. I have accordingly struck through my name. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
From How do we see the methodological problems in evaluating psychotherapies? section of the report holds the key "In practice, these two constraints are often difficult to reconcile: the diagnosis categories constructed from an optimal reproducibility basis such as the DSM (American association of psychiatry) or CIM (World Health Organisation) are not necessarily those that are most widely used in everyday clinical practice, particularly in France." This report set out to provide clinical guidelines for clinicians in France in 2003. From a research perspective there is no continuity as to how the various conditions are defined and diagnosed internationally as compared to how the conditions are defined and diagnosed in France. So this report can only be taken as a guide for France in 2003, there too many variations in research trial design and structure, and very few Randomised Control Trials the gold standard for this type of research. dolfrog (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
--WSC ® 19:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - Clearly the source of the table is a reliable source, and it contains information that could be useful to readers. The problem is that the table format - because it is so large, colorful, and official-looking - gives the impression to readers that the table's contents are the officially adopted view of the majority of researchers. (Another problem is that it seems to be promoting one form of therapy over others ... I'm sure proponents of the other two columns in the table would disagree with the assessment, no?). On the other hand, if the table's contents were summarized in simple text (prose) there would not be as much of a problem. I would say the table could be included if there were 3 or more reliable sources that endorsed the table and if there were no major sources that dissented from the table. But, if there is only the one source that endorses the table, then I think it is a bit misleading to include the table in the article. However, the contents could be summarized in prose/text form in the article (but see WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which indicate that any dissent from the table's message should also be included). --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|