![]() |
Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread • |
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, and their role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. They also collect the monthly metrics for the noticeboard. The current co-ordinator is Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · email). |
|||||
Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes " If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Talk:Impalement#tagging | 6Resolved | 96.52.0.249 (t) | 2015-05-19 13:59:00 | BlusterBlaster (t) | 2015-06-05 11:21:00 | BlusterBlaster (t) | 2015-06-05 11:21:00 |
Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific | 2In Progress | Dentren (t) | 2015-05-25 19:48:00 | Keithbob (t) | 2015-06-10 20:27:00 | Keithbob (t) | 2015-06-10 20:27:00 |
Beepi | 6Resolved | BC1278 (t) | 2015-05-27 16:28:00 | Guy Macon (t) | 2015-06-08 23:13:00 | Guy Macon (t) | 2015-06-08 23:13:00 |
Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21_No_way.21_She_doesn.27t_belong_in_this_article.21 | 4NeedsAttention | 99.192.92.80 (t) | 2015-05-29 19:18:00 | Steven Zhang (t) | 2015-06-11 02:47:00 | 99.192.69.84 (t) | 2015-06-11 07:05:00 |
Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement_in_countries_where_fair_use_does_not_exist | 7Closed | Pengortm (t) | 2015-06-04 04:28:00 | Keithbob (t) | 2015-06-10 17:02:00 | Keithbob (t) | 2015-06-10 17:02:00 |
Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale | 2In Progress | Z07x10 (t) | 2015-06-04 14:11:00 | Robert McClenon (t) | 2015-06-09 17:59:00 | Z07x10 (t) | 2015-06-10 14:41:00 |
Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source | 7Closed | GrayDuck156 (t) | 2015-06-05 01:18:00 | Steven Zhang (t) | 2015-06-07 23:45:00 | Steven Zhang (t) | 2015-06-07 23:45:00 |
Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School | 2In Progress | Paulydee (t) | 2015-06-05 02:10:00 | Atsme (t) | 2015-06-06 15:21:00 | TheRedPenOfDoom (t) | 2015-06-09 20:03:00 |
Talk:List of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#AP_Urban_area | 7Closed | Vin09 (t) | 2015-06-05 05:11:00 | TransporterMan (t) | 2015-06-05 14:37:00 | TransporterMan (t) | 2015-06-05 14:37:00 |
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast) | 7Closed | RedJulianG40 (t) | 2015-06-08 15:52:00 | TransporterMan (t) | 2015-06-08 19:23:00 | TransporterMan (t) | 2015-06-08 19:23:00 |
Talk:Sean Hannity | 1New | RemoteControl97 (t) | 2015-06-10 14:04:00 | Steven Zhang (t) | 2015-06-11 02:53:00 | Steven Zhang (t) | 2015-06-11 02:53:00 |
![]() Archived DRN Cases |
---|
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 |
This page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
- 1 Current disputes
- 1.1 Talk:Impalement#tagging
- 1.2 Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific
- 1.3 Beepi
- 1.4 Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21_No_way.21_She_doesn.27t_belong_in_this_article.21
- 1.5 Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement_in_countries_where_fair_use_does_not_exist
- 1.6 Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale
- 1.6.1 Summary of dispute by Mztourist
- 1.6.2 Comment by involved McSly
- 1.6.3 Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale discussion
- 1.6.3.1 First statement by volunteer moderator
- 1.6.3.2 First statement by Z07x10
- 1.6.3.3 First statement by Mztourist
- 1.6.3.4 First statement by McSly
- 1.6.3.5 First statement by HLGallon
- 1.6.3.6 Second statement by volunteer moderator
- 1.6.3.7 Second statement by Z07x10
- 1.6.3.8 Second statement by Mztourist
- 1.6.3.9 Second statement by McSly
- 1.6.3.10 Second statement by HLGallon
- 1.6.4 References
- 1.7 Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source
- 1.8 Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School
- 1.9 Talk:List of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#AP_Urban_area
- 1.10 Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast)
- 1.10.1 Summary of dispute by Calico1903
- 1.10.2 Summary of dispute by Agouthelis
- 1.10.3 Summary of dispute by Rinkydink84
- 1.10.4 Summary of dispute by RedJulianG40
- 1.10.5 Summary of dispute by Imperatrix Mundi
- 1.10.6 Summary of dispute by Fenix down
- 1.10.7 Summary of dispute by GiantSnowman
- 1.10.8 Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast) discussion
- 1.11 Talk:Sean Hannity
- 1.11.1 Summary of dispute by Niteshift36
- 1.11.2 Summary of dispute by Cwobeel
- 1.11.3 Summary of dispute by Malerooster
- 1.11.4 Summary of dispute by Rocdahut
- 1.11.5 Summary of dispute by Jimintheatl
- 1.11.6 Summary of dispute by Kelly
- 1.11.7 Summary of dispute by Asher196
- 1.11.8 Summary of dispute by FuriousJorge
- 1.11.9 Summary of dispute by Stargnoc
- 1.11.10 Summary of dispute by Baltech22
- 1.11.11 Summary of dispute by Zonerocks
- 1.11.12 Summary of dispute by JohnInDC.
- 1.11.13 Talk:Sean Hannity discussion
Current disputes
Talk:Impalement#tagging
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Economic history of Chile ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
Disagreement about what content to include related to the context of the War of the Pacific in the article Economic history of Chile.
Our discussion is about what is neutral and what is relevant for inclusion. I cleared the article of non-economic content that user Keysanger thought would balance the views on the origin of the war. Yet Keysanger have also at times removed and put into question some of the sources I have provided.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Requested a third opinion.
How do you think we can help?
By helping define what sources are valid or not and what content is relevant or not for the article economic history of Chile.
Summary of dispute by Keysanger
- No. This is not the point.
- The point is whether
- only a fringe view about the causes of the war should be presented as the only main cause and the other causes dismissed or vaguely hinted in a footnote or
- all the causes of the war according to the mainstream historians should be presented, and the reader should decide the real importance of the fringe view
- --Keysanger (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
User Dentren wrote:
Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[55] Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain.[50][56] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[50] In the mid-1870s, Peru nationalized its nitrate industry, affecting both British and Chilean interests.[55] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[55] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[55] In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:[50][55]
“ | If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen | ” |
—Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878. |
This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883).[50] It has been argued that the economic situation and the view of new wealth in nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war against Peru and Bolivia.[50] [note 2]
I ask Dentren to respond following questions course according to the 5-WP pilars:
- Do you agree that Salazar is considered a "leftist", "marxist" historian?
- Do you agree that he represents a tiny sector of the mainstream of historians?
- What do Salazar says in the reference 50 to this snippet: This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883).[50] It has been argued that the economic situation and the view of new wealth in nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war against Peru and Bolivia. Please be generous and lets know all the context of the assertion. I think, Salazar's book is unknown out of few libraries of Santiago de Chile.
- Can you deliver some examples were Salazar's view is positively cited in academic books?
- Why did you delete (here) the point three of my contribution? That is Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works to strengthen its nitrate monopoly and in order to achieve it, the Bolivian and Chilean salitreras had to be controlled by Peru.... It isn't an economic cause of the war?
- Why did you delete (here) my contribution US historian Fredrick B. Pike calls this allegation absurd... Is it not an academic rebuke of Salazar's view?
- Why did you relegate (here) to a footnote the opinion of all others historians?
- Why did you push information that bring the reader to believe that Chile was in a deep economic trouble but you refrain to inform and delete information about the much worse situation in Peru and Bolivia?
- Why did you refrain to inform the reader about the situation in Peru and Bolivia?
- Had Peru never tried to control the Bolivian salitreras in order to sort out its financial debacle (default, deficit)? Did you tell it the reader?
- Do you think that the sensation-grabbing cite of A.Pinto words is correct. Wanted Anibal Pinto the war? What do the historians say about Pinto's stance?
- Do you agree that historians write that the WotP had several causes, especially territorial, geopolitical, economics and domestic political causes?
- Do you think that the mention in the main article of only one view of the causes of the war is according with the NPOV of Wikipedia?
I thank Dentren in advance for his cooperation to resolve Salazar's trouble. --Keysanger (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific discussion
Volunteer note: Keysanger has been notified. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Without objection, I will be opening this shortly. I am an inexperienced volunteer (only two previous cases, and both of them were closed as stale) so I'd appreciate if another volunteer could keep an eye on this as well. Thanks. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Oops, I see that Keysanger has not provided a statement yet. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Coordinator's Note: I've pinged L235 that this case is ripe to be opened. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
- L235 has indicated a prolonged absence, I am willing to take the case if she is not able, but I course defer to her if she's willing and able to. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm now opening the case. I'm happy to have oversight and guidance while volunteering for this case though. Kharkiv07: I'm a he, not a she
--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My apologies L235, I was thinking of somebody else. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- I see that both parties are currently blocked for edit warring, so discussion will hold until those blocks expire or are lifted. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- Never mind on that. I will be on enforced wikibreak until 19:00 28 May UTC. If discussion starts before then, another volunteer is free to mediate. Thanks, and my apologies. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Comment - Both editors are blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, so that they can comment tomorrow. I would like to remind them of the caution by blocking admin User:EdJohnston that this is a long-running dispute that may require topic bans. Participating in this dispute resolution may be the best chance that the parties have of getting the matter resolved without topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- Keysanger, this is not the place to discuss content. This is the place were to find a way/mechanism to resolve our differences or at least to stabilize the article. As far as I understand content discussion should take place in the article talk page. Dentren | Talk 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Following McIenons suggestion I will discuss some issues here. I do first want to let you know that I do not disagree with all of what you have put forward since February. I have tried to accommodate some concerns. I do think we need to concentrate on the specific issues and not expand this dispute. By questioning the reliability of Chilean National History Award winner Gabriel Salazars work you are affecting about 20 articles plus near all sections of Economic history of Chile (that were not previously into dispute) and expanding the original issue much beyond what it was at the beginning. As I have said numerous times before my focus is on resolving problems not to open new fields of disputes. I have observed plenty of disputes degenerate into a myriad sub conflicts to an extent it is unmanageable to address them. Such evolution could eventually be disruptive.
- Keysanger, this is not the place to discuss content. This is the place were to find a way/mechanism to resolve our differences or at least to stabilize the article. As far as I understand content discussion should take place in the article talk page. Dentren | Talk 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Acting in good faith I propose that you Keysanger, and the observers and mediators too take a look at this version and see if you find it acceptable. The changes are not small. Dentren | Talk 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My response is this one and my rationale this one. I propose that you stop changing the article before consensus has been reached in order to discuss about one ground. --Keysanger (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are wasting your time if you are trying to discredit Salazar. Besides note that this was not your original concern in February, that concern was that "he was rebuked" by other historians. Since then you appear to have changed your mind and now he is to you a fringe, unknown and ¿Marxist? The fact is he is a recognized historian whether you like or not.
- If we move a relevant issue is if you can actually "rebuke" a 2002 statement (Salazar & Pinto) with a 1963 statement (Pike). To do is WP:OR. One needs to be careful.
- I'm ready to help accommodate your concerns that are legitimate. I tried to do in my last edits. Apparently it didn't convince you. The widening of scope of your attack is worrying, because it hinders the solution to this problem that arose from a specific issue. We need to focus. Dentren | Talk 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- My response is this one and my rationale this one. I propose that you stop changing the article before consensus has been reached in order to discuss about one ground. --Keysanger (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
-
-
OK, lets wait until the volunteer open the discussion. I will discuss here and not in the article page. --Keysanger (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
So, not sure, but I think now is the discussion open.
Hello L235, thanks for helping us to sort out the trouble. I must say that English is not my first language but I keep it simple and direct. Don't hesitate to stop me when you mean that something is not clear.
I propose following roadmap to resolve the problem:
- We agree not to change the relevant parts of the article's current version until we get consensus
- We agree that following should be said to the reader about the causes of the war in accordance with the respective WP rules:
- That the causes of the war were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political
- That at that time the three warring nations were in deep economic trouble and saw the nitrate as a solution for the woes
- That the 10 cents tax and the secret treaty triggered the war but that the causes were much more profound.
- We agree to use only reliable sources that represent the mainstream historiography in accordance with the respective WP rules.
- There are two books in English language about the war: (US) Sater's "Andean Tragedy" and (UK) Farcau's "Ten Cents War". Sater has written several books about the theme and is THE authority in these questions and his books and views are indispensable for any encyclopedic work about the war
- Any minority view should be earmarked as such and set in relation to the mainstream historians in the English language in accordance with the respective WP rules
- We elaborate a wording for the text in accordance with the respective WP rules. That could be for example:
- The causes of the War of the Pacific were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political issues combined to produce an impasse that lead to war and it is disputed which was the main cause of the war as there are mutual recriminations about the origin on the war. Regarding the economic causes, in the 1870s, Bolivia, Chile and Peru economies suffered under an exceptionally strong economic downturn triggered by the global financial crisis and internal turmoil and their governments desired to make more profit from the nitrate exploitation. Bolivia broke flagrantly the 1874 Boundary treaty imposing a new tax on Chilean capital, Peru wanted to improve the guano and nitrate revenues through a monopoly but needed for this purpose the control over the Bolivian salitreras and Chile sought to protect the business of the nitrate in Chilean hands.
L235, Dentren, what do you think about?. --Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- You proposal is definitely a step forward.
- I agree on that we should stop making edits without consensus. To obtain consensus we should perhaps try some involve a third editor.. who would need to be interested in the topic.. and of course, considered a good editor by us both.
- I do also concur on that the origins of the war are complex.
- I am aware that Bolivia and Peru were also affected by economic downturns. Think this should be addressed in economic history of Peru and economic history of Bolivia. What concerns this article is Chile.
- I agree to use reliable sources. Have always attempted to do so.
- Yes William Sater is good scholar and certainly appears to be a heavyweight in issues relating to the War of the Pacific. Yet his work should not be read as a Prima scriptura.
- The thing with the article is that it is about Chile and economics. I have attempted to put the war in the economic context, not give a detailed account on the origins. The article is no meant to have such discussion.
- Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated. Chilean wheat exports were out-competed by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain. Chile's silver mining income also dropped. Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile. Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation". In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:
- “ If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen ”
-
-
-
-
- —Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.
-
-
-
-
- It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians, some rejecting it and others considering it simplistic. Another thesis relating to the economic crisis has been proposed by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez postulates it as force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.
- Note that this version stress that the war was costly and explicitly presenting concerns and rejections of the profit-thesis (without endorsement). No reader with critical thinking could understand this version as "Chile was the bad boy" . Hope you find this version agreeable. Dentren | Talk 12:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
DRN Coordinator's Note: I've moved the foregoing discussion from the summary section to here in the discussion section, just to put it in the right place. You are free to continue the discussion at the article talk page until the volunteer opens this for discussion, but please refrain from discussing it here until that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (current Coordinator)
- Volunteer Note - Editing the article without discussing the edits here (and without even discussing on the talk page) while waiting for a mediator is unproductive and disruptive. Stop editing the article in advance of the moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
DRN Coordinator's Note #2: L235 has announced that he will not be able to take this case. Kharkiv07 can you proceed with it, since you've expressed an interest? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly, allow me to review the material and I will comment shortly. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dentren and Keysanger: I will now be mediating this case; I highly appreciate Keysanger's points and Dentren's response to them, this dispute is already going in the right direction. For now, I would like you to comment only in your own section; however I will allow you to respond once to a point the other makes in your own section. I would also strongly advise both of you to refrain from editing the article for the time being, if there are any more blocks for edit warring on the article I will withdraw my support and I fear it may lead to topic bans. Now, as far as the dispute goes, I would like both of you to either give text or simply a handful of ideas which you would be happy with and you think the other person would be happy with, remember the goal here is compromise. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Dentren's first proposal
-
- Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[1] Chilean wheat exports were out-competed by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain.[2][3] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[2] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[1] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[1] In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:[1][2]
- “ If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen ”
-
-
-
-
- —Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.
-
-
-
-
- It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians, some rejecting it and others considering it simplistic.[4][2][5][6]:33[7][8] Another thesis relating to the economic crisis has been proposed by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez postulates it as force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.[2][9]
I have tried to follow these principles in the writing:
- Being concise (considering section and article length)
- Avoid duplication of things already discussed in depth elsewhere
- Incorporate different views in a brief but weighted manner.
- Retain the attention in the economy of Chile over the intrigues of magnates
- Mention of historiographical debates/differences should not obstruct flow or prose
References
References
- ^ a b c d Palma, Gabriel. Trying to 'Tax and Spend' Oneself out of the 'Dutch Disease': The Chilean Economy from the War of the Pacific to the Great Depression. p. 217–240
- ^ a b c d e Salazar & Pinto 2002, pp. 25–29.
- ^ Villalobos et al. 1974, pp. 6003-605.
- ^ Ortega, Luis (1984). "Nitrates, Chilean Entrepreneurs and the Origins of the War of the Pacific". Journal of Latin American Studies 16 (2): 337–380.
- ^ Sater, William F. (1973). "Chile During the First Months of the War of the Pacific" 5, 1 (pages 133-138 ed.). Cambridge at the University Press: Journal of Latin American Studies. p. 37.
- ^ Fredrick B. Pike, "Chile and the United States, 1880-1962", University of Notre Dame Press 1963
- ^ Sater 2007, p. 38
- ^ Farcau 2000, p. 45
- ^ Pinto Rodríguez, Jorge (1992), "Crisis económica y expansión territorial : la ocupación de la Araucanía en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX", Estudios Sociales 72
Dentren | Talk 21:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Keysanger's first proposal
Welcome Kharkiv07!.
Dentren doesn't want to say any thing about Peru and Bolivia, only about Chile, because, he says, Avoid duplication of things already discussed or The thing with the article is that it is about Chile and economics.
Do you think that (X=Jews/Armenians/Yazidis/Gypsies)
- Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the genocide.
would be a fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views description of X-genocide?
I think we don't disagree on content, but in the hard facts that should be shown. Compare both descriptions:
Keysanger's text | Dentren's text |
---|---|
The causes of the War of the Pacific were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political issues combined to produce an impasse that lead to war and it is disputed which was the main cause of the war as there are mutual recriminations about the origin on the war. Regarding the economic causes, in the 1870s, Bolivia, Chile and Peru economies suffered under an exceptionally strong economic downturn triggered by the global financial crisis and internal turmoil and their governments desired to make more profit from the nitrate exploitation. Bolivia broke flagrantly the 1874 Boundary treaty imposing a new tax on Chilean capital, Peru wanted to improve the guano and nitrate revenues through a monopoly but needed for this purpose the control over the Bolivian salitreras and Chile sought to protect the business of the nitrate in Chilean hands. | Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated. Chilean wheat exports were out-competed by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain. Chile's silver mining income also dropped. Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile. Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation". In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:
It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians, some rejecting it and others considering it simplistic. Another thesis relating to the economic crisis has been proposed by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez postulates it as force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s. |
I stick to the first line written in WP:NPOV:All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Dentren wants to save hard disk space, he says. But indeed, his text is sensation-grabbing and larger than mine!.
Kharkiv07, What do you think about the genocide description?. Do you think it is neutral?. What do you think about the description of the causes of the war?
--Keysanger (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Responses
Keysanger has already more or less responded to Detren's, and I will not comment what I believe to be NPOV or not, but I would like to hear constructive responses to the other, including suggestions that would make you happier while preserving the original author's intentions. The goal of this is not to get to a final product, but move closer to a compromise in the middle.Kharkiv07 (T) 17:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Detren's response
From Keysangers proposed text I can think of having brief mention of economic downturn in Bolivia and Peru (and perhaps globally). What I would like Karkiv, Keysanger and others to do is to rememberv that the article is ultimately about the economic history of Chile. Anything about the War of the Pacific that is not related to the economics of Chile should be kept to a minimum and discussed elsewhere. Dentren | Talk 19:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Keysanger's response
In order to explain the economic causes of the war in Economic history of Chile we have to explain which was the context of the war, that is the situation and role of Peru and Bolivia or we get the description Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the genocide. That is what you are offering now in your proposal: a biased, fringe use of some sources for an sided description of the causes of the war.
Dentren says, he followed the principles Being concise ..., Avoid duplication ..., Retain the attention in the economy of Chile ..., Mention of historiographical debates/differences should not obstruct flow or prose. But aesthetics or saving of hard disc space aren't not the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
- Dentren agrees that the origins of the war are complex but he doesn't mention it. He mentions a marginal theory first and only.
- Dentren agrees that Bolivia and Peru were also affected by economic downturns but he doesn't mention it. Dentren mentions in his proposal Canada, Russia, Argentina, Spain, and USA, but not Peru and Bolivia!. Is it that you call a "weighted manner"?
- Dentren agrees that Sater is good scholar and certainly appears to be a heavyweight in issues relating to the War of the Pacific but he doesn't mention his views at the beginning of the paragraph.
- Dentren suggests that Anibal Pinto was a warmonger, (giving a reason for "Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains") but he doesn't mention Daza who provoked the war with his embargo of property!.
- Dentren never mentions that Bolivia provoked the war imposing a tax (that is money=economy) nor that Peru was decided to control the Bolivian nitrate production (production=economy), that was in Chilean hands.
Any solution must be based in the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, aesthetics and saving of hard disc space must play a secondary role. And marginal, fringe ideas must be mentioned AFTER the main views have been explained.
--Keysanger (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- 1. Mention of complexity is redundant as long as no simplistic view is presented. Why should one think the causes are simple by reading the version I proposed?
- 2. Mention of United States, Argentina, Canada and Spain are indebted to their impact on the export sector of Chile. Mention of Peru and Bolivia is also a possibility. Not closed to that.
- 3. Including a particular scholar views above others discussing the same topic needs a lot a thought and careful weighting. The approach I have taken avoids such lengthy considerations in favour of focusing on what all agree (that a certain notion exists).
- 4. Embargoes of property of nationals living abroad is not usually counted as part of the economic history of that country. It is really a side note. The embargo you refer to has another relevance: in explaining the origin of War of the Pacific.
- 5. Bolivian taxes belong the economy of Bolivia. Avoid mixing things up.
- Keysanger: you need to look beyond war and nationalism and focus on economic facts and economic relevance. If you achieve that you will realize my point. Dentren | Talk 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
-
Volunteer's second point
@Keysanger and Dentren: From now on I'd like you two to only comment in your own section. Now, that being said, I tried my best to work out a compromise based on your points. Tell me how you feel about them.
- The complexity of the situation is briefly mentioned.
- The seems to be agreement that are okay to be mentioned.
- Sater may be mentioned, however it will be near the bottom and remain brief.
- Regardless of who's right, it should have an expert's opinion to back it up. If you both find experts with opposing views, both views may be mentioned.
- Again, sources.
Kharkiv07 (T) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Keysanger's response
Pinging Keysanger for comment Kharkiv07 (T) 16:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I expect a proposal that match the WP rules. My Proposal is known:
- The causes of the War of the Pacific were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political issues combined to produce an impasse that lead to war and it is disputed which was the main cause of the war as there are mutual recriminations about the origin on the war. Regarding the economic causes, in the 1870s, Bolivia, Chile and Peru economies suffered under an exceptionally strong economic downturn triggered by the global financial crisis and internal turmoil and their governments desired to make more profit from the nitrate exploitation. Bolivia broke flagrantly the 1874 Boundary treaty imposing a new tax on Chilean capital, Peru wanted to improve the guano and nitrate revenues through a monopoly but needed for this purpose the control over the Bolivian salitreras and Chile sought to protect the business of the nitrate in Chilean hands.
- --Keysanger (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Dentren's response
I appreciate the work of Kharkiv in this dispute resolution. Hope we have managed to reduce the issues to their essentials in order to solver them. I would not like this effort bogged down by a sudden rise of new or resurected complains.
I don't see a major difference on "who's right" on facts (at least reading from the last commnetaries of Keysanger), the issue is how to present them in a maner that is: a. relevant to article and not off topic b. how to in brief words express plurality (of views) and weight (of views by expertise and what is the "scholarly maintream".. if there such thing.) relating to the impact of the economic crisis on Chile's decision to enter war.
24 hr closing notice: Neither the moderator, User:Kharkiv07 nor the 2nd involved party, User:Keysanger have commented in 7 days. If there is no activity soon, this case will need to be closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Keithbob: I posed a question to Keysanger requesting clarification approximately 24 hours before you posted this. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Beepi
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21_No_way.21_She_doesn.27t_belong_in_this_article.21
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Unseen character ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- StBlark (talk · contribs)
- 99.192.92.80 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a disagreement about whether or not the character Rosaline from the play Romeo and Juliet should be included as an example of an unseen character on the article page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
A third opinion was requested at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion and subsequently provided by User:ONUnicorn.
How do you think we can help?
The third opinion offered has not been accepted by one of the editors involved in the original disagreement. An evaluation of the merits of including this example, including looking at the various sources for inclusion offered on the talk page and in the article would be appreciated.
Summary of dispute by StBlark
The question is: Does Rosaline belong? Before that, a basic question needs to be considered: What is an “Unseen character”? The article defines it to include three significant criteria: I.) she must be a “continuing” character. 2.) she must be a character who will “frequently interact” with the others. 3.) She must be a character who will “influence” events.
Rosaline does not meet those three criteria, because (in the same 1-2-3 order): 1.) she is not a “continuing character”: The instant Juliet appears Romeo drops his interest in Rosaline. The script doesn’t even indicate whether or not she attends the party. This is a 5 act play and after the middle of act 2, she is never mentioned again. 2.) she does not “interact” with any character during the play. 3.) She does nothing to influence any events. She doesn’t DO anything during the play. Not one action can be ascribed to her.
WP requires that content be supported by sources: not one has yet been found that suggests that Rosaline meets those 3 criteria. The sources that are suggested support things not in dispute: Romeo’s excuse for going to the party, and the idea that Rosaline doesn’t appear.
If we ignore the defining criteria in the article, then what’s the point of the Wikipedia article? As a compromise, I suggest that the line about Rosaline be removed from the article, but then preserved on the Talk Page, and if anyone finds a source that supports her inclusion based on the definition that’s in the article then Rosaline can easily go back in.
(A point of order regarding the “third opinion”: His interest seems to be not in Rosaline alone but in new topics, for which there hasn’t been time to discuss. Also there’s some question about what he means as he says “a third opinion is just a third opinion.” He may want to add new ideas and opinions, or he may mean that his third opinion should be included in the context of dispute resolution. This needs to be discussed. He may be right about rewriting the article, but for our purposes here I think we need to agree to accept the definition in the article as it stands.) Thanks! StBlark (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 99.192.92.80
Rosaline from the play Romeo and Juliet has been included on the page as an example for a long time. There are two different reliable sources in the article for its inclusion - one that uses the term "unseen character" to describe her and one that explains how it is because of her that Romeo goes to the party where he first meets Juliet, making her the reason that they meet in the first place. The other editor has disputed the validity of including this example on the page. In the course of the talk page discussion I have quoted the play as a primary source and cited four additional reliable secondary sources for the claim that Romeo and Juliet meet because of Rosaline. That brings the total to seven sources to support inclusion. The other editor rejects these as being sufficient. At that point I requested a third opinion through WP:3. A third editor came and agreed with my position on inclusion. The other editor now does not accept that third opinion. So it stands as two editors with seven reliable sources versus one editor with no reliable sources. 99.192.92.80 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) (NB: I have a dynamic IP address and so there are several IP addresses on the talk page that are all me. They all begin with 99.192 and I have taken care to indicate next to the signatures that they are all, in fact, the same person.)
Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21_No_way.21_She_doesn.27t_belong_in_this_article.21 discussion
- Volunteer note - I have looked at the talk page, and agree that there has been extensive discussion, as is required before taking up a case here. I am not accepting or declining this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- While it's been years since I've volunteered here, I'd be happy to take this one on if the other participating editor makes a comment. If I can be pinged if that happens, that'd be great :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I will be opening this discussions shortly. I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you for both leaving statements. I have been spending some time reading the talk pages as well as a few other relevant pages. I don't feel I'm at the point that I can weigh in as of yet, and will do so in the morning, but in the interim, I am interested in getting my hands on the source text for thesetwo references. If either of you (or any wandering volunteers) could find those and post links to it, that'd be great, otherwise I'll take a look in the morning. For now, let's just all go have a nice cup of tea. Or a scotch. Whatever's your thing :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- For the two references you want to review, the first one is here [8] and the second one is here [9]. Relevant also to the criteria for an unseen character that StBlark refers to above is this [10], which can be viewed here [11]. If you check, you will notice that the page cited does not support the description of unseen (or invisible) characters that the article states. In fact, two pages earlier that same source says "The invisible character may be best defined as a character who, although never shown to the audience, nevertheless influences the action of the play"[12]. It looks as thought the description that StBlark is talking about here is inaccurate and not supported by the source the article claims to use for it. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
- Let's keep things focused solely on the content and not each other :) I'm just interested in the sources only, so thanks for providing them for me. I'll read them over in the morning and comment further. Cheers. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies if my comment seemed to be other than directed at the content. I was simply trying to alert you to the fact that there might be an issue here that the article reports criteria for an unseen (or invisible) character that sources offered in the article do not support. If the article does inaccurately portray this source it is certainly no fault of StBlark's, as he did not add the description in question to the article. But if that criteria is inaccurate it could affect the question of whether Rosaline is a worthy inclusion. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
- I have read over a few sections of the article and the Rosaline article - I assume the reference you refer to regarding the third sentence in the article is this one? My assessment of that reference is that the description of an unseen/invisible character given in the reference may fit the particular character mentioned in the passage of text: "Here, it will be seen, the device of the invisible character is absolutely essential to the plot" - I interpret "the plot" as the plot of the story in the referenced material, not the description of unseeen characters as a whole. Page 133 does state "The invisible character may best be defined as a character who, although never shown to the audience, nevertheless influences the action of the play.", and I've read over the talk page with the references provided and the source material linked both on the unseen character page and the Rosaline page, and it is my assessment based on the references provided that Rosaline does meet that criteria for classification as an "unseen/invisible character", especially as Page 133 of the aformentioned source states that they are never shown, but influence the action of the play. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies if my comment seemed to be other than directed at the content. I was simply trying to alert you to the fact that there might be an issue here that the article reports criteria for an unseen (or invisible) character that sources offered in the article do not support. If the article does inaccurately portray this source it is certainly no fault of StBlark's, as he did not add the description in question to the article. But if that criteria is inaccurate it could affect the question of whether Rosaline is a worthy inclusion. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
- Let's keep things focused solely on the content and not each other :) I'm just interested in the sources only, so thanks for providing them for me. I'll read them over in the morning and comment further. Cheers. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- For the two references you want to review, the first one is here [8] and the second one is here [9]. Relevant also to the criteria for an unseen character that StBlark refers to above is this [10], which can be viewed here [11]. If you check, you will notice that the page cited does not support the description of unseen (or invisible) characters that the article states. In fact, two pages earlier that same source says "The invisible character may be best defined as a character who, although never shown to the audience, nevertheless influences the action of the play"[12]. It looks as thought the description that StBlark is talking about here is inaccurate and not supported by the source the article claims to use for it. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
-
-
-
-
-
- For whatever it might be worth, I did some checking on the Unseen character page history. When the page was first created in October 2002 it began with the description, "Television situation comedies sometimes include continuing characters who are never seen or heard by the audience, but only described by other characters."[13]. The phrase "continuing characters" has been in the article ever since. By 2006, when the page was a full blown list full of original research the description had evolved to its current form, saying "continuing characters—characters who are currently in frequent interaction with the other characters and who influence current story events"[14]. Nothing on the page at that time, including this description, had supporting citations. In subsequent years the "listiness" of the page was eliminated and the examples on it were all required to have proper citations, but the above quoted description still had no citation. Then on November 16, 2014 an editor made an adjustment to the page including adding the current citation for that sentence[15]. So it would seem that this description of what an unseen character is has a long history on the page, but was never more than unsupported original research. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
-
-
-
-
Apparently this is an open discussion, so I may join in here. Thank you, Steven Zhang, for taking the time and effort to consider this.
Any definition of an “unseen character” seems to indicate a character who is busy or active “behind the scenes” either influencing the plot or interacting — or doing SOMETHING crucial or something essential. Right? I think we can agree. Rosaline is unusual in that she does nothing at all during the whole entire course of the play. Nothing. Which is completely different from the definition of an “Unseen Character” in this article or any other definition you choose. If we want to consider whether or not Rosaline might fit the criteria of one who influences the plot or one who influences the action — we have to be able to name one single action that she takes or does to influence the plot or action. I ask that as an actual question: Can anyone put it into words? I would answer by saying she doesn’t do anything, she’s a kind of non-entity, and that seems to be the point according to more than one source — the point that Romeo isn’t really in love with her, he’s in love with being in love. As Henry David Gray reports in the source text that you requested: Romeo’s “love” for Rosaline is “self-generated” (it comes from Romeo himself)— and isn’t even inspired by Rosaline. And when Romeo meets Juliet — Juliet impresses as a contrast to Rosaline: Juliet is a flesh and blood character who actually does affect the action, and inspires “true love” from Romeo. StBlark (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that the dispute must be resolved based on reliable sources rather than opinions of wikipedians, especially in case of disagreements. If some sources call Rosalinde "unseen character", then the article must say so: "some critics [1][2][3] call her unseen charatcer because..." This is not mathematics. The concepts may be blurred in humanities, and people may have different understanding. Teere is a basic definition, and there are shades some reputable people accept. -M.Altenmann >t 15:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- I agree with M.Altenmann. The fact that this article exists suggests that there is something notable or something special about an “Unseen character” that goes above or beyond what is simply a character who is “not seen”. So when when a source mentions that a character is “unseen”, for the purposes of this article it must be clear that the source means to apply the same definition that this article is using. That seems obvious, I hope we all agree, otherwise this would simply be an article about the many characters and townspeople who don’t happen to appear in the play. This is a problem with Rosaline: sources can be found that say that she is “unseen”, but those sources do not always mean what this article is trying to put forward. It also is a problem at the top of the article with the sources that are used to define the term. This article needs to have a very strong definition — and as M.Altenmann has just said — it needs to be clearly sourced.
-
- There are plenty of “unseen characters” in this play that are mentioned or described, like Rosaline, and the daughters of Signor Martino, and Count Anselm, and Vitruvio. And there are some that are mentioned and also affect the plot (like the friar’s donkey). This article needs to lock down it’s own definition, or else it will be at the mercy of whatever Wikipedia editor holds the strongest opinions (whether they are right or not), and is the most insistant, and most enjoys the “back and forth” of dipute resolution pages like this one.
-
- On another topic, I want to point out that earlier I asked if anyone was able to name one single action that Rosaline does during the play to influence the plot or action. And no one has been able to do that in this discussion so far. There are notable productions, (David Garrick, Theo Cibber, Franco Zeferelli’s movie) that have removed references to Rosaline from the play. I may not agree with that kind of editing, but to me it says something about how essential Rosaline is.
-
-
- There is a another character in the play, Romeo and Juliet, who actually has a responsibility for the death of both Romeo and Juliet. He’s mentioned, but he doesn’t appear. So, in other words — he’s an “unseen character” whose actions contribute to cause them both to die! This man is one of a small group who are described as Mantuans, searchers, and fearful. He’s never seen, and he’s capable of strong, bold action. During the course of the play, he and his cohorts do something so dramatic and awful, that when the audience learns of what he has done (Act V, scene ii) and the consequences, they sometimes gasp in horror — because what he does turns out to be literally tragic. If any “unseen character” is to be considered as one who significantly alters the plot or the action of the play, it should be him before Rosaline.
-
-
-
- In contrast, Rosaline’s aspects (according to the play) are: She’s fair, she’s got an uncle, she’s not the prettiest, she has bright eyes, a high forehead, red lips, a nice foot, and a thigh that quivers. And before the play begins, she has been making Romeo sit around and mope, because she’s not that into him. Her actions during the course of the play are never mentioned. And she’s not well sourced in the way that M.Altenmann is talking about in the comment above mine. StBlark (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
-
At this point I mainly have a question about the procedure here. The reason for coming to this noticeboard was that StBlark and I could not come to an agreement about whether Rosaline should be included, so I am not sure if it is helpful for the two of us to be the primary contributors to this discussion, especially since Steven Zhang has indicated he would be taking this case and he has already offered an opinion on it. I do have a number of things to say in reply to StBlark's comments, but I would rather wait for further information about whether it is appropriate to offer them at this time.
I also note that so far I, ONUnicorn (as the third opinion on the Unseen character talk page), Steven Zhang (above) and Altenmann (above) have all expressed support for inclusion and only StBlark has expressed an opposing view. I do understand that consensus is not merely a matter of majority opinion, but that opinion is split 4-1 right now seems of some significance when deciding what to do. 99.192.84.88 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
- The moderator, Steven Zhang, invited discussion, and hasn’t made any final statement, I think that we can all carry on in good faith, respecting the process, as we are doing, and hope that if we participate in the discussion here what we say might be considered. Our moderator seemed to indicate that he was inclined to base his decision on a particular source, and I would like to point out that that source is a 20th Century English language essay, which is based on the author’s ideas regarding French plays from the 18th Century; to use that essay as an authority for 16th century plays seems not at all appropriate. The author of that essay, “Some Marginal Notes on Eighteenth Century French Comedy”, gives no indication that what he was saying had anything what-so-ever to do with Elizabethan plays, let alone any particular character. If he were to do a study on Elizabethan plays he would certainly come up with completely different ideas. He certainly does not claim that Rosaline is an “invisible character”, and no reliable source claims that she does anything to affect the plot or the story. Part of the point that M.Altenmann is making (above in the comments) is to urge editors to be careful to be accurate in using reliable sources. What we do in Wikipedia is important, every one uses it, and WP effects how directors direct plays and how people think about theatre. I think we have try to make Wikipedia the best it can be. StBlark (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I will be commenting further in the morning when I have access to a computer. Please refrain from discussing further till then.Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Briefly, I believe I have made my perspective clear in my comment above, but let me clarify. As Wikipedians, it's our role to report on what reliable sources say about a subject, and not necessarily to argue or debate over the content of said reliable sources. As mentioned above, reliable sources have defined Rosaline as an unseen character, and from the analysis further provided about the character and the source provided in the article as the definition of an unseen character, she does seem to fit the description. While dispute resolution is not a vote by any means, we do have two editors and two independent volunteers which see the same perspective on a matter. I'll ask another DRN volunteer to comment here as well to give their input, just to get a second pair of eyes on this to ensure the perspective is universal and I haven't missed anything. Please do wait until the other volunteer comments before discussing further, as I believe everyone involved has given a thorough explanation as to their point of view and how you have come to those conclusions. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks Steven for your clarification on the process here. I haven't been through DNR before so I am still learning how it works. 99.192.76.198 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
-
Volunteer Notice: I've marked this case as stale. There has been no activity for 5 days. User:Steven Zhang is this case underway or would you like to close it?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Keithbob, I'd like to keep it open. I've discussed this thread with another volunteer offline who's given me his opinion. As 99.192 notes, the article itself has a bit of history on the definition of an unseen character. Are we sure the definition we have of this is correct? Looking at the article, there are two references supporting the definition - I'm sure there's more than that out there. At one point the page apparantely had the definition of continuing character instead - I think before we decide whether or not Rosaline fits the definition, we must understand what the definition first is, and what references support that. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Steve, I agree with your point. The only two references in the article that give any kind of definition for “Unseen Character” are both strictily regarding literature and theatre in18th Century France. And having done an extensive search, I have found nothing beyond that (that defines the phrase as a concept). Except for one playwright who gets a bit of discussion that applies to her work in particular. So, as a concept or “trope” or “thing” it seems there is not much at all out there. The other route is just to use the dictionary definition for each word “unseen” and “character”, and then there are few if any criteria and the doors are open to any character that isn’t seen (who would be notable enough to be in Wikipedia). In fact, the only reference to Rosaline that refers to her as unseen is a passing reference (that the lyrics to a song reminds somebody of her) so that it must be assumed that the person quoted is using simply the dictionary definition. It seems to me that if this article gets too narrow and particular about insisting on what they were doing in France in the 18th Century — that could rule out so many. In other words, I think it might have to be simply about characters that are not seen — according to Wester’s dictionary. Then the characters that are offered as examples would need to be supported with a reference to the fact that they don’t appear. StBlark (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmm, interesting idea. I think if we went with a straight dictionary definition as the criteria for inclusion, you may end up with a massively long silly page that looks like this one. I would expect inclusion in the page would require them to be defined by a source as an "unseen character", possibly being notable enough to have an article in their own right, but I think it's worth discussion. There must be more than two references which describes the concept (for example, this could be a starting point. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Steven, I share your concern about the lack of strong sourcing for the definition of the concept of the "unseen character". I do, however, think that in the history of the theatre, in particular, the use of unseen characters has a history that is well enough documented and discussed that we should not need to resort to just the dictionary definitions of the two words separately. The use of unseen characters by playwrights like Eugene O'Neill ("Unseen Characters in the Dramaturgy of Eugene O’Neill" by Robert E. Byrd) and Tennessee Williams ("The Critical Role of Alan Grey, the Unseen Character in Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire" by Peter A. Phillips) and more generally ("The Presence of Absence: Catalytic and Omnipresent Offstage Characters in Modern American Drama" By Safi Mahmoud Mahfouz) can be found through simple searches. I would hope that some clear definition that is based in scholarly study could be sourced for the page.
-
-
-
-
-
- As for the specific case of the example of Rosaline, there does seem to be enough scholarly sources to support her inclusion as she clearly is discussed as an unseen character or consequence in the literature. In addition to all the sources I have already provided, here is one more that would seem to be as clear as anyone could ask for about this case:
- "Among unseen characters figuring in the plot of the tragedies undoubtedly Rosaline in Romeo and Juliet is the most significant. It is seeing his beloved's name on the guest list for the Capulet ball that causes Romeo to go (masked, of course) to this party, hoping to catch a glimpse of Rosaline. Instead, he catches a glimpse of Juliet. Rosaline is thus the instrument of fate in bringing together the 'pair of star-crossed lovers' and therefore an important plot element." (From "The Reality of Shakspere's 'Supers'" by William Bryan Gates The Shakespeare Association Bulletin Vol. 20, No. 4 October, 1945, p.170)
- So whatever work needs to be done about the details of the definition of an "unseen character" and the sourcing of that, surely Rosaline is one. 99.192.69.84 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
- As for the specific case of the example of Rosaline, there does seem to be enough scholarly sources to support her inclusion as she clearly is discussed as an unseen character or consequence in the literature. In addition to all the sources I have already provided, here is one more that would seem to be as clear as anyone could ask for about this case:
-
-
-
-
-
- ADDENDUM: The Eugene O'Neill article I mentioned above has some words that could help with the general description of the "unseen character". It begins like this: "Scholars are just beginning to discern what happened a hundred years ago, when dramatic artists struggled to find new forms for a view of life that, for good or ill, was replacing nineteenth-century optimism. Playwrights of that time, restlessly experimenting, discovered new techniques and new uses for old techniques. In the latter category was the unseen character: the character, living or dead, who is never seen but who nonetheless causes onstage reactions and can even become a presence-in-absence. Strindberg, Ibsen, and especially Chekhov developed this device in the European theatre. In America, the first major writer to vigorously explore and use the unseen character was Eugene O’Neill." So this author both confirms that the "unseen character" is an old technique in theater and also provides some sort of general definition for it. 99.192.69.84 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)
-
-
Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement_in_countries_where_fair_use_does_not_exist
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Z07x10 (talk · contribs)
- Mztourist (talk · contribs)
- McSly (talk · contribs)
- HLGallon (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Well originally this dispute came about because an Indian study stated that some estimates suggest the Typhoon has 1/4 the RCS of a Rafale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Radar_signature_reduction_features http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf It simply added supporting information. I didn't state anything that wasn't in the sources or say it in a way suggested anything other than what was said.
It originally read:
According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[1]
I added "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite,[2] while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.[3]"
Can't see the problem. I've been accused of OR but I haven't synthesized anything not in the sources as you can see. If the issue is whether composites have a lower RCS then metal, that is a scientific fact, well supported even by wiki:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/navy-experimenting-with-composite-superstructure-for-warships/articleshow/47056945.cms
http://www.ramboats.com/why-ram.html
http://nano.iphy.ac.cn/N04/papers/NO4_papers%20all%20pdf/HJ_Gao.0710.pdf
http://www.deccanherald.com/pages.php?id=473934
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21038610/Composite-Materials#scribd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Lengthy discussion, not resolved.
How do you think we can help?
Look at the two sources provided in my addition (2&3) and determine if I've said or inferred anything not in them.
Summary of dispute by Mztourist
I have already raised Z07x10's edit-warring at WP:ANI, but will respond here. the issue first arose from an edit in February where I questioned the reliability of a source on the Talk Page, see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale, the statement was tagged and was left at that. On 24 May Z07x10 editted the phrase claiming to add a source but actually just removing the tags, I reverted this. On 28 May Z07x10 added a comparison of relative %s of composites and his OR/Synthesis that the Typhoon had a reduced radar signature. I reverted this and Z07x10 and I discussed this on the talk page. User:Fnlayson who tagged the disputed statement then trimmed the OR on 29 May. On 30 May I removed the OR and restored the tags. Earlier today an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. I reverted the changes and advised that the IP wasn't me. Z07x10 has then engaged in an edit war, his changes have been reverted by me and 2 other users. Z07x10 then made the baseless accusation "You have also reverted more than 3 times using sock puppet accounts. Home PC, work PC, lap-top, mobile device, proxy servers, all unsigned edits. I've had the same problem with you before". As can be seen from the current Talk Page and the latest Archive, Z07x10 has done OR before (number of hardpoints) and adopts an extremely argumentative approach with other users who disagree with him (maximum speed). If you look at his Talk Page you will see frequent warnings for edit warring and incivility. Mztourist (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- So after the 29th of May, when Fnlayson and I had agreed on a change, why did you continue to make reversion edits, with discussing it on the talk page or raising a DRN as per policy?
- Please explain to us all what is OR wrt this comment that you edit warred over: "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite,[4] while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.[5]"
- Let's not play all innocent here either, you also have several edit-warring warning and arguments on your talk page. This specific warning covers your evasive and extremely annoying habit of deliberately waiting more than 24 hours before making the exact same revert and clearly states that it is still edit warring.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mztourist#Edit_warringZ07x10 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- you have been warned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned) there is no point in trying to continue to argue here. Mztourist (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- YOU have also been warned for edit-warring and evasive 3RR sidestepping tactics only 6 months ago.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mztourist#Edit_warring
- Are you going to explain where the OR is in that statement yet?Z07x10 (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- you have been warned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned) there is no point in trying to continue to argue here. Mztourist (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment below in your own sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
-
-
-
-
- Update: Unless User:Mztourist has any remaining issues, I think we've probably reached an agreement on the article talk page. I am happy with current edit.Z07x10 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, we have not reached agreement, I have asked other users to form a consensus on the article Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I thought we agreed yesterday that each individual sentence is now individually supported by sources and free of OR.
- Here is the latest proposed edit anyway:
- According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[6][verification needed] Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.[7][8] The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.[9][10] An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.[11] Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.[12][13] The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection.[14]Z07x10 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, I and other users are concerned about the OR/Synth nature of what you have proposed as shown most recently by User:McSly's edit, I am waiting for them to join the discussion on the talk page to form a consensus. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, we have not reached agreement, I have asked other users to form a consensus on the article Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Update: Unless User:Mztourist has any remaining issues, I think we've probably reached an agreement on the article talk page. I am happy with current edit.Z07x10 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
I must express my concern that the edits by Z07x10 (talk) seem to present the view that the purported difference in RCS between Typhoon and Rafale is due to the 15% difference in composite surface area and the latter's metallic intakes. This specific assertion is *not* supported by any of the sources given. There are cites of some general sources which confirm that composites reflect less radar signal than steel, but to tie that or other features to specific comparisons of RCS is clearly synthesis. I would therefore oppose their inclusion. I would also discourage the use of manufacturers' own websites as citations, except for innocuous details such as date of first flight etc. HLGallon (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- Please point out where you think I've said this:
- the view that the purported difference in RCS between Typhoon and Rafale is due to the 15% difference in composite surface area and the latter's metallic intakes.
- The text above does not say that. Every sentence says exactly what is in the linked source at the end of the sentence to the letter as per example 3 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. Any 'synthesis' is in the head of the reader. If you feel that it's necessary to state that RCS depends on other things too, or simply link the wiki RCS page, I'm happy with that.
- As regards manufacturer websites, information like percentage of materials used can only originate from the manufacturer, there is no other possible source of such information besides direct regurgitation of that manufacturer specification. For this reason primary sources are not prohibited, it's just preferred that they're backed up by secondary sources but only where it's actually possible.Z07x10 (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source which states unambiguously that "...the RCS of Typhoon is 1/4 that of Rafale because it has 85% composite surface area rather than 70% etc." Without this, the presentation of arguments as they currently stand is synthesis. You might try copyediting to remove the apparent link between the two separate assertions. HLGallon (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- But I have not actually said that it's because of the composite percentages, I have pointed the percentages out as a separate fact, in a separate sentence, supported by a separate source, as per the third example on the synthesis page, which is marked correct and permissible. What is copyediting? Moving the text around to a different place in the paragraph? I can do that if that's what you mean.Z07x10 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- You will need to do that, at minimum. Even though the synthesized information is not explicitly stated, if sentence 1 stating the RAF's claim as to the relevant Radar Cross-Sections is immediately followed by sentences 2 and 3 which compare the relative composite surface areas and intake construction, then even a technically-minded reader would directly associate the first sentence as being the result of the next two. Reversing the order and splitting them might help, but there is in any case some repetition and redundancy in the section. Sentences 2 and 3 seem to repeat information in the preceding paragraph which makes them appear even more to be specific to the RCS comparison rather than generalised statements.HLGallon (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- But I have not actually said that it's because of the composite percentages, I have pointed the percentages out as a separate fact, in a separate sentence, supported by a separate source, as per the third example on the synthesis page, which is marked correct and permissible. What is copyediting? Moving the text around to a different place in the paragraph? I can do that if that's what you mean.Z07x10 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source which states unambiguously that "...the RCS of Typhoon is 1/4 that of Rafale because it has 85% composite surface area rather than 70% etc." Without this, the presentation of arguments as they currently stand is synthesis. You might try copyediting to remove the apparent link between the two separate assertions. HLGallon (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment by involved McSly
HLGallon and Mztourist have nailed it. This is a clear case of synthesis. Z07x10 is inferring that difference in radar signature between the Eurofighter and the Rafale is due to the difference of composition of their surface without any source stating that link. This is not the first time is this user is trying to push his own OR/Synth on this article with a battleground mentality, see this from last year for example. --McSly (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, I am trying to form a formal consensus on this issue on the Talk Page as a number of users have reverted the edits there but Z07x10 persists in rewriting the para to push his OR/Synth Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale discussion
Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but am merely noting that (1) notice and discussion seem to be adequate, but that (2) there is a EWN report which could affect this case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Update: the EWN case has been closed without action which might interfere here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I am opening this issue for discussion. I don't know much about this topic, and I expect the participants to provide me with any information that I need. My job is not to decide any issues, but to facilitate discussion. I see that there is a question about whether particular statements are original research because they may be synthesis by Wikipedia editors. Original research by Wikipedia editors is not permitted. Are there any other issues? Please be civil and concise. It appears that the participants in this thread have been civil, which is good. Civility is not an optional nice-to-have factor in Wikipedia, but is mandatory. Please explain your position briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment in your own sections. Do not add your comments to those of another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on contributors. Comments on other contributors may be stricken or hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
First statement by Z07x10
Ignoring what has or hasn't happened previously, as it is irrelevant, in the current edit, shown below, every separate sentence is individually sourced and says exactly what is supported by the source and no more, as per the 3rd example in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, which is marked as correct/permissible. The allegations that the following contains OR/synthesis is false, I'm simply pointing out exactly what is contained in a variety of sources and have not made any links or suggestions that one proves/disproves the other (as per the two incorrect examples on the OR/synth page):
"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[15][verification needed] Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.[16][17] The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.[18][19] An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.[20] Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.[12][13] The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection.[21]"
Also particularly relevant to some of the counter points you'll see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not
1. Wrt composite percentages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article."
2. Wrt counter opinions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all "If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim."
3. Wrt to maximum detection range equation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_explanation "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question "Most Wikipedia articles, those on subjects of general interest, should be comprehensible to a typical secondary-school student. It does not follow that a secondary student should be able to evaluate whether the cited sources suffice to verify a particular assertion. Inevitably, many sources are more advanced than the article. Normally, however, an ordinary educated layperson can understand the sources adequately. If such a person can confirm that the sources suffice to verify the claim, then the claim is not SYNTH -- even if a typical secondary-school student would have trouble evaluating the question."Z07x10 (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
First statement by Mztourist
A clear case of OR/Synth that follows a pattern by User:Z07x10. The issue first arose from an edit to Eurofighter Typhoon#Radar signature reduction features in February stating that "some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return". I questioned the reliability of a source on the Talk Page, see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale, User:Fnlayson then tagged the source and it was left at that. On 24 May Z07x10 editted the phrase claiming to add a source but actually just removing the tags, I reverted this. On 28 May Z07x10 and User:Fnlayson added a comparison of relative %s of composites and OR/Synthesis that the Typhoon had a reduced radar signature to support the questionable ref. I reverted this and Z07x10 and I discussed this on the talk page. User:Fnlayson who tagged the disputed statement then trimmed the OR on 29 May. On 30 May I removed the OR and restored the tags. On 4 June an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. I reverted the changes and advised that the IP wasn't me. Z07x10 then engaged in an edit war for which he was warned for edit warring and false sock accusations, see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned), Z07x10 then accused me of edit warring see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mztourist reported by User:Z07x10 (Result: Declined), so it hasn't exactly been civil. Since then Z07x10 has continued to modify the paragraph adding sentences that while they may be individually factual (if primary sources are accepted and after some questionable sources were revised) add up to synthesis all intended to support the original questionable statement. A number of other users have also revised or reverted the paragraph and I have notified them of this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
First statement by McSly
First statement by HLGallon
Second statement by volunteer moderator
I can see that the basic issue is whether certain edits by User:Z07x10 are synthesis amounting to original research. I can see that Z07x10 says that they are not original research. However, because of the length of the discussion, I would like a very brief summary, either quotes or diffs, showing exactly what edits are the controversial ones. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, while this is a reasonable place to discuss whether edits are original research, there is a separate specialized noticeboard for discussing arguments about original research. One possibility would be to move this discussion to [[WP:NORN|the original research noticeboard]. Would the parties agree to move this discussion there? If not, we can continue it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Please be civil and concise. Comment on content (including possible synthesis and OR), not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by Z07x10
No problems, here is the current paragraph with contentious bits in bold. I am happy with it, they are not:
"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[22][verification needed] Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.[23][24] The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.[25][26] An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.[27] Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.[12][13] The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection.[28]"
With respect to first bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm insinuating that the composite percentages are the reason for the Typhoon having a lower RCS than the Rafale, however here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:
1. Wrt composite percentages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article."
I.e. it is not synthesis just because two sourced facts are stated in separate juxtaposed sentences.
With respect to second bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm proposing this as further synthesised proof of RCS, or because it's OR (maybe), however here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4""
I.e just because I'm summarising the content of the radar detection range equation in the sources, it is not synthesis, and as before, it isn't synthesis just because it's juxtaposed either. The statement is correct, radar detection range is proportional to the 4th root of RCS as per equation marked out in source following sentence. See also, if required:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) Also of note, if two separate sentences are individually sourced and accurate to that source, it is not synthesis/OR and complies with example 3 in:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material
Also applicable to complaints against paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_questionZ07x10 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by Mztourist
Second statement by McSly
Second statement by HLGallon
References
References
- ^ "India and the Rafale, Anatomy of a Bad Deal". Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.
- ^ http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
- ^ http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/
- ^ http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
- ^ http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/
- ^ "India and the Rafale, Anatomy of a Bad Deal". Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.
- ^ http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
- ^ http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a508/sigmafour1/TyphoonConstr_zpslgixpxjr.png
- ^ http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/
- ^ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png
- ^ http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html
- ^ a b c Budge, Jr., M.C. "Course Material EE619-2011" (PDF). University of Alabama in Huntsville. Retrieved 7 June 2015.
- ^ a b c Skolnik, Merrill (12 Feb 2008). The Radar Handbook (PDF) (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. p. 2.6. ISBN 978-0071485470. Retrieved 7 June 2015.
- ^ http://www.docdroid.net/12ngk/eurofighter-world-feb-15.pdf.html
- ^ "India and the Rafale, Anatomy of a Bad Deal". Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.
- ^ http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
- ^ http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a508/sigmafour1/TyphoonConstr_zpslgixpxjr.png
- ^ http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/
- ^ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png
- ^ http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html
- ^ http://www.docdroid.net/12ngk/eurofighter-world-feb-15.pdf.html
- ^ "India and the Rafale, Anatomy of a Bad Deal". Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.
- ^ http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
- ^ http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a508/sigmafour1/TyphoonConstr_zpslgixpxjr.png
- ^ http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/
- ^ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png
- ^ http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html
- ^ http://www.docdroid.net/12ngk/eurofighter-world-feb-15.pdf.html
Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Paulydee (talk · contribs)
- TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
- Orangemike (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Disagreement of over salvageable text that was deleted and hidden from history record as well as other reversions. Disagreement over application of 'try to fix it' guidelines. Adversarial rather than cooperative behavior based on a dislike of "single goal accounts", regardless of content value that may well be salvageable, as grounds for total deletion and hiding of history. The introduction to the page was also altered without any reason.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I posted inquiries with other members, posted on the talk page explaining my position, and asked for a 3rd party opinion. I also offered to continue dialoguing and tag or move the deleted material.
How do you think we can help?
I am not of the opinion that total deletion and hiding of the material was justified or that it was in accordance with the guidelines on 'trying to fix' or the spirit of wikipedia which I thought is to improve and contribute, preferably collaboratively, rather than delete. I would like the deleted material restored somewhere so that it can be built up to a proper standard of citations rather than unilaterally deleted and hidden.
Summary of dispute by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
The article is a long term target of SPAs and socks utilizing it as an advertising platform .
I think the biggest issues here are that Paulydee hasnt yet figured out how page history works and that their first responses appear to be casting aspersions about other editor's motives- neither of which are appropriately addressed in this forum -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- and does anyone else hear that awful loud quacking noise? [17] [18] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved AndyTheGrump
This piqued my curiosity, so I decided to take a look. And I can see no evidence that anything has been "hidden from the history record" of the Osgoode Hall Law School article - substantial quantities of material have been removed in editing, but are still entirely accessible in the history. If material had been RevDel'd the history would provide a record of the fact, even if the material was no longer there. I have to suggest therefore that Paulydee is mistaken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Yunshui
Just on the back of Andy's comment above, I can (using my magical admin goggles) confirm that there are no deleted versions of the page, no deleted revisions, and no suppressed revisions in the page history. Nothing is hidden; every edit that has ever been made to the page is readily available. I recommend Paulydee read Help:Page history, and probably that he withdraw this request. Yunshui 雲水 14:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Orangemike
I suspect that Paulydee's limited experience here leads them to false conclusions, although the lack of an assumption of good faith on the part of other editors is definitely not helping. Nonetheless: we have clear expectations for this kind of list, and are just asking that they be met. There is no deadline for the addition of such a list. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School discussion
Thanks for the clarification about the history. I plan on working on the citations for the deleted list. However, I am still not understanding how the deletion is justified in the first place and why the Notable Alumni list justifiably remains deleted while I or others work on the citations. It seems to be contrary to the wikipedia guidelines as stated in several places. Contrary to what my friend OrangeMike suggested (am I misunderstanding notability?) the list was made up of clearly notable people. It was also easily verifiable with reliable sources. The wiki guidelines seem to state that removing the items is the wrong approach in such a situation. TRPOD initially stated that there are several options when there are no citations and that removal is one of them. They said it was justified in this case because of a history of 'single purpose accounts' using wikipedia to promote the subject of the page. But nothing that was deleted was actually inappropriate. Just because an item can serve to promote the subject of the page doesn't make it inappropriate or an advertisement. What seems to be appropriate under the wikipedia guidelines is to tag the items and, especially if they are easily verifiable, to begin to add the citations where they are missing. This was never undertaken by TRPOD yet the deletion is claimed to be appropriate. I also recently posted the list on a separate page and specifically stated in its talk section that I was going to start building the citations. Yet the list has again been removed from that page, which now redirects to the altered OH page. As far as I can tell that is not supported by the wikipedia guidelines. I will also post more thoroughly in the OH talk section. Thanks for your input. Cheers. Paulydee (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Just because an item can serve to promote the subject of the page doesn't make it inappropriate or an advertisement." Well, actually, yes: it does. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Or yes and no - a statement that John Doe Hypothetical University includes thirty-seven Nobel Laureates amongst its teaching staff might well serve to promote it, but if it was something widely commented on in published reliable sources, inclusion would presumably be merited. The point is that we let independent sources decide what is relevant when it comes to content that looks promotional. We have to, if Wikipedia is to remain an encyclopaedia, rather than become a web-hosting service. Which is why Paulydee would be making better use of his time if he was actually looking for references, rather than arguing about the merits of an unreferenced list. As a tactic it seldom gets anywhere, as the general assumption tends to be that arguments for unreferenced content are driven either by laziness, or by a lack of actual sources. Cynical perhaps, but that is the way it goes - and the solution is self-evident. Source it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by volunteer - to coordinator Steven_Zhang I am opening this case for further discussion. I reviewed the comments above as well as the discussions on the article TP and see where PP has been enacted in the past because of similar issues in 2014 so the dispute is not new to this article even though the editors may be. In reviewing the article, the list of notable alumni is WP:UNDUE for the reasons mentioned in the summaries above and creates a rather promotional appearance to the article rather than it being encyclopedic containing general information about the law school. The OP believes the deletion was inappropriate but I disagree based on WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE which also effects WP:NPOV because the list appears to be handpicked rather than supported by RS. In maintaining conformity or some form of consistency throughout WP regarding like articles, I will use Yale as an example. Weight and balance are essential to maintaining NPOV and while a notability section may be warranted if properly cited using RS and GNG, the current list is lacking. The article needs more attention to the school's early history, administration and organization, campus and campus life, academics, and then perhaps a properly sourced and cited notable persons section with subheadings that include benefactors, and notable alumni and faculty. The latter should of course depend on sources and although some of the people added in the current list appear to have WP BLPs, those stubs are questionable with regards to GNG. At this point in time, I suggest replacing the list with a brief paragraph indicating that notable people attended the school; written in prose rather than a list and cited using RS and GNG as the guidelines for the section. Atsme📞📧 15:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- My major concern was the insistence upon reinserting unsourced content. Yes, an article that is 90% a list of alumni is a joke, but there are worse things in the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree about adding other things to the article and I think some of those things did exist in the past but were removed for no reason I can understand. With respect to the issues of neutrality being skewed because the list is handpicked I think I have spoken to that already. I am of the opinion that for the most part, the notability and reliability of the sources about the people on the list are easily verifiable and all that is lacking is the final stage of creating the formatted citations in the actual list rather than having to go the individuals' pages.Paulydee (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- If Paulydee is going to try to re-insert other unsourced content that was removed because xi doesnt understand WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:OR and WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTADVERT; then I will have issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:List of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#AP_Urban_area
Closed discussion |
---|
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast)
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Sean Hannity
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Sean Hannity ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- RemoteControl97 (talk · contribs)
- Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)
- Cwobeel (talk · contribs)
- Malerooster (talk · contribs)
- Rocdahut (talk · contribs)
- Jimintheatl (talk · contribs)
- Kelly (talk · contribs)
- Asher196 (talk · contribs)
- FuriousJorge (talk · contribs)
- Stargnoc (talk · contribs)
- Baltech22 (talk · contribs)
- Zonerocks (talk · contribs)
- JohnInDC (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There have been allegations that Sean Hannity associated with neo-nazi Hal Turner. A proposed entry on the allegations has been rejected on the grounds that the episode's very inclusion in Hannity's bio constitutes undue weight. Should the allegations feature in the article? If yes, to what extent?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive debate in talk section.
How do you think we can help?
Establish a consensus on whether or not an entry is appropriate, and on what kind of entry should be made is if is.
Summary of dispute by Niteshift36
-
- It's worth pointing out that many of the listed editors are inactive, not having edited for some time. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll reserve commenting on the issue, pending the withdrawal of the mediation request. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Cwobeel
Summary of dispute by Malerooster
Summary of dispute by Rocdahut
Summary of dispute by Jimintheatl
Summary of dispute by Kelly
Summary of dispute by Asher196
Summary of dispute by FuriousJorge
Summary of dispute by Stargnoc
Summary of dispute by Baltech22
Summary of dispute by Zonerocks
Summary of dispute by JohnInDC.
Talk:Sean Hannity discussion
Mediation Committee Chairperson's Note (with DRN volunteer's PS): There is a Request for Mediation pending on this matter, which is due to be rejected or accepted by the Committee by June 16 (though that date may be extended if the filing party here adds additional parties there; the list of parties here is much more extensive than that given there). If RemoteControl97 wishes to proceed here at DRN s/he should immediately withdraw that request by putting a note on the mediation request page. For the Mediation Commitee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
- PS: Having said that, if I may put on my DRN volunteer's hat for a moment, if RC97 will take a look at the DRN talk page history you'll find substantial agreement among the DRN volunteers that cases with more than three or four participants are almost never successfully resolved here at DRN and generally ought to be referred to MedCom or to RFC. Also, if you do intend to continue here rather than at MedCom, please also be aware that it is your obligation to notify each listed party by putting a note on their user talk page. You can put
{{subst:drn-notice|Sean Hannity}} — ~~~~
- Second Volunteer note - I concur with the previous volunteer note. On the one hand, there has been extensive discussion on the talk page. There has also been edit-warring. This issue is ready for dispute resolution. The question is which method of dispute resolution. I see that the filing party has requested two forms of dispute resolution at the same time, which is a good-faith violation of a highly technical rule. (Requesting two forms of dispute resolution is much better than edit-warring.) He or she has both requested lightweight moderated discussion here, with a very long list of participants, and formal mediation at Requests for Mediation with a shorter list of participants. As noted, with a very long list of editors (who have not been properly notified), this case may not work well at this noticeboard. In my opinion, given that the issue is straight-forward, whether to include or not include a particular paragraph, there is probably a better form of dispute resolution, a Request for Comments. I suggest that the filing party consider withdrawing both of these requests and publishing a Request for Comments to obtain consensus as to whether to include the language. A DRN volunteer may assist in wording the RFC to ensure that it is neutral. (RFCs that are not worded neutrally are common, being composed by editors with a strong preference, but are often difficult to work out and close impartially.) I suggest that the filing party request assistance in composing a neutral RFC and let the RFC decide whether to include the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- DRN co-ord note - I agree with the perspective of the other volunteers. While it's not my place to decide, I don't feel that this case is suitable for MedCom (or for DRN) - a community RFC would be best suited to this discussion. I would be happy to help draft such an RFC. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)