Talk:Sydney Opera House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Sydney / Music (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Sydney Opera House is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Opera (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Architecture (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Event Venues/Music task force (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues/Music task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about music venues on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Recent revert - 3 December 2012[edit]

Good faith and useful additions by a new user are being removed for a variety of reasons, at least some of which are spurious. such edits should be reworded to include their new material, not simply reverted. This is Wikipedia policy, as should be familiar to more experienced editors. I intend to restore the edit, and I invite those more familiar with the subject to do just that, remembering that they, too, were once new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated to you on my talk page, the section to which these edits were made deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. That's why the section is titled "Reconciliation with Utzon", not "Failed attempts at reconciliation with Utzon" - the reconciliation with Utzon was a major milestone in the life and redesign of the interior spaces of the building. If you do restore the edits, hopefully without breaking the article again, they would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s. --AussieLegend () 11:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see that you've restored the edits and left the article in a broken state. Most irresponsible of you, expecting somebody else to fix your errors. --AussieLegend () 11:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I will say that I don't have a great problem with the edits, as long as they are added to the correct section, are properly referenced and don't leave the article in a broken state. I don't think that's too much to ask. --AussieLegend () 11:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's very disappointing that you've chosen to disregard my comments above, asking "those more familiar with the subject to... include [the] new material" and are seemingly refusing to assist a new editor to make the changes - changes which are both of value to Wikipedia, and cited - they wanted to make, as I requested both here and on your talk page, in order to preserve your preferred vision of how the article should appear, to which you have again reverted. This is a dreadful way to treat a new editor, whose further editing is now unlikely. I'm done here, but will ask uninvolved editors to look by. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits were removed by those familiar with the subject but you chose to restore them, and broke the article in doing so. YOU are not a new editor and you know exactly how the article was broken,[1] but expect others to fix the problems that you have re-introduced.[2] You've been around long enough to know that's not the way to edit so please, get off your high horse, accept some responsibility and stop blaming others while absolving yourself of all responsibility. You know better. --AussieLegend () 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion of an uninvolved editor[edit]

Guys. Relax. I think what happened here is:

  1. HubbleConstant, a newbie, made some good-faith edits that nonetheless made a bit of a mess of the article.
  2. AussieLegend reverted the edits and warned the editor about adding unsourced material.
  3. Andy/Pigsonthewing saw this as unhelpful and reverted the edits and told the newbie not to worry about the warning.

I can see what both of you is getting at but I think this is a situation where a bit of extra consideration can save a lot of time in the long run.

Here are some recommendations for you, AussieLegend,

  1. Start a thread here, on the talk page of the article, explaining
    • What the section that HubbleConstant added text to is supposed to be about
    • Why the new text doesn't fit
    • Where in the article it would be more appropriate to mention the things HubbleConstant mentions.
  2. Have a think about the sourcing of the new text. Much of it may just be an issue with the style of how the sources are presented. Improve the situation by editing the new text or discuss the issue on the article talk page.
  3. Leave a message on HubbleConstant's talk page saying that you're sorry you got off on the wrong foot and asking if he/she would like to respond to your comments on the article talk page.

Keeping discussions of the article's contents on the article talk page helps to keep all editors included in the discussions. It helps to keep the discussion about the content of the article, rather than the behaviour of a particular user. It is also more welcoming for the new user because you are inviting them in to a discussion about how to improve the article, rather than just pointing out where they went wrong.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. There is already an explanation above as to where and why the problems occurred. HubbleConstant's only edits were made before I warned him about adding unsourced content and he hasn't returned since his edits were reverted by two other editors. In all likelihood, nothing more would have eventuated if Pigsonthewing hadn't chosen to restore the flawed edits. This really is a storm in a teacup that doesn't warrant any more action until (and if) HubbleConstant returns. --AussieLegend () 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That's the thing. We want HubbleConstant to return. To the encyclopedia if not to this article. That is what Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is all about. We don't want new users to get the impression that their contributions are not welcome. We want them to continue to contribute and to learn as they go. If you follow the recommendations above we have a much better chance of retaining new editors, which is what we need to do, to survive and grow.
I recognise that you have already explained the problems you have identified as part of your conversation with Andy/Pigsonthewing. However, I think it would be easier for the newcomer to understand if you laid it out clearly in a new section. This means that the new user can be directed to this section and jump into the conversation, without having to understand the conversation between you and Andy.
Also, your text above does not include anything about where in the article it would be better to put the new text. Including that is essential because it shows that you do value the new user's contribution.
Yaris678 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As somebody who spends an awful lot of time fixing the screwed up edits of new editors who pop in, edit and then disappear never to be seen again, trying to reduce the damage cause by new editors who are here only to vandalise,[3] or just doing janitorial work that nobody else wants to do, I don't have the time to spend chasing after somebody who may not even return after their initial edits, which happens all too frequently. If HubbleConstant returns, we can sort it out then, but doing anything more at this point is a wasted effort based on my experience. As for where to put HubbleConstant's edits, perhaps you missed the bit where I said "If you do restore the edits, hopefully without breaking the article again, they would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s."[4]
Sorry. Yes. You did say the new content would be better in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. Perhaps the fact that I missed that illustrates the point that it easy to miss things when they are part of two editors arguing, as opposed to a laying out of what would be best for the article.
I do a bit of article patroling using WP:STiki and so have also come across many edits by editors who never return. I know this can be annoying but it isn't always the case. As experienced editors, we are supposed to try to encourage others to take part in the project.
Yaris678 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued....[edit]

I really don't see the point of the most recent edits made by Pigsonthewing.[5][6] He hasn't seen fit to explain the edits here, although the second edit summary alludes to his problem. The thing is though, it's completely wrong. Nobody has disputed the accuracy of the edits, only their placement in the article, and the fact that the edits broke the article, as I've explained to him above, and on my talk page.[7] There is no dispute about the accuracy of this revision of the article, so a tag is completely unnecessary.

I've explained on my talk page, and above, that the section titled "Reconciliation with Utzon" deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. That's why the section is titled "Reconciliation with Utzon", not "Failed attempts at reconciliation with Utzon" - the reconciliation with Utzon was a major milestone in the life and redesign of the interior spaces of the building, which is why it has its own section. I've indicated above that the edits by HubbleConstant would be better placed in the section titled "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" but, in the 24 days since this started nobody, including Pigsonthewing and HubbleConstant (the latter hasn't even edited Wikipedia in that time), has seen fit to do so. I'm therefore at a loss as to understand why Pigsonthewing thinks the problem is unresolved.

For the benefit of any new editors here, something stated by Yaris678 needs addressing: "AussieLegend reverted the edits and warned the editor about adding unsourced material.' - Nope, that's not what happened. Initially, HubbleConstant completely removed the "Reconciliation with Utzon" section, without explanation.[8] This was quite correctly reverted by Tbhotch.[9] HubbleConstant then made edits to the section, without including any actual citations, breaking the section in the process.[10] The break, as explained to Pigsonthewing,[11] was caused when text was added into the section, resulting in this change. removing "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" from "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work." The change was reverted by Ian Rose because it did not contain citations,[12] which was true. (Comments in the prose are not citations) HubbleConstant then changed "Beginning in the late 1990s" to "Beginning in the late 1978",[13] which was both gramatically incorrect and incorrect given the context of the section. The edit also added "# Numbered list item" above the section. This edit was reverted by Ian Rose.[14] It was only after these events that I discovered the history and gave HubbleConstant a warning for the unsourced edits. --AussieLegend () 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"without including any actual citations" That's still not true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
There were no inline citations in the content that was added. The diffs don't lie, but that's not the real point here. --AussieLegend () 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The diffs may not lie, but the claim that the edit concerned was made "without including any actual citations" is most certainly and demonstrably a falsehood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
No it's not. There are most definitely no inline citations in the content that was added. However, as i said, this is not the point. The pont here is that you've twice added a tag without any explanation as to why this tag was added. What is the dispute over the factual accuracy of the section? --AussieLegend () 21:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
That there were no inline citations is not in dispute; you said there were "no actual citations"; that is false. The facts evidenced by those citations have been excluded by you, in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s, which is shown by them not to be valid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but when most people refer to citations, they refer to inline citations. That's why they were referred to as "actual" citations. The content was NOT excluded "in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s" at all. It was excluded, as explained to you quite clearly that the section titled "Reconciliation with Utzon" deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. Nobody disputes that there were failed attempts at reconciliation many years before, they are just irrelevant to that section. As also explained very clearly, in my first post in the thread, those edits would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s.[15] --AussieLegend () 21:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Your apparent claim that only "inline citations are "actual citations" is also bogus. The reconciliation cited in the removed edits were not failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
They did indeed fail. Utzon had nothing to do with the Opera House until the 1990s reconciliation. He wanted to design a new building for Sydney, but wanted nothing public to do with the Opera House. Much of what was in the removed edits is uncited and not supported by the alleged sources, including the final claim, "It has been incorrectly claimed that it was not until 1992 that he first gave an interview to an Australian publication, the Fairfax Good Weekend. But this is not the case.... he gave m". And, of course, the edits are still not relevant to the 1990s reconciliation. --AussieLegend () 21:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "An interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh.... Yes, that's very nice but it doesn't hide the fact that the attempts at reconciliation did fail, that much of the content is not supported by the alleged sources and appears to be OR and that very little is actually verifiable. You're concentrating on the sources, instead of the real problem; that the edits are irrelevant to the section, which is not factually incorrect. --AussieLegend () 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's your view; I dispute it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Then please explain how attempts at reconciliation in the 70s and 80s are relevant to the reconciliation in the lead-up to the re-works in this millenium. There's simply nothing that's factually wrong about the section and you haven't demonstrated how it is. --AussieLegend () 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There is and I have; and your question is nonsensical in that context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well I've just stumbled across this. I've read through the edit war and all of the above comments. I really can't buy into a lot of the arguments made above - for example, to me, I don't see an issue either way with respect to where to put comments about "failed reconciliations". I don't have a problem with them appearing in the "Reconciliation with Utzon" section as a chronological sequence. It doesn't matter if they failed, they provide historical context and can be seen as the first chapters in the reconciliation saga. Likewise, I don't see a drama if the failed attempts are put in the earlier sections. If it were me, I'd put the failed attempts with the successful attempt in the one section, but I just don't see it worth the argument - it works either way. The prose-style citations could easily have been converted to in-line format and, if necessary, tagged, to give someone an opportunity to check them out in hard copy. The Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary is held by the State Library of NSW and the other references are held either there or may be in online databases. They can be checked.
This said, I see two big problems here. The first is that in general the content needs a heck of a lot of clean up work and a lot of that is impossible without the sources. It says, for example, that in the interview Utzon explained why he didn't want to come back for the fifth aniversary. That doesn't really fit in the article. What this addition should do is actually say the reason that Utzon gave, then cite the article as the reference for the statement. I don't think unfulfilled wishes to design another building on Sydney Harbour are relevant here (unless someone can show how they are). It's not relevant to say he gave numerous witty interviews, that he gave a major interview in such-and-such a place, that a book exists, that a photograph exists in that book, nor that Utzon is handsome in that photograph. Utzon's AO belongs to his own article more than this one. The letters to Ava Hubble (who is who exactly?) in themselves are not relevant and I can't see the relevance of the content examples given. It just seems to be attempting to make a very laboured case that he was in contact with at least one Australian and didn't hate all Australians, but I don't think this is disputed nor do I believe the article currently claims otherwise.
This all leads into my second concern, which is that there appears to be a possible WP:COI issue with the edits, as they primarily appear to put forward the views and work of Ava Hubble, as also expressed elsewhere such as [16]. It's worth noting that these views are disputed by others [17]. I think WP:AGF is important and if there is an issue here, this editor would likely to nevertheless be in a position to make valuable contributions to the article and it's a pity this wasn't something that could have been managed more carefully at the time this issue first came up last December.
At this point, if a third party was to view the June 1978 Opera House Monthly Diary it might yield a potentially interesting viewpoint worthy of inclusion about why Utzon didn't want to come back for the fith anniversary. I'm not convinced the visit by his daughter is necessarily worth a mention and I don't see anything else that's worth including. The crux of it is the article probably needs at most a paragraph to briefly cover off the strained relationship prior to the late 90's reconciliation, but currently there's no solid sources to provide the necessary cited input. At the moment, I can't see anything I can really use to add to the article, just some ideas of threads that could be pulled to head in that direction. Having made that consideration, I am going to remove the disputed tag as nothing has happened for 10 months and nothing has been discussed for 9 months. In any case, it's not the correct tag. The article might be missing some potential content, but what's there is not inaccurate. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the tag - that no progress has been made does not mean the accuracy of the current content is no longer disputed. It's also not clear, who you think has the CoI you allege. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You asked that "those more familiar with the subject" attend to the article and they did. You haven't explained how the article is factually inaccurate - the lack of the additional content doesn't make it so. In fact the article as it stands is accurate; as explained to you previously the content that was removed deals with earlier failed attempts at reconciliation, which is why I suggested that it be more appropriately added to the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. {{Disputed section}} is not the correct template to use. What you really need is {{Expand}}. {{Missing information}} isn't really appropriate as the content isn't really missing. As Rob.au indicated "The article might be missing some potential content, but what's there is not inaccurate". Generally I agree with Rob.au except on where the content should be added and that "the prose-style citations could easily have been converted to in-line format and, if necessary, tagged". It would be irresponsible to restore the content added by HubbleConstant without actually verifying the content first. As for the COI issue, that should be obvious. As Rob.au indicated, the content that was added by HubbleConstant are the views of Ava Hubble. (emphasis added). There seems to be a link between the two. --AussieLegend () 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please don't misquote me like that. What I in fact said was "such edits should be reworded to include their new material, not simply reverted. This is Wikipedia policy... and I invite those more familiar with the subject to do just that". I repeat that I dispute the accuracy of the section tagged; since material which contradicts it has been removed. And I have indeed already explained how the article is factually inaccurate, above, when I wrote: "The facts evidenced by those citations have been excluded by you, in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s, which is shown by them not to be valid.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The content that you claim was removed was only added to the article 10 hours before you first restored it after it had been removed because it was added to the wrong section, was unsourced, improperly sourced and/or contained original research. It didn't contradict what was already in the article at all. These reasons have been explained to you at length. The "citations" did not evidence anything because they were not appropriate citations and were not verifiable. An example is "a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983", which is extremely vague and not at all what we expect of citations. It is so vague as to not even identify which edition of The Weekend Australian contained the interview. There are up to 6 within the period that the interview could have been given as there's no guarantee that the alleged interview was printed in December 1983, just that the interview was given that month. The actual interview could very well have appeared in the 1 or 8 January issues. However, that was not the reason that I removed the content. As was very clearly explained to you on my talk page,[18] as well as being mentioned in the edit summary,[19] the content was removed because the edits broke the article by randomly removing a large section of valid content, something you persisted with even after being told that your edits were breaking the article.[20] The content was certainly not excluded "in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s". It has never been claimed that attempts at reconciliation didn't begin until the late 1990s. Attempts began a long time before that but they failed, and there were long periods where there was no communication. It was the ultimately successful attempts at reconciliation that didn't start until the 1990s. As was explained to you, the "Reconciliation with Utzon" deals with the successful attempts of the 1990s, not the long past failed attempts, which was why adding content dating back to 1978 was inappropriate. Those attempts are more correctly dealt with in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section since the failed attempts happened in the immediately following years, before the gap. --AussieLegend () 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That the content was removed (note: not moved), by you, is not a claim, it's a demonstrable fact. You continue to falsely refer to it as unsourced: it was not. The contradiction that I highlight is clear for anyone to see. While you have indeed posted at length, your so-called explanations have done nothing to refute my points or justify the exclusion, by you, of the new, and significant information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"Removed" gives the impression that the life of HubbleConstant's edits to the article was greater than the 31 minutes that they spent in the article before you restored them. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that content be reliably sourced and that content that is challenged or likely be challenged be supported by inline citations. The edits that you restored had clearly been challenged and yet contained not a single inline citation. Any editor had the right to remove them. However, sourcing is not the reason I removed them. They were removed because they broke the article and were not relevant to the section to which they were added. Your points about sources are irrelevant to this, as has been explained previously, yet you want to concentrate only on the sourcing issue. The tag is invalid because the section is not factually inaccurate, again as has been explained. As for "You continue to falsely refer to it as unsourced: it was not.", well that's false itself. I suggest you review WP:UNSOURCED. Better still, don't - Sourcing isn't the issue here. --AussieLegend () 19:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the point of retaining the tag at this stage - it seems to be demanded by one editor, who is demanding other unnamed editors find a way to add the content to the article. I tried and failed to find anything worthwhile of inclusion that could be sourced. I'm not sure how another "white knight" is going to come in at this point and do it. Also, the probable WP:COI was abundantly obvious, as AussieLegend has since pointed out. Pigsonthewing - you talk of new and significant information. Given I went through the addition quite carefully and couldn't find anything I could work with, can you identify exactly what information from the addition you define as significant? I'm just not following what you are expecting to happen at this point. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Somehow my relevant edit summary disappeared, but I have got rid of the tag not only because it is outdated but also because there isn't much controversial content left. Surely the section can continue to be developed by normal editing. Bjenks (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the tag; the issue is not one of controversial content being in the article, so much as it being misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events. Nothing has been done to address this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
As can be seen in this cited edit, there were approaches in 1978 and 1984. Communication did not "begin" in "the late 1990s", and it seems that reconciliation of some sort had already occurred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
As has been explained numerous times, the section is not "misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events". The content that was added to the section was not relevant to the section, which is why its addition was reverted. Multiple editors have now reviewed this section and agree the tag is not needed. It's time you drop the stick. Fifteen months is far too long. --AussieLegend () 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
As I have addressed all but one of the points in your latest comment previously, I refer you to my earlier responses, which you appear to have overlooked, forgotten or ignored. As to your new point, "fifteen months", WP:NODEADLINE applies, and there is no time limit in the use of a dispute tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you haven't addressed the comments because you are not reading what has been written. The section has nothing to do about the earlier attempts at reconciliation. It's about the 1990s efforts in the lead-up to the building refurbishment. Yes, there is no deadline but there is no excuse for continuing to disrupt an article simply because you refuse to get a point. --AussieLegend () 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The WP:IDHT appears to be all yours; I have read what you and others have written, and refuted it where necessary. If you're particularly concerned about the tag being in an individual section (one which you have selectively retitled), feel free to move it to the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You have not refuted it at all. You just keep pushing to include edits that broke the article and which have nothing to do with that particular section. At least three editors now disagree that the tag is required. You're the only one who sees a need for it. I'm not going to move the tag because I don't see a need for it at all. The section was retitled to reflect the content in the section, again has been explained to you, since you simply don't get the point. --AussieLegend () 18:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Factual dispute tag[edit]

@Andy Mabbett: You have now placed the onus on yourself to clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed. Alternatively, the flag must be removed. You are simply out of order to use this disruptive device as a tactic to reinstate historically removed content. Bjenks (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am dong no such thing; and have already replied to a similar question from you, above. Quite why you and other editors refuse to address the actual issue at hand is inexplicable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Your reply was irrelevant as the section in question is not about the reconciliation efforts in 1978 and 1984, as has previously been explained at length. Nobody has refused to "address the actual issue at hand" because you haven't explained what your issue actually is. If you can't explain now what facts are disputed, then there is no reason to keep the tag and it should therefore be removed, as multiple editors have said. --AussieLegend () 10:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that I said above, recently, "the issue is not one of controversial content being in the article, so much as it being misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events. Nothing has been done to address this." and "there were approaches in 1978 and 1984. Communication did not 'begin' in 'the late 1990s'.", I can only conclude that you're deliberately ignoring what I've said. As I also said, "the WP:IDHT appears to be all yours". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And I replied "the section is not 'misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events'". An editor added unverifiable content that was not relevant to the section which broke the article and it was appropriately removed. You restored it, expecting anyone but you to fix the errors. You are still quite clearly missing that point after 15 months of back and forth. --AussieLegend () 13:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have amended the correct point that communication was resumed (not begun) in the 90s. Now, what else, please? Bjenks (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Details of the currently (and deliberately, for no apparent good reason) prior communications. As discussed at length above (from "edits... reworded to include their new material" to "cited information about earlier events"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this section is about events from the late 1990s onward. Please specify the facts in it that are "factually inaccurate" so that I can put them right and remove the flag. If you wish to introduce earlier events, please add them yourself to an appropriate earlier section. If they are really relevant to the context, and reliably sourced, there is a good chance that they will be allowed to stand. Bjenks (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually suggested this in my first post in this discussion, back in 2012.[21] The edits that broke the article are far more relevant to the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. --AussieLegend () 10:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
They were introduced (see first diff, at the very top of this section) and were removed by other editors. Besides, the section currently tagged appears to be about "Reconciliation with Utzon", despite attempts by some to avoid the issue by retitling it. Nonetheless, if you're not happy that the tag is in a certain section, feel free to move it to the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
They were removed because:
  1. They were in the wrong section - As has been clearly explained to you 100 times, the section is about the attempts at reconciliation in the leadup to the 2000s building refurbishment. Everything in that section is about that. There is nothing about anything prior to the late 1990s. Even the image is about the refurbished spaces. Clearly, you are ignoring this;
  2. They lacked inline sources and the alleged sources in the section are unverifiable; and
  3. They broke the article.
If you wish to reintroduce the edits in the appropriate section, properly referenced and without breaking the article then please do so. If you are unwilling to do so, you should not expect anyone else to do so. This is a collaborative effort, we're not here to do your bidding. The only place to move the tag, if you're unwilling to demonstrate which facts are in dispute, then the only place to move the tag is out of the article. Moving it to the top of, or anywhere in, the article serves no purpose if you can't identify the facts that you dispute. --AussieLegend () 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It has now been a week since the last post was made in this discussion, in which I suggested, as I did in my first post in 2012, that Pigsonthewing should add properly cited edits to the appropriate section of the article. It is 9 days since Bjenks asked Pigsonthewing to "clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed". Pigsonthewing has done neither, only replying in the vaguest manner. Since the tag was first added in 2012, several editors have reviewed the section containing the tags and commented here. Other editors have simply removed the tag. Only Pigsonthewing seems to see any issue with the article as it stands and only he supports its inclusion. Since he does not seem to wish to "fix" the problems himsef and will not explain specifically what his problems are so that they can be addressed, it is time to remove the tag once and for all, so I intend doing that. Given the total lack of support for Pigsonthewing's position and his failure to specify the problems, restoration of the tag must be viewed as disruptive and appropriate administrative action will be necessary. --AussieLegend () 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My replies are above, for all to see. I did not respond to your last post, because you've resorted to simply repeating earlier statements and already-answered questions. Until you accept that i) there is (as others have noted) an issue needing to be addressed, ii) that the disputed text includes valid citations and iii) propose or accept a way forward that does not deny these facts, it seems that the dispute cannot be resolved. Accordingly, and ignoring your empty threats, I have restored the tag, which you should not have removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What I wrote in that post was repeated because it was a suggestion made by another editor, that I had already made when you first added the tag, as I pointed out in that post. What others have noted there is "an issue needing to be addressed"? Who, other than you, agreed that the claims made by the original editor include valid citations? As for the "propose or accept a way forward that does not deny these facts", the way forward has been proposed several times, most recently in the post that you chose not to respond to. The dispute is easily resolved, as I suggested in that post, fix it yourself. Unfortunately, it seems that you do not wish the problem to be resolved. If you did, you would have edited the article back in 2012. --AussieLegend () 16:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The answers to your questions are all on this page; and in the article's recent edit history. You have not suggested a solution that accepts that the disputed text includes valid citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What possible solution can accept "that the disputed text includes valid citations". Wikipedia:Verifiability, which you very well know is a core policy, very clearly says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". The claims in the text are not inline citations and some are not verifiable, I've tried and been unsuccessful. The disputed text cannot be used in the form it was initially added for reasons that I explained in the post that you chose to ignore. I have suggested a solution that doesn't seem of interest to you: i.e. rewrite the text, add appropriate, verifiable sources as inline citations and in the appropriate section, without breaking the article as it did when it was first added. Now it's up to you to suggest an alternative and no, we're not going to rewrite it for you. --AussieLegend () 19:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK folks, it appears we have a legitimate dispute going on here, and there is no sense tag-warring about it, so I updated the date on the tag. NOW: Can someone help me sharpen the horns of the dilemma here? Is the primary dispute over the content that has or has not been added, or is the dispute primarily a "pissing match" over formatting and citation/sourcing? I'd like to help resolve this as a mostly neutral third party (full disclosure, I've consulted Andy on infobox issues and he's fixed some technical problems for me, but I'm also interested in Australia because I have a grown child who lives about 2 hours outside Sydney). Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The date on the tag should not be changed since this is a dispute that has been ongoing since December 2012. Changing the date makes it seem like it's only a recent issue and that's certainly not the case. If you ignore what went on a year ago, we have absolutely no idea what the problem is as Pigsonthewing won't tell us, even though he has been asked to, several times. From his most recent post it seems that he wants to add unverifiable content to the wrong section of the article, breaking the article in the process and then leave it to other editors to fix the problems that he added. That's simply not on. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process. We're not here to fix mistakes that another editor deliberately adds to an article. --AussieLegend () 19:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems the dispute has evolved somewhat; I'm gleaning that there is verifiable content to be added, but what I cannot tell is if there is a formatting dispute or a WP:V/WP:RS dispute or both. Or if the dispute is actually over the content - it appears that there is content Pigsonthewing wants in and you want it out, but if it is merely a formatting or placement issue, I'm not sure why this has been ragging on for over a year. If it's a sourcing issue, then perhaps help me understand the sourcing concerns, and if it's the actual content, well then, let's get to the heart of the dispute. Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the discussion hasn't evolved at all. I'd argue that it has actually devolved. I don't know why it has gone on for over a year either. As I have indicated above, if Pigsonthewing really wants the content in the article all he has to do is rewrite the originally added content with appropriate inline citations, per the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and add it to the appropriate section (I even suggested the section!) without breaking the article as it did when he first added it. However, it's been apparent since I first made the suggestion on the first day of discussion in 2012 that Pigsonthewing would rather waste everyone's time by persistently restoring the {{disputed}} tag while refusing to explain exactly what his issues are. At least some claims in the originally added content are unverifiable. For example, I could not find a copy of the June 1978 Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary, or determine in which of 5 possible copies of The Weekend Australian printed in December 1983 "a major interview" appeared. Another editor expressed concern that there are also COI issues. The content references a book by Ava Hubble, and the content was added by HubbleConstant. However, Pigsonthewing has dismissed all arguments and insists on retaining the tag. His attitude is that the content should be restored as it was originally added and other editors, not him, should fix the content, which is an unnaceptable attitude, especially for an experienced editor. Since he is the editor wishing to restore the content (and I admit that this is only an assumption since he has refused to explain exactly what his problems are), the WP:BURDEN is his. --AussieLegend () 04:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The tag should be removed, because there's no actual dispute about the facts that are in the article -- tags do not exist to provide leverage in a content dispute. If Andy (or anyone else) can't get consensus to add particular content, they can start an RFC here rather stick a stupid tag in the article. NE Ent 10:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The absence of disputed content does not mean the absence of a dispute about the incomplete and misleading material that is included, as explained above. I have already invited the editors who oppose inclusion of the disputed facts to replace the tag with an article-level PoV tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The tag has no current relevance to the section. There is no justification for an "article-level PoV tag" which would surely only compound the difficulty of dealing with Pigsonthewing's Pov. We now need to find a reasonable consensus to retain or remove the tag. In my view the tag is completely inappropriate and we should remove it. Bjenks (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The tag specifically says "This section's factual accuracy is disputed" yet, despite numerous requests, Pigsonthewing refuses to explain exactly how the tag applies to the section. He has suggested moving it, which means that even he doesn't actually know. As I posted a few days ago, "Since he does not seem to wish to "fix" the problems himsef and will not explain specifically what his problems are so that they can be addressed, it is time to remove the tag once and for all". Clearly, from the number of times this tag has been removed, and the comments here, there is strong support for its removal. I consider Pigsonthewing's insistence on retention of the tag while refusing to remove it to be disruptive editing at best. --AussieLegend () 14:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Handling_content_that_may_be_inaccurate, I've removed the tag, as no evidence has been provided that the material in the article is not correct or not properly sourced. We don't tag Big Bang as "factual dispute" because we have no reliable sources regarding what happened before the Big Bang, so tagging something that is wiki-true as disputed because someone thinks something is missing is ridiculous -- per burden it's up to them to find sources to support the material. NE Ent 03:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand something, as I often do, but the comparison of the Sydney Opera House to the Big Bang seems not appropriate (however impressive). Firstly, you speak about before the Big Bang, but here we deal with facts after the opening. Secondly, science doesn't know missing facts for the Big Bang, but there seems to be a source for a fact that is disputed above, which was added to the article, however with flaws in formatting. Can somebody tell me why that fact - with proper sourcing, formatting and whatever cautious "possibly" qualifier - is not included in the article? It would help a reader more than a tag or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
AussieLegend addresses that below -- phantom sources inserted by a three edit editor that no one else can seem to find aren't sufficient. NE Ent 11:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent: I feel a little insulted that you think I am "no one". I easily found the book that HubbleConstant referred to (More Than an Opera House) by the little-known route of searching for it through Google. It certainly seems to exist according to Google books and coincidentally, seems to be published by 'Sydney Opera House'. There is even a note on that page informing us that The Saga of Sydney Opera House (Peter Murray 2004) references More Than an Opera House - so a book used prominently in the article makes use of this unfindable source? I'm amazed that Peter Murray and I are the only people who can find it, or didn't you try? --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find that that easily-found book is not actually used as a source for the material in Ava Hubble's edit (I suppose I'm being presumptuous there, but I think it's fairly clear that HubbleConstant is Ava Hubble herself - it's certainly grinding one of her axes.) She mentions the book, but it's not used as a source. She just says this : That interview, by Ava Hubble, followed publication of her book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983) which featured a then contemporary photograph of the handsome Utzon at his holiday home in Spain. Which is clearly not Notable in this context, nor does it have anything to do with the subject of the article, so its verifiability status is moot. The unverifiable sources that User:AussieLegend refers to are the SOH monthly diary of June 1978 , which he has been unable to find, and the Weekend Australian of December 1983, which he has searched (presumably physically, because it's not available in digital format, AFAIK) and found no such article. The SOH Monthly diary from 1978 is in fact held at the State Library of NSW, so it is technically verifiable, FWIW, albeit with some degree of difficulty and time cost, but since I'm reasonably close to it, I might be able to resolve that one, given a little time. Also her passing reference to the existence in the SLNSW's manuscript collection of various letters between Utzon and herself could be confirmed, if anyone thought it was of sufficient interest, although that would presumably count as OR, so would not be wiki-acceptable. It doesn't seem to be referred to as a source, in any case, just mentioned as a fact.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────But that raises the key issue about this for me - irrespective of any verifiability or or broken-ness or content quality issues, which are manifold, the slightly broken and unfinished fragment that was originally inserted in the article seems to me neither Notable nor relevant in the context - it's not an article about Utzon, it's about the Sydney Opera House, and the minutiae of Utzon's later relationship with Sydney and with SOH management and the state government, while quite interesting in themselves, are not Notable facts about the House - they would more naturally sit in the Utzon article, because he is their subject. Until, that is, the formal re-engagement of Utzon as a design consultant and the resulting building modifications conducted under his guidance, which is legitimately Notable, and is the subject of the section. So I think that those of us actually involved in working with this article, in which group I am a minor actor, and on whose behalf I am presuming to speak, see no good reason to commit any of our time to working on it, or improving it.

However.... in the spirit of Wiki-collegiality... The only actual point of disputation between the original text and Ava's insertion that I can see, is the (slight) imputation that there was no contact between Utzon and the Trust between his departure and the reconciliation attempts of the late 1990's. That's what Ava's POV-pushing and probably COI-contaminated edit attempt was about. A couple of attempts have been made to repair that alleged conflict by changing the heading and changing the critical word from "began" to "resumed", which are not really satisfactory, and seem to not satisfy the complainant in any case.

So... (deep breath) would it satisfy all concerned if we inserted a clause at the head of the first sentence like this: Although sporadic communication between the Trust and Utzon occurred after his departure, he remained uninvolved with the building's evolution until, in the late 1990's... - with some source for that statement if someone can find an adequate one..??? And then we could change the section heading back to the original more heading-y version. Machina.sapiens (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that something like this would be a good start and a good faith effort to be collegial; at this point the personality behind the original material is irrelevant, we are all third parties. Montanabw(talk) 05:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Machina.sapiens for your insight and willingness to see the other point-of-view. I would be surprised if More Than An Opera House (1983) did not deal with the alleged contacts since Utzon's resignation, but one of us will need to read it in order to decide who is right there.
I have no dog in this fight - other than trying to reduce the BITE on new contributors - but I disagree with your Notability conclusions (WP:N decides whether an article exists, not whether particular content is included). I actually think that the relationship between Utzon and the Opera House is important in gaining an understanding of why the Opera House has evolved in the way that it has. For that reason, I'm interested in hearing more about contacts between the parties between the mid-1960s and the late 1990s. At present the article still gives the strong impression that nothing happened in that period.
I'm not sure we are allowed to speculate about HubbleConstant's real identity, but if she were Ava Hubble, it would explain her preoccupation with missing facts; although it wouldn't explain our failure to engage her constructively, as her knowledge (and published authorship) would clearly be invaluable in giving a broader picture of events in that missing period. It seems to have been an opportunity that was sadly missed because of a misplaced focus on having sources cited in the peculiar fashion we want, rather than focussing on what the contributor might have to offer. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

AN/I case[edit]

To those who I have not notified personally, please accept my apologies. Enough is enough! At the rate we are proceeding we are never going to resolve the issue here so I've started a discussion at WP:ANI. The thread is Disruptive editing at Sydney Opera House. --AussieLegend () 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like overkill and scapegoating. If the issue actually is, as noted above, the inclusion of material that the other editors of the article want to keep out, then let's lay that out here. I have responded in more depth at the ANI. Montanabw(talk) 16:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not scapegoating as I have explained at ANI. Several editors have attempted to collaborate with Pigsonthewing but he remains vague and dismissive, refusing to answer questions in such a way that will allow editors to get to the bottom of his problems. I'm not convinced he wants the problems he sees fixed. If he did he could have fixed them on 3 December 2012, well before he added the tag. --AussieLegend () 18:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it helps to get personal; my understanding from here and the ANI is that the actual content issue is probably quite simple: Jørn Utzon got into conflicts and was booted form the project, later an attempt was made to reconcile and bring him back on board. The dispute here and tag is because there are some aspects of what happened when and maybe why and who else was involved that aren't in the article but perhaps should be. Plus sourcing of any of the above. Anything more as far as who made a bad edit or who messed up syntax or whatever is all irrelevant now, or else just personality issues, as far as I can tell. Do I have the core issue stated correctly? (Please keep your answer short, the tl;dr of who did what to whom when is irrelevant to me) what I want to know is what to do with the article. Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: "some aspects of what happened when and maybe why and who else was involved that aren't in the article but perhaps should be" - Yes; as explained above, the material removed in this edit provided additional information, with sources. It was removed, more than once, for reasons I disputed. I therefore invited (with reference to policy) the regular editors of this article to re-add that vital information, in whatever part of the article and with whatever wording and formatting, they thought appropriate. I note that Yaris678 did likewise. Without that information, the article is incomplete, inaccurate and probably PoV. Hence the tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, so Andy, your view is basically that some or all of this information in the diff about things that occurred in 1978 and 1983-85 is relevant and should be included in the article in some place and in some fashion? OK, so AussieLegend, I can see how in that diff there appeared to be sourcing issues and a formatting glitch, and so it that the essence of your concerns vis-a-vis the article, or do you dispute the accuracy of the content itself? Can each of you (BRIEFLY) tell me if there is any other issue "disputed" or "omitted" in the article as it exists today? Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
In the form that the content was originally added, it made the article inaccurate by introducing errors in the section that deals with the late 1990s and the building refurbishments. As I explained at ANI, most recently here, the building refurbishments carried out in the 2000s weren't an issue in 1978. There were no plans in 1978 to refurbish the building interiors so the efforts in 1978 could not have been with an aim to effect a project that had not yet been conceived. However, the content was generally accurate regarding earlier attempts. That has never been in dispute and never was.[22][23] The only thing that's a bit iffy is the 1978 claim. I remember various news reports after the opening of the building, before 1978, where it was stated that attempts to communicate with Utzon had been unsuccessful but I've been unable to find a source for that. There are sourcing issues that I've explained elsewhere and some of the claims are unsourced. I had hoped that Pigsonthewing would fix that back in 2012. --AussieLegend () 10:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It appears that Machina.sapiens and RexxS have found some sources and have a possible solution, see above. Montanabw(talk) 05:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

RexxS has found a source that wasn't available a year ago, but that still leaves other sources that are missing, as well as some unsourced claims in the original content. I don't have a problem with the suggestion made by Machina.sapiens. I don't have any issues with the text as it stands but if Machina.sapiens' suggestion keeps the silly tag out of the article then let's add it. Unfortunately, I'm not the one who needs to be convinced. --AussieLegend () 10:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Snark is not helpful, if you toss "silly" and the first and last sentences of the above, then your comment is a little more credible. Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't like it but the tag is silly. If Pigsonthewing had simply rewritten the content when I first suggested it, the tag would never have been necessary. I'm offended that you are questioning my credibility. The book, which is a trivial part of the originally added text, was not available when I first looked for it. Similarly, the last sentence is true. It's not me who insisted the tag be in the article, so I am not the one who has to be convinced that Machina.sapiens suggestion is acceptable. --AussieLegend () 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This whole argument is "silly" if you want to put a point on it; either the info that Andy wants to add is sourceable, or it is not. RexxS found one and is looking for others; this entire issue could have been avoided with a little more good faith on all sides. Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Following a prompt from Andy, I've just ordered a copy of More than an Opera House, so in a couple of days I should be able to see what's in there and if it's any use in filing in the gap in the story of Utzon's relationship with Sydney Opera House. I promise I'll bring any suggestions to this talk page first, and hopefully we can collectively find a consensus that everyone can live with. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why did you have to order a copy? Why didn't Andy do it when I suggested it on 3 December 2012, or on 27 December 2012 before he added the tag? --AussieLegend () 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I ordered a copy because I love books (and because I could). Plus, I'm now so interested in the story that I'd like to find out more and I can't find a local library with the book. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't order a copy on either of those dates because I was quite happy to assume good faith about HubbleConstant's reference to it in his contribution. Unlike your claims that "RexxS has found a source that wasn't available a year ago" and that "that still leaves other sources that are missing", which are clearly bullshit: [24], [25], [26]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The only reference to Hubble's book follows the claim about "a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983" that I haven't been able to verify and says it followed publication of her book. The book itself isn't used as a reference in the text and the references to it seem more an advertisement for the book rather than anything else. Your links don't prove that the book was easily available in December 2012, nor do they prove the availability of the June 78 edition of the Sydney Opera's Monthly Diary, and they certainly don't verify the "major interview" or other unsupported claims, so your claim of "bullshit" is not supported. It's all well and good to AGF, but when you're trying to restore content it's irresponsible not to independently verify the sources. There are numerous problems with the text that should be obvious to any experienced editor and these prevent it being restored "as is" to the article. --AussieLegend () 23:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Drop the 2012 stick, please, it's irrelevant. All that matters now is that a neutral editor is going to look at the source and we will fix the issue one way or the other. 2012 really wasn't the end of the world. Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Instead of attacking what I wrote as "bullshit", it would have been more helpful if Pigsonthewing could comment on Machina.sapiens's suggestion. And remember, the book wasn't a source in the original text. --AussieLegend () 00:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Granted that bad language is not appropriate and hurts credibility. @Pigsonthewing: Please avoid saying "bullshit" - only User:Eric Corbett can get away with language like that. That said, Andy did weigh in, above, and I interpret his comments to indicate that he will abide by what RexxS finds. I think this dispute is soon to be ended if the two combatants can step back from the combat. Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I shouldn't have said that AussieLegend's claims were bullshit; I obviously misused the term in an attempt to adopt mid-Atlantic English. Given that I'm a Brit, I should have said that they were "utter bollocks"; and it is their falsehood which harms credibilityAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Where did I claim that? I responded solely to your question about why I didn't buy a copy of that book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right; all those copies of a 1983 book, with a reputable publisher and an ISBN (ISBN 0701817232), must have spontaneously popped into existence in the last 11.999 months. As must the copies avaiable in 56 Australian libraries.As must the copies of the cited journal, which has magically appeared in at least three libraries. I'm amazed that we don't have an article about this remarkable phenomenon. Also: your inability to find a source cited by another editor does not mean that the material is unverifiable, any more than your bogus claims that the material is uncited were true. I don't see anyone here trying to restore the text "as is" to the article; indeed, I proposed that it be rewritten right at the top of this discussion. It's odd that as you're the one who objected to it in its original form, you appear to have made no comment or contribution to that end. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The point you keep ignoring is that 16 months ago, when this crap started, I at least looked for sources. You didn't even try, so please don't accuse me of something when I at least made the effort. You can try to pint score all you want, but it doesn't help resolve this issue. We need to focus on a reasonable, encylopaedic, way forward. --AussieLegend () 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't look for sources then, because - as I now point out for the umpteenth time - the addition was sourced and - as I now point out for the third time in recent days - I assumed good faith about the OP's use of those sources. You yourself said early on that sourcing was not the reason you removed the disputed text. The point you keep ignoring is that I asked for and proposed a "reasonable, encylopaedic, way forward" in my very first post on this topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Weekend Australian[edit]

I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling AussieLegend's repeated complaints, in the sections above, about being unable to find the references cited by HubbleConstant, given his (AL's) earlier claim that "[referencing] was not the reason that I removed the content. As was very clearly explained to you on my talk page, as well as being mentioned in the edit summary, the content was removed because the edits broke the article by randomly removing a large section of valid content", which suggests a technical issue and which would have been solved by responding to my original suggestion that the material should be reworked by those more familiar with the subject, not removed. Nonetheless:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/52030753

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's great that you've now found the article, or at least evidence of it, 16 months after I searched for it by checking through 7 actual copies of the newspaper. Why couldn't you have found it back then? As for "would have been solved by responding to my original suggestion that the material should be reworked by those more familiar with the subject", Clearly, you are familiar enough to have found something that I was unable to do at the time and it could equally be argued that the problem could have been solved by responding to my original suggestion that you "do restore the edits, hopefully without breaking the article again, [and] they would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s." Instead of trying the blame game all the time, now that you've identified the edition, please get a copy of it and rewrite the text as I don't feel inclined to at this point. --AussieLegend () 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, I didn't search for this or other references used in the disputed addition "back then" because I assumed good faith regarding the OP's use of them. Now, I'm just demonstrating that your claims about their non-existence are bogus; and that your inability to find a source does not mean that the source is invalid. At what point did you feel inclined to make a positive contribution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't look for sources because you expected others to do so. End of story. Now, please step back and stop this because we are not achieving anything. This is the last time I'm going to respond to your aggression. --AussieLegend () 13:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As I have just stated, "I didn't search for this or other references used in the disputed addition "back then" because I assumed good faith regarding the OP's use of them" (this is also clear from comments made by me and others at the time). Presumably, if you dispute this, you have evidence to support your assertion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Gentlemen, lets DROP THE 2012 STICK. No one else here gives a flying rat's rear end about who did or didn't do what over a year ago. Let's just move FORWARD. Montanabw(talk) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The disputed text[edit]

The text removed, more than once, in the disputed edits, is:

In 1978 the Sydney Opera House Trust and specifically the then general manager, Frank Barnes, invited Utzon to return for the celebrations marking the fifth anniversary of the opening of the Opera House by the Queen. In an interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978, Utzon explained why he had declined to attend the official opening and why he did not want to return for the fifth anniversary celebrations. He said, however, that he would like to return to design another building for Sydney preferably on the harbour. He gave subsequent, often very witty interviews to the Sydney Opera's Monthly Diary and a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983. That interview, by Ava Hubble, followed publication of her book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983) which featured a then contemporary photograph of the handsome Utzon at his holiday home in Spain. In 1984 the Sydney Opera House Trust recommended him for a Order of Australia which he received circa in 1985. In the early 1980s he had written to the Opera House to introduce his daughter who was then due to holiday in Sydney with her husband and small children. During that visit she attended several performances at the Opera House and met many staff members and artists. Letters written by Utzon and his daughter to Ava Hubble regarding that visit are in the NSW State Library's Utzon collection, along with other letters Utzon wrote to Ava Hubble over the years. In some of his letters he saluted some of his Australian associates on the Opera House project including Premier Cahill, and the then ABC chief, Sir Charles Moses, who was a member of the inaugural Sydney Opera House Trust. It is still quite widely believed that Utzon remain a bitter recluse for years following his unhappy departure from Sydney in 1967. It has been incorrectly claimed that it was not until 1992 that he first gave an interview to an Australian publication, the Fairfax Good Weekend. But this is not the case.... he gave m s

Granted the final fragment, and the three sentence before that ("In some of his letters... Fairfax Good Weekend"), should probably be discarded. But that still leaves a sizeable and significant addition, which should not be discarded wholesale. Nor should it be reduced to the single, vague sentence ("Although sporadic communication between the Trust and Utzon occurred after his departure, he remained uninvolved with the building's evolution until, in the late 1990's") proposed by Machina.sapiens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Machina.sapiens' proposal is for the section dealing with the 1990s-2000s reconciliation and building refurbishment. There is no reason why some of the above could not be incorporated in earlier sections, but I'm not so sure there is a "sizeable" chunk that is worth retaining. Much of it needs rewriting or disposal. For example:

  1. "In an interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978, Utzon explained why he had declined to attend the official opening and why he did not want to return for the fifth anniversary celebrations." - This should be replaced with Utzon's actual explanation, rather than just a statement that he made one.
  2. "He gave subsequent, often very witty interviews to the Sydney Opera's Monthly Diary and a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983." - The content of the interviews is more relevant and "often very witty" should be dumped entirely. It's unsourced and appears to be an opinion that is not encyclopaedic.
  3. "That interview, by Ava Hubble, followed publication of her book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983) which featured a then contemporary photograph of the handsome Utzon at his holiday home in Spain." - Dump completely. This is more an ad for Hubble's book and the photo is completely irrelevant.
  4. "Letters written by Utzon and his daughter to Ava Hubble regarding that visit are in the NSW State Library's Utzon collection, along with other letters Utzon wrote to Ava Hubble over the years. " - This needs to be pruned somewhat. It's very wordy for something that conveys very little information.
  5. "It has been incorrectly claimed that it was not until 1992 that he first gave an interview to an Australian publication, the Fairfax Good Weekend. But this is not the case.... he gave m" - Since we don't know how the final fragment ends, all of this is problematic.

It's far more than just the final fragment that is a problem, the whole thing needs to be rewritten. --AussieLegend () 13:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you for your suggestions, any reason we couldn't have them 16 months ago? I trust you won't mind me outdenting and numbering them for convenience. You seem to be still hung up on "the section [only] dealing with the 1990s-2000s reconciliation". This is not - as others noted above - cast in stone, and in the light of this additional material, it is sensible for its scope to be widened. Regardind the numbered parts:

  1. Yes, if someone has access to the original, it should. Until then, the cited text stands as it is.
  2. Ditto. Agree that the adjective should go. The Weekender source is above.
  3. The photo may or may not be relevant, depending on its context in the book. The book itself sounds like a useful source and should at least be in the bibliography section.
  4. That fact that correspondence, from the period in question, took place and is archived at said institute is relevant.
  5. I have already said that should go.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Much better, gentlemen! Positive progress! Now so long as you BOTH avoid the snark about 2012 (water under the bridge) and move forward, I am beginning to be optimistic this will get properly sorted! Montanabw(talk) 15:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested in working through the issues of Utzon's relation with SOH management etc, the text of Ava Hubble's 1983 Weekend OZ interview (which turns out to be mostly about Ava and her adventures, with occasional visibility of Utzon), the text is now provided as a service here: It's a jpeg from microfilm, so the quality isn't all that good, but it's readable.. Machina.sapiens (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And the 1978 Diary article is here: Machina.sapiens (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Later...Hmmmm... my (unqualified) legal adviser suggests that making those files generally available might be construed by the less well-disposed as publication, and therefore a breach of copyright, so I've removed the links and disabled them... Ho hum... If anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll share them with you emailishly. Machina.sapiens (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Omission of the role of Peter Rice of Ove Arup[edit]

Peter Rice was THE engineer on site at the Opera House for most of the trouble-shooting period. He has his own well documented[Wikipedia Page] .

It is strange that he gets absolutely no mention on this page.

I have refrained from inserting any such edit given the level of dispute that is evident...but it still seems unfair/incomplete.

Artied (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While he may have an article, his involvement with the Sydney Opera House is limited to one, completely unreferenced paragraph. None of that can be used unless references can be provided. --AussieLegend () 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It[edit]

The intro is written in the style of a 12-year old. It has eleven sentences and seven start with "it." It seems like a list of unrelated facts. It is unaided by a sentence structure that could actually like facts together. It could use help. :) 842U (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just restructured the lead para, including moving some of the information into the Performance Venues section heading. Feel free to revert if its not an improvement I hate thinking of names (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference[edit]

Guardian Utzon Comment Any good? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not just a comment—as stated at the end, "this is an edited extract from the book Utzon and the Sydney Opera House by Daryl Dellora, published by Penguin Specials." As an eyewitness and newspaper worker of the day in Sydney, I can confirm that this account is spot-on. It was common knowledge that the ABC (Moses) kyboshed the opera theatre to serve the interests of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and its subscription concerts. The massive and intricate revolving stage was thus mindlessly scrapped, dooming the building to become at best a third-order purveyor of grand operatic productions. The state politics and corruption of those days was a minefield for anyone with any sort of principles. It was a woeful tragedy for Utzon, as well as for grand opera and for the people of New South Wales. Bjenks (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)