Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, mediation, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember guidelines and policy when discussing issues. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is Yashovardhan (talk).

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

  • Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
  • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House Closed 97.127.112.18 (t) 25 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 3 hours
Talk:Phys.org#Edits today In Progress 83.54.140.34 (t) 29 days, 1 hours Winged Blades of Godric (t) 6 days, 23 hours Naesco (t) 23 hours
Talk:Historical authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Olive_Horticulture New Lcall52 (t) 5 days, 16 hours Kostas20142 (t) 21 hours Kostas20142 (t) 21 hours
Talk:Bay Area_Rapid_Transit#Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29 New Mole2 (t) 5 days, 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 5 hours
Talk:Taichung#No mention_of_population_in_lead New Multivariable (t) 5 days, 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 6 hours Multivariable (t) 2 days, 13 hours
Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China‎ In Progress O1lI0 (t) 4 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 18 hours O1lI0 (t) 1 days, 18 hours
Talk:Murder of Jo Cox In Progress This is Paul (t) 4 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, Robert McClenon (t) 1 days,
Talk:Dan Wagner#Non_consensus_based_update_to_article New 95.210.221.6 (t) 2 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 11 hours Yak shaving (t) 18 hours
User talk:HansMair Closed HansMair (t) 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 hours
Talk:Indian Administrative_Service New SshibumXZ (t) 2 hours None n/a SshibumXZ (t) 2 hours
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 07:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 97.127.112.18 on 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by 83.54.140.34 on 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This discussion involves edits of 3 articles: ScienceDaily, Phys.org and Eurekalert. Jytdog has placed several references to churnalism, and removed all other content, that he claimed to be SPS. Deleting all information and only leaving the churnalism statement makes these articles biased and non-neutral. He cites only blogs sites that discuss churnalism, making the whole articles opinion-based, rather than fact based. Not to mention that these are the blogs where science journalists from rivalry websites discuss influence of churnalism on science journalism (COI?)

He rejects any edits with links to WP:ABOUTSELF even if they make sense, or even with links to externals sites with whois data, traffic stats etc.

I have requested a 3O, that agreed that these articles should be written in more neutral style. Jytdog has rejected that as well. Somehow ScienceDaily has not been reverted (may be yet) - and I believe it is now written in a neutral way.

Jytdog has said and I quote here: "phys.org, sciencedaily,etc ...that useless and pernicious".Redacted by volunteer.I suggest that an independent editor reviews these articles.

Redacted by volunteer

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third opinion was requested, but ignored by jytdog

How do you think we can help?

Re-write ScienceDaily and Phys.org in neutral non-biased style. Churnalism should be mentioned, but it shouldn't be the only information. Remove churnalism claim from Eureaklert section; it is false and it is not even supported by the references.


Summary of dispute by 83.54.140.34[edit]

  • I've added myself to the Users involved. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to moderator: This dispute is between jytdog and myself. The above mentioned users haven't contributed anything valuable to the discussion. Alexbrn have only reverted the page (without contributing anything to its content) for a plain "I don't agree" reason. The Quixotic Potato did the same for a made-up reason (I explained that on the Talk page). I suspect that both have simply acted on behalf of Jytdog, so that he could not be blamed for Edit Warring. PaleoNeonate have only once commented on my Wikipediocracy reference that blamed Jytdog and Alexbrn working in tandem. Mark Marathon provided a requested 3O who backed up my point, but was ignored. This was my reasoning for not including any of these editors into the dispute. If you believe I should still include them, please let me know. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Summary: First of all, I apologize for the attack on the editors. These are my comments on the content. There are 3 almost identical edits (rev,rev,rev) of 3 articles referring to the same sources. If I'm obliged to tackle a lone article of phys.org in this dispute, so be it. However, in the context of the discussion, it is absolutely necessary to describe the other pages to address the "similarity" statement. My initial suggestion: make lead sentences according to WP:NPOV -- describe things the way independent reliable sources describe them, namely:

  1. Eurekalert: nowhere in the secondary sources[1][2] it is accused of churnalism or described as '... generating churnalism, similar to...'. Shipman[1][3] describes it as press release distribution site and bulletin board for PRs, Angler[2] as news service ... that organize news into categories. This is also supported by [4] [5].
  2. Science_Daily: Shipman[1] doen't talk about churnalism on ScienceDaily. Angler[2] describes it as press releases news service (page 44). There are sources that describe ScienceDaily as 'science news website'[6][7][8] and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism. [4][5][9]
  3. Phys.org - Shipman[1] describes it as large news aggregator (page 24) and science news website ... that practice churnalism .... where much of content is directly from press releases (page 42). 'Much of content' is not all of the content, which requires further clarification. This ref[10] describes it as summarizing science findings from peer-reviewed articles, and staff written stories are reported by Livescience, Sciencemag, space.com, CNN, IEEE Spectrum (1,2),The Guardian etc (3, 4, 5, 6). Again, there are sources that describe it as 'science news website'[7][8] and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism.[4][5][9].

My IP has changes, from now on I'll comment under new user name. Naesco (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Question to moderator: is the dispute in progress already, so we can discuss the quality of each individual ref? I didn't do it in the summary of the dispute as I needed to keep it short. Otherwise, I can add it to the summary now. I just want to avoid cherry picking when some blogs are WP:RS and some are not. And shall I open separate disputes for other 2 articles or can we discuss it within this one, because the refs are the same?  Naesco (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary on refs: Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi  who is an established science journalist with the proven track record  -- she wrote for  Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. Not to mention that it is the most up-to-date ref (2017). So please no card stacking. I may agree that [8] might have a COI because they are a PR service. The same is valid for [5] and [9] -- according to WP:RS both refs have COI on 2 points out of 3 -- authors are paid by competitor websites, articles are published on the same websites (imagine a blog on Apple.com would criticize Microsoft). Ref [3] is clearly a WP:RS/SPS.

All in all, however, I am not suggesting to exclude any of these references, but instead strictly adhere to WP:NPOV guideline: ensure all majority and significant minority views ... are covered.

I want to make one thing clear: I do not want to revert back to my earlier edit, I agree that it was not properly sourced and SPS (WP:BITE). This is my suggestion for the lead sentence (in full accordance to WP:NPOV - describe things the way WP:RS describe them). It is practically a word by word quote from our most reliable and independent source [1]:

Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news website, that practices churnalism, where much of content is directly from press releases [1]. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [10].

Can we agree on that? Naesco (talk)

  • Question to the moderator: What are the exact criteria from WP:RS that ref. [7] does not meet? It is not clear from your comment, so I would like to clarify. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Shipman, W. Matthew (2015). Handbook for Science Public Information Officers. University of Chicago Press. p. 42. ISBN 9780226179469. 
  2. ^ a b c Angler, Martin W (2017). Science Journalism: An Introduction. p. 44. ISBN 9781317369813. 
  3. ^ Shipman, Matt (16 April 2014). "The News Release Is Dead, Long Live the News Release". Science Communication Breakdown. 
  4. ^ a b c Timmer, John (23 September 2009). "PR or science journalism? It's getting harder to tell". Ars Technica. 
  5. ^ a b c Choi, Charles Q. (January 24, 2012). "From the Writer s Desk: The Dangers of Press Releases". Scientific American Blog Network. 
  6. ^ "The Best Websites for Expanding Your Scientific Knowledge". howtogeek.com. 
  7. ^ a b "How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True". lifehacker. 
  8. ^ a b "What Are the Best Websites for Science News? We Have Your List.". cglife.com. 
  9. ^ a b Yong, Ed (11 January 2010). "Adapting to the new ecosystem of science journalism". National Geographic Phenomena. 
  10. ^ a b "Scientists Should Talk Directly to the Public". Scientific American. 

Summary #3: I want to address several key points of this discussion, that we can't agree on.

1. Content: press releases or something else? Obvious choice and commons sense suggests using WP:ABOUTSELF. If I simply browse through the latest headlines (yes, I'm aware of WP:NOR, I'll address it shortly), there are indeed plenty of articles adopted from press releases. But at the same time, there are stories credited to Associated Press, AFP. On top of that, there are reports, that are indeed short summaries of articles from peer-review journals. Since WP:OR is not accepted, these are references from WP:RS: Treehugger, Usatoday, The Register. They report on a stories from "AFP/AP via Phys.org". It's not difficult to find plenty of such links online. As for the staff-written reports, I've already shown in my first summary refs from CNN, livescience, sciencemag etc that quote reports from Phys.org. In addition, this one is from BBC (!) quoting a "report from science news website Phys.org". Those reports are original staff-written summaries, these are not press releases [so many respected news outlets cannot not be mistaken]. My point here is that both statements: Phys.org publishes only press releases" and "Phys.org publishes only staff written content" are incorrect. Based on all the refs here, can we agree that this statement about the content is true "Phys.org publishes press releases, news articles from various media agencies, and self-written summaries on science articles"?

2. News website or PR services? BBC and others clearly describe it as a "news website". Shipman describes it as a "science news website". I don't see any WP:RS that state the opposite. This again rises a question about WP:NPOV. It does not matter what one thinks about this subject, what WP:RS say matters. I personally think that a 'news aggregator' [1] is the most appropriate description. I understand the churnalism criticism -- it's totally relevant -- but it mostly relates to the nature of the origin of the content. However, the content itself is news. The same way The Onion is described as a "news satire organization" and The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) as "a tabloid newspaper". News journalism has many genres (blogging, analytics, opinion, citizen, etc.), and churnalism is one of the forms of journalism. So we should not mix two different concepts. Can we agree on the point that, based on all WP:RS, Phys.org's content is news and its genre is, in big part, churnalism?

3. If we are to summarize all WP:RS from above we should describe it as something like this:

Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news aggregator, that publishes press releases from research organizations, stories from news agencies, such as AP, AFP, and summaries on peer-reviewed science articles. Phys.org practices churnalism as much of its content is directly from press releases.

Alternatively, we may quote the WP:RS as is, as I proposed earlier. Anything else will not be WP:NPOV. Naesco (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:: I understand your point. Thank you for proposing a new lead, I do believe it now starts to sound more NPOV, and we're moving forward in this dispute. To fully reflect on all RS collected, I suggest slightly modifying the 2nd part of the proposed description -- I'm not sure whether any RS quotes  '... sometimes slightly edited' or describes the degree of editing:
Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic British science, research and technology news aggregator website. It mostly republishes press releases and stories from news agencies, such as Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, etc. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.
Naesco (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. 'Science journalists writing about science journalism' - am I the only one who sees the potential COI here (the same as it was for [8])? Anyway, regarding ref [7] : it clearly says : Phys.Org is primarily a news site, but they’ve dedicated plenty of articles to debunking popular rumors.... And jytdog just proved that point: there are articles about debunking - some are from press releases, some are not. Actually his second link is republished from The Conversion - it is not a press release. These are 'debunking' stories from AP, AFP, Universe Today, Physorg own reports, etc, etc, etc. Again, that just proves my point -- there are press releases, stories from news agencies and staff written content. The ref [7] describes the site exactly as it is  -- ' primarily a news site'. And I don't think that any ref that says something positive is by definition 'promotional'. (And every ref that criticizes should be taken as a golden example. All authors describe their own opinion. Some references are clearly incorrect about describing the site. For example, they say that Phys.org only distributes press releases. But there are enough references that prove there are other content sources. So we should not blindly rely on them). Moreover, debunking or not - it has nothing to do with the proposed lead. It only distracts us from a constructive building of a good Wikipedia article about the site. Should we focus on writing a good lead?
  2. Word 'British' is based on WP:ABOUTSELF: the company is registered in the Isle of Man. Last statement is from ref [10]. I don't think that talking to the authors behind the scenes and interpreting answers should be taken as an argument, it's more a psychological warfare. If it 'has zero value here' why bother and present it here? And cross examination would be beyond the scope of this dispute.
PS. OK, we all clearly understand that jytdog doesn't like the website, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. A lot of emotions about the website design are counterproductive. A person with this attitude shouldn't write a WP article in the first place. Again, let's focus on writing an NPOV article here. Naesco (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In general, I think the latest Jytdog's proposal is pretty good. However, I suggest to cite as closely as possible to the sources, as proposed by the moderator. For example, words 'occasionally publishes' are not from ref [7]. On the opposite, the website seems to publish several per day. I would like to propose the following summary. It is very close to what Jytdog has proposed today, but applies almost direct wording from the references:
Phys.org is a British [ref] science, research and technology news agregator [1 page 24], [7], where much of content is directly from press releases and news agencies, a practice known as churnalism [1 page 42], [3],[4],[5]. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [10], [ref],[ref]. In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health [ref].
I don't fully agree with the 2nd part about similarity with ScienceDaily and Eurekalert, but I'm not addressing it here. I've already pointed that out in my first summary. This needs to be discussed separately once we're done with the 1st paragraph. Otherwise, the discussion may get side-tracked. Naesco (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Have you seen my version (it looks like our posts have crossed)? Please review it. I don't think your latest version is in agreement with your earlier statement to cite 'as closely as possible' to the sources, especially the 2nd sentence. It also looks like there is some opposition from Jytdog to use words 'science news website', so I propose 'news agregator' as stated by Shipman in his book [1], page 24. "Much of content is directly..." and "summaries on peer-reviewed articles..." are also direct quotes from the sources. In general we are all on the same page about the 1st sentence, but I prefer the Jytdog's wording. Naesco (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to go sentence by sentence:
  1. It looks we all agree on the 1st one. Shall we consider it as settled?
  2. Although I agree in essence with the second sentence, I can't agree with the wording. This statement is fundamentally correct, but the wording "practices limited science journalism" does not explain anything to WP readers. This is generalization / interpretation of the fact that the site publishes "summaries on selected science papers". Ref. [10] description is factually correct, supported by what we've seen with all the examples by BBC, CNN, Science magazine, IEEE, etc (see above). Why are we excluding source 10? It is WP:RS and describes the things as they really are. This is one more ref that supports this statement: "...strive to publish peer reviewed science...". Moreover, words "occasionally/limited" are not supported by any source, and are vague and subjective (What's the exact percentage for something to be described as "limited"? How should "occasionally" be interpreted - once a year, once a month, once a day?) The word 'daily' would be more appropriate if we use ref WP:ABOUTSELF. So for the second sentence I propose something like: It also (daily ref?) publishes summaries (reports?) on selected science (peer-reviewed?) articles [7], [10], [ref] (, which is known as science journalism?). Naesco (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. update: Eurekalert is a paid press release distribution site (no editorial control, etc) similar to AlphaGalileo. It is like PRWeb or Business Wire for research organisations. It is not a news website, and it is clearly described by the sources as a PR distribution service, so comparison with it is incorrect. Comparison with ScienceDaly is in general correct, but only in terms of churnalism for republishing PRs. It is well supported by the references. But it doesn't look like that it runs its own science journalism. I'm not sure how we should handle this for the 2nd paragraph, but I believe it is not correct to simply say that both sites are similar. Maybe something like this: "ScienceDaily is similarly criticized for churnalism ..." Naesco (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with 'post-doc wanna-be-science blogger'. Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi  who is an established science journalist with the proven track record  -- she wrote for Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. I've already commented on that. Ref [7], [10] supports my second statement. The link is the most recent (2017) and factually confirms all the report examples from CNN, BBC, IEEE, Science mag, many others. @Winged Blades of Godric: I agree with your last proposed modification. Naesco (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I found two more secondary sources to support the ref [10]: this one (page 27) describes Phys.org  as publishing  '.. accessible articles on recent developments..' and the second book (page 250) as '... science news and information site...' . Again, I think ref 10 describes the site journalistic part in the most accurate way, and it is also supported by other sources. I'm Ok with the proposed lead sentence, but it needs to be complemented by the other part that describes the science journalism as suggested by other sources. Otherwise it's not balanced and fully factual. Naesco (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Request @Winged Blades of Godric:: I will be travelling for the next few days, and will not be able to respond at least till Monday. I kindly request to put the dispute on hold until then. Naesco (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:: I'm waiting for your comment on ref [10] supported by two new sources from text books( one (page 27), two (page 250)) Naesco (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog phys.org[edit]

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

The content is dispute is simple. The IP prefers the old version of the page (diff for Science Daily, diff at Phys.org), each of which was promotional and dominated by content sourced from these websites themselves and had unsourced content, and misrepresented what they actually do. Both lightly edit press releases and republish them and do not state clearly that what they publish are press releases. Our articles now state this clearly. As I have said before, if the IP wants to propose an independently sourced alternative I am more than open to hearing that. Such a proposal has not been forthcoming, since their first comment on this matter here: User_talk:Jytdog#Churnalism (I trust that the DR volunteers will remove comments that are not about the content itself in the OP) Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out at the article talk page, ref #8 is on the website of a company that sells PR services to biotech companies. Of course it thinks phys.org is great. Not independent by miles and miles. With regard to ref #10, Esther Ngumbi 's blog posting in Scientific American, this person is not a science journalist, but rather is a post-doc at Auburn, and the piece is naive with regard to phys.org as well as other aspects of science communication. The sources I originally brought are by well established scientist journalists. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not OK with the second sentence of the proposed content. The source is weak. Fwiw I reached out to the author and asked her to read the refs in our article, and she said she regretted what she wrote but cannot change it. I realize that has zero value here. But I do not change my opposition to using a low quality ref to support a promotional claim.
With regard to the 1st sentence, I struggle, mightlily, with referrring to phys.org as a "news site". It is not legitimate science journalism -- it is just part of the science PR machine and is not transparent about what it is doing.
Folks have said that they feel that "churnalism" is jargony. I would accept something like "phys.org is a website that republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited". Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric my apologies for not replying.
About ref #7, if "best by miles" means "most amenable to being used promotionally" then one can only agree.
That is an interesting source. The ones that I have brought are by science journalists writing about science journalism. This is from someone who characterizes himself like this: "Alan Henry is a technology enthusiast. He’s a full-time geek, a technology and lifestyle writer in one life here and now, and a technical project manager in another, a long time ago. He writes, he herds cats, he games, he writes some more. He tweets, he plurks, he spends a little time liking things on Facebook, but that’s about it. He’s severely opinionated, which explains why he writes so much. He’s also a coffee snob, a little bit of a gourmet but not too good to not visit a food truck. He likes workspace mods, desk accessories, anime, music, gadgets and gear, and bunnies.", writing on "lifehacker" in a sassy, trying-to-draw eyeballs kind of way. So that is the context.
Rather than writing from perspective of people who write about science, Henry writes from the perspective of the consumer of information, faced with a bewildering internet. In that context, I guess a press-release laden website is better than NaturalNews or Mercola. But really. This is not about science journalism, it is just another blog trying to catch eyeballs. (and yes he is good at that, which is surely why the NYT hired him for their digital strategy)
It is really hard to find good refs that actually talk about phys.org in the context of actual science journalism and reporting. I probably spent about 4 hours to find the ones I did. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry but "majorly" is not good English. What is the source for them being a) British, and b) publishing summaries of articles?
Following the Lifehacker ref, I went to their site to look for "debunking" which is one thing that source says they do. (I just searched their site for "debunking".) In this first page I found two.
  • Video: Should you pee on a jellyfish sting?. So what is that? A video from Youtube, with text apparently from the American Chemical Society. (one of things that is most irritating about phys.org, is that they put a link at the name where they credit the content they steal republish from, but if you click on that, you don't actually leave their website. You end up at a brief description of the organization (lifted from Wikipedia, with a link to their Wikipedia article) and a list of other content from that organization that they republished. There you get a link to the organization, but not to the actual source they were republishing. They trap you. Great webdesign for making money - really terrible for helping anyone follow the story.) You have to kick out and google it, and if you do on that one, you find the original from ACS. There is no added value, content-wise, to what phys.org did there - and they didn't actually produce that.
  • Why urban legends are more powerful than ever, not really debunking, but OK maybe. Anyway, that is republished from the original. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have said nothing about site design. Don't know where that is coming from. I find the "COI" thing kind of bizarre - the IP/Neesco has been upset that phys.org is not given some kind of credit for being legitimate science news. Science journalists are the people who generate science news. Science journalists look at phys.org and say "that is not what we do". And now that is a COI? Good lord.
Anyway, this is not a matter of "liking" anything. Phys.org is what it is is - is republishes stuff it gets from elsewhere, without making that clear. It is just science PR, not science news. This is what the best sources say about it. However we say this, is fine with me. I am not married to "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism.[1][2][3][4][5] It occasionally publishes its own science journalism.[6] In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.[7]

ScienceDaily is similar to it;[2][3] EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it only aggregates press releases and clearly labels them as such.[1][4]

References

  1. ^ a b Shipman, W. Matthew (2015). Handbook for Science Public Information Officers. University of Chicago Press. p. 42. ISBN 9780226179469. 
  2. ^ a b Timmer, John (23 September 2009). "PR or science journalism? It's getting harder to tell". Ars Technica. 
  3. ^ a b Yong, Ed (11 January 2010). "Adapting to the new ecosystem of science journalism". National Geographic Phenomena. 
  4. ^ a b Choi, Charles Q. (January 24, 2012). "From the Writer s Desk: The Dangers of Press Releases". Scientific American Blog Network. 
  5. ^ Shipman, Matt (16 April 2014). "The News Release Is Dead, Long Live the News Release". Science Communication Breakdown. 
  6. ^ Henry, Alan (June 20, 2012). "How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True". Lifehacker. 
  7. ^ "Press Release: PhysOrg.com Spins Off Medical News Channel to Create Medical Xpress". PhysOrg via PRWeb. December 15, 2011. 
  • I reject "british". I have no idea why neesco is leaning on that so hard, but none of the independent refs mention that and there is nothing particularly british about the site. They use american spelling, there is no ".uk" in the URLs, and the "contact" offers no physical office at all (similar to other dubious organizations). So no "british".
I have compromised as far as i am willing and spent about as much time as i am willing.
btw I have come to accept the distinction with EurekaDaily, which is honest that it republishes press releases - it is a press release aggregator. The thing that makes phys.org so toxic is that it that it hides that the fact these pieces are press releases. Even ScienceDaily has more integrity in that it generally says "press release" right at the top, when it passes them on.
So i am actually going to push back from what i offered above and add Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases ,not labelled as such,and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism."
And no we are not linking to phys.org's "feature" search section - this is spamming. And the BBC ref is just a passing mention to a "report" on phys.org.
Again I have compromised with this PR effort as much as I am willing. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The "not labelled as such" is central to the definition of "churnalism" which i have compromised on, by moving to the end. One of the good sources, Ars, says "The coverage at Science Daily and PhysOrg is eerily similar, with many instances of identical phrasing, starting with the title itself. That's because both are using mildly edited versions of a press release made by the publisher, Cell Press, which was available via Eurekalert, an aggregator of science press releases. If others are presenting science press releases as news, why shouldn't the universities cut out the middleman?". (ref) And the ScientiicAmerican piece says "We also have press-release farms such as PhysOrg and ScienceDaily that seem to me to do little else but repackage press releases one can find on science press releases sites such as EurekAlert.." (ref) "not labelling them as such" = "presented as news" and "repackaging" from the sources. This is not "jamming down the throat of the reader", it is simply more clearly defining "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • with apologies i am not catching the "work around" with regard to ref 10 (which is the post-doc wanna-be-science blogger passing mention, that we already dismissed right?) as for mediabiasfactchecker - nothing at RSN. Looks like they just took the marketing blurb from phys.org and stick a "pro-science" label on the site. no value there; just a directory. Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • with regard to ref 10, it is what it is. hopefully the person you talk with will see it for the naive wanna-be error that this passing mention to phys.org was. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn[edit]

IP seems to want to downplay the well-sourced churnalistic nature of these sites and big up on self-sourced and/or unreliably-sourced content. Our articles should be based on decent secondary sources, so I disagree with those ambitions. I too wonder if there is a COI aspect to this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today discussion[edit]

General comments[edit]

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

Note to volunteer: there are many more than two editors involved in this, at least: me, The Quixotic Potato, PaleoNeonate and Mark Marathon. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It is generally a good idea to comment on content, not the contributor. Maybe even more so for IPs who end up at WP:DRN because other people disagree with them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the invitation to comment. I agree that my role in this dispute was only to remind the IP address editor 83.54.140.34 of WP:TINC. I have rarely read Wikipediocracy threads but I remember that the few I read did not portray a rational view of the particular scenarios involved and appeared to be rants by people who have issues with Wikipedia. I don't think it can be used to justify aspersions. It may even be best for Wikipedians to not care about it, it's preferable to discuss Wikipedia matters using on-Wiki public talk pages, noticeboards and other Wikipedia processes like this one for scrutiny. I had no initial intention to debate the content here, but I could perhaps participate by commenting on the various sources presented, if I'm invited to do it. My experience with source evaluation in this field is however limited. —PaleoNeonate - 20:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I more or less agree with Jytdog et al. I am too lazy to explain how Wikipedia should work to Yet Another IP With A COI (YAIWACOI). I would like to point out that I am not a fan of publishing statistics about the amount of visitors of websites on Wikipedia articles because they are often incorrect and misleading. Anyone who uses Google Analytics knows that a statement like "Website X received Y visitors in year Z" isn't useful information; you'll need a lot of other numbers to provide context (e.g. how long did they stay?). Interpreting those numbers isn't as easy as it may seem. The constant stream of ad hominems gets boring fast. Jytdog has tried to explain the situation in detail on the talkpage. On the internet republishing content made by others is a profitable business model (go ask Ray William Johnson if you do not believe me). Has the IP declared a COI? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Volunteer/moderator comments[edit]

  • Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - This noticeboard isn't for a dispute between an editor and one other editor only; it is for disputes about the content of an article. If the filing party isn't interested in article content, only in the conduct of User:Jytdog, they are in the wrong place. Also, it isn't constructive to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors and say that they are acting on behalf of another editor or that they have made-up reasons. Is this really one unregistered editor against the world? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note -
    • Aspersions/attacks on editors have been redacted.Winged Blades Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @IP editor:-- Can you please summarise the points of content dispute sans any reference to any editor?(In the form of:-- 1)Whether source XXX constitutes a rel. source. 2)Whether the word YYY(supported by a, b, c) can be mentioned in lead....)Winged Blades Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I've updated the summary (under new username). Naesco (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note--Thanks to everybody for your valuable comments!Will be shortly commenting!Winged Blades Godric 09:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note--I don't think LifeHacker,Howtogeek.com, blogs etc. to be constituting WP:RS and don't attach much value with other rel. sources referring to Phys.org as an evidence of it's non-churnalistic nature.Pinging Jytdog for his takes on Ref-8 and Ref-10.But the quality of the sources describing the site as churnalistic are superb!Am not commenting on websites rel. to other articles.Winged Blades Godric 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Yeah,you may post concise summary about the three sources I specifically opposed to, the two sources whose credibility were effectively questioned by Jytdog and about my second concern.No, first let's confine ourselves to this article only.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
responded with the second summary Naesco (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note--@Jytdog:--Thanks for your opinion!Winged Blades Godric 08:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Thanks!
  • Volunteer note--
    • WP:RS states:--Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications..So, I don't wholly concur on the treatment of [3].
    • References [6] and [7] are discounted as they fail the stringency required to be a WP:RS in this regard.
    • Reference [8] is discounted for having COI links.
    • Jytdog is asked to counter(if he chooses to) the point raised by Naesco in defence of [10] and Naesco's description of [3].
    • Reference [9] is a WP:RS by miles--written by credible journalists.
    • Jytdog is asked to look at whether the compromisatory solution seems viable.Winged Blades Godric 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Naesco:--Basically the source is some type of collective blog and I have strong doubts about credibility of the journalist.I will be double-vetting the reliability soon!Winged Blades Godric 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: The site itself is a part of Gizmodo Media Group, owned by Univision Communications, a global media company. Alan Henry is a professional writer and editor. Last years he served as an editor-in-chief of Lifehacker. He is now a senior digital strategist at The New York Times. He wrote for Ziff Davis (Extreme Tech, Geek.com, PC Mag) and Purch ( Tom’s Guide) websites. He is by miles the most reputable expert of any others represented here. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW, ref [6] is not really applicable per rules set in this dispute, as it only discusses ScienceDaily and not Phys.org. I'm not sure how this dispute is supposed to proceed: am I allowed to comment on the latest Jytdog's arguments or should I wait for the moderator?  Naesco (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
No need!Winged Blades Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment---Heartfelt regrets for the long delay.Got stuck IRL.Will be commenting soon!Winged Blades Godric 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog and Naesco:--How about something like:--

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic science, research and technology website, that mostly republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited.

Sources to be used acc.(after each phrase or so).Winged Blades Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog:--Your opinion/rebuttal (if any) is sought on Naesco's assertions about Ref-7(spec. to the point-- that it's the best source by miles).Winged Blades Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---Well, how's about

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic British science, research and technology news aggregator website, that mostly republishes press releases. sometimes lightly edited It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.

Sources to be used acc.
  • Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--Leads are hardly so complex in structure and syntax.NPOV does not warrant inclusion of minor and major viewpoints with equal weight--in the lead.
    • To reply you comment-wise:--
      • 1)I agree to an extent.But in my opinion there can exist a much better way to include the point (that they publish summaries et al) with due credence to weight.
      • 2)On some research, yeah churnalism is a form of journalism.Maybe utterly despicable but it is!
      • 3)Disagree.See afore-proposed lead.Winged Blades Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:-Any comments?Winged Blades Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---Lead slightly edited.I personally have objections to mentioning press-agency names etc. in lead.(Keep it short!)Winged Blades Godric 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Now redundant
  • Volunteer comment ---Barring Jytdog commenting on the advances within next 48 hours, I will be closing this as failed due to lack of intervention by a party.Winged Blades Godric 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

*Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer/moderator comments (continued..)[edit]

  • Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--My views tend to share a similarity with the opinion exppresed by Neasco throughout (except the presumed COI in case of science journalists) and esp. in the second point of his last post.I am asking Neasco to propose a new lead borrowing words as closely as posible from the sources, strictly adhering to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.--in lines of my last-proposed lead.Ref-a0 shall be omitted and Ref-7 may be used(I scanned the RSN about life-hacker and there seems to be a consensus that they are gen. reliable).I don't find major problems with the word British.Winged Blades Godric 06:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: short question - what do you mean by Ref-a0? is it ref 8? Thank you. Naesco (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Naesco:--Ref 10.Sorry for the delay!Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Let's wait for Naesco to propose his/her preferred one.Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Another moderator-proposed lead
Preferred lead--My preferred version (bordered on Jyt's version) goes as:--

Phys.org is a website that mostly practises churnalism, republishing press releases and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology.[1][2][3][4][5]It also practises occasional/limitedWhich is preferable? science journalism.[6]In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.[7]

ScienceDaily is similar to it[2][3] and EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it self-describes as a churnalistic site.[1][4]

For corresponding references see the accompanying references in Jytdog's proposed lead.Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


  • Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Without going into the 2nd paragraph, Naesco's proposed lead (esp. the 1st part) looks good.But I have doubts as to the sourcing of the second line.(I prefer the self-reference and the BBC piece be removed and the Lifehacker piece added.)Also, the second line shall preferably adheres to Jyt's version.(Despite me asking Naesco to adhere to the sources as closely as possible!)You may build on the version adding more references and fine-tuning the language.Any comments?Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--V.good proposal!Ref 10 shall be excluded!Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Next Lead:--I would prefer something like:--

Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.It also practices limited science journalism.Life-hacker piece and another source In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.

ScienceDaily is similar to it and EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it self-describes as a churnalistic site.

All other lines could be comfortably and un-controversially sourced!So, no mention of sources.Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The another source shall be a WP:RS which mention(s) phys.org non-trivially!Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---Jytdog's arguments about removal of British are accepted.We are quite good to remove any mention of the nationality from the lead when the website-owner-organization are themselves not quite openly stating it and we have to resort to some synthesis.Further, the latest suggestion is particularly non-needful.We ain't waging a battle against Phys.org despite their dubious journalism and don't need to push something down the reader's throat.Winged Blades Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---I would also strongly suggest Naesco to bring another source(which was afore-seeked) within 36 hours, pending which we can make some slight changes(about the 2nd line) and ask the parties about their acceptance of the lead and proceed to close this accordingly.And Naesco the next post shall be only about such sources that you may have discovered and a concise one/two-paragraph statement about your proposed line(w.r.t to Science Daily and EurekaAlert) and reasons for opposing the current version .Winged Blades Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---To make my points clear to both the sides:--
    • 0)We are all good about the 1st sentence.
    • 1)Regarding the BBC piece and the self-reference, I've already given my views that they are un-acceptable.Self-referencing in controversial cases are dis-allowed.BBC piece covers the site too non-trivially to be used to buckle the lead.
    • 2) That leaves us with the LifeHacker source which is reliable.But, I am not comfortable with inserting a certain information in the lead on basis of only one RS that counters diametrically opposite info backed up by several other sources.Thus the need for at least another RS covering Phys.org non-trivially.
    • 3)Ref-10 is interesting.I will be adding my points soon.I'm thinking of asking out some editor who regularly frequents these areas and have a know-how about the credibility of these sources?Winged Blades Godric 09:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • 4)I am quite uncomfortable with Jytdog's recently proposed phrase-addition for reasons described in my last comment.Winged Blades Godric 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Any comments about my proposed work-around about Ref-10(It will be similar to as it happened in the revolving door case.)?And any comments about whether this passes WP:RS.I am skeptical.Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment---@Jytdog:-Sorry for not making myself clear.I am at cross-roads about Ref-10.Thus, my way-out was that (just like I asked Kudpung in the prev. IACA dispute as a 3O) I will ask someone who has long wiki-experience in these areas to comment on suitability of 10 as a reference.Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment---Echo Jytdog about mediabiasfactcheck.com.Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment---As an alternative, I'm amenable to--It shares many similarities with ScienceDaily and EurekAlert! in the sense that all of them practice heavy churnalism.<footnote>(EurekaAlert! though self-describes itself as a churnalistic site.)</footnote> Also, it may be duly noted that we are not linking the trio up, the science-journalists are!Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment---Naesco, do you agree with my last proposed modification.(The footnote portion will appear at the end of the article.)Anyway, I will be soon asking about Ref-10.Winged Blades Godric 10:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Historical authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Olive_Horticulture[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Lcall52 on 17:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I would like to add about two sentences, including pro/con points of view with references. Another editor heatedly opposes it for an ongoing series of reasons, which I try to answer and where I cannot see how the reasons reflect wikipedia policy. He has stated he doesn't think the page should exist. Given that the content is related to historical information about a religion, perhaps the motivations are strong.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only long discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide outside perspective and a calm, practical influence toward resolution. :)

Summary of dispute by TaivoLinguist[edit]

Religious issues are tricky. The article in question here consists of a series of broad-based sections that outline the main issues of the Book of Mormon's (BOM) supposed historicity. There are sections on archeology, geography, linguistics, and genetics. Each covers a topic that is relevant to the entire BOM content and the underlying story presented as fact within it. Two sections deal with major outside comments about the text as a whole and its historicity. Finally, the last section names two major Mormon research organizations that are responsible for conducting and publishing the church's historical and scientific research aimed at proving the BOM narrative. The other party wants to add a trivial matter that concerns a minor issue found in only one chapter of the BOM and not a fundamental issue. Once a single trivial issue is allowed to be placed on the page, it opens the door for hundreds of other trivial issues to be placed there by other editors who will then justify the pollution by, "But we talk about olives". While the other editor is sincere in his belief that olives are the most interesting thing in the world and that the chapter of the BOM where they are mentioned is the most important chapter in the whole book, I beg to differ. It is important to keep the big picture in view and not delve into trivialities on pages that are dedicated to the big picture. --Taivo (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Historical authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Olive_Horticulture discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Do you think that asking for a third opinion first would be more helpful? --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bay Area_Rapid_Transit#Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Mole2 on 02:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Hello. I and another editor are having a disagreement about this section of the Bay Area Rapid Transit article. Since March, this section has been proposed for a move into the "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" article, a separate Wikipedia article which was developed to provide a more in-depth look at the planning, design, and construction of the BART system.

I did not suggest that proposed move, but I do support it, because I feel that this section is overly detailed and off topic of the main content of the article, which is about the existing, built, and operational BART system. I absolutely agree that the article should have a history section covering the basic history of BART. But because there is an entirely separate Wikipedia article on the history of BART, this seems out of place; I feel that the history section in this article should be relatively brief and concise as a result. I would take as a parallel example the history section in the Wikipedia article on the New York City subway system, which is quite brief, because there is a separate, far more in-depth Wikipedia article exclusively on the history of hte subway.

My preferred solution would be to retain a few sentences summarizing this content in the article's brief history section, and then move the entirety of the in-depth content to the Wikipedia article "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit." (Note: I just checked and this entire section, word-for-word, has already been moved to the latter article. That only strengthens the case for removing most of it from the former.)

The other editor feels that moving this material to the BART history article is an attempt to erase BART's early history and managerial failures. As a result, we're at a deadlock as to whether the proposed move can take place.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've had an extensive discussion on the talk page. I have suggested retaining a couple of sentences summarizing the content, but the other editor is not satisfied with that solution.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping that an editor can provide some third-party input into the dispute, or at least can encourage other neutral parties to engage in a constructive conversation about whether this section should be moved or whether it should remain.

Summary of dispute by 166.107.163.254[edit]

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

Talk:Bay Area_Rapid_Transit#Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29 discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Taichung#No mention_of_population_in_lead[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Multivariable on 08:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Recently released government statistics in Taiwan showed that the city of Taichung's population (2,778,182 people) has surpassed that of Kaohsiung's (2,777,873 people). This change would now rank them as the 2nd and 3rd most populous cities in Taiwan, respectively, and has been covered extensively in Chinese and English language media.

A user updated the article lead to reflect that Taichung's population rank was now 2nd (instead of 3rd). However, User Szqecs was concerned that mentioning this information in the article would be supporting a fringe theory and has requested that proper weight be given to the assertion that Taichung's rank is still 3rd instead of 2nd, in order to provide a balanced and neutral point of view. There's also substantial disagreement as to whether the population rank is notable enough to mention in the lead.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a lengthy (and ongoing) discussion on the article's talk page. A third opinion was also requested (through WP:3O).

User Szqecs has maintained that any mention of Taichung's population rank requires a balanced and neutral point of view, and contends that Kaohsiung still being ranked 2nd is a significant viewpoint and must be reflected. I have attempted to clarify Wikipedia policies and requested relevant sources, although no such sources have yet been provided.

How do you think we can help?

There's some disagreement about what constitutes a neutral and balanced point of view on this subject, whether mentioning Taichung's population rank (in the lead) would indeed be undue weight and whether it's even notable enough to mention, as well as what a relevant source on this subject would be.

Perhaps you could help clarify some of these policies so that we can more readily reach a consensus on this topic. Thank you!

Summary of dispute by Szqecs[edit]

There are plenty of sources that state Kaohsiung is the second-largest city, which were cited but dismissed as being "unrelated" by Multivariable. With contradicting information for such an insignificant difference of 0.01%, Multivariable still insists that this be presented in the lead section. It has been suggested that a detailed description from the source be presented. However this is also rejected by Multivariable, who insists it be written in a simple, misleading manner.

Talk:Taichung#No mention_of_population_in_lead discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Is this a dispute between two editors only? Is the question a yes/no question for which a Third Opinion will suffice? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • A third opinion (WP:3O) was requested already, [1] and someone provided their input. [2] The input was ignored and the other editor continued to bring up new objections. I believe the discussion has gotten to the point where there are now multiple points of disagreement. Thanks! Multivariable (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China‎[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by O1lI0 on 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

1.Do we need to avoid the use of Chinese information? 2.What is use neutral Chinese? 3.Delete content that does not agree or dislike.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The page has socks puppet editing, IP editing and registered user edits.Some of them have similar editors.I am trying to explain my understanding of neutrality and the history of previous discussions.I know that socks puppet do not stop editing before reaching the goal, although I do not know his purpose. Remind them not to WP:GAME through due process.

How do you think we can help?

Honestly, I do not know.But I am very anxious about those who do not know the real purpose of the socks puppet or the Chinese group is planning what.

Summary of dispute by Esiymbro[edit]

Thanks O1lI0 for the invitation.

I suggested the removal of Chinese terms in the leading section for two reasons, as stated at the talk page:

1. They are Taiwanese terms, and not used in mainland China. Even an editor who don't know Chinese should be able see this from the .tw websites and the traditional Chinese script they used. If Taiwanese words are used in the first line, why don't we use Russian, Portuguese, or Punjab words? I see no need to include native language terms at all, as no part of the phrase "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China" need a native language for clarification.

2. They all mean "invasion", or "swallowing up", none means "incorporation". That they are translated wrong is obvious to any editor who knows Chinese.

This was meant to be a content discussion.

Yet O1lI0, refusing to answer any of the points, had made his opinion very clear: to "avoid the use of Chinese information". And by "Chinese information", the editor means not information from Chinese sources, but "All Chinese users' information". (See the talk page) This is where the point of dispute lies: the editor suggests that Chinese users should be barred from this article, so my opinion on this article is of no importance to the editor.

I hope moderator can see that the dispute is unsolvable if this remains O1lI0's attitude.

On the sock puppet part: The article has 96 watchers, 28 of whom visited recently. Many of them would know Chinese. And the wrong translation is right in the middle of the first line. I have already answered this at the sock puppet investigation page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aknanaka and a Teahouse section. I won't answer to such accusations anymore. Persistent unfounded accusations are not accusations but insults. Esiymbro (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aknanaka[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Lisan1233[edit]

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

Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China‎ discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Will the filing party please state, in one paragraph, what the content issue is? This noticeboard does not consider claims of sockpuppetry (and unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry are a personal attack). What is the content issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The question is the deletion of the content, the reason for the request for deletion is not neutral or is not the usage of the People's Republic of China. No matter what the reason is related to the position of the People's Republic of China.There are currently four kinds of people who advocate the deletion of these contents 1. Single use and very few times the number of editors 2. Has been identified as socks puppet account 3.IP 4. Nationality from the People's Republic of China.I personally think that the first three kinds of people have a direct relevance, may think that this is a personal attack, but one thing can be sure that these content are controversial to the people of the People's Republic of China.And my argument is very simple, the world of the Han or that the Chinese people in the People's Republic of China's largest population base is a fact, but this does not mean that all Han or Chinese view should be based on the People's Republic of China.The view is that the People's Republic of China can not fully accept and write, the view is not the People's Republic of China can not be completely denied and deleted. This requires a certain degree of balance. If you can not reach a balance or insist on deleting or writing the position of any party, then do not write any view from the Han or Chinese people and information.--O1lI0 (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator[edit]

I will try to act as the moderator here. I do not entirely understand what the issue is, and I need another explanation. (It appears that User:O1lI0 is having a great deal of difficulty explaining in English what the issue is. English is the only language in which we resolve disputes in the English language Wikipedia. If you can't explain disputes clearly in English, then you can either edit non-contentious articles or you can edit in another language.) Please read the mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Will each editor please explain in one paragraph what should be added to or removed from the article, or why the article should be left as it is? (Allegations of sockpuppetry should be made at WP:SPI.) Please reply within 48 hours. We can try to get this resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think Happyseeu's editor has reflected my thoughts and reached Esiymbro's demands. Also solved the POV problem.--O1lI0 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors[edit]

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by This is Paul on 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is over whether or not this incident, the murder of a British MP, can be defined as a terrorist incident. The issue has been raised on a number of occasions but without resolution. There are references to terrorism upon the perpetrator's conviction, but generally the British media did not refer to the murder as terrorism, although it appears the case may have been tried under aspects of UK terrorism law. Most recently it has been added to two terrorism related categories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The issue has been discussed previously, by a number of editors, but without resolution. I am one of a number of editors who have been involved in this debate.

How do you think we can help?

The dispute could be resolved by reaching a decision as to whether the murder of Jo Cox should be defined as a terrorist attack, and added to the relevant categories accordingly.

Summary of dispute by This is Paul[edit]

Although this case was tried under aspects of UK terrorism law, it seems unclear as to whether or not it has been defined as an act of terrorism by the courts. Unlike these people, the perpetrator of this crime was not convicted on a charge of terrorism, but one of murder, and references to the former in the media appear to be the opinion of one or more individuals. Because of this ambiguity I feel we should refrain from using such terms as terrorism, terrorist incident and terrorist attack in the article, as well as adding it to categories relating to terrorism. I would draw attention to WP:LABEL, which states "Value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". This is Paul (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sceptre[edit]

This is ridiculous. It is well sourced that this was a terrorist attack, and to remove any discussion of that fact would be, in effect, giving credence to the fringe viewpoint that it is not. Mair was prosecuted under terrorism protocols and, upon conviction, the CPS stated it was a terrorist murder. There is on Wikipedia, as in real life, a systemic bias that seeks to excuse terrorism perpetrated by white people as not terrorism (something that was widely discussed after the white-supremacist Charleston terrorist attackWashPo, New Statesman). However, in this case, such a systemic bias in Mair's favour does not exist; when John Humphrys tried to claim Mair was only mentally ill, Humphrys was criticised intensely by other journalists and lawyers. The only justification that I can proffer for the removal of the terrorism categories are in service of this – frankly, racist – systemic bias against calling white people who perpetrate terrorist attacks as terrorists. Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AusLondonder[edit]

This should be unambiguous. Not only was the offender prosecuted by the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism division of the Crown Prosecution Service but it was described as by the CPS as the "terrorist murder of Jo Cox". Sue Hemming, Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service said "...his pre-meditated crimes were nothing less than acts of terrorism designed to advance his twisted ideology". The CPS list "the terrorist murder of Jo Cox MP" on their Terrorism Fact Sheet. Reliable sources, such as The Guardian have pointed out that Mair was "indeed prosecuted as a terrorist, and this was made clear during preliminary hearings". Media coverage of the sentencing also mention that Mair was a "far-right terrorist". This is Paul seems to be confused that the media did not refer to the murder as terrorism prior to a conviction - but this is based on the presumption of innocence. Mair has now been convicted and there is no longer any hesitation by official sources and media sources in using the word terrorism. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm[edit]

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

It's clear that Mair targeted Cox because of his crackpot political beliefs. He was given a prison sentence rather than being detained in a mental hospital, because the court found that he was sane enough to understand his actions. The main source that I have relied on is the sentencing remarks of the judge where he said "It is clear from your internet and other researches that your inspiration is not love of country or your fellow citizens, it is an admiration for Nazism, and similar anti democratic white supremacist creeds where democracy and political persuasion are supplanted by violence towards and intimidation of opponents and those who, in whatever ways, are thought to be different and, for that reason, open to persecution." This is an accurate assessment of why Mair did it, but it doesn't use the word "terrorism" explicitly. This has set off another WP:TERRORIST debate.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TransporterMan[edit]

I've made a number of comments at the article talk page about the ground rules set by policy affecting this dispute. Having made them, I'm done and will not be participating further in this dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator[edit]

I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their issues are with regard to article content? The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If the primary issue is whether to describe the assassination in the lede as terrorism, please also specify why this matters in the article. It should be agreed that the body of the article should summarize discussions of the motivations of the murderer. Please reply within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors[edit]

The debate started off being a question of whether the events described in the article should be added to categories relating to terrorism, but the wider issue seems to be whether Thomas Mair can be described as a terrorist. The trial was held under aspects of UK terror law, but it is unclear whether he could be defined as a terrorist. He was convicted of murder, and although some media and individuals within the legal profession have used the term terrorist when describing Mair's actions, crucially, in his summing up of the case the presiding judge did not use the phrase. While I have no objections to the use of the term, I feel our coverage of these events should be impartial and reflect the judge's opinion since he oversaw the trial. I note our article on terrorism describes it as "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim", while the Oxford English Dictionary says that it is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". In the case of Mair, his actions were not indiscriminate, since he selected his target. It is perhaps the same reason why someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or Mijailo Mijailović would not be described as a terrorist, even though one could make a similar argument to do so. Consequently, I feel that while we could record that Mair has been described as a terrorist by various sources, we should stop short of directly calling him one ourselves, or referring to this case as a terrorist incident, and it should not appear in any terrorism related categories.

I know this is an ongoing issue that affects many articles (this being the second recent case I know of that's ended up here), and it may be that we need to have a much wider debate on the whole subject. But that's probably for another day. This is Paul (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator[edit]

One editor has said that, while we should report that the killer has been called a terrorist by various reliable sources, we should refrain from calling him that in the voice of Wikipedia. )This seems like the most neutral resolution anyway.) No one else has made a statement in 48 hours. Is there any disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors[edit]

Talk:Dan Wagner#Non_consensus_based_update_to_article[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 95.210.221.6 on 15:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There's a dispute on the article about Dan Wagner regarding him being the founder of British E-Commerce. There are references present pre-internet to which I am able to provide scanned copies of the reputable newspapers and coverage (and, indeed, have done soon the talk page). There are also recent online references present from Asian national newspaper sites. But there is disagreement to their interpretation and reliability between editors. In my opinion, many of these references can easily be used to credit the subject person being at least called the founder of British e-commerce attributed to that source if not called the founder of British e-commerce as a fact. The former way of saying it was also my suggestion of a compromise and likely more neutral version if some one thinks that is more neutral.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Detailed talk page discussion has taken place, I have provided references and argued with contributors but the disagreement continues on content and also on how to interpret these references.

How do you think we can help?

There is contention due to some editors being blocked and others assuming other editors maybe related which has lead to more discussion about contributors and less discussion about content. Putting this aside, some prejudice on the content as well may cause this disagreement. I would like to take the help of moderators who can review our references neutrally and help us stay focused on the discussion about content.

Summary of dispute by scope_creep[edit]

Hi I don't have a dispute as such. I undertook a copyedit of a heavily spammed WP:BIO article: Dan Wagner and took out everything that wasn't puffery, or couldn't be verified via references, of which there was a lot. It was full of blog references, WP:OR, puffery, financials, share prices, IPO's, share movements, monies gained, and other non notable stuff; everything you see in this type of puffed up article written by spammers, several of them have now been blocked. The person who opened this dispute, at: User talk:95.210.221.6 wants to put a statement back in, which is synthesized from various newspaper and online articles and can't be verified to be true, hence the reason I removed it. Specifically, 95.210.221.6, who I have asked to undertake disclosure per WP:PAID, as it is somebody representing Dan Wagner, want to put in the statement that Dan Wagner is the father of eCommerce. After several hours of searching I couldn't verify the statement. I like these father types, as I'm a software engineer,like Vint Cerf, father of IP and Alan Turing, father of AI, but couldn't verify the statement. It was that original statement, that got me copy editing the article in the first place. My reason for taking it out, is it couldn't be verified as factual. It is plain WP:OR. If it was a known thing, it would be all over the shop, in IT and computing books, magazines, newspapers, the wayback machine, whitepapers, but it isn't. scope_creep (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yak shaving[edit]

As stated on the talk page, the original citation from https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955 is actually 'the founder of the British e-commerce'. That particular piece reads like a press release and is questionable under WP:INDEPENDENT & WP:QUESTIONABLE. 5 of the 6 Chinese supporting articles cited in the talk page are word-for-word the same as the Taiwan News article. The last Chinese article from the China Post does not support this claim. The newly supplied press clippings do not call the subject the 'founder of the British e-commerce'. The IP editor claims the clippings imply the subject is the founder and/or a pioneer which is WP:SYNTH, 'is a conjectural interpretation of a source' (WP:BLPREMOVE) and has no place in WP:BLP. I agree with the both scope_creep, Melcous & Ol king col, the statement should no be included. Also, it's worth noting this is a similar POV to other previously banned IP's/users, most notable Techtrek who was recently banned for socking, WP:QUACK seems very relevant. Yak shaving (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Melcous[edit]

I first came to this article as it had been flagged as one with WP:COI and WP:PUFFERY issues. I don't claim any kind of expertise or knowledge on the topic or subject of the article. But to make such a broad claim as "the founder of ecommerce" in the opening line of a WP:BLP would seem to me to require consistent and widespread confirmation (and as has been said above, if the claim was true, one would expect it to have that kind of verifiability). Instead what has been proposed is a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as well as some poorly worded Chinese and Taiwanese sources that appear to be based on press releases issue by the subject of the article (or his company) when entering that market, at least one of which appears to be truncated from a quote that simply refers to him being the founder of a particular ecommerce company. The discussion has been made more difficult by the history of promotional editing on this article, and the difficulty in distinguishing between a number of IP editors, but there has seemed to me to be a fairly clear WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page that the phrase does not belong in the article. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ol king col[edit]

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

Talk:Dan Wagner#Non_consensus_based_update_to_article discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have myself mentioned in "How do you think we can help?" section that there is contention on page related to previous editors. I know parties that maybe related to the subject or against the subject in some way were blocked and that has created more contention on the page with the remaining editors. However, I have no relation to any of the other editors (current or previous). I only joined this page when I tried to make an edit and was told to discuss it on the talk page. Editors may think that consensus is not in favour of adding the phrase but surely that is why I am here, no? To help determine a clearer consensus as I understand that consensus is not a vote of more editors, but rather valid arguments matter. Please help us determine a clear consensus and interpret the references correctly.
  • I have made two recommendations:
  • I think the second statement is fairly neutral and does not promote point of view of the subject or any editors, it also does not need widespread references as it will not be mentioned as a fact, it will be attributed to a specific, notable sources saying that. Editors have disagreed to this on talk page but I believe that this point of view is counter to wiki policies so I want the moderators here to evaluate this option as it is WP:NPOV. 95.210.221.6 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Has been previously discussed here but the issue was closed as number of IP's were banned - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=789452294#Talk:Dan_Wagner.23Intro Yak shaving (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to note that King Col and Yak Shaving are also both singularly focused on this topic only and which is fine to have interest in a single topic but I want to request moderators to keep the discussion in line by striking accusations as users were banned on both sides and I have no idea who is who apart from the ones I am talking to in this dispute.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:HansMair[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by HansMair on 20:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC).

Talk:Indian Administrative_Service[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by SshibumXZ on 07:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

So, user Japanmomo has been reverting edits on the page Indian Administrative Service for a month and a half, he uses words like 'stooge', 'illiterate', 'half-educated', 'vandalism' frequently. But that's not the issue, even after providing an adequate amount of references, he insists on imposing his opinion. So, as per Wikipedia guidelines, we decided to discuss the issue on the talk page. Even after days of attacks, we haven't been able to reach a consensus. Plus, he seems to have a disdain for the IAS, and likeness for CSS. A third party has to come into picture for peace. A mediator has to intervene.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No.

How do you think we can help?

One of the administrators would a have to mediate. An arbirator is extremely necessary.

Summary of dispute by Japanmomo[edit]

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

Talk:Indian Administrative_Service discussion[edit]

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