Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Yasuke	Closed	Tinynanorobots (t)	4 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)	Closed	Crawdaunt (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours
Asian fetish	Closed	ShinyAlbatross (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours
Nivkh alphabets	New	Modun (t)	1 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	9 hours
Metrication in the United Kingdom	New	Friendliness12345 (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Friendliness12345 (t)	18 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 07:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Catflap08 on 08:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Daisaku Ikeda (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs)
• Hoary (talk · contribs)
• Starrynuit (talk · contribs)
• Elemential1 (talk · contribs)
• Ubikwit (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I researched a quote via the WP:RX since the quote (used within another quote by Montgomergy) was disputed in the articles on Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai. As soon as I insist that critical issues should not be deleted I seem to run into a conflict with the same editor. Same occurred on the Toynbee quote.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At one stage quoted Montgomery pages 186-187 completly. Asked WP:RX to find Murata quote in order to clarify who hit whom.

How do you think we can help?

An end to the constant deletion of sourced material not in favour of advocates of SG/SGI and or Ikeda.

Summary of dispute by Hoary

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Under the heading "Remarkable deletions", the article's talk page shows a conflict over what is said in two books about an incident in which, it has been claimed in the article, Daisaku Ikeda abused and hit an older priest. The two books in question are David Montgomery, Fire in the lotus: The dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren (ISBN 1852740914); and Kiyoaki Murata, Japan's new Buddhism: An objective account of Soka Gakkai (ISBN 978-0834800403). It's not always clear who has seen these books. I have never seen either, have no comment on the reliability of either book, and have never heard of one of the publishers.

A paragraph was summarily removed. This dismayed me. (See the talk page.)

There's a dispute on the talk page between User:Elemential1 (surprisingly, not named above) and User:Catflap08 on the talk page about exactly what Montgomery and Murata wrote. It's an odd dispute. Elemential1 claims that each book says precisely this or that; Catflap08 doesn't seem to agree or disagree but instead seems eager to argue around what the content of cited texts. He also seems to be saying that an objection to parts of a paragraph aren't good reason to remove it in toto.

Catflap08 then presents a long quotation from Montgomery. If it's credible, it certainly shows the thuggishness of the organization that Ikeda would soon head. What it doesn't show is what Ikeda had to do with this. Catflap08 appears to think that Ikeda must have been involved and therefore this belongs in an article about him.

Numerous editors of the page (many of these SPAs) have long been unhappy about quotations from an article Polly Toynbee published about meeting Ikeda. There have been attempts to do away with all of this material, but various editors (including Catflap08 and myself) have opposed these, and none of these attempts has been successful. There have been demands that this journalistic account should be balanced by other journalistic or quasi-journalistic accounts; I have welcomed this idea. At one point I noticed that the article had developed odd descriptions of Toynbee and a book in which she's quoted at length; I brought this up.

The article was protected. Starrynuit suggested changes. As an admin, I accepted some, rejected others. These acceptances and rejections didn't trigger much visible dissatisfaction.

Alarm bells! I have been a participant in the editing of the article and have exercised my administrative superpowers on it. A dodgy combination, and in retrospect I regret this. I'd be happy to recuse myself from either (a) editorial involvement or (b) administrative involvement. Or, better, from both, because my interest in Ikeda is very minor.

Starrynuit added a somewhat hagiographic passage about Ikeda. Seventeen minutes later, Catflap08 removed it, with the edit summary WP:PEACOCK.

I was struck by two things here. First, however vapid parts of the passage might be, they're not covered by WP:PEACOCK. I wrote this up at Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda#Peacock. Secondly and more seriously, Catflap08 seemed indignant when one faulty passage he seemed to like was deleted in toto, but he was quick to delete another faulty passage in toto. Why not approach the two in the same way? I therefore warned Catflap08 about the need for neutrality.

The talk page has now blown up with "Murata reference". Despite learning that Murata says that Toda hit the old priest and not learning that Murata says that Ikeda did, Catflap08 wanted (wants?) the article to continue to cite Murata as saying that Ikeda hit the old priest. (Though sometimes he says that he doesn't care.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Starrynuit

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Greetings, The sentence that I tried to correct and that Hoary ultimately deleted had long -- incorrectly -- cited Murata as saying that Ikeda admitted hitting the priest twice. The text of Murata reads, "Toda [not Ikeda] admitted hitting the priest 'twice' [p. 96] ..." This can be seen at http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hitting

Murata's account of the Ogasawara Incident is disputed but that dispute is another matter; the inaccuracy of that one sentence in the article was the key issue here.

Thank you for your time. Starrynuit (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Elemential1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @ TransporterMan Thanks for reminding me.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree I did not indeed mention User:Elemential1 I filed the DRN due to Hoary's posts of 5th February onwards. In those posts yHoary went on about changing the “Ikeda hitting” issue. May I remind Hoary that it was him/her who threatened me with a topic ban? In the articles affected and mentioning the incident I then simply included the Murata clippings, as in the beginning of the dispute it was (a) disputed if Ikeda was present (b) that Murata made such a statement on page 69 of his book – apparently he did. The question if Ikeda was present was resolved since I included the rather lengthy Montgomery quote. In contrast to Hoary I do hold quite a bit of literature on Nichiren Buddhism which I find to be quite useful when editing on matters relating to Nichiren Buddhism. The only book I did not have since long out of print is the Murata one. The only ones I bined a long long time ago are the “human revolution” ones by Mr. Ikeda (novels). The articles on Ikeda and SGI were reedited and it did not slip my attention that in due course Ikeda was alleged hitting too, hence my Resource Request‎ to find out if Murata made such a quote and who was hitting who. While Hoary did question my neutrality I do begin to have doubts on Hoary’s ability to exert powers as an admin. The amount of information available either in English, German or French on Nichiren Buddhism is limited. The information published on and offline on SG/SGI is mainly published by SG/SGI itself. It comes natural that critical matters are few and credibility of authors is even more vital then. I work on Nichiren related matters for nearly eight years now. I believe I was able to contribute to the nuts and bolts of Nichiren Buddhism within articles dealing with the matter in a credible non-promotional way. Am I neutral on SG/SGI? No. Knowing this and having made co-editors aware of that I keep my own edits on SG/SGI related articles to a bare minimum. I am not sure if Hoary is aware of the fact but the usual tactics of SG/SGI advocates is (online and offline) to discredit authors of resources critical of SG/SGI. This has been an ongoing issue as if one does not like the message kill the messenger so to speak. What I surely do not like is therefore to delete critical material. Recently another editor and me were involved to get another editor to include some more facts on SG/SGI’s beliefs and dogma – fruitless task. So in the end maybe Ikeda was building his first human pyramid as a peace activity while the priest was harassed in 1952 – how should I know. What I do know (a) Ikeda was present among the 47 involved (b) Murata did make that quote on page 69 (c) Toda is said to have been hitting. Also since Murata apparently did not only write one book I am surprised that Hoary did not include a “citation needed” tag on the disputed sentence first. It just puzzles me that Hoary always enters the scene when it comes to references critical of SG/SGI, references not in Japanese. On the Toynbee issue it was agreed that the online text does not qualify as a resource – now its harder for readers to read the article. Fine. Nevertheless the article existed, I have had the Guardian pdf and the one made available to me by the help of a Resource Request. Discrediting yet again the author of the article as some editors tried I find worrying. To quarrel about resources, who said what where is one thing to discredit me as an editor making sure critical issues are neither deleted nor censored is another one though. Since I was the one who got the Murata quotes why should it be me to insist that Ikeda was hitting the priest? The conclusions Hoary makes beat me and asking me to edit the body of the text seems bizarre while earlier threatening me with a topic ban. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I will remind all parties to this case to be concise, be civil, and comment on content, not on contributors. The comments by some of the editors appear to contain lengthy complaints about other parties and are long. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to DRN, I have been through the specifics of the discussion and am willing to volunteer for this case. I have no prior knowledge of the subject matter but I hope that won't interfere with mediation. I am going to notify Elemential1 as they seem to have been involved in a lot of the discussion. The first thing I would ask is in two or three sentences could you please tell me as specifically as possible what you hope would be different (or the same) in the article after DRN. For comparison please use this version of the article. I ask this in order for us all to see exactly where the nub of the dispute is. Please don't justify these inclusions in this section simply list them for now.SPACKlick (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08:'s desired outcomes

Higher protection level of article itself (registered editors only, no IP edits). No hidden or open censorship. End to defamation of authors (including journalists) and denying the existence of their work. No threats against my person or any other editor. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: This board cannot change protection levels of an article. We also cannot take action against uncivil editors. If you have received threats to your person I would recommend you take them to the relevant administrators noticeboard

• Could you be specific about what you believe is being censored currently?
• Could you be specific about what work you believe the existence of is being denied?
• Could you be specific about what authors are being defamed.

I am asking for specifics at this stage because a small point to focus on will help the discussion find the generalities. SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The censorship is about sources used and an ongoing effort by some editors to discredit authors/journalists. It was even denied that Murata made such a claim i.e. that the page 69 in his work even exists as cited by Montgomery. At that point the issue was on Toda only. The defamation was about Toynbee (multiple editors involved). The threat against my person was to the effect of me being able to edit the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That is still quite general. What sources would you like included in the article that are not currently? What from Murata/Montgomery would you like in the article. What about Toynbee would you like out of the article? This will struggle to move forward without specifics. SPACKlick (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present. Please note that since the dispute started both articles (SGI and the one on DI) have been reedited in large parts. Both the Montgomery AND Murata page 69 quotes should simply be cited in a footnote at least – in full length. The notability of Ms. Toynbee and her account of meeting DI should no longer be disputed nor her reputation as a journalist belittled. And while in the swing of it – no quotes from fictional material (the novel “Human Revolution”) on incidents that happened in real life. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Please note that at the beginning of the dispute the complete section was once deleted on grounds that no such quote of Toda was recorded. Tough – Murata quote was found. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary:'s desired outcomes

There's a passage within the section on "Books" that talks of the reactions of, and quotes comments by, Polly Toynbee. It's flagged "[relevant?]", "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]". Remove the "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]" flags, as the quotations appear in the article in the Guardian. (This article -- long, fascinating, and published long before everything in the newspaper was routinely uploaded to its website -- has been made available to a small number of editors of the page and I presume could be available to others.) The part flagged for relevance does indeed seem irrelevant to books. But this is not the part of the article where this passage has long resided. Move the passage back where it belongs (some section on Ikeda the person), and its relevance will again be clear. This aside, no particular request. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Slightly edited for clarity 05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Starrynuit:'s desired outcomes

Greetings; I do not have any dispute with the article as it is. Thank you very much Starrynuit (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case are there any particular changes that have been made and reverted recently that you specifically think would detract from the article? SPACKlick (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings,

Thank you kindly for asking.

1) I agree with Hoary’s suggestion about the Polly Toynbee quotations.

2) Re: “The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present.”

a) Murata pages 96-97 are on the subject at hand (not page 69) ()

b) Neither Murata nor Montgomery states that DI (Daisaku Ikeda) was present at this alleged hitting, therefore it is not appropriate to include such a statement in the article.

c) Montgomery states that what happened after Toda encountered Ogasawara is not clear and he describes Murata’s statement about Toda hitting the priest as a “claim”. Montgomery states, “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96).” ([Montgomery ()

d) Therefore, given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, for which there is no cited source at all.

Thank you very much again. Starrynuit (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: (I hope this comment is not out of line). I don't know why anyone else didn't translate it, but I posted a Japanese source on the Talk page, here, that states Toda hit the priest.

  行ってみると、当時の戸田城聖会長を先頭に青年部の屈強な若者がずらりと並んでいた。
  呼び出しの理由は簡単にいうと、戦前慈聞師が唱えていた教義解釈が間違っていたのだから謝れというわけだ。師が拒否すると戸田会長が殴った...

  It also says that the priest was said to have suffered internal bleeding, and that Toda was taken into custody and held for two days while the incident was investigated.

  急を聞きつけて地元消防団がかけつけたため慈聞師は宿坊に帰され、騒ぎは収まったが、このリンチで師は内出血のため四週間も休まなくてはならなかったという。
  この事件で戸田会長は警察に二日間拘留され、取調べを受けている。

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

@Elemential1:'s desired outcomes

Ok so to summarise the comments above.

@John Carter:'s desired outcomes

Hi all. I'm just butting in here as a somewhat involved editor, and I would be very happy to see @Shii:, one of our more knowledgable editors in general on Eastern religions, to comment here too. I think the primary things to address here are:

• 1) determining the relevance and amount of weight to be given to reliably sourced material which is not particularly positive regarding the subject, both in this article and other SG articles
• 2) a consensus be reached regarding the number of articles and subjects of articles relating to the various SG topics, including this one. Although I am not sure myself of the amount and depth of coverage of the life of this individual compared to others, I note that there are at least three articles relating directly to the life of L. Ron Hubbard and various periods of it, and think similar might be possible here, depending on the amount and notability of material available.
• 3) broadly determine what content which can be reasonably considered to be of "encyclopedic merit" regarding both this individual and SG in general should be placed in which article related to that topic.

Anyway, that's what comes to mind to me as a reasonable starting point. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Murata, Montgomery, Hitting incident

1. Include that Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present
2. Cite Montgomery in footnote at full length
3. Cite Murata in footnote at full length

These three, if I'm understanding correctly all refer to the same section of content and are disputed as to what quotes to include, what to say in Wikipedia's voice and what to not say at all. Could each of you summarise your arguments for what to include and where in the article. Again, try and keep it to three or four sentences. Please do not discuss each others contributions before I respond.

@Catflap08:

Nowhere in the quotes is it stated that Ikeda hit the priest. Whoever included that later is none of my business and if sources exist who say so include them. The Montgomery source simply states that Ikeda was in the mob. I was the one who made the Murata quotes available, as some suggested the Montgomery quote would be wrong. I have the full Montgomery quote and would include it in full length as a footnote just like the Murata one. Please note that in the beginning of this discussion the complete reference to the incident was deleted. We have so far established that the Murata quote exists, which was disputed, and that Ikeda according to sources was present. The “incident” as such is not limited to Toda hitting the priest – that was the climax – but the incident is about finding the priest, pulling off his robes, etc. etc. … the issue here is that the incident took place. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary:

In the first item, is "Murata Toda" a typo for "Murata says that Toda" (or similar), for "Toda", or for something else? Anyway, I'm unimpressed by somebody's mere presence at a violent event. If there's evidence that this happened, and that Ikeda played an important role, then say what the incident was and what his role was in it; if there isn't, then don't. Whatever is said in the article about this (if anything), source it well: in the relevant footnote(s)/reference(s), quote [I think you mean "quote" rather than "cite"] as much from Murata or Montgomery or both as to establish this, and no more. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Starrynuit:

Greetings, Suggest that the Polly Toynbee quotations be moved to a new Controversies section in the article. Given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts and given the cited statement from Montgomery that “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear.”, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, since there is no cited source for the latter statement. Thank you again, Starrynuit (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

P. Toynbee comments

1. Accept Ms Toynbee as a source of note and include referred sections without critique of the journalist.
2. Move Ms Toynbee's section to the relevant location

I don't see a dispute here but maybe I'm misreading someone. The section currently reads

The 1976 publication of Choose Life: A Dialogue (in Japanese, Nijusseiki e no taiwa) is the published record of dialogues and correspondences that began in 1971 between Ikeda and British historian Arnold J. Toynbee about the “convergence of East and West”[137] on contemporary as well as perennial topics ranging from the human condition to the role of religion and the future of human civilization. Toynbee’s 12-volume A Study of History had been translated into Japanese, which along with his lecture tours and periodical articles about social, moral and religious issues gained him popularity in Japan. To an expat’s letter critical of Toynbee’s association with Ikeda and Soka Gakkai, Toynbee wrote back: “I agree with Soka Gakkai on religion as the most important thing in human life, and on opposition to militarism and war."[138] To another letter critical of Ikeda, Toynbee responded: “Mr. Ikeda’s personality is strong and dynamic and such characters are often controversial. My own feeling for Mr. Ikeda is one of great respect and sympathy.”[139] British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist, was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984 in memory of her grandfather. (According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."[140]) Polly Toynbee described Ikeda as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".[141][relevant? – discuss] She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."[142] In The Guardian on May 19, 1984, she also voiced the wish that her grandfather would not have endorsed their dialogue, Choose Life: A Dialogue. She wrote, "I telephoned a few people round the world who had been visited by Ikeda. There was a certain amount of discomfort at being asked, and an admission by several that they felt they had been drawn into endorsing him."[143][better source needed][copyright violation?]

Are there any disputed phrases and are there any suggestions as to where in the article which bits should go? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do also take into account the respective talk(s) on the issue which comes up on a regular basis more or less. To my mind the quote and references made to Ms. Toynbee are exactly in the right place. The article was not written out of the blue, but because Ms. Toynbee was invited by SGI/SG as she was the granddaughter of the late Arnold Toynbee. As a matter of fact those quotes are actually missing in which she elaborates what she suspected to be SGI/SG’s motifs to invite her in the first place. Alternatively I would add larger quotes in an appropriate footnote. Also is was hinted at in the respective talks on the issue the reference to Ms. Toynbee should go full stop as she is a humanist (some call it atheist or agnostic) - I guess that was her view at the time too, but she was invited on grounds of her name. On a side note I would like to underline that any attempts to delete her quotes, based on her view on religion, are in effect discriminatory. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Human Revolution

1. Remove quotes from Fictional material, to whit "Human Revolution"

I couldn't find any remaining quotes from the book. Is this still under dispute? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be established that the semi-fictional novel is not a reliable source to quote from full stop. In the talk page (either on DI or SGI/SG) it was discussed to quote it. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please halt discussion until a new moderator takes up this case. SPACKlick has indicated on the DRN talk page that he/she is unable to continue with this case. I'm therefore marking it as NEEDS ATTENTTION in the hopes another DRN volunteer will pick it up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello All, I am a part time volunteer with DRN. First of all I would like to thank everybody for participating. I also want to make it clear that we at DRN carry forward discussions which were not resolved on the talk page. We are not here to discuss subjects of articles but merely what can be added to an article. We don't possess any administrator privileges. With that out of the day let me briefly summarize my understanding of the dispute which is whether any reference to Daisaku Ikeda having hit (or abused, or physically harmed in any way) a priest called Jimon Ogasawara, should be included in the article about Daisaku Ikeda. Later the dispute includes the suitability of adding the opinion of journalist Polly Toynbee to the article. I have drawn these conclusions from reading the rather lengthy talk page discussions and the discussions above. Would that be correct? -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Wikishagnik You seem to sum up the dispute quite correctly. Except that to my recollection the dispute originally surfaced as one editor questioned the Murata quote full stop. It carried on from there onwards.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Wikishagnik Greetings, thank you for asking. Please note that there is no evidence whatsoever that Daisaku Ikeda in any way hit or abused or harmed Jimon Ogasawara. Please see my comment of 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Further, the article already includes the opinion of Polly Toynbee in the section Books. Thank you.Starrynuit (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

24 Hour Closing Notice -- Unless there is significant indication in the next 24 hrs that a moderated dispute resolution discussion is underway, I'm going to make a long overdue close of this very stale case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi I m back, quickly, I am sorry but I was a bit busy on last two days. Going ahead, Its good that we have now reached some sort of agreement over the dispute. Now, the next step for any independent editor like me would be to quote multiple reliable and independent sources to say that this editor is right and this editor is wrong. However, for this discussion I fail to understand why this confrontation (and not the subject of the article) is failing to meet these Notability requirements? Simply put, why am I not able to find multiple indipendent reliable and verifiable sources for this confrontation? Wihout these, how will I ensure that any edit of the article I make is Encylopedic and Neutral? I don't want to get in a bitter dispute about authors and journalists etc. because it is the job of the publishing house (or newspaper) publishing them to carry out these checks. I don't want to exclude any reference because that discussion belongs more to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am not in any way affiliated to Budhism or the subject of this article. So, how do I ensure my POV is Neutral and Encyclopedic?--Wikishagnik (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

24 hour warning: This case has passed its expiration date which means the bot will auto-archive the case/thread if a 24 hour period passes with no comments. Which at this point, in my opinion, is a good thing. This case has lost its momentum and does not appear to be going anywhere. Just sayin.........-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Since a month has gone by the task of following the incident is indeed difficult. I would however like this to be sorted it out --Catflap08 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing Comments - This dispute initially started out as a debate about whether Daisaku Ikeda hit (or abused, or physically harmed in any way) a priest called Jimon Ogasawara. It later turned into a long debate about journalists and other sources. While it would be tempting to start discussing about WP:ONESOURCE, WP:CONFLICT, WP:PRIMARY and WP:VERIFY, the Neutrality and tone of whole article is under question, so suggesting a removal of a such a contentious addition might actualy harm the Nuetrality of the article. Hence, at this point I suggest allowing other editors to work on the article and make it more Neutral while the disputing editors work on improving other articles on WIkipedia. -Wikishagnik (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Helmut Diez

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Hans-Jürgen Hübner on 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Helmut Diez (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk · contribs)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article about Helmut Diez was written about 3 years ago. Then Rhode Island Red told me that german sources are not accepted. Then he wanted to make me believe that the length of an article should mirror the significance of a person. His hints were always extremely vague (e.g. "see WP:MOS, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:PROMO for a start"), he wanted "high-quality online sources in English", although WPs regulations say even "Citations to non-English sources are allowed". He criticized that some links, which I offered as an additional service for the readers, did not contain Mr. Diez's name, although it was obvious, that this was not the purpose. His tone was always gentle, but he deleted everything I did, so that it looks like a self-authorized deletion. He did this three times without giving persuading reasons, as far as I can see. Now I have made an attempt to improve the style with the help of an american and a british friend, and I have made the article more brief and deleted all the links that did not contain Diez's name - but the result is the same. I have no idea what to do against this kind of unexplainable treatment. At 7 o'clock I replaced the old version with the new one, but it took only a few hours to return to the much worse previous state.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After the discussion mentioned above, I tried to further improve the style and keep the article as short as possible.

How do you think we can help?

Please answer my question if the reasons of Rhode Island Red are adequate, correct or part of Wikipedias philosophy. Give me some precise hints, how to save my work - if possible. If I'm wrong, although I'm writing for the german Wikipedia since 2006, Mr. Diez personally has asked on the telephone rather to delete the article about him, than to keep it the way it is now.

Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red

This is a malformed and inappropriate DRN IMO. The user who filed it provided no history, no diff edits, no links, etc., making it difficult for anyone digging into the matter to even remotely understand the issues at hand.

The user has made couple of previous attempts to write an article on the bio subject in question. Those efforts fell far short of WP standards for a plethora of reasons, which I articulated in great detail on the article’s TPG (e.g., WP:PROMO, WP:RESUME, unreliable sources, dead links, supposition without sources, trivia, poor writing bordering on incomprehensible, etc).[1] I offered to assist the editor in question in crafting an article that might meet WP standards, and I suggested that we use the TPG to begin the process.[2] The editor failed to take up the offer and instead recently posted a revised version of the article that was even worse (for the reasons specified above) than the previous versions. I reverted the changes,[3] explained the reasoning for the reversion on the TPG,[4] and then never received a reply from the editor.

There was also a serious issue with respect to the editor primarily using unacceptable sources, almost all of which were either dead links, articles that were not from WP:RS, and articles that failed to mention the bio subject at all.[5] This raises issues with respect to the editor’s reliability and understanding of WP’s policy on sourcing, and this is especially problematic given that they are now attempting to use unverifiable, obscure, and highly dubious offline sources in German.

This DRN has bypassed the normal sequence of events that would be followed in situation like this: i.e., engagement on the TPG, request for second opinion, RfC, etc. Escalating to DRN has circumvented the normal editorial process unnecessarily.

That aside, the basic question of whether the subject is notable enough for a WP:BIO has not been resolved. IMO, the subject is not notable. The bio subject has not received significant coverage in WP:RS, and particularly not in any English language sources available online or offline. The offline sources in German which the editor has provided seem dubious to say the least, and still do not appear to establish notability even if accepted at face value.

The editor’s RfC comment about having had direct conversations with the bio subject regarding the content and fate of the WP bio article also raise the issue of WP:COI. This is what I had suspected all along given the editors past conduct and POV pushing.

Talk:Helmut Diez discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Clerical Notice: I've notified the other participant on their talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Open for Discussion - This case is now open for discussion. Please restrict your comments to the content of the article (current or proposed). Please do not make reference to other editors actions or behavior, past or present. Hans, I see that you would like to add some content to this article. We will discuss one source at a time. Please list one source, and the corresponding text for that source, that you would like to add to the article. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, it might be best to go through this process on the article TPG so that the discussion will be easily accessible to other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion process wasn't working so let's try it here. When the moderated discussion is over you can copy and paste it to the talk page and provide a link to the archived discussion if you like.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds reasonable. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

First proposal

I instead believe that it is useless to continue our discussion on the talk page. So here is an example of a paragraph that I would like to re-insert (the references are marked as [ref:]:

The Hattinger model [ref: More about the model cfr. Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz: "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!". Das "Hattinger Modell" Existenzkampf an der Ruhr, Bund-Verlag, 1985.] (for the continuation of the smithy in Hattingen) tried to save jobs,[ref: Herbert Klemisch, Kerstin Sack and Christoph Ehrsam: Betriebsübernahme durch Belegschaften. Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme, Studie im Auftrag der Hans Böckler Stiftung, July 2010, ISSN 1619ISSN.] but the Dresdner Bank refused to sell its collateral values to the rescue company.[ref: Dresdner Bank besteht auf Konkurs, in: Die Tageszeitung, 12th of may 1984.] “... the Diez model was already laid out correctly” it was said in the second largest newspaper in Germany.[ref: Westfälische Rundschau and Westfälischer Ruhr-Anzeiger, 22nd of may 1984 and "Ich habe Wut gekriegt für die Zukunft..." Diez-Modell richtig angelegt. Landtagsabgeordneter Uli Schmidt nach dem Scheitern des Hattinger Modells. Despite all this it was said: "Und deshalb war das Diez-Modell alle zu beteiligen, schon richtig angelegt." (And that is why the Diez model to let participate all parties, was correctly implemented)] --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's break this down so we can discuss one sentence and source at a time:

• 1)The Hattinger model
  • [ref: More about the model cfr. Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz: "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!". Das "Hattinger Modell" Existenzkampf an der Ruhr, Bund-Verlag, 1985.]

• 2) (for the continuation of the smithy in Hattingen) tried to save jobs,[ref: Herbert Klemisch, Kerstin Sack and Christoph Ehrsam: Betriebsübernahme durch Belegschaften. Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme, Studie im Auftrag der Hans Böckler Stiftung, July 2010, ISSN 1619ISSN.]

• 3) but the Dresdner Bank refused to sell its collateral values to the rescue company.
  • [ref: Dresdner Bank besteht auf Konkurs, in: Die Tageszeitung, 12th of may 1984.]

• 4) “... the Diez model was already laid out correctly” it was said in the second largest newspaper in Germany.
  • [ref: Westfälische Rundschau and Westfälischer Ruhr-Anzeiger, 22nd of may 1984 and "Ich habe Wut gekriegt für die Zukunft..." Diez-Modell richtig angelegt. Landtagsabgeordneter Uli Schmidt nach dem Scheitern des Hattinger Modells. Despite all this it was said: "Und deshalb war das Diez-Modell alle zu beteiligen, schon richtig angelegt." (And that is why the Diez model to let participate all parties, was correctly implemented)] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, before we discuss individual sources do you have any general comments about this proposed text? The Hattinger model, for the continuation of the smithy in Hattingen) tried to save jobs, but the Dresder Bank refuse to sell its collateral values to the rescue company. :"The Diez model was already laid out correctly" it was said in the second largest newspaper in Germany. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There's no context, it lacks critical detail, and it seems like WP:SYNTH about something fairly trivial. What is the Diez model? What parties are they talking about? What rescue company? What does Dresden Bank have to do with Diez? It makes my brain hurt trying to make sense of it. It seems to boil down to: "Diez had a plan to save jobs at a smithy in Hattingen and it didn't/(did?) work". It also appears that only one of three references actually mentions Diez, and even then only incidentally. I was hoping to see substantial evidence of notability put forth at the outset, because if there is none, discussion about minutiae like this seems moot. A one-line entry in a newspaper, like the example above, wouldn't qualify. Perhaps Hans can make offer up the best evidence he can find that would help the determination of whether the subject is notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hans, I'm inclined to agree with Rhode Island Red. It's difficult to see the relevance of this information to the life of the subject. What we are looking for is biographical info such as where/when he was born, his education. Details of when he graduated, what was his first job etc. When did he publish his first book. Did he start a notable company or organization? If so when? With this in mind could you please suggest some sourced content, other then what you have cited so far? Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me what field of endeavor Diez is supposed to be notable for. The old version of the article had him listed variably as an artist, designer, project manager, and entrepreneur. But I don't see any evidence that he's notable in even a single one of those areas, let alone all of them. Nonetheless, an attempt should be made to pick one going forward and then see if he qualifies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion. Hans, can you provide a source that illustrates the most notable or prominent aspect of Diez's life and/or a reputable source that provides a biography for Diez. These types of bios are often seen in places like the corporation where he holds a high position or Bloomberg News bios etc. Thanking you in advance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop personalizing the discussion. Discuss content only.

lol "Mr. Diez personally has asked on the telephone rather to delete the article about him, than to keep it the way it is now." A quite interesting statement. Seems the german duo is very close. I understand the german wikipedia article about Diez is written like a marketing brochure. Try your self all the links given there if they are actually working and if Diez name is part of it. Without Hübner the german wikipedia wouldnt know about Diez. In terms on notability its also not enough that the name is just a marginal note in publications. Something more is needed here. In support of Keithbob I would like to see some stuff here on the table.Spearmind (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, the WP:COI/WP:ADVOCACY issue combined with the incomprehensible writing, resume-like style, sourcing deficiencies, and apparent lack of notability are problematic to say the least. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As the evidence stands now I’m convinced that Diez is not notable. At best, he might qualify as a “person who is relatively unknown”, in which case WP:NPF would be considered: “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.”

In effect, that means that even in the unlikely event that Diez could be demonstrated to be notable in a particular area, such as a designer, the content of the article should include only details about design expertise and activities. The bio article in its previous incarnation was a catch-all for all of Diez’s various activities (none of which appeared to be noteworthy), which is a no-no. The “exercise restraint” part should also be considered, since this was glaringly absent from the article’s previous incarnation.

I’ve been presenting Hans with all of the critical issues raised in this DRN since I first looked at the article back in 2012 – more than enough time to get things up to snuff, but no progress has been made. And now, after raising the DRN and getting negative feedback, it seems he’s abandoned the effort and this discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, influenza. Return as soon as possible. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

New proposal

Back.

Dear Keithbob, I'd like to propose a less complicated path (after all this diversionary tactic of those nice guys):

1. I think, after Spearmind's intervention, we have a first consensus: German sources are accepted.

The next inevitable questions are: 2. What exactly are the facts that make Diez notable?, and 3. which sources can verify these facts?

So, I would like to bring together the facts that, in my eyes, make Diez notable (in the first step omitting my duty to cite the sources).

If we agree that these facts make him notable, we can discuss the sources that prove the single facts that make him notable (or not). The advantage: If we cannot agree that the facts make him notable, we don't have to discuss each source. Then he is not notable and the article should be deleted. If we agree that these facts make him notable, we have to continue analyzing the reliability of the massmedia etc that provided the sources.

If you believe that this is the most efficient way to solve this long lasting problem, I would bring forth the reasons why I believe that Diez is notable. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because the publications of Diez were deleted recently (by whom, you can imagine), I would like to accelerate the process by making the publications "findable" even for those who never visit a library and completely depend on the internet. Is this o.k. as, lets say, "step 0"? --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not possible to discuss "facts" in the absence of sources that establish those facts. The two are intimately intertwined. Statements in the absence of a suitable source are mere supposition/conjecture. We're not interested about what, "in your eyes" (opinion), makes the subject notable but rather what evidence there is from WP:RS that establish the subject's notability. Kindly proceed with that in mind. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hans, welcome back. I hope your good health has returned.

1. All parties please stop the sniping. Do NOT reference other editors in your comments.
2. According to WP:V: Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.
3. I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea of discussing alleged information about the subject without citing sources. I would prefer you bring us one source at a time and propose some text based on that source(s). Some editors are questioning the subject's notability but that is not what we are discussing. We are examining sources and corresponding content that could be added to the article. After this moderated discussion is over, then any editor that feels the article is not-notable can add a 'notability' tag to the article and explain on the talk page why they feel that way. Alternately they can nominate the article for community discussion and possible deletion at WP:AfD. But that is later in the process. Right now we want to see reliable sources that give information about significant events in the life of this BLP subject. Can you please show us one or two? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, thanks a lot for the good wishes. Yes, I did recover and am busy working again, although at reduced speed.

As far as I can see, we have a reliable ground now. If I've got you right, I'm supposed to propose one source after the other with the deduced text for each of them, probably the texts I would like to see in the article. If so, I try to start on sunday. Last question: Do you need (a bit crude ...) translations? Regards --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless we are going to be quoting the source we can use Google Translate. So I don't need a translation but others can speak up if that is important. The main thing is we need to see good sources with substantial coverage of the BLP subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

1. section

I would like to start with the (probably) least litigated section about Diez's role as record producer and artist. First I tell you what I want to say within the article (in italic), then I quote a possible source, then I say, which source I have cited (name, date, if possible pages etc.)

1. Within the field of art and culture, Helmut Diez developed scenic presentations with Peter Abromeit and Gustav Gisiger, for which they received the cultural and peace price of the Villa Ichon in 1983, together with 10.000 Marks,...

source: "Der ‚Unauflöslichkeit zwischen Kunst und Frieden‘ war die Aktion gewidmet, in deren Rahmen der Kulturpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals verliehen wurde. Für die Friedensinitiative Ostertor nahmen Peter Abromeit, Helmut Diez und Gustav Gisiger den mit 10.000 Mark dotierten Preis entgegen.“ (Kunst als lebendige Bestürzung. Kunstpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals an Theater Friedensaktion verliehen, in: Weserkurier, 14th of march 1983).

2. ...for their action theatres "Gräber schaffen Heimat", with approximately 120 musicians and actors.

source: "Über tausend Bremer verfolgten, wie da mit Hilfe von Theater, Film und Musik "eine Brücke geschlagen wurde zwischen der faschistischen Vergangenheit und der bedrohlichen Gegenwart" (so Mitveranstalter Helmut Diez) geschlagen wurde.“ (Theater im Kriegerdenkmal. Friedensinitiative dokumentiert Geschichte des Monuments, in: Weserkurier, 4th of may 1982 and Morgenpost, 10th of may 1982).

3. In 1983 - together with the federation of German writers – followed “a mourning march memorating the day of Nazi book burnings.

source: "Am kommenden Dienstag wird die Innenstadt ganz im Zeichen dieser Aktion stehen, die von den drei Bremer Künstlern Helmut Diez, Peter Abromeit und Gustav Gisiger vorbereitet wurde." (Trauermarsch für die verbrannte Literatur. Lesungen auf dem Marktplatz zum Tag der Bücherverbrennung / 100 bremer beteiligt, in: Weserkurier, 7th of may 1983) - a happening remembering the Nazi book burnings.

4. Diez produced cross-over compositions, including the Freeport count - Freeport - L’affaire flibustier'...

source: Freeport L’affaire Flibustier, in: Jazzthetik, march 1990; there it says: "ein gewaltiges Werk … produced by Helmut Diez".

5. or Pulse (1992/93) with Michael Sievert,...

source: "… and The music is packed with ideas which address jazz as being at the centre of a web of musical approaches which all have a bearing on the next music’s next move (or two). The computer and Emulator are perfectly contextualized, the large ensemble .. integrate with an unprecedented sensitivity …" (Tom Corbin, in: The Wire, issue 70/71, 1990. possible further source: a photograph of the cover of the CD

6. which was published at his label "the Dizzy Essentials". Beside Michael Sievert, Diez worked with Sainkho Namchalak, Wolfram Dix, Heinz Becker, Jens Ahlers, Michael Berger, Klaus Koch and Carolyne Mas.

source: Dizzy Essentials 1992/93, together with "Sainkho Namchalak, Carolyne Mas, Heinz Becker, Michael Sivert, Heimo Schulte, Michael Berger, Wilfried Staufenbiel, Claudia Schwarze, Peter Mengel, Wolfram Dix, Jens Ahlers, Claus Koch, Gregor Zielinsky, Dietrich Rauschtenberger, Radio Bremen".

7. In the exhibition "In the Swim”, arranged by him,

source and additional information, if necessary part of the article text: "In the swim": in mostra 57 giovani designer inglesi, in: DOMUS. monthly review of architecture, interiors, design and art, 753, Milan, october 1993, p. 6 f. (among the three "curatori" Helmut Diez is mentioned, responsible also for "allestimento" (staging).

8. he presented, together with Karen Beate Phillips (British European Design Group) and Liz Farrelly (Blueprint), the largest exhibition of British Designs on the European continent.

source: Perspectives, in: Blueprint. The leading Magazine of Architecture and Design, London, Juni 1993 ("The installation .. was realised by Designlabor's managing director Helmut Diez").

9. In the context of the European week, he developed the first media and European-wide student exchange in the year 2000.

source: "..für die Konzeption sorgte Helmut Diez. Man habe gute Erfahrungen gemacht, erklärte Diez. Der Umgang der Jugendlichen mit dem Internet erfordere neue didaktische Ansätze. Streng nach Vorgaben zu handeln sei nämlich nicht möglich. Hier sei Offenheit gefragt." (Horst Frey: Ihr werdet bunt in alle Länder heiraten - Bürgermeister Scherf: ein gigantischer Erfolg Europas, in: Weser Kurier, 9th of may 2000, p. 14)

I hope, the structure is clear enough. This could be one of the paragraphs, which I have in mind. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Overland Limited_(UP_train)#"Corrections"

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Mackensen on 17:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Overland Limited (UP train)#"Corrections" (edit | subject | history | links | "Corrections" watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mackensen (talk · contribs)
• Centpacrr (talk · contribs)
• Tim Zukas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Tim Zukas has challenged the veracity of the article and claims that it is full of mistakes. He has repeatedly reverted to his preferred version, which also makes numerous stylistic changes. It's difficult to read through these diffs. He adds no sources of his own, has added unsourced content, and sometimes removes sources. I and another editor have asked him to make more incremental edits, flagging inaccurate information, but he has not done so. Zukas also sometimes edits from an IP and not his regular account; I do not think this is deliberate but it has aggravated the situation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page but we seem to be talking past each other.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like someone not involved to look over the dispute and give their opinion on it. I'm getting worn out arguing. This article isn't highly-trafficked and some fresh perspective would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Centpacrr

Both Mackensen (who created the article last summer) and I have been repeatedly restoring massive deletions of existing detailed, well sourced material and citations that had been originally developed and contributed by us after the material has been repeatedly deleted without explanation by user Tim Zukas under both his registered user account and multiple sockpuppet IP addresses. (All of the IPs geolocate to Oakland, CA, the Berkeley Public Library, and the University of California (Berkeley) of which Zukas is listed as a small financial contributor to the Bancroft Library.) This follows a pattern which Zukas has used to make similar disruptive edits to many other transportation related articles such as Boeing 314 and Braniff International Airways using multiple IPs, and other articles using his registered account. In all cases (including the "Overland Limited" article), the deletions made by this user have violated WP:PRESERVE, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS. This user has a long demonstrated history over a period of several years of engaging in this type of disruptive editing which is revealed by multiple warnings and complaints posted by many other editors in his talk page. Multiple requests made of him in talk pages of this and other articles that he cooperate with his fellow editors in resolving such issues are virtually always ignored. Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As user "Zukas" has chosen to ignore this process and once again massively altered the article without explanation, I have decided to delete all the images, new text, references, sources and citations that I have added over the past several weeks and revert it to the status quo ante rather than waste anymore of my time dealing with a blindly disruptive editor who has no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community. Centpacrr (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary issue raised by both Mackensen (who opened this discussion) and myself is that despite repeated requests, user "Zukas" (both under his registered account and anon IP's) both refuses to specify what he claims are "errors", and refuses to provide or cite any sources -- reliable, verifiable, published, or otherwise -- to support any of the changes he makes. This is a well established pattern with this user (i.e. unexplained mass deletions of material, references, and citations and replacing it with new material without any references or citations) dating back to at least 2010 which is revealed both in postings on his talk page by other editors of similar complaints and warnings, and his activities in articles such as Boeing 314 and Braniff International Airways to which he has made similar massive edits using only multiple IP sockpuppets without providing any support therefore and leading to those pages having to be protected multiple times to prevent his continued disruptive editing of them. Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tim Zukas

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

"detailed, well sourced material"

But nonetheless wrong. Hard to tell whether to blame the source or his misreading of it; his discussion of the 1905 move to the Milwaukee Road is plainly a misreading of Beebe, who seems to have reported the matter carefully.

"no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community"

I remove errors and he replaces them, saying I haven't explained. Naturally I figure the guy adding the errors is the one who's supposed to explain; anyone who looks the discussion over can see how much "explaining" he has done.

The article's first paragraph is an example. In his version the Overland ran SF Bay Area to Omaha until 1962. Looking at the timetables, we see that in reality the Overland quit running east of Ogden/Green River in 1956; none of its cars continued east to Omaha after that. UP train 27/28 that confused him wasn't the Overland (it had the same number, but nothing else) and ran Laramie-Omaha until 1967-68. Too much detail to go in the article's first paragraph, so it appears later. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Overland Limited_(UP_train)#"Corrections" discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: Though I'm a regular volunteer here, I'm neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. All parties have now been properly notified, and there appears to be sufficient discussion, so we're waiting for a volunteer to take the case. Please note that if a volunteer does take the case that only content, not conduct, will be discussed; if you wish to deal with conduct matters you need to file at ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there are any objections I'd be happy to serve as that volunteer. -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In fact, I'll proceed under the expectation that there will be no objections. -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Open for Discussion - I am a DRN volunteer moderator and I'll start things out by thanking the three of you for agreeing to engage in a moderated discussion. Clear communication is essential at Wikipedia and I ask you all to check in on the discussion regularly in order to ensure its success. With a little luck we should be able to resolve this relatively quickly. Please note that I am not an administrator and that this is not a formal or binding discussion. The hope is that we can arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. I've reviewed the case materials and your opening statements and I would first echo TransporterMan's note regarding the function of DRN. We will only be addressing content issues in this discussion. To that end I'd ask that all participants avoid personally-directed comments as much as possible.

Let us begin with the specific content claims at the heart of the dispute. Tim Zukas has made it clear that he believes there are numerous errors in the article. Mackensen and Centpacrr seem to be saying that the claims in the article are generally supported by appropriate sources. I suggest that we work on the facts before moving on to aesthetic issues like the length of the lede. We will need concrete claims to work with and I can already see a number of them have been brought up here or on the article talk page, but it seems that some of the disagreements over the claims have been settled so there's no need for us to re-examine these. My first question I direct to Tim Zukas: What are the specific claims that you believe still contain errors? If you could briefly list them then we'll be able to go through them one by one to assess whether they are supported by any of the sources. -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Mackensen, @Centpacrr, and @Tim Zukas: I probably should have pinged you all yesterday to notify you that this dispute resolution has been opened. I apologize for that. Tim Zukas, when you get a free moment please try to address the question I posed in my last post. We need to establish the scope of the problem before we can tackle the individual claims.

It's essential that we work together to settle this issue collaboratively. Nothing good will come from editing back and forth in articlespace while this discussion is still ongoing. I ask all parties to keep the bigger picture in mind. Of course it's annoying to have the article sitting in a state that doesn't reflect the best version, but remember that no version of an article is ever considered the final version. The article's history page contains snapshots of every version of the article that has existed previously so we will always be able to restore any former version after we have come to agree on the content. As I see it the substantive issues are relatively non-complex and if we work through the DRN process together we should be able to resolve the content concerns relatively quickly and painlessly. With this in mind I ask that all participants please resist the temptation to edit the article while this discussion is ongoing even if you believe the edit is an improvement. -Thibbs (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Starting with the first paragraph-- their version says "The Overland Limited, known as the Overland Flyer from 1887–96, and often shortened to Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroad passenger train on the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran from 1887 until 1963." Dunno what their books say, but UP timetables show that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955-56. No train called "Overland" ran east of Ogden/Green River after 1956.
2. Moving down to History, their version says "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs. Lucius Beebe contends ..."
   Lucius Beebe didn't contend anything-- he wrote that the train used the Milwaukee for an unknown length of time starting in 1905, and he speculated that perhaps UP was pressuring CNW, but he made clear the latter was only a guess based on no info.
3. Continuing in History, their version is "The train was then [1955] called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..." Think it was still "San Francisco Overland" on UP-- I'll check. I guess they mean year-round operation ended in July 1962; far as anyone knows the train was daily in summer 1962, around Christmas 1962, and in summer 1963.
4. In the Name section, their version is "The Union Pacific officially dropped "Limited" from the name in 1947. Other names used included the San Francisco Overland and San Francisco Overland Limited." My version is "The name alternated between Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited until July 1947 when "Limited" was dropped" {by UP and SP and CNW, that is]. Assuming my version is correct (dunno if they think it isn't), any reason to like theirs better?
5. Equipment section-- they say "In 1941–42 the train was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars..." What they meant to say was "In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers along with its heavyweight cars." Tim Zukas (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (NOTE: I've numbered the problematic lines so that we can have a point of reference in discussing them -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

I'd consider it a gesture of good faith if Tim Zukas stopped removing the {{Reflist}} template in his mass reverts. This edit addresses far more than these two points. Now, to address these individual issues, the lede is written as a summary. In general, this article is about a train which for most of its life operated between Chicago and the Bay. The details described by Zukas are described in the "History" section. As I said on the talk page, and as he knows because he participated in that thread, no one thinks the train operated to Chicago after 1955. I don't understand the complaint regarding Beebe's contention. He reported a fact, and then speculated on its meaning. Contend means "assert something as a position in an argument." Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mackensen, all parties are requested to cease editing the article temporarily as a gesture of good faith. While there hasn't been a violation of 3RR, you and Tim Zukas are both close to edit warring and since this is clearly not a case of reverting obvious vandalism you are both putting yourselves in needless risk of trouble. -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Beebe states in his book Overland Limited at page 31: "In any event, by 1907 The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...".
• The scion daily service (TR27/28) ended scheduled year-round operation in July, 1962 when the ICC approved its cancellation. Continued seasonal operation that summer and over the Christmas/New Year holidays through January 2, 1963 did not constitute a continuation of "year-round" daily operation, nor did any appearance of 27/28 in employee's (but not public) timetables for any portion of 1963. (Those 1963 "runs" were also annulled by daily train orders.)
• Again user Zukas still does not provide ANY citation to any sources (author, title, date, publisher, page number(s), etc) to support his version. Centpacrr (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Point #1

Regarding point #1: It seems that we are in agreement about the facts (i.e. that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955). If so then it becomes a question of presentation. Tim Zukas seems to be saying that the lede is misleading because it doesn't make it clear that the description of the train as running "between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area" only pertains to the period 1887 through 1955. Mackensen points out that this information is contained in the history section and that the lead is supposed to function as a summary. Indeed according to the MOS, the lead paragraph should be concise and summary in nature. So expanding the lead with further detailed explanation is not necessarily a good thing. Keeping in mind both clarity and concise summary, I wonder if it would be possible to say
"The Overland Limited, known as the Overland Flyer from 1887–96, and often shortened to Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroad passenger train on the Overland Route. It ran from 1887 until 1963."
This would load the geographical description into the term "Overland Route" which is blue-linked and which can serve as a means for readers to discover the full history of the changes on the route over time. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's customary to mention geographic locale with train routes. Our readers won't know what the Overland Route is. Saying that the Overland Limited was a train which ran between Chicago and the Bay Area is an accurate summary and I would prefer to mention the endpoints. How about this:

The Overland Limited, also known as the Overland Flyer and the Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroad passenger train on the Overland Route. For most of its history it ran between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It began in 1887 and ended in 1963. The Southern Pacific Railroad handled the train west of Ogden, Utah. It used different routes east of Omaha including the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (the "Milwaukee Road") and the Chicago and North Western Railway.

This tightens up some of the language about the name and routes east of Omaha. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to swap the "For most of its history..." sentence with the "It began in 1887 and ended in 1963" sentence. But it seems to me that this does clear up the issue. Thank you for the suggestion, Mackensen. What do you think, Tim Zukas? Would that work for you? -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Better: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area from 1887 until 1955. For most of its life it ran on the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific west of Ogden; the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think, Mackensen? Does anything problematic jump out? -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a little confusing to say it was a train until 1955, but that a leg lasted until 1963. A truncated version of a train is still a train. Mackensen (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What about something like this: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the Overland Route from 1887 until 1963. For most of its history it ran between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran on the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific Railroad west of Ogden. Although operations between Chicago and the Bay Area were suspended in 1955, the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." -Thibbs (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the Overland Route from 1887 until 1963. Until 1955 it ran between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area over the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific Railroad west of Ogden; the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." Tim Zukas (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think, Mackensen? -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Point #2

Regarding point #2: I think what we need to see at this point is a copy of the claimed source (i.e. Beebe pg. 31). If you have the Beebe source, Centpacrr, would you mind making a copy available for us? -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

The relevant text from Beebe's Overland Limited reads at page 30: "For a period lasting, as far as can be ascertained, from 1905 to 1907 it made its entry to Chicago as Trains Nos. 1 and 2, The Overland Limited, of the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway." and at page 31: "In any event, by 1907 The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...". Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Centpacrr. Tim Zukas, can you clarify your concern with this claim? I'm unsure whether you are contesting Beebe's alleged contention (i.e. "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure...") or whether you are contesting the phrase "used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs". -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Milwaukee Road still shows a train called the Overland Limited between Chicago and Omaha in its section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides. Beebe didn't claim to know when the train ran on the Milwaukee and didn't claim to know why it did; the article shouldn't say he claimed to know.Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK so you are contesting the portion describing Beebe's contention as "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure". In fact I don't see that claim directly supported in the sections you quoted, Centpacrr. Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim? In the meanwhile Tim Zukas, could you give us a link to your source (i.e. the Milwaukee Road's section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides)? -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim?" No.

Maybe the Guides are online somewhere, but I was just referring to the ones on paper. He has now found it in the 1910 Guide reprint, so that takes care of that?

Truth to tell, there's no evidence that the "official" Overland Limited ever ran on the Milwaukee with some sort of secondary version on the CNW. Far as we know the Overland always ran on the CNW until 1955, and for some unknown number of years the Milwaukee ran a train called the Overland Limited that carried at least one car that continued west of Omaha on UP's Overland. No indication that the Overland west of Omaha was ever more Milwaukee Road cars than CNW cars. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The speculation as to why the Milwaukee Road provided service from 1905 to 1907 was not made by me. The citation I made to Beebe was in support of the period of time (two years starting in 1905) that the service was provided to the Overland Limited east of Council Bluffs by that road. Centpacrr (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that claim (supported by Beebe p31) was originally added by Mackensen back in August 2014. It would still be courteous of Tim Zukas to provide contrary evidence, but per WP:BURDEN we will need to locate direct support for the claim now that it has been challenged. What are your thoughts on this, Mackensen? Would you object to altering the text covering Beebe's contention "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure"? -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two different issues here: when the Overland ran on the Milwaukee and why a second section also ran on the CNW. Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above. However, I've consulted the January 1910 Official Guide and Tim Zukas is correct. Whenever the Milwaukee Road stopped carrying the Overland it wasn't 1907. He is uncertain, and says so, about the reasons for running on the CNW: "Whether this was a result of an effort on the part of the Union Pacific to split its business between two connecting carriers or, as seems equally likely, a temporary feint to secure more advantageous relations with the North Western is not available to solution at this remove." Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above."

Anyone who thinks Beebe was emphatic about the dates only has to read the quote to learn better. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but Beebe saying "by 1907 The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard" has a note of finality to it, does it not? In any event he appears to be wrong in this case. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well if Beebe's claims conflict with the January 1910 Official Guide and you both agree that the January 1910 Official Guide source is correct then I see two options. We could either A) leave the claim about Beebe's contention (which is supported by the Beebe source even if the substance of the contention is in fact incorrect) or we could B) come to a consensus to exclude Beebe's contention. If we leave the contention intact then we will need appropriate attribution so that it's not written in Wikipedia's voice, and we would need to present the contrary evidence. In fact it seems to be appropriately attributed currently as it says "Lucius Beebe contends...". If the contrary evidence (from the January 1910 Official Guide) was presented, would that solve the problem, Tim Zukas? Alternately, since Beebe appears to be wrong in this case what would you think of omitting this claim, Mackensen? Is it generally helpful to the article? -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here. Beebe's "contention" (as I paraphrased) is about the reason for using the CNW. Beebe states as fact, not contention, that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907. He's wrong about that. The reason for the sections on both roads is unknown, hence Beebe published a guess and stated as much. I don't understand the continued conflation of two separate issues. Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. In that case the line "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs." which is written in Wikipedia's voice needs proper attribution to Beebe (e.g. "Beebe suggests that between 1905–1907... however entries in the 1909 and 1910 Official Guide show continued Overland Limited runs between Chicago and Omaha for a few years after.") or it should be removed by consensus. Any preference? -Thibbs (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A bunch of Official Guides to 1909 http://www.naotc.org/oldguides/index.html

The Milw section of the January 1905 Guide shows a sleeper Chicago to SF-- nothing else goes thru on the Overland Ltd. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Point #3

Regarding point #3: If I understand properly it sounds like Tim Zukas and Centpacrr are essentially in agreement over the claim that July 1962 marked the end of year-round operations and that temporary runs may have been available at some times during the remainder of 1962 and possibly in 1963. Is that correct? If so then I think we've again reached the point of discussing the presentation of the claims. Perhaps it would work to just insert the phrase "Year-round" like so: "Year-round daily operation ended on July 16, 1962." Would that be an acceptable compromise? -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Given Centpacrr's comment below, I reviewed an older version of the article and noticed that this suggested compromise has previously been part of the article. (i.e. in the line: "The death knell ... of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962"). Did you have an objection to that phrasing, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Beebe states at page 51 of The Overland Limited: "The end of the proud Overland Limited as a daily train if not a through train to Chicago came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission finally authorized its suspension save at seasonal traffic peaks in June and December. The St. Louis cars became incorporated in The City of San Francisco and The Overland disappeared from The Official Railroad Guide save between June 22 and Labor Day and December 22 and January 2." Centpacrr (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this is what Centpacrr had paraphrased (in this older version of the article) as "While the train continued to run 'seasonal' service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year,..." This seems to be supported by Beebe. Does the text sound reasonable, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That version is "While the train continued to run "seasonal" service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year, the last remnant of what had begun as The Overland Flyer in 1887 was over and did not appear in the public timetables of the UP or SP again after its last holiday run on January 2, 1963." Apparently none of us has a 1963 SP public timetable, so no one knows where he got that idea; the San Francisco Overland is still shown as a daily train under that name in the April 1963 and September 1963 SP employee timetables.

Which doesn't mean it ran in April 1963-- far as we know Beebe was right that the Overland was to resume on 14 June 1963; the 10/62 Guide says that too. That's what Phelps was talking about when he said the Overland was annulled by train order day by day-- he meant before 14 June and after 2 Sept 1963. Far as anyone knows the train was daily during the summer. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This line is in the main body of the article rather than the lead so summary prose is not needed. Perhaps we can alleviate the problem simply by adding more explanation (e.g. by adding Phelps' comments regarding day-by-day annulment. Would that work? -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure at this point what to make of the remainder of the paragraph that gets into details about when these smaller "runs" took place, but it seems that Tim Zukas has some source material in mind to bolster this. I notice that in this edit, for example, Tim Zukas cites "Cooper" and "Signor". Does "Cooper" refer to Bruce Clement Cooper's "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes"? What does "Signor" refer to? If these details are contested then we will have to compare sources, but if there is agreement on the facts then we can talk about the presentational aspects. -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• The source "Cooper" is my own massive 2010 book "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" which is Volume 1 of a three-volume set I did published between March, 2010 and May, 2011 on the classic 19th and early 20th railroad routes in the United States and Canada (I am Bruce Clement Cooper), and "Signor" is John R. Signor's 1985 book "DONNER PASS: Southern Pacific's Sierra Crossing". I cited these (and several other) sources to support detail that I had added earlier. I later removed them when I deleted all of my contributions (including four illustrations: the cover of an 1869 issue of The Overland Monthly, the cover of "A Souvenir of The Overland Limited" published by the UP in 1897, a 1908 route map, and a SP 1945 public timetable) to the article in frustration because user Zukas kept altering or removing my contributions without any explanation (i.e., no or only misleading edit summaries) or providing any citations of his own to other sources to support any of his changes despite continued requests that he do so. Centpacrr (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK well that's encouraging to me because it suggests that there is agreement on reliability of the sources and perhaps even the factual details within. Is that a fair assessment? Regarding the content that Centpacrr removed did Tim Zukas challenge its inclusion or was its removal just a way to restore the article to a neutral state? Is there any plan to restore it at a later point? If that material contains challenged claims then we should address them here before restoring the material. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly there is no way of knowing what user Zukas is "challenging" as his massive revisions were all made either without any explanation (no edit summary) or an unspecified claim of "correcting errors" without either saying what those alleged "errors" are, or providing citations to any sources supporting his claims. As noted above, this has also been his practice in a large number of other transportation articles (mostly aviation related) that I and others have contributed to in the past. That being the case it became clear to me that no matter what I (or Mackensen, who is also this article's OP) contributed, user Zukas would continue to wipe them out without explanation or providing supporting sources. I therefore decided that under these circumstances it was no longer worth my time to try to improve this article and so removed all my contributions (text, illustrations, sources, and citations) and returned it to its status quo ante. Centpacrr (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

To repeat their version-- "The train was then [1955] called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..."

Turns out it was still the San Francisco Overland on all three RRs in summer 1955. Hopefully everyone's agreed daily operation didn't end in July 1962? The train ran daily around Christmas 1962 and in summer 1963?

I've never seen Cooper's book. As for when the train finally ended there are three possible sources: the employee timetable, the public timetable, and Al Phelps' info in the appendix of Signor's book Donner Pass. He says it ran thru summer 1963. As for where the train ran at any given time before 1963, my source is the public timetables. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• The train did not run as a year-round daily train as it had since its inception after the ICC agreed to cancel that requirement on July 16, 1962. The Phelps listing in Signor at page 276 states: "July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the City of San Francisco. After this date, the Overland became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays. Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted. October 27, 1963: Employee timetable no longer shows train Nos. 27 and 28. Last run occurred during the summer of 1963." Seasonal service which ended in the summer of 1963 is not year-round service which ended on July 16, 1962. Centpacrr (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Does this account that Centpacrr has copied from the Phelps listing in Signor (p276) sound accurate to you in light of the information from your sources, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted" apparently means annulled each day before 14 June 1963 and each day after 2 Sept 1963.

"July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the City of San Francisco"-- What Phelps meant to say was the separate schedule for trains 27/28 continued to exist-- it's in the empl timetables thru Sept 1963-- and the separate train continued to run Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and summer 1963. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

However on July 16, 1962 it formally discontinued being a "daily, year-round" train (which it had been continuously since its inception) and all future operations until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs. Therefore the service officially ended as a daily year-round train on July 16, 1962, not in the summer of 1963 which is when 27/28's seasonal service was discontinued. That is also exactly what Beebe says. Centpacrr (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"future operations [after 16 July 1962] until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs"

We're agreed the non-contiguity started in Sept 1962? Far as we know in 1962 the train ran on 17 July and 18 July and 19 July etc.

"the service officially ended as a daily year-round train on July 16, 1962"

It quit being a year-round train-- it didn't quit being a daily train. Seasonal trains like the Orange Blossom Special were shown as "Daily" in the Official Guide during the months they ran. "Daily" means seven days a week-- if you say it's no longer daily, the reader wonders: so what was it-- three days a week or what?

No need to say it was daily, but don't say it wasn't. Just say it was no longer a year-round train. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the non-congruity started on July 17, 1962 when it became "seasonal", non-year-round service for the first time since the inception of the Overland Flyer. The requirement for maintaining year-round service ceased when the ICC authorized its discontinuation as of July 16, 1962. That is the date on which mandated, contiguous year-round Overland service ended and optional non-contiguous seasonal service began. Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Could we clear up the "daily" issue by saying something like this: "...the death knell for the last scion service of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round train came on July 16, 1962. Daily operations would only continue on a seasonal basis after this date."? -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would accept "The death knell for the last scion of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized the discontinuance of that level of service. After that only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." Centpacrr (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The article says ICC allowed seasonal operation starting Sept 1962; it says SP "declined to revive" the train in summer 1964. The reader wonders: the ICC had no power over SP in 1964? What changed betw 1962 and 1964?

The Overland's schedule changed on 16 July 1962-- the eastward train started running 15 minutes behind the CoSF rather than ahead of it. Makes me wonder: did the ICC coincidentally issue its ruling the same day? None of us knows, except for what Beebe wrote. None of us knows whether the ICC was even the responsible agency.

If we stick to what we know, we just say "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." Tim Zukas (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(Outdent) The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created by Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379), approved February 4, 1887, specifically to regulate railroads and its authority was expanded to regulate other modes of commerce beginning in 1906. The agency was not abolished until 1995 when its functions were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board.

The 1887 Act states in its preamble: "That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of transshipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid." Centpacrr (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So it seems we're now caught between Centpacrr's "After that [July 16, 1962] only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." and Tim Zukas' "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." It seems to me that the difference between them is purely superficial. The facts are essentially identical and only the wording is different. Are there substantive differences between them that I'm missing? If not, would both of you accept a decision from a neutral third party who we could invite via WP:3O? -Thibbs (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Point #4

Regarding point #4: The question goes to you, Mackensen and Centpacrr. Do you agree that Tim Zukas' version is factually correct? If so, is there any objection to using his phrasing? Tim Zukas, it might also help if you explained your rationale for rephrasing. -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

• Not without re-reading Solomon and Welsh. I chose to be vague because the sources were not specific. If the name San Francisco Overland was used prior to 1947 then Zukas' version would be misleading. By all means if there's a source which states this all straightforwardly I'd gladly accept it. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Phelps (in Signor's book) mentions the dates when the name changed; he just about agrees with the dates given in the back of Beebe's CP&SP. The timetables agree with them, except the train was never actually called S.F. Overland -- probably Phelps didn't mean to say that. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the Solomon or Welsh to consult? Tim Zukas, can you provide the text of the relevant sections of Phelps in Signor's book and Beebe's CP&SP? -Thibbs (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

CP&SP came out circa 1963-- its appendix (written by an SP guy) is a handy summary of the history of lots of SP trains. It gives dates when the Overland Limited became the San Francisco Overland Limited and when it switched back; after 1900 it never had any other name until it lost the "Limited" in 1947. Phelps (in Donner Pass) just about agrees with the dates in CP&SP-- probably he got them from there? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name San Francisco Overland was not used prior to 1947, then? If so would Tim Zukas' version work for you, Mackensen? Or would you like to reserve comment until the Solomon and Welsh sources can be consulted? -Thibbs (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name San Francisco Overland was not used prior to 1947, then?" Yes.

Soloman/Welsh are probably looking at the same sources we are. If they did say something contrary, a look at the timetables would probably overrule them. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

from the discussion of point #5 it sounds like you have gained access to Solomon now, Mackensen. Does it agree? And would you be OK with Tim Zukas' version then? -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Point #5

Regarding point #5: Are there disagreements over the factual aspects of Tim Zukas' rewording? The source that is cited for this claim is Joe Welsh's "Union Pacific's Streamliners". Can anybody provide a copy of the relevant text from page 85? -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

• I added the original wording but I do not currently have access to Welsh. If heavyweight cars remained in the consist then the addition of the word "partially" is in order. I do not know if that detail is in Welsh. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Any 1940s picture (e.g. http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/49895/rec/10 or http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/50080/rec/30 or http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/49924/rec/15 ) will clarify this one. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. The question isn't whether it occasionally had heavyweights in the consist; the question is what the standard consist was. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to hunt for a picture of an all-lightweight Overland on any day in the 1940s. (Or for any other evidence that it was all-lightweight in 1943.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't prove anything if I did find such a picture. We need a reliable source stating what the consist was. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we need a source. Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictures are not the best sources to use because they require interpretation (sometimes expert interpretation). Per WP:V, sources should directly (i.e. explicitly) support challenged claims. The images do suggest that heavyweights remained in use as part of the train after 1943, but I'm not sure that this is contradicted by the phrase "the train was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars" (emphasis added)... If the word "re-equipped" seems to suggest "entirely replaced" then perhaps something like "equipped" or "outfitted" would produce a suitably ambiguous phrase. Would that work for either of you? -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think "gained" would be an appropriate choice here. Tim Zukas's concern, and he's not wrong, is that my wording implies that the train became completely lightweight, which was a common procedure at the time. If heavyweights remained part of the regular consist then that implication is inaccurate. We need a source. Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The text on page 85 of Welsh that seems to address this issue directly reads:

• "Prior to the war, UP's president and his staff had explored the concept of providing daily streamliner service. As a result, Union Pacific, SP, C&NW, and Pullman ordered 148 new, light-weight cars to upgrade the Los Angeles Limited, San Francisco Overland and Portland Rose. The timely arrival in 1941-1942 of the order, including 78 sleepers, 30 baggage cars, 10 RPOs, and 30 coaches, helped the railroad to weather the demands of World War II and to operate extra sections of existing trains."

It seems clear from this that light-weight cars were in regular use on Overland service as early as 1941, but with the extremely heavy demand for intercity rail transport during WWII all available equipment (including older heavy-weight cars) was doubtless used on extra sections of all these services as well. Centpacrr (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that Welsh didn't mention lightweight diners/lounges/observations-- none of those were built for non-streamliners until after the war. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Outdent) I think we're all agreed on this point. Does anyone object to "gained" as a verb? Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I now have both Solomon's UP book and his SP book. He says in the UP book (p. 75) that "in 1951 the was given new, streamlined rolling stock." In the SP book (p. 69) he says of a lightweight car order that "some cars...were used to bolster San Francisco Overland trains.". Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mackensen. So can we all agree to this: "In 1941-42 the Overland gained American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers." -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Myrvin on 14:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Myrvin (talk · contribs)
• TDJankins (talk · contribs)
• Grayfell (talk · contribs)
• Roger (talk · contribs)
• Feldkurat Katz (talk · contribs)
• Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor reverts what other editors think is a reasonable alteration (by me) of the section on Psychometrics. I contend that the current words are poor English and do not follow the pattern of the other entries. The reverting editor seems to think that my change would weaken his/her contention that Psychometrics is rubbish.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Rule on the acceptable pattern for entries on this article. Rule on the form of words in contention for this entry.

Summary of dispute by TDJankins

The sources speak for themselves. The opinions of these Wikipedians do not matter.--TDJankins (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

The specific dispute is as Myrvin describes it. The broader dispute is on the inclusion of psychometrics in the list at all. Most involved editors agree that it is widely accepted as mainstream, and either should be qualified as such, or should be removed from the list outright. TDJankins, who added the section in January, would like to see it preserved. I wouldn't be bothered if it were removed, but I mildly prefer seeing it more clearly explained as being mostly accepted and only considered pseudoscience by a minority. I'm open to suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Roger

The problem is not just the poor wording. The entry cannot be fixed, and should be deleted. There are 2 sentences on psychometrics that supposedly summarize the pseudoscientific aspects of that topic. However, no pseudoscientific aspect is backed up the main article on the subject. The main reference is one widely-discredited book. Roger (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If this entry is salvaged, it must use scientific sources, and not rely on one discredited crackpot book. TDJankins main argument is to go with the view of the larger scientific community. However, that view is overwhelmingly in favor of psychometrics as all the top universities employ professors who recognize it as science. No one has produced any scientific paper saying that psychometrics is pseudoscience. The main source is Gould, and a couple of others who rely on him. But the only part of his book that was published as a science paper [6] was decisively proved wrong, and he is widely regarded as having fudged his numbers for ideological purposes. The 2011 NY Times article says "almost every detail of his analysis is wrong." [7] Nature said "falsified criticisms of skull measurements" [8] Therefore this entry should not mention Gould's book, directly or indirectly, without also explaining that his thesis has been overwhelmingly rejected by the larger scientific community. I proposed an edit [9], but someone has reverted it, even tho there is no support for the current text in the dispute resolution page. Roger (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Feldkurat Katz

TDJankins strongly argues for a definite statement that psychometrics is considered a pseudo-science, and argues that claims of its scientific merits are invalid, since they come from psychometrists themselves.

Most of the participants argue that this is a minority opinion, and should be either stated as such, or the entire paragraph should be deleted.

My position:

Wikipedia should not perform original research to establish the standards to judge pseudo-sciences and to determine whether X or Y is one or not. Wikipedia should refer the consensus of the scientific community, or, if there is no consensus, neutrally enumerate the major positions. In the case of, say, astrology, there is a clear consensus in the scientific community, proponents of astrology as a science are only found outside the scientific community. The case of psychometry is competely different, since it is widely accepted by mainstream science and widely published in academic peer-reviewed journals. While there is no doubt there is much non-scientific psychometry about (e.g. "personality tests" in glossy magazines), the condemnation of the entire field as pseudo-scientific is limited to a small, but vociferous minority of critics. I don't buy the argument that being active in psychometry or using it disqualifies a researcher from judging it.

Personally, I'd prefer the entire paragraph to be removed. I can live with a neutral statement that makes it clear it's only a minority that considers psychometry a pseudo-science. --Feldkurat Katz (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: I'm neither "taking" this nor opening it for discussion at this time, but only wish to note for other volunteers' benefit that all listed editors have been notified and there appears to be adequate talk page discussion. (I would note in passing that there are a couple of IP editors, 2601:D:2881:D20:18A1:2C6B:2A82:23F5 and 32.218.152.85, and one registered editor, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who have taken part in the talk page discussion but who have not been listed or notified; the volunteer taking the case can determine whether or not their participation is needed here to come to a successful result.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have informed, and apologized to, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Myrvin (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I will take this case, and will start off with a few ground rules. I am neutral. Do not expect me to address the content dispute. Equally importantly, comment on content, not contributors. Comments about the conduct or attitude of contributors are not permitted. Also, be concise as well as being civil. Long statements are not helpful.

I have a few questions for each contributor to address. First, are there any issues besides the status of psychometrics that need to be resolved? Second, exactly what does each party think should be done about psychometrics? (I have some thoughts, but will wait until the participants offer their opinions.) Third, can this dispute be resolved by a Request for Comments? (If the main issue is whether to include psychometrics, that may be binary, either include it or don't include it, in which case compromise is not feasible and consensus is the objective.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Myrvin

No extra comment at this time. Myrvin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by TDJankins

This seems to have morphed into a conversation about the psychometrics page itself. The psychometrics page clearly has shortcomings such as the lack of a criticism section (a gigantic one). If you don't like the way that page reads then edit it, but the way a Wikipedia page reads is not evidence of anything. I restored the POV tag there as it was illegitimately removed and there have been multiple calls for page balance and a criticism section. I've moved to get the ball rolling toward those ends, but to say a Wikipedia page is evidence of something is beyond the realm of reason, and I don't believe that it's a precedent Wikipedia wants to set.

In regards to Roger's problem with one of the seven sources, The Mismeasure of Man, Gould may have been wrong about Morton's skull measurements, but he wasn't wrong about psychometrics. It's very suspicious that you keep bringing up that unrelated issue.--TDJankins (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Grayfell

If the choice is between characterizing psychometrics as a pseudoscience without qualification, or removing it from the article, I would absolutely choose removing it. As I said, I wouldn't be bothered by that outcome. The fact that the psychometrics article doesn't go into any of this is a solid argument against its inclusion on the list, as Fountains of Bryn Mawr says. The priority should be preventing confusion over what the field of psychometrics is, vs. what has been lumped-in with, or what it used to be. We should be making readers less confused, not more. Figuring out how to appropriately include that additional information should be a secondary priority, in my opinion. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Roger

(1) There is the larger question of whether to include a legitimate science just because some reputable source calls it a pseudoscience. The article introduction implies yes, but such entries are nearly always rejected. (2) A very popular book did attack some psychometrics as pseudoscience, but if the entry is left in for that reason, then it should also say that all the reputable scientific sources say that the book is wrong, and all the top universities employ professors doing legitimate psychometrics research. (3) Not sure about RfC, but this is an ideological dispute with no chance that one side is going to persuade the other. If psychometrics were a pseudoscience, then that should be explained in the psychometrics article, with references to both sides. There is no mention of it. One WP article should not be giving a 1-sentence summary of a subject when there is no support on the main article. Roger (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

My involvement was to throw a revert in because of a noticed technical citing/WP:SYNTH, I was not expressing an opinion on the List content. But... what articles should be listed in this List Article has come up before (this is an old argument) so here is a suggestion:

• The items at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience seem to conform to a list of articles.
• Lists are alternative ways to organize articles based on some aspect of the content of the article that relates to the list def.
• Therefor --> The content that is organized in an article's entry in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should first already appear in the parent article, that is the place where the experts on the subject are congregating and can judge whether the claimed "label" is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" and where the contentious opinion/WP:LABEL stuff should be hashed out. (I think there should be a guideline subsection at WP:LIST called WP:FIXITFIRST stating "don't state something in an article's entry on a list unless it is stated in the parent article first - fix the article first". - just a pet idea of mine since other list articles have this same problem e.g.List of Italian inventions)
• Psychometrics does not contain a "Criticism" section of any type so it should not be in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - this list should not be the place to throw a contentious WP:LABEL or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Further:

• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should only contain entries that are articles, articles are where you sort out notable aspects of a topic/WP:UNDUE
• The entry descriptions for each article/topic at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should be short --> the full description of the controversy is at the parent article.
• There is no need for references for the criticism/claims for an article/topic at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience --> the references are at the parent article.

Comparing what we have at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience to the guideline as it exists in my head shows how far out on a limb the Psychometrics entry is.

two cents given... Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by any unregistered editors

• Staszek Lem (talk · contribs): IMO the phrase of TDJankins , but to say a Wikipedia page is evidence of something is beyond the realm of reason, is a misunderstanding. The major point is that any coverage of any opinion on any topic must be primarily in the article on this topic: this is the place where all people interested in editing this topic congregate. A topic may be included in many lists, and spreading any decisive opinons across these lists basically leads to what is called WP:FORK. Therefore "a Wikipedia page" is not an "evidence of something": "a Wikipedia page" it the primary place to present "evidence of something" (based on WP policies), a clearing house of the discussion about "evidence of something". Any list entry must be a mere summary of the consensus reacted at "a Wikipedia page" on the topic. Therefore in this context an argument which relies on "a wikipedia page" is valid. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

I see that there are at least two parts to this dispute. The first has to do with the list article. That is whether psychometrics should be: (1) included in the list, without further comment, as it currently is; (2) included in the list, but with a restrictive note saying that it is only considered pseudoscience by a few (possibly defined) scholars; (3) excluded from the list. That can either be resolved by agreement here, or resolved by RFC. The second has to do with the article on psychometrics itself, and that is whether a Criticisms section should be added, including the arguments by scholars who say that the field is pseudoscience. Are there any other parts to this dispute?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is mention of "a book", which is being both cited and criticized. Is that book "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould, or is there also another book about which there is controversy? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by TDJankins

I think the reasonable option is one not on your list. That being to keep it approximately as is and add a varying viewpoint, so long as it is something that is not a lie or something trying to confuse the public. One person mentioned that one can get a degree in psychometrics from any one of several universities and that papers on psychometrics are accepted by some APS journals. Those are undeniable truths, so it would make sense to include something to that effect. Just a suggestion.--TDJankins (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

I was weighing my comments against WP:WINARS which TDJankins also hit on. I don't think we can follow the logic of WP:WINARS because of the accepted guideline WP:LABEL, a label like "pseudo-" has to be widely supported in reliable sources before we start tossing it around. If it has sufficient reliable sources then it should be in the parent article or should be immediately added to the parent article. In this case the lengthy entry for Psychometrics at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience could be moved to Psychometrics and a summary of that section could be inserted at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Not addressing it in the parent article first is basically setting up a POV fork. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by any other editors

• Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) The lede of the list says: Each section summarizes the pseudoscientific aspects of that topic.. - The item in question does have refs to the point, but the item text in not a reasonable summary thereof. On a side note, why the heck nobody works on the article itself? I briefly look into it, it sucks even by low wikipedia average. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Johnnie2u

– New discussion.

Filed by Johnnie2u on 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Johnnie2u (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Johnnie2u (talk · contribs)
• Helpsome (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Helpsome has undid two article post that I have rewritten in response to Wikipedia asking writers for help. The two are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_corset & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist_cincher. I have done original research extensively and wrote two articles.

These two articles have no content that is of value. And they lack original research.

That is a lot of work to just have someone undo it out of existence. That is why I am disputing this. My references are three websites that I have authored

http://waisttrainingcorsets.com/

http://waistcincher.us/

http://waisttrainer.us/

also

http://www.cathiejung.com/

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-waist-living-person

• Waist Training Corset Guide • Steele, V. (2001). The corset: A cultural history (5th ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. • Lord, W. (2012). The corset and the crinoline: An illustrated history (Dover ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. • Young, J. (1911). A manual and atlas of orthopedic surgery: Including the history, etiology, pathology, diagnosis, prognosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of deformities. Philadelphia, MA: P. Blakiston's Son & Co.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to talk to Helpsome and he is resistant and I am very unsure of his approach. I would like to have my work reinstated.

How do you think we can help?

Like I have said in the conversation with Helpsome, I am going into this with an open mind. I feel this is a great learning experience. He claims that my websites are commercial websites and that this is spam. I built these website by hand on WordPress. I have done original research. I need help in resolving this situation. And like I said. I have an open mind and am willing to learn from the experience. Thank you. Johnnie2u

Summary of dispute by Helpsome

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Johnnie2u discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. At this time we are not yet taking or declining your case. However, I want to be sure that I have read the Original Poster's statement correctly. He or she appears to be saying that they have done considerable original research, and that therefore their edits should be retained rather than reverted. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Please re-read the policy on original research. Either the original poster has done original research, which is not permitted, or the original poster should restate their case, or this volunteer has misread the statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment The ORiginal Poster says they posted their original research at various websites. Therefore it is advised for the Original Poster to review the guidelines WP:CITE and WP:RS, if they intend to use these websites as references. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)