Misplaced Pages

• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

• 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).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly and I quote:

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

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

Neutral academic source

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

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

Rather plainly I have not.

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

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

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

• No Wee, I asked you for a source stating precisely the entire part you claimed. This one does not so you were wrong before or purposely twisting words just a tiny bit to adjust to what you want them to say (as usual) That said, this is a correct source for the Argentinian claim that the population was expelled, including the garrison which of course is part of the population. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wee my friend that is the definition of WP:OR. If you have a source then present it, do not put forward your own analysis as a fact. And you haven't addressed my request of copy/pasting the part that proves Lopez is committing citation fraud. Could you please do so? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Correction: neutral academic source says Wee. I have no reason to believe you that Cawkell is a neutral source any more than I have to believe you that Lopez is not. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes Wee you have. You edited out (deleted , removed, made go away, etc...) the sentence mentioning Lopez research: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British. You deleted the mention to Lopez research and then used it as it were an official Argentinian source to reference the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination", an edit that I still can not understand. What is it that you are not comprehending? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• That is WP:OR since you have absolutely no source to back that statement up. As WP:ASF says: "Undisputed findings of reliable sources can be asserted without in-text attribution. In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree". Sources disagree hence we present both sources. You are trying to wikilawyer a source out based on WP:OR and WP:SYN. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• The British claim part was not present in the version of the article you defiled (go see for yourself) so I have no idea why you keep insisting on this. Perhaps to divert attention from the fact that you are hell-bent on obscuring a source you disagree with? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Achieving a NPOV is very hard to do when you keep biasing this and other articles to suit your British preference Wee. Gaba p (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources suggested by Wee Curry Monster

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

Primary Sources

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

Onslow's report.

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

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

Another primary source, Thomas Helsby on wikisource:

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

Sources I use with Caution

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

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

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

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

Source for the British Government position

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

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

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

Conclsion

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Lopez book refers to "(S. 25, p. 131)" (which, if I'm not mistaken refers to this book) from where it quotes verbatim what it's stated in the book. This is the source to refer to if you wish to claim that Lopez is committing citation fraud. How is that source you presented supposed to prove your (quite serious) accusation? Could you please explain the relation?

• Note that this this source in no way disproves the fact that settlers were expelled, it isn't even conclusive on whether the soldiers were expelled or not; at least the vague minimal sentence you are quoting.

• Also note that Argentina has never made a distinction between soldiers and civilians, only the British sources have. Argentina claims the population was expelled which is clear in pro-British sources only they refer to the expelled garrison alone and claim the settlers were not expelled (which this one even does not). Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Primary Sources

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

Onslow's report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources I use with Caution

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

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

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

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

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

Source for the British Government position

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

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

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

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

"British" theory sources

• Source 1

• Source 2

• Source 3

"Argentina" theory sources

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

• Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833. In 1841 the Falklands became a Crown colony and ten years later had been settled by 287 British subjects. By the end of the century the Falkland Islands, still claimed by Argentina, were occupied by some 2,000 people and 800,000 sheep. Note: although the word "settlers" is not used, this source depicts how the distinction between "garrison" and "civilians" is irrelevant to the fact that Argentina was expelled, and the islands later colonized by British subjects.

• Laver, Roberto C. (2001). The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 86. The historical records show that the Argentine departure from the islands in 1833 was a forced exodus and not a voluntary abandonment. First, the instructions to Onslow show that he was to force any troops stationed in the islands to leave; second, Onslow, pursuant to his instructions, gave Pinedo an ultimatum to leave the islands; third, Onslow referred to his superior force and the lowering of the Argentine flag. Only under such circumstances did Pinedo leave the islands...

• This issue was brought to the RSN board by one of the editors. There I pointed out another reliable source: Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287. Michael Risman is the Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale University. The higher quality of the source (credible author, credible publication) makes the discussion on the original source moot. Page 306 says "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders." The editor who brought the issue to RSN argues that should be read in conjunction with pg. 300 which says: "... two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison." The editor claims pg. 300 is inconsistent with pg. 306. There is the possible interpretation that the warships went beyond their explicit orders or that their orders changed; including those interpretations will be likely OR and SYNTH; however just including the literal statement on pg. 306 with attribution doesn't seem to be an out-of-context quote or inaccurate from an attribution perspective. I will not be posting more here, since I was looking at this mainly from a WP:RS point of view; but I do think this source should be considered in the dispute resolution process. Those who need the article can ask either me or at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Churn and change (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of "Argentina" theory sources

See WP:RSN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Marschalko (talk · contribs)

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute relates to the validity of a table created by User:CartoonDiablo, which he purports is an accurate reproduction of information contained in a table in the original source that he cites. I maintain that it is not, for the reasons stated on the talk page.

The issue was also subject of a related dispute at Talk:Psychoanalysis. CartoonDiablo maintains that that dispute was resolved in his favor, but I do not think that is clear. In any case, my dispute relates to specific aspects of CartoonDiablo's table, that were not addressed explicitly in the previous dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page at Family therapy.

How do you think we can help?

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

Opening comments by CartoonDiablo

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

Comment by previously uninvolved user Snowded

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

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

Family therapy discussion

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

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

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

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

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

To repost some of what I said in the talk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised image

Here's the revised image for the study. As it turns out the only thing that was concluded to have no effect was schizophrenia with psychoanalysis. All other studies were inconclusive because they were either based on combined therapies or not consistent enough to draw a conclusion.

And again for the nth time, this isn't just "one study" it's a review of 100+ secondary studies so you would have to consider 100+ secondary citations or thousands of primary citations to be undue weight as well. It's why the NIH image has no problems with undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The source is notable and reliable, and should be mentioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second Revision/additional studies

Per the other objection here's the second revision to the image. The other point I think isn't true as well, the image is presented neutrally on a technical point from a large tertiary source (the largest of its kind in fact). Saying this is undue is akin to other example, saying that a topic encyclopedia on a technical point is undue.

Actually I think another good step will be to collect another study for each outcome of this one. That way it'll amount to about a dozen sources given the definitions used here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations for extra verification of the image:

Psychoanalysis

Schizophrenia

• Mamberg, L.; Fenton, M.; Rathbone, J. (2001). "Individual psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis for schizophrenia and severe mental illness". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001360.

• Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team, http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/schzrec1.htm

Panic disorder

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

PTSD

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

Personality disorders

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

CBT

Schizophrenia

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

Depression (hospitalized and moderate)

• A meta-analysis of randomized trials of behavioural treatment of depression http://dro.dur.ac.uk/8228/1/8228.pdf

• A meta-analysis of the effects of cognitive therapy in depressed patients. J Affect Disord. 1998.

• Medications versus cognitive behavior therapy for severely depressed outpatients: meta-analysis of four randomized comparisons. Am J Psychiatry. 1999.

Bipolar disorder

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

Panic Disorder

• A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Medication for Primary Care Panic Disorder http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1237029/

• Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18363421

PTSD

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

Anxiety disorders

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

Bulimia and Anorexia

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

Personality disorders

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

Alcohol dependency

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

Family/Couple's therapy

Schizophrenia

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

• The Effect of Family Interventions on Relapse and Rehospitalization in Schizophrenia—A Meta-analysis schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/73.abstract

Bipolar disorder

• Family-focused treatment for adolescents with bipolar disorder. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15571785

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

Anorexia

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

Alcoholism

• Review of outcome research on marital and family therapy in treatment for alcoholism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22283384

• Family therapy treatment outcomes for alcoholism http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00176.x/abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact adding more studies makes the synthesis and original research elements more than if you were referencing only one. This is now wikilawyering, you are ignoring what has been said. ----Snowded 05:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Dear SGCM, as I told here about a houndred times. There are houdreds of sources worth it to be mentioned in this issu. You can't mention every study. As I propose, It would be a solution to consult a gives an overview about the field, as the this book for example (but there should be much more). In this little article it would be better to have a little textpassage as to have an large chapter were 20 or 30 sources being cited. --WSC 05:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Stepping back and looking at the big picture

I am another DRN volunteer.

It says the following at the top of this page:

"What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction."

If we allow essentially the same conflict to come to DRN three times in rapid succession, under what circumstances do we determine that it is something we can't help with, and point the disputants in the right direction?

Let's do what we said we will do at the top of this page, face the reality that if two DRN cases fail to resolve a conflict a third is unlikely to succeed, and start discussing where to refer this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll probably move this over to third opinion. Just to quickly respond to some of the other issues raised:

1. It's not a synthesis it's the scientific consensus, those claiming it's synth haven't cited a single meta-analysis challenging the image.

1. The "images shouldn't be tables" is a guideline, not a policy. And if it mattered then it would've been immediate be cited to end the discussion, not this far into it.

If you could point to a good place to refer this dispute, it would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartoonDiablo (talk • contribs)

Refer to wp:ArbCom. There are strong behavioral elements to this dispute. They can help with that. I doubt that a RfC/U would make any difference given the post just above. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, its not really a dispute. Its one editor on a mission prepared to go to any forum, wikilawyering in the process, unable or unwilling to accept the communities views ----Snowded 06:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Dnordfors (talk · contribs)

• OpenFuture (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The editor OpenFuture has listed 'Innovation Journalism' for deletion, referring to it as a 'neologism'. OpenFuture turns it into a personal matter before even talking to me. One editor suggests, without providing any arguments whatsoever, that innovation journalism – a serious form of journalism covering innovation – is a synonym to yellow journalism. Instead of questioning the argumentation, OpenFuture responds to this "Oh, no, not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles. --OpenFuture".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It's difficult for me to discuss the article after it has been turned into a personal matter.

How do you think we can help?

Please stop personal attacks. It is the article that must be discussed, not my person.

Opening comments by OpenFuture

Innovation Journalism discussion

Comment – There is an active AfD underway at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Innovation journalism. It was initiated 10 Sept and is still underway. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Question – I'm a volunteer, and I'd like to help. One approach we could take here is to let the AfD run its course, and then we can see if there are any remaining issues after the AfD is over. In other words, the top priority now should be finding sources and presenting them in the AfD. After the dust settles from the AfD, we can see if there are any open issues. Does that sound acceptable? --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment – I would appreciate third party involvement. Mediation is needed. --dnordfors (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm here and I'm involved :-) There are a variety of processes that are available for dispute resolution: they are listed at WP:Dispute resolution page. This particular process here, the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" (DRN) process is primarily aimed at content-based disputes (e.g. whether an article should contain a certain sentence or not). For questions about the notability of the article, the AfD process (which is already underway) is the best path. Regarding the uncivil behavior of the other editor, the DRN forum is not the best place. Instead, if the behavior continues or escalates, the WP:ANI forum is for issues like that. However, my experience is that most behavior issues are intertwined with content issues. I recommend that you ignore the uncivil behavior and focus on finding excellent sources for the articles in question. See WP:Reliable sources for details on what makes a good source. Present the sources at the AfD. Stick to the sources and avoid commenting about other editors. If the uncivil behavior keeps for for a prolonged period of time, you can resort to the WP:ANI process, but I suggest that you wait for the AfD to finish first. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Noleander – thanks for involving! I will try to go through the links. I hope to get it right. There are being sources added, but the reason for deletion seems to be my involvement, not the article as such. I have been notified by OpenFuture that if I touch the article it may result in blocks or bans (on my user page). I am not an experienced Wikipedian, so I do not know who takes such decisions, but the statement as such is intimidating. If I go on adding sources, may I be blocked/banned? --dnordfors (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally, no, you won't be blocked or banned if you add valid material to articles. But make sure that every statement you add is supported by a valid source in a footnote, as explained in WP:Reliable sources and WP:Citing sources. The AfD suggests that there may be a conflict of interest, so if you have any personal involvement in the topics of the articles you are contributing to, you should read and follow the WP:Conflict of interest (COI) policy. That COI policy does not say you cannot contribute to such articles, but rather that you may need to disclose the relationship. If you are adding valid material supported by good sources, and if another editor harrasses you or threatens you in a way that is contrary to WP policy, you should file a notice at the WP:ANI forum. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: there is a special discussion forum for conflict of interest issues at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN). If the conflict of interest issue is raised again, and you want some uninvolved editors to discuss that particular issue, you can file a notice at WP:COIN. Again, your best path is to focus on finding good sources that support the material you want to add to the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is IMO nothing to add to what I have said on the AfD in this issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Noleander – thank you for your clarifying remarks. I am relieved that I am not in any immediate danger of being blocked or banned. Looking forward to getting this sorted out. The comments about conflict of interest are also very useful. It seems that disclosure is the way to go, or otherwise a lot of experts would be prohibited to add content to articles in their fields. --dnordfors (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between being an expert in a field and claiming to have founded the field. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture – you constantly resort to Ad Hominem like here above, i.e. my statements are not OK because I am saying them. You make demeaning statements, like "oh, no *not another* vanity article" one. You threaten me with banning and blocking when I edit the article in response to your complaints, referring to conflict of interest. You write on the AfD page that I am acting in conflict of interest, but when I suggest we turn "conflict of interest" into a discussion thread on the AfD, you say no – it should be discussed on my personal user page and other places – not on the AfD. With this type of argumentation it is very difficult for me to continue the discussion with you. We need mediation, and if that does not work, we will need arbitration. --dnordfors (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

dnordfors: As I explained above, this DRN forum will not mediate civility issues. Your task now is to find the sources for the Innovation Journalism article (it is best if they are not your own works) and present them at the AfD. If you feel that OpenFuture is violating the Misplaced Pages civility policy, you should gather together a history of their offensive edits and present them in a new case at the WP:ANI forum. As for this case here in DRN, it should be closed in a day or two, unless there is a specific content issue that is unresolved. --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Noelander: Additional sources have been provided. OpenFuture says he can not look at them for the next few days. The DRN process is helpful. It will be great if it stay open until the sources have been reviewed and the content issues are resolved. --dnordfors (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We can keep this DRN case open for a day or two, but the WP:Forum shopping guideline strongly discourages multiple discussions on a single topic. For that reason, you both need to shift over to the AfD page and do all the talking there (sources and quotes form source are key). After the AfD finishes, if you still have issues, you can start another DRN, if you desire. --Noleander (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's do it this way. I reckon the link to this discussion remains the same, in case we need to refer to it in the future? --dnordfors (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolved? I put a notice on the PfD suggesting the dispute was resolved, since it can not be shown that Innovation Journalism is a non=notable neologism, suggesting removal of the deletion-tag in 48 hours unless anyone thinks otherwise. I do not know if this is the right procedure, please correct if needed. --dnordfors (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Site administrators close deletion discussions. See Misplaced Pages:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed. A deletion discussion runs for around a week before an uninvolved administrator evaluates the consensus, and decides whether to keep or delete the article. Consensus is based on the quality of arguments and not the number of votes.--SGCM (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Filanca (talk · contribs)

• Athenean (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is an old one, closed without resolution, probably due to my inability to edit here. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 11#Minorities in Greece

The issues we have:

• Rearranging the sections. Currently minorities are grouped under there sections: 1- Religious minorities, 2- Other minorities and 3-Linguistic and cultural communities. Turks are a subtitle of "Religious minorities" while I propose (since Turks are an ethnic group, not a religion) placing it together with other ethnic minorities like Jews, Armenians and Macedonians. There is no need for two separate sections for "other minorities" and "linguistic and cultural communities" since the distinction is not clear.

• There is no allusion to the lack of a mosque and cemetery in Athens. This is a well-known problem for the muslim minorities in that city and of encyclopedic significance. Athens is the only capital in Europe without a mosque and has a significant muslim population, some of which are Greek citizens. (See )

• Attacks against the Turkish minority is not mentioned in the article, yet this is an issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Filanca (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from party Athenean

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.