Talk:Sydney Opera House

Credit in opening paragraph

Earlier this week, I changed "Designed by Danish architect Jørn Utzon and Ove Arup & Partners" in the opening paragraph to remove "Ove Arup & Partners", which was immediately reverted back.

My point is more or less that either you should credit the whole design team (Utzons whole office - not just himself, Peter Hall, Eh. Farmer, the NSW government archiects office, Todd, Hall, Littlemore, Ove Arup and partners, Lothar Cremer, Ralph Symonds, etc. etc.), or credit the person who intially concieved the project (Utzon). Perhaps Arup as a team had a some more impact on the final design (ie. shape of the shells) than others (they were simply the biggest engineering firm associated with it), to credit them and utzon only seems silly to me. At the very least one would have to also credit the NSW government architects office, who did a substantial amount of work on the project (not all of which was bad), but also if crediting Arup and Partners, one should also credit all the other engineers. Also, you cant credit "Jorn Utzon and Ove Arup and Partners", as this includes everyone at Arups, but excludes everyone in Utzons office (the man didnt work alone...).

Perhaps to avoid the contentions of "designed by", we should just say in the opening paragraph something along the lines of "Based on the competition winning entry by Jorn Utzon".

Comments? Miscreant (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) It's gone now, but it would be up to the editor to verify it, I doubt they could or did.Uneffect (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar buildings

What are some similar buildings to the Opera House, I know one-the Hong Kong Exhibition Centre, but does anyone know any others? It's a pretty rare and unique building, but I'm sure there are some buildings which bare a resemblance to the Opera House, as I'm going to create a section about it. Jackp 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why there is a need to identify similar buildings in the article? --Merbabu 13:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think is notable if one has influenced the design of another. I'm trying to find out which out of the Lotus Temple and SOH was designed first.Uneffect (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The lotus temple was designed around 15-20 years later, (1970s-80s?). Difficult to talk about if it was an 'influence', being that the architect was an Iranian Bahai living in India, about as far away from Sydney (and its architects and engineers) as you can imagine.Miscreant (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think then maybe seeing as there was an intenational comp for the design it's likely an internatinal architect would have been aware of the SOH, the cionstruction looks similar in \both too, when it was apparently unique to SOH, made up as they went along almost.Uneffect (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "PJones" :
  • Jones, Peter: ''Ove Arup: Masterbuilder of the Twentieth Century''. Yale University Press, 2006.
  • page 199
  • page203
  • ref
  • page174
  • page 191
  • page 200
  • page 209
  • page
  • page 225
  • page224
  • page 228

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Major revisions without discussion

An IP-based editor ( 124.188.149.205 ) is currently working through this article, editing a lot of the text which deals with Utzon's part in the design, and various more or less controversial parts of the House's construction history. The net effect of these changes (apart from improving the quality of the writing) is to tone down or remove any criticism of Utzon, remove references to or de-emphasise any collaborators in the design, and generally ramp up the hagiographic qualities. - eg changing "Utzon's plywood corridor designs" to "Utzon's exquisite plywood corridor designs".

While a lot of the changes are improvements, and I'm reluctant to revert anything, this seems to be veering away from WP:NPOV, and really should not be being done without some discussion on this page, I think - and it really would be better to register, to better enable that discussion. I don't know how it's possible to communicate this to an unregistered editor, so I'm writing this note here, in the hope of attracting their attention. I'll also bring it to the attention of a couple of previous editors who I think might not approve of the tenor of these changes, and see what they think. Machina.sapiens (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say revert it all with a message to see talk and encourage discussion. I would be very leary of an IP editor making large changes without any long term edit history or a recent one of editing anything other than this article and the Utzon article. The editor has not used a single Edit Summary either. It feels underhand for it to be done this way, especially on a mature article. Mfield (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the IP about not using editing summaries and left them a message encouraging them to join this discussion. Mfield (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As the IP has not responded to my messages, not joined this discussion, and continues to make significant changes without edit summaries, I have requested temporary semi protection to prevent the anon IP from editing the article without logging in. Mfield (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That has been denied for now in favor of further warning of the IP. Removal of referenced material without explanation merits escalating warnings ({{uw-delete1}} through {{uw-delete4}}) and that is the preferred course of action. The hope is that the fist few warnings will spur the editor into explaining or discussing before it comes to a block. Mfield (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Projected reconstruction of interiors

The following might be useful: BBC News: Australia mulls Opera House revamp --Wetman (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that while reading this article that there was nothing about the continuous and consistent calls for the recontruction of the Opera House, nor is there anything recognising the inherent flaws in the current interior designs, including the call for rebulding the stage and layout of the opera theatre and fixing the acoustics in the concert hall. This debate for more funding to assist with these project repeatedly comes up whenever the opera house is in the news. There needs to be a serious attempt to add these issues and debates into the article as more than a mere paragraph or sentence in the Interiors section. Stravin (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This could also be helpful: This comes from Edo de Waart, former Chief Conductor of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra: While in Sydney, he made no secret of his dislike of the acoustics of the Sydney Opera House Concert Hall, the orchestra's home. He said ".. if there is no clear intention to do something to improve the hall, then we really seriously have to look at another venue". ' Stravin (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Power supply vs power use/ usage

A couple of editors have changed this line: "Its power supply is equivalent to that of a town of 25,000 people" to refer to the House's power "usage" or some equivalent term. I have reverted them, on the basis that power suppy and power usage are quite different things, and while there is no evidence I can easily find for either statement, "supply" is what is commonly claimed. The building does in fact have its own electricity sub-station in the basement, as do other large power consumers, so it might be at least possible to legitimately compare power supply scaling. Machina.sapiens (Talk) 07:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. But, and correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't it be somewhat pointless to compare power supply, as it wouldn't necessarily consume the maximum capacity that is available at all times? If anything, comparing usage would be somewhat more salient, as it would have some kind of impact on environment, emissions, etc. _Jame§^ugrono 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, if that's what is "commonly claimed", does this refer to other articles quoting power supply, or sources quoting the SOH power supply? Because in the latter case, it would be advisable to reference them, and in the former, it would be advisable to find out why. _Jame§^ugrono 21:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi James. I guess i meant something like: I can only find unreliable sources for the "Supply" statement (a whole lot of websites that seem to be quoting each other - quite possibly all quoting Wikipedia, but more likely all quoting some long-vanished press release) - but no sources at all to support the "usage" statement - and since they are quite different facts, I don't think an un-sourced one should be substituted for the existing one without evidence, even if it might be more interesting. In fact i suspect, from my knowledge of how performing arts centres work, that supply is correct and usage isn't. Not that I'm getting obessive or anything... I could probably find the answer quite easily, but only by the dreaded OR, so far. The other bit of that sentence ("645.5 kilometres (401 miles) of electrical cable") is also quite unsupportable, of course. There may have been that length of cable (Precisely?) when it was built, and quoted in PR bumf for the opening, which was probably the source of this stuff, but it's certainly not true now - given how many mods have been made to the building, it could well be double that by now. Anyway, I'll keep trying to find some adequate source - otherwise I might just remove them altogether. Not sure either is really notable. Machina.sapiens (Talk) 10:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Funding

There are mentions of the cost/budget of the building, but not of the funding. After all, the funding was secured in a rather peculiar way, the Sydney Opera House Lottery. Not only is this an innovative way of securing the funds, but it also adds to the controversy, that the government broke with Utzon over costs. The costs weren't tax payers money, but rather volunteer "donations". This would further the critizism of the government leaders, trying to wrestle control over a project from the originator, on shakey fiscal grounds (i.e. the government seeing themselves as the "owners" of the project, when the funding is in fact (largely) private. Should this not be mentioned in some form?--Nwinther (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits by 203.32.178.20 (talk)

An IP editor has made a series of edits to the body of this article today.

Reviewing them, i don't think any of them are improvements - they muddy the introduction with too much detail, introduce some grammatical errors, and at one point begin to sound like a PR release (eg Sydney Opera House also presents more than 700 of its own performances annually that offer an eclectic mix of artistic and cultural activities for all ages from the educational to the experimental.). I'm tempted to simply revert them, but I wonder whether I'm just getting a bit proprietorial here.

Any one else who watches the SOH article care to comment before i do it? Machina.sapiens (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with your assessment. The edits appear to have been made in good faith but do not truely improve the article. I think it was wise bringing it to the talk page - I was also hesitating to revert. One exception though: I think the removal of the contested sentence "Its power supply is equivalent to that of a town of 25,000 people and is distributed by 645.5 kilometres (401 miles) of electrical cable.^{{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}}" was an improvement. First it is unrefernced since 3 years, second it does not provide any really useful information to the international reader about what this means (if it proves to be true). Does supply refer to installed capacity or consumption? Is it the equivalent of an Australian town, or European town or Indian town? and why compare an opera house to dwellings at all? Elekhh (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Current lead image (Dec 2010)

Just wondering why the colour of the OH is so muddy in the current lead image. Has anyone else noticed this?

I took some images last week in Sydney with much better colouring, unfortunately the weather wasn't the best so they don't have the nice blue sky of this image, so probably not worth replacing it with one of them, but maybe there's other truer coloured pics around? At the least this one wants some work on the white balance. --jjron (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cost

The construction cost estimate ($102 million) needs to be clarified and sourced. I'm guessing this is in Australian dollars but is it in 1973 prices or modern ones? To be of any use to readers, an adjusted figure for modern prices should also be given and in a bigger currency as well. The source that is currently cited for the 102 million figure also leads to a dead page. --Bjarki (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Utzon's absence from the official opening

We say both here and in Utzon's own article that he was never even invited to the opening ceremony in 1973. But I have in front of me an article from the SMH's Good Weekend magazine on 18 March 2006, recording an interview Utzon gave to Geraldine Brooks (writer). It says: When the Opera House finally opened, in 1973, he refused an invitation to the ceremony.

What's it to be, folks? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Position of Sydney Opera House (coordinates)

Hi AussieLegend. You reverted my good faith change of the coordinates of the opera house, and I wonder what map you use? On Google Maps, Bing Maps, OpenStreetMap, Wikimapia, MapQuest, ACME Mapper, and Flash Earth, the coordinates I used are right in the middle of the opera house buildings, whereas the previous coordinates refers to a point south and a little west of the opera house. So, on what do you base your claim that the new coordinates point to a spot in the harbour (water)? Which map do you use, and why do you believe that map is more precise than the seven maps I mentioned? --Jhertel (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To be even more precise, the coordinates are -33° 51' 25.74", +151° 12' 54.54" according to Google Maps. --Jhertel (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

While people may think that Google is accurate, it's far from it and the errors are not consistent. Google seems to get my house correct each time it updates but my parents' house 21.6km away has moved up to 65m between updates. The position of the Opera House on Google is 211m north of where it is shown on the topographic maps that covers the area (1:100000 9130 Sydney and 1:25000 91303N Parramatta River). I generally use GPS mapping software to plot locations, as the topo maps loaded into it are far more accurate than Google Earth, but I have physically confirmed the location of the Opera House on 9 June 2012 at 4:54 PM according to the logs. You'll note that the coordinates I've used are only 49.1m from the official coordinates for Bennelong Point, which is where the Opera House is located. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote while you changed your comment:

So do you use a specific map to find the position? Which one? And what are your sources to why that is better than all the rest?

And what do you mean by "I have physically confirmed the location"? I believe there are no coordinates cast in stone physically on the spot. Did you use a GPS device, and if affirmative, which one? And were exactly did you stand when you made the measurement? And how do you know that your GPS device shows the correct coordinates? And how do you know that the coordinates it showed were updated when you read the coordinates?

I think there should be some verifiable source on your claims, especially when you revert my good faith change that has several verifiable sources (at least 7). And how do you explain that all the 4 major online maps agree on the position I found (by 'major' I mean emphasized on the GeoHack page)? You only mentioned Google Maps. I mentioned 7 different maps. I actually tried 8 different maps, and Nokia Maps was the only one that deviated, but that showed a third spot entirely different from the other two.

Of course you are in good faith, just as I am in good faith. And none of us are right unless we can prove it. I try to strengthen my claim with several concrete sources that all support it, but I miss sources to your claims. I don't find it enough that you say you believe you are right. You need to come up with some sources to strengthen your claims. --Jhertel (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And now to your new comment about the Bennelong Point: Good that you supplied a source to strengthen your claim! But it is not enough to convince me. The source doesn't say that the opera house is actually centered at that point (it doesn't even mention the opera house), and it only says that the coordinates are "approximate".

But even when you go to the Wikipedia article on the Bennelong Point, it actually shows a point much closer to the coordinates I stated than the coordinates you stated. Please listen to my arguments and try to answer my questions. Assume you might be wrong (just as I assume I might be wrong) and let us find the truth as a team, using verifiable sources. --Jhertel (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Another source: WhereIs.com export to Garmin says "latitude=-33.85693&longitude=151.21507" in the URL, which agrees with my claim. --Jhertel (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the given link using the "Share: [...] GPS" function from WhereIs.com on Sydney Opera House. --Jhertel (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a direct Google Maps link using the coordinates from WhereIs instead of the Google search link given before (the Google search gives a small map on my computer, but maybe it doesn't do that for everybody). I believe it shows that if WhereIs is correct about the coordinates -33.85693,+151.21507, then Google Maps is too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhertel (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And your claim that Google Maps is incorrect and moves position for every update also does not sound credible to me. That would mean that they change the position of their entire map with each update of the satellite imagery. Note that this Google Map view of Sydney Opera House is a map, not a satellite photo. Maybe they place the photos incorrectly sometimes, especially in rural areas (you don't state where your mother's house is), but I don't believe they change the maps. --Jhertel (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the position -33° 51' 25.74", +151° 12' 54.54" on OpenStreetmap. My claim is that that is correct. If your claim that Sydney Opera House is at 33°51′31.2″S 151°12′50.5″E is true, then the entire OpenStreetMap of Sydney (as well as the entire Google Maps and Bing Maps of Sydney) is probably wrong (as they can't just have the opera house wrong). It is hard for me to believe that. I would need some very reliable sources to believe that claim. --Jhertel (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I changed was adding the comparison to Bennelong Point.[1] Of course I use a specific map, the topographic maps are generated for each location so it's necessary to use the map that refers to that area. As I indicated above, in the case of the Opera House, 9130 Sydney (1:100000) and 91303N Parramatta River (1:25000) are the relevant maps. Topographic maps are exceptionally accurate, far more accurate in fact than the average domestic GPS unit. I don't use a domestic GPS unit, although I do have a couple. My mapping software has available 1,400 maps for NSW and more than 1,200 of those are topographic maps, provided by Geoscience Australia. I do not have any doubts as to the accuracy of the software as I have recorded almost a million plot points. By "physically confirmed" I mean that I used my mapping software, with the topo maps loaded to confirm the location. As I hope you can understand, in order to provide an accurate GPS plot it's not possible to stand right next to the Opera House as the sails block the signal from multiple satellites, so I use easily identified reference points. For the Opera House, it was at the base of the steps, so I could lock onto enough satellites. Anyone who wants to can examine the official topo maps or take a GPS to the spot so it's easily verifiable. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, AussieLegend, you do not answer my questions, you just restate your unproven claims. For instance: Which GPS unit did you use? Which mapping software did you use? What are the links to the "official topo maps" that "anyone can examine"? You don't provide links to all that; please do that. And a link to the specific maps (is this the 91303N Parramatta River (1:25000)?). Maybe there is something else wrong. Which coordinate system do those maps use? It needs to be WGS84 according to Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. And now it even appears that you do not provide coordinates to the actual opera house, but to something nearby; this is not what a user of Wikipedia would expect. And you don't answer all my questions to why you postulate that all the maps I mention are wrong. You are just silent about that. It does not feel okay that you ignore my questions; it inclines me to just correct the coordinates again, as you do not seem to be willing to investigate the problem and do not answer to my very valid objections at all. I have mentioned a lot of sources, but you don't (or are quite vague about them, with just one link that I refuted with no response from you). You seem to just cling to your belief and ignore anything else, with no other source than you believe firmly it is so – and that is not okay. It is not enough that you "do not have any doubts". That is not enough for an encyclopedia. You need to provide valid references so that other people can check your claims, especially when there are a many very reliable sources that claim something else than you do. And please answer my questions. They are very valid. When you ignore them, which I find both rude and arrogant, it just lessens the value of what you say. It is a serious problem if you put all the coordinates wrong all over Sydney (and maybe even other places as well), because there is something wrong with your measurements. "A million plot points" (whatever you mean by that) are worth nothing if they are measured wrongly or in a wrong coordinate system. Even though you believe to be right, you need to prove it in a verifiable way. And no, it is not easily verifiable to go to Australia to take a measure. And even if someone did make that trip, the GPS could have a fault. Your word and belief is not enough. Original research and unproven claims are not okay on Wikipedia. Please start from the point that you might be wrong, and not that you believe you are right; it is not constructive. Did you check the map? Could you provide a photo copy of it? I find it serious if the entire Google, OpenStreetMap and Bing Maps of Sydney (maybe the entire Australia?) are all wrong by at least 100 meters, and that is what you claim. --Jhertel (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter which GPS unit I used? You wouldn't be familiar with it anyway, since it's a military unit. As I said, I don't use domestic GPS units. Many people rely on car type GPS receivers but these are not accurate. I've already linked to the GPS mapping software that I use and I've told you where the topo maps came from. You can get any maps from there, but it's not really possible to link to them directly. The mapping software can use any source map. Australia typically uses GDA94, but WGS84 and GDA94 maps are essentially the same.[2] Regarding your argument "You need to provide valid references so that other people can check your claims", I've given you the specific topo maps that refer to the Sydney Opera House, both in 1:25000 and 1:100000. These are the most reliable references that you'll get, and I've also pointed out that anyone can verify the coordinates with a GPS - it's a public area so there are no access problems. There are thousands of people there every day. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you know about this: "In Australia, mapping mismatches of 200 metres are common and result from confusion created by:

• Not understanding the difference between the old Australian Geodetic Datum (AGD66/AGD84 or AGD) and the Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA94 or GDA).
• Software settings on GPS receivers being ambiguous. This assists in creating confusion between what a projection does with what a datum does.
• Some modern software converting between different projections ‘on-the-fly’ without allowing for differences between datums."

(Fundamentals of mapping – Datums 2: Datums Explained in More Detail – The Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM))

If you did, then I believe you should have mentioned it and explained why you find that the datum you use is more correct than the datum all the big mapping web sites use. If not, please enlighten yourself and open up to the possibility that you might be wrong, no matter how much you believe you are right. --Jhertel (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I should have mentioned it at all. As I've indicated above, Australia typically uses GDA94, which is essentially the same as WGS84, at least for Australia. This section is not at all relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure that I've covered all your problems:

• "And now it even appears that you do not provide coordinates to the actual opera house, but to something nearby" - I assume that you're referring to Bennelong Point. The Sydney Opera House is built on Bennelong Point, therefore the coordinates of both should be extremely close.
• "And you don't answer all my questions to why you postulate that all the maps I mention are wrong" - I haven't checked all of the maps that you mentioned, but I have checked the topographic maps and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. They are the maps on which all else is based. It's an unfortunate fact of the digital age that errors appear when they shouldn't. If you look at my user page, you'll see a section titled "Electronic information isn't worth the paper it's printed on" detailing the problems that I had trying to get my parents' street "renamed" back to "street" from "avenue". When that was finally corrected, the change that had been initiated as the result of a single phone call rippled through the system. Even Google Maps and Google Earth were fixed all because of a phone call, and I have no doubt that errors ripple as easily as corrections. The source data, i.e. the original topo maps, isn't affected by downstream errors.
• "And please answer my questions" - I've been trying to answer but when you make multiple changes to your post while I'm attempting to reply, things get lost.
• ""A million plot points" (whatever you mean by that" - I'm sorry, I thought that would be clear. The software works in both stationary and mobile mode. If I'm driving in my car I can set the software to plot my course every so often, for example every 10 metres. The software has recorded almost a million locations in my travels.
• "it is not easily verifiable to go to Australia to take a measure" - Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't require that it be easily verifiable, just that it be verifiable. Since anyone can (even with difficulty) travel to the Sydney Opera House and confirm the location, it is verifiable.
• "even if someone did make that trip, the GPS could have a fault" - That something may prevent you from accurately gathering data is always a possibility; it's just something we have to live with. GPS receivers are cheap now, you can get them here for only $60 so it doesn't stop you from checking, it just makes it inconvenient.
• "Did you check the map?" - I've already said that I did.
• "Could you provide a photo copy of it?" - You can download the map yourself. I don't have a photocopier that will photocopy a map that large. Have you ever seen a topographic map? And, of course I wouldn't know where to send it. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert - 3 December 2012

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,[3] but expect others to fix the problems that you have re-introduced.[4] 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

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,[5] 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."[6]

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....

I really don't see the point of the most recent edits made by Pigsonthewing.[7][8] 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.[9] 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.[10] This was quite correctly reverted by Tbhotch.[11] HubbleConstant then made edits to the section, without including any actual citations, breaking the section in the process.[12] The break, as explained to Pigsonthewing,[13] 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,[14] which was true. (Comments in the prose are not citations) HubbleConstant then changed "Beginning in the late 1990s" to "Beginning in the late 1978",[15] 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.[16] 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.[17] --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)