Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 35

List of CBS/ABC television affiliates


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

My dispute is about the following: The user I'm involved with (User:DreamMcQueen) currently says NO to my helpful edits. I have placed links to lists of other O&O linked station where needed on the CBS list. For example, I offered a link to CBS Television Stations where it said "This list does not include CBS-owned stations which are either independent or affiliated with the CW Television Network." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_CBS_television_affiliates_%28table%29&diff=498671924&oldid=495704466. I done so for the NBC (Telemundo) and FOX (FTSG) ones. This DreamMcQueen said "NOOOOOOOO!" and removed it. I don't like this. Imagine having to run a search for such topics instead of having a simple link to the article in question; of so excruciating! (You can already experience such a case scenario: the network names are NOT linked.)

Second issue is that the keeps removing the DMA numbers from the ABC table when I add it on. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ABC_television_affiliates_%28table%29&diff=498244793&oldid=498050818 The reason why this is an issue is that ONLY THE O&O list is stripped of DMAs, not the affiliate DMAs. I think this may cause some issues to the user, since the DMA can be considered useful in considering the O&O's status. I have re added the DMA numbers, but did not change the placement of the O&Os. Guess what: he removes it. ALSO THE NBC AND FOX LISTS STILL HAVE THE DMA NUMBERS ON THE O&O LISTS AS WELL. He directed me to this as his alibi issue on DMAs. I'm not sure if this SHOULD apply to the ABC and CBS tables as well, because it said it only applied to the North American lists, not the affiliate lists as well.

I am hoping that the conflict will be resolved ASAP. Thank you!

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

ATTN: DreamMcQueen- Please be respectful to me and I will respect you. I am not trying to be a "bitch" and ruin your life (see:Let it go). YOU KNOW I don't like the dispute either..... In addition, please give a summary to each of your edits. Thank you.


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have attempted to talk to him, but he did not respond, only if it was harsh. I have also tried to clarify my actions in the edit summaries., but he makes rather vague explanations to why he removed my edits, e.g. "your edits are not helpful, please stop" and uses "redundancy" as his backing alibi.The preceding example was on the CBS table. Even worse, he sometimes never even left a summary, even if it is considered good manners here to do so. (For proof, see the respective talk pages.) I have also tried to advise him on edit warring and the 3R rule, but he hasn't complied and set up a compromise.


 * How do you think we can help?

You can tell him that the links on the article to the O&O groups are there for EASY REFERENCE. You can also tell me if there are new rules implemented on the tables due to the apparent issue on DMAs.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

List of CBS television affiliates (table), List of ABC television affiliates (table) discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Clerkish note: I closed this discussion for the reasons set out here, but another DRN volunteer has objected to the close and I am therefore reopening the listing and notifying the parties. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to consider DreamMcQueen a vandal. I noticed he is targeting the CBS and ABC lists in particular and not the NBC and FOX lists as well. In addition, the removal was conducted without consensus of other Wikipedians. I believe the DMAs should be kept on the CBS and ABC tables. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)  12:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cl*rkish note: In addition to the problems that TransporterMan correctly noted (no substantive talk page discussion before attempting dispute resolution), there has been no substantive discussion here either. You cannot have a discussion if one editor will participate. I suggest filing a request for comments to bring other editors into the discussion. (Please look at footnote one on the RFC page before filing.)

X-ray_computed_tomography


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The issue is regarding the quality, and applicability to CT, of the sources used.

Here is a diff of the removal of the matter.

The pages of the ICRP describing the first source and the second source.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?


 * , previously known as


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have discussed the issue on the talk page, where other editors wrote that my sources were not good enough, and didn't explain why. I have opened a DRN case. I got back to the talk page. I found sources that qualify to the demands of the other editors. The other editor Yobol still deleted my edit, and said that the sources are not good. I talked about it in the talk page. I think that the other editors are wrong.


 * The previous DRN case is Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_32. User:Nenpog identifies himself as the User:79.179.224.214 who opened that previous case. --Yannick (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Other relevant diffs in which content was removed: diff1 see DNA damage subsection, diff2 see cognitive effects subsection. --Nenpog (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you think we can help?

Determine if the sources are as good as any other source used in the article. Determine if the statement taken from the source apply to radiation absorbed from CT.

Nenpog (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

X-ray_computed_tomography discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * The first source is a draft. The second doesn't mention CT scans. Neither are appropriate sources for the CT scan page. Yobol (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Yobol. Sources need to refer to the subject matter at hand and they need to be of high quality. A draft is not of high quality. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The first source is a published "Draft report" of the ICRP. It is an extensive review, by experts, with expert conclusions, and which is only a step from being approved by the ICRP, which is more than can be said on any other review that is used as a source in the Wikipedia article. It is of a high quality.
 * The second source is an approval stamp of the ICRP of some of the conclusions of the first source. It is mentioned that the two documents will be released as a single document, and thus the context of the second source should be considered with regard to the first source.
 * The first source mention CT as a source for significant radiation exposure, and list adverse effect that can occur from exposure to an accumulated absorbed dose of radiation. This accumulation of absorbed dose can result from CTs.
 * The second source doesn't mention CTs, but is written with reference to the first source, which do mention CT.
 * The second source does mention adverse effects of absorbed dose. CTs cause the patients to receive an absorbed dose. It is obvious that that document consider the absorbed dose caused by CTs as an absorbed dose for which the warnings are relevant.--Nenpog (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The report looks like a very high quality, very reliable source. The mere fact that the title includes the word "draft" is no reason to dismiss it, given the depth & detail in the report. But, still there are a couple of more things that could be useful: (1) which parts of the document are specific to CT? The title indicates that it is about radiation in general ... only portions that are specific to CT should be used for this article; and (2) The report cites many other studies:  editors should get copies of those studies (which are relevant to CT adverse effects) and read those sources also ... they may shed some light on this, and could be used as sources for the article. --Noleander (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to (1) - The source describe CTs as a major source of significant radiation exposure (lines 3522-3526). Radiation dose from CTs is measured in absorbed dose. The source describe the adverse effects predicted for a certain accumulated absorbed dose of ionizing radiation. The absorbed dose caused by one or more CT scan can accumulate to the absorbed dose for which the source predict the adverse effects. From the source perspective, the cause for the adverse effects is the accumulated absorbed dose, which can come from CTs, or from an other origin, or from a mix of CTs and other origins. Thus, everything that is written in that document is relevant for CTs, provided that the described accumulated absorbed dose is reached. In X-ray_computed_tomography we have described the absorbed dose for several CT scanning protocols, from which one can see that the accumulated absorbed dose of several CT scans can reach the source's threshold. Furthermore, variation in the absorbed dose of CT scans exist, which cause grater absorbed dose to be caused, therefor the threshold dose of the source could be exceeded in one or two visits to the CT room. E.g. page 94 of this document present finding several CT machines that caused absorbed dose of 140 mGy in routine head scan. It is customary to perform two scans on a single visit to the CT once with plus once without contrast, thus doubling the dose to 280 mGy. Thus two such visits to the CT room would total in 560 mGy, well beyond the source's threshold dose for eye cataracts, and circulatory diseases.--Nenpog (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Nenpog's version that was reverted a couple of things stand out. He wants to put this in:

"Eye cataracts: An accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy can cause cataracts, and opacity of the eye lens"

With a citation to:

http://www.icrp.org/docs/Tissue%20Reactions%20Report%20Draft%20for%20Consultation.pdf

(Note: 500 mGy and 0.5 Gy are the same dose)

Seaching the above PDF for "500 mGy" brings up some rat studies and then this:

'''Number of individuals: 234 radiation-exposed, 232 unexposed

Dose: Eye dose ~500 mGy

'''Description of results: Exposed vs. nonexposed: No difference for abnormal luminescence or non-PSC (posterior subcapsular) opacities. PSC opacities: 13 irradiated & 2 control cases ...PSC opacities were "very mild"'''

So, 5.55% of those who got a 500 mGy dose in the eye had very mild PSC opacities vs. 0.86% of the control group. And PSC opacities are not what most people are talking about when they say "cataracts." Posterior Subcapsular Opacity (also known as Posterior Capsular Haze or Secondary Cataract) does not require surgery. It is treated with YAG laser capsulotomy, an in-office procedure that does not involve touching the eye. See http://salemretina.com/info/disease/Posterior%20Capsular%20Opacity/index.php

The first problem that this highlights is the problem with WP:SYNTHESIS. Clearly Nenpog read the same part of that study that I did, but just assumed that Posterior Subcapsular Opacity is "opacity of the eye lens." It is not. It is a haziness of the thin membrane just behind the lens.

The second problem is that the study is about a 500 mGy dose to the eye -- the most radiosensitive part of the human body. Where does the article say that CT scans of the eye are at 500 mGy? The closest it comes is head CTs, at 1/10 that dose. Where does the statement "An accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy can cause cataracts, and opacity of the eye lens" explain that an abdomen CT, chest CT, CT colonograph or a cardiac CT angiogram deliver a negligible does to the eye?

I am concerned over one particular editor who only wants to insert material about the dangers of CT, and who first writes up the negative effect and then goes searching for sources to support what he already decided to be true. Even if the sources do back up the statement, there will be a strong confirmation bias -- sources that conclude that CT is safe never get searched for. I am also concerned with the wide vareity of alleged harm he has tried to insert: Cataracts, Cognitive impairment, Heart disease, DNA damage -- the list goes on and on. I must ask myself whether there in a non-neutral point of view or even a conflict of interest at work here.

So what happens if I look at the same source looking for the author's conclusions instead of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion? I get this:

"From current evidence, a judgement can be made of a threshold acute dose of about 0.5 Gy (or 500 mSv) for both cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease. On that basis, 0.5 Gy may lead to approximately 1% of exposed individuals developing the disease in question, more than 10 years after exposure. This is in addition to the high natural incidence rate (circulatory diseases account for 30-50% of all deaths in most developed countries). The value of 0.5 Gy to the heart and cerebrovascular system could be reached during some complex interventional procedures. Hence, medical practitioners need to be aware of this new threshold"

...A completely different story than the story told in the reverted material. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I based my statements on the executive summary, which start at line 161, and include the experts' summary and conclusions. Lines 245-264 for circulatory disease. Lines 265-280 with regard to cataract and eye opacity. Lines 332-334 for cognitive impairment. Lines 359-362. Note the mentioning of fractionated or protracted exposure and accumulated dose.--Nenpog (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion as to which way this dispute should be resolved, but I would like to offer some clarifications in the hope of speeding up this process.
 * First, I would suggest that searching a 300 page PDF for a number does not reveal the most important passages in this case. I would guess that the most important point that Nenpog was referring to is paragraph 678, though there is also other data that is more relevant than the passage that Guy Macon has pointed out. Paragraph 678 states:
 * Overall, the general consistency of the collective results for both early lens opacities and advanced cataracts makes a compelling “weight of evidence” judgement that the recommended acute dose threshold for the purposes of radiation protection should be lowered from its current value to a nominal value of 500 mSv. This is subject to the caveats that the progressive nature of assessed opacities into cataracts, and the likely greater sensitivity of the lens in children compared to post-adolescents, both require further characterisation.
 * From context, this 500 mSv limit is no doubt meant to be applied to eye organ dose, which is a type of equivalent dose. In the context of CT scans, equivalent dose is equal to absorbed dose, so there's nothing really wrong with saying 500 mGy instead of mSv. And there is data to show that someone could potentially receive enough CT scans over their lifetime to go over that threshold, or that CT scans on top of other exposures could push them over that threshold. As far as I can tell, the informed editors seem to allow that Nenpog may be technically correct. They have not taken a contrary position that these effects do not occur, or occur at a different threshold.
 * From what I understand, the real problem that other editors have brought forward is one of undue weight, not accuracy. We are talking about thresholds that are not normally attained by CT scanning, and being just above the threshold only produces a low probability of having mild forms of the condition. No secondary source has been brought forward specifically linking CT scans to these effects, which may indicate that they are not normally a concern in CT scanning. The debates over what constitutes a reliable source and what is synthesis seem to have been surrogate arguments for the underlying issue of undue weight.--Yannick (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already demonstrated above, in my reply to Comment, that the 500 mGy threshold can be exceeded, even by two visitations to the CT. The first source is a secondary source linking every mean of causing an accumulated absorbed dose of 500 mGy, including CTs, to the above problems. 1% is not a low probability when it comes to adverse effects. --Nenpog (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

COI Accusation

 * I request anyone who has, or will, participate in this discussion to provide a statement declaring if he/she or his/her benefactor(s) have any financial interest in the subject. Financial interest in the subject include profiting from CTs, or from other imaging techniques and devices, or from other devices that emit ionizing radiation that is directed at humans, or expectation to lose profit as a result of publication of the discussed adverse effects, or reliance on the results/product (e.g. images resulting from a CT scan) of financially interested parties for profit or for a completion of work project(s). Benefactors include employer(s), school(s), or other entities to which one is subordinate.
 * I declare, that neither I nor my benefactors have a financial interest in the subject.
 * I request, that financial interest will be assumed for anyone who would not provide said statement. I also note, that I did witness statements in other forums, of a few of the other participants in this discussion, which indicated, that they or their benefactors have financial interest in the subject. --Nenpog (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is the ref that does mention CT is a draft. Also discussed here. It does state "(238) Not all recent studies, however, support the observation of a lower 4173 threshold for radiation cataract. The Blue Mountains Eye study (Hourihan et 4174 al., 1999) failed to find an association between radiation exposure in 4175 individuals undergoing CT scans and cataract prevalence, although these doses 4176 were probably below 10 cGy and a threshold between 10-50 cGy can not be 4177 excluded. In recent years a number of new studies have suggested an elevated 4154 risk for cataract development in populations exposed to low doses of ionising 4155 radiation below these assumed thresholds. For example, dose-related lens 4156 opacification has been reported at exposures significantly lower than 2 Gy 4157 among those undergoing CAT scans (Klein et al., 1993)" My income by the way dose not rely on the existence of CT scans. And seeing that I have added nearly all the negative side effects of CTs to the article in question claim of COI are strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That the ref mention also studies, that didn't find an association just show us how thorough it is. It also state that the association was not found in doses lower than 100mGy (=10cGy). After studying all the evidence, the experts still found association between dose of 500mGy and the side effects.
 * About financial interest, my request was also with regard to the employer (do any of your employer(s) own a CT?) and work process (do you or your employer (like the ER) send patients to do a CT in order to complete their diagnosis?). --Nenpog (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No. You don't get to ask that and I advise others to not answer it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your advice goes against WP:COI, that state - "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested". --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc James chooses to reveal his real name and occupation (ER Doctor) on his web page, while you choose to hide your identity. Of course his employer owns a CT, and of course he sends patients to get a CT when needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you wrote that, but that is just your assumption. --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That in no way implies a conflict of interest. He has a clear financial and professional interest in not harming his patients by overstating or understating the adverse effects of CT scans. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is just your assumption. WP:COI state "When people are very close to a subject, their view of it might be distorted, despite the best will in the world." --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * and your "I request, that financial interest will be assumed for anyone who would not provide said statement" is completely out of line. You are violating WP:AGF and are on the edge of violating WP:NPA. Stop it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COI state "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing.","The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline.","Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.".
 * I suggest Guy, that you follow the WP:COI guideline, and declare your COIs, if any. Your attempt to undermine the issue, possibly in order to avoid a COI statement, certainly raises suspicion regarding your own COIs.
 * Lets face it, subjecting people to a ionizing radiation is a very large industry with many people involved. It is natural, that people with COI would be drawn toward editing according to the financial interest of theirs or of their benefactors. And we are having this discussion here, and are discussing points such as source quality, due weight, and relatedness to CTs of damage from absorbed dose of ionizing radiation. And you want the audience to accept the evaluation of quality, weight, and relatedness from people who are unwilling to declare their COIs?! --Nenpog (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's face it - should you make similar allegations against editors who hold alternate points of view on scientific literature sources, you will find yourself subject to admin action. Please confine your arguments to the source and avoid further personal attacks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of making any allegations or personal attacks. Do you consider following, and requesting other to follow the recommendations of WP:COI as such?! Please enlighten me, if you can. --Nenpog (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at this noticeboard. As set out in the instructions, this noticeboard is for content issues, not conduct issues. Failure to disclose COI is a conduct issue. Any further discussion of that or other conduct matters will result in this listing being closed as a conduct, not content, issue. Feel free to discuss it on the other editors' talk pages, on Elen's talk page (where you have already made the inquiry you just made above), or take it to WP:COIN, WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, or WP:SPI, but limit all further discussion here to content, not editors. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am open about any potential COI. I do not own any stocks in CT scanner companies, nor do I own a CT scanner (or part of one), nor am I an employee of a company that owns or runs CT scanners. In fact I am Canadian and up here in the North we have something called socialized medicine. The financial structure of our system is very different from what is used down South. And for nearly half the cost we have better outcomes reflected by longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality and maternal mortality.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My remarks from 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC), apply to all editors involved in this discussion. Talk about content, not one another, or else close this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the demands of TransporterMan, I have opened a discussion section at the conflict of interest noticeboard where a discussion of conflict of interests related to the subject could take place. In parallel, content related discussion can continue here. --Nenpog (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing Note: Because Nenpog has decided to accuse several participants in this discussion of conflict of interest and has opened up a WP:COIN case, it is not reasonable to except those who havebeen accused to have a calm, reasoned discussion about the content of the page in one venue while defending themselves in another. DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are under discussion in other venues on Wikipedia. In addition, the consensus has become clear; not a single other editor agrees with the changes Nenpog wishes to make to the article. Finally, while filing a case at COIN does not violate the warning TransporterMan gave above, announcing it here clearly does. Because of these factors, I am closing this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Kulin Kayasthas are a Bengali Hindu community. A dispute has arisen on questions of their origins, history and status. The users involved are particularly unhappy with each others' reliance on few restricted sources and are also concerned about the verifiability of such sources and their acceptability on Wikipedia as per the pertinent Wiki policies. Also, an edit war has been taking place with regard to the article on these very issues. The issue that is being brought here is precisely to determine the much larger question of determination of the varna of the Hindu Kayastha community, whether Kulin or not. There are a few other wiki articles related either directly or indirectly to the Kayastha community. Most of them contain the fact that the question as to the Varna of the Kayastha community has for long been a matter of dispute. Somehow, things as they presently are being conveyed, are not accurate and lack authenticity, and are prima facie, biased to an extent. The Kayasthas in this article have been stated to be of the Shudra varna. Which happens to be the lowest ring of the Hindu social order, whereas it is well established that Kayasthas have for long enjoyed all the privileges that the upper castes in the Hindu system do, and are a very prosperous community as a whole. Until the formal abolition of the caste system, Kayasthas were generally ranked next only to the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, and often ranked even above the Kshatriyas and just below the Brahmins, as a community with dual-caste status. All of this has documented proof, and has been included in the wiki article on Kayasthas. There also are some other sources where the Kayasthas have been attributed the Shudra rank. But all such sources do mention that originally the Kayasthas, weren't shudras and were degraded to the Shudra rank due to some reasons from their original Kshatriya rank. This has been stated to be particularly true of the Bengali Kayasthas in many sources. The Kulins are the highest of all bengali Kayasthas, as per the traditional hierarchy. Of the origins of the Kulin Kayasthas, many sources do state that they are of Shudra origins, but there are many others which don't. There are other sources that do state that when the traditional beliefs as to the origins of the Kulin system of Hindu Bengalis were documented, some of the documentations, were under the Brahmin influence, and the Brahmins to ensure their hegemony, may have twisted the original beliefs at the time of their documentation, and resulted in the distortion of the facts. It is also found at many places that, unlike the rest of the Hindus,the Bengali Hindus have followed a two Varna system, with broad classifications only being Brahmin and Shudra, without the other two Varnas. All these aspects, and many others need to be covered where as all of them have been left out, and on each occasion I and few others have tried to bring these in, are efforts have been reverted out rightly.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?


 * How do you think we can help?

Ruderow (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * We have a content disputes board called the reliable sources noticeboard for disputes over the reliability for contentious social group claims, with a number of editors with discipline specific reliability experience in relation to claims made regarding the historical status of groups. I am surprised that I have not seen this discussion regarding the Kulin Kayastha sourcing issues at that noticeboard, as I check it multiple times a day. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This request will be closed as abandoned or withdrawn 24 hours after 17:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC) unless the requesting editor notifies the other editors and completes the "Resolving the dispute" questions set out above. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse closureCurb Chain (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Misha Bryan page deletion


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The article for Misha Bryan has been deleted. See Talk:Misha_Bryan. The basis was "She is not (yet) notable outside of the X-factor reality TV series." However, I argue this reasoning is not sufficient because she does meet Notability guidelines as per my comment on the Misha Bryan talk page.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I contested the deletion of the Misha Bryan article -- see Talk:Misha_Bryan, and it was deleted anyway without a response.


 * How do you think we can help?

As the reviewer who accepted her page, I would either like the page reinstated or a justification for its removal.

newzealander 21:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Misha Bryan discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Closing note: This request is being closed for being filed in the improper venue. The proper place to do this is at Deletion Review. Please read and follow the directions set out there and refer to the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Misha_Bryan_(singer). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Streisand effect


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This is a dispute between me and two other editors. Streisand effect documents "a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely". The article is a short blurb and a list of notable examples.

In early June 3 IPs and one editor (myself) attempted to add/restore a particular example of the Streisand effect. This example is about a beer company which threatened legal action against a newspaper which published a photo of suspected-killer Luka Magnotta holding a beer. The newspaper refused to censor the photo, which resulted in a public relations blunder for the company. The photo ended up being copied thousands of times, and the company caved in the end. Text-book Streisand effect. Magnotta was the subject of an international man-hunt. Labatt is Canada's largest brewer. The newspaper is the Montreal Gazette. So none of the parties are unknown.

However every contribution was reverted. The reasons for the reverts are contained in four edit summaries: "recent example; more like news", "more of a news story and the sourcing does not mention the Streisand effect", "Rv unexplained, undiscussed change", and "get a consensus on talk page to include this recent event". So basically, WP:NOTNEWS.

I started the discussion on the talkpage. I showed that many of the listed-examples are recent, and that every example is referenced by news coverage when the said events took place. I also showed how the censored-example has superior sources to the others, as it has been commented on and identified with the Streisand effect internationally in the media, and noted by professionals in the public relations, marketing, and legal fields: IMO the best source,, , , , ,.

User:Glrx responded to me with WP:OTHERSTUFF, and User:Ianmacm with NOTNEWS. IMO, both are unsupportable. The most recent examples in the article—which neither editor has a problem with—date to about a week before and a week after the censored-example (late-May and mid-June). I noted that NOTNEWS and OTHERSTUFF have been selectively applied to the censored-example.

The validity of contributions are supposed to judged by the content and reliability of supporting sources—but that is not happening here. Personal opinions such as "this does not seem to be a disaster for Labatt's", and "no real sign of a lawsuit, only a threat", are not only wrong, but also totally irrelevant. The only relevant opinions are those given in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKE is not grounds for blocking or removing of well-sourced content.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I asked for input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Internet_culture. I started the discussion on the talkpage to counter NOTNEWS (used in the edit summaries). There only responses so far have been by me and the other two involved editors.


 * How do you think we can help?

We're deadlocked 2-1 on the talkpage. I'm hoping that some people will look over this and offer outside-opinions. The censored-example and sources can be seen on the talkpage. No one has raised any concerns over the reliability of the sources, or has shown why this example should be singled-out from any other example currently in the article.

Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Streisand effect discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. We need more volunteers; see Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details.

I noticed something about this entry. The section that starts with "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" contains a paragraph (the one starting with "The validity of contributions are supposed to judged by...") that doesn't even come close to being a "step you have taken." Much of the rest of that section isn't a description of the steps you have taken, but rather criticism of the steps others have taken. In the interest of making it more likely that we will be able to resolve this issue, could you please go back and edit that section along with the "Dispute overview" to be less like advocacy and more like an unbiased description? You will still be able to make any points that meet our requirements (the rule about discussing article content and not user conduct still applies) in the "Discussion about the issues listed above" section. Our goal here is to try to reach an agreement, not to pick a winner. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I removed the commentary, and kept the points I wanted to raise.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted this on one occasion because of doubts about whether it had enough long term notability. There is a tendency to add news stories to this section and to say that they are examples of the Streisand Effect, which contains an element of WP:OR. Overall, there should be stricter rules for adding new examples to this section.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - That first source (The Globe and Mail) looks like it meets WP:RS requirements; and it explicitly talks about the "Streisand effect". Granted, it is a recent event, and we should guard against WP:RECENTISM, but given the nature of this topic, recent events are to be expected for the S. E.  I see no reason to exclude it. The "not news" guideline applies more to the appropriateness of new articles, not to material within an article. --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I disagree with some of the characterization of this dispute.

The inclusion of this entry is a consensus issue. WP:BRD says discuss it on the talk page. It took a few trips, but BMA brought the issue. Glrx and Ianmacm opposed. BMA disputes the discussion there and brought it here. That's his right. If a consensus wants it in, it goes in.

The SE article has a list of examples. Some are good, and some are bad. The notion that I or other editors accept all the existing examples is unwarranted. Three editors have, however, reverted the Labatt's example: Glrx, Ianmacm, and UncleBubba. The issue is whether the Labatt's example, as it stands now, belongs in the article.

The notion that Labatt's should be included because it is better than some of the other examples isn't directly on point. It might mean that the other SE examples should be removed. The question is whether it is a good example for the SE article. I don't think it is a good example right now. It's not the typical SE scenario, and we don't know its impact on Labatt's yet.

I do not believe that any article is required to give an exhaustive list of examples. That means that even strong examples may be tossed. Which examples are included lies in consensus. If other editors want the Labatt's example included, then I'm OK with that.

Part of BMA's argument appears to be that if an entry has some sources, then it must be included. I don't buy that argument. I think editors can look at the events and their sources and make judgments about whether it should be covered. BMA casts the exercise of that judgment as WP:OR, but that policy is for the article page and not the talk page. Editors may not put OR on the article page, but that says nothing about what content from RS to include in an article. The example is not trying to provide some minority viewpoint that would fall under a WP:NPOV umbrella.

Yes, Globe and Mail is outwardly a good source; it is probably the paper of record for Canada. In the the first G&M article, SE is mentioned in one paragraph. The article gives some facts such as first day hashtag count at 1718 falling at second day to 500 and continuing to fall. Even given those falling figures, the article quotes a Mat Wilcox questioning Labatt's choice of keeping a low profile while the hashtags decline. Who is right? Wilcox or Labatt's? We don't know yet because the whole episode is recent. That the point of the recent/WP:NOT comments. Is this is durable event? I think it is appropriate to wait and see if there are subsequent articles that actually assess the damage to Labatt's. Is the Labatt's example a flash in the pan or will it have some staying power? If marketing textbooks start including it as an example, then it probably should go in our article. The G&M article does not describe how the Labatt's episode plays out because that is not known yet. Speculation before the resolution.

Most of the G&M article is about how fast social media spreads information rather than the SE. Bad news can travel quickly. The article offers some observations about how earlier social media disasters with Dominos and MacDonalds were handled. It is, after all, a business article. But those disasters are tangential to our interests. The MacDonalds incident was not SE; it was a corporate twitter campaign that backfired. The Dominos incident was not SE; it was an employee's youtube video that went viral.

The Die Welt article is similar. It mentions the Streisand effect as directing attention to the image that was trying to be suppressed. Labatt's certainly matches that pattern. But the article also characterizes the SE as arising from the threat of a lawsuit. That is not what most SE examples entail. The bad guy usually does some public act beyond sending a single letter: there are actual lawsuits, super injunctions, shutting down networks, or denial of service attacks. I don't see Labatt's stepping over a line. There's no bludgeon applied to an insignificant issue.

The other references given above are less compelling. MarketingMag appears to be a narrow trade publication. The second G&M article does not mention SE and is more focused on how advertisers should respond to social media incidents (PR Lessons). The WorldCrunch is a recycled Die Welt. JDSupra is a legal blog. BaskinBrand appears to be a tech blog. There aren't a lot of strong, general, sources taking notice of the incident.

Two sources mention SE, but I disagree with parts of their assessment. It's a nice tag to attach, but that does not mean it's used correctly. In the original SE, a wealthy actress tried to intimidate a poor photographer by suing for $50M(!) over a trivial photograph that only six people had viewed. That is a crushing maneuver. Instead, the actress suffers an enormous and righteous public blowback, hundreds of thousands view the picture she wanted suppressed, she loses the case, and she pays out over $100K to the defense. Here, we have two wealthy corporations. The Montreal Gazette has a competent legal staff; it is not a Goliath v. David story. There's no little guy who is going to get crushed. In the original SE, Streisand did a public act and actually filed the lawsuit. Here, it is not clear that Labatt's did any public act; it sent a demand letter to the MG, but who published that letter to the public? That little gem is not stated. The Labatt's incident seems to be more of a political play by a powerful press. Even one of BMA's sources, BaskinBrand, said Labatt's "had a legitimate gripe with the photo". Hey, can't you guys find another photograph that doesn't include our beer? Labatt's had nothing to do with the accused murderer; its product just happened to be in his photo. The demand letter was probably heavy handed, but not detestable.

I don't like the Martha Payne example, but it has a powerful school prohibiting its 9-year old student from photographing her meals. That fits the Goliath v David pattern, and the age adds some human interest. There was public blowback. The school publicly capitulated to its student. There's further quantification of the impact as increased awareness, hits, and donations for the student's blog and its cause.

If the sales of Labatt's Blue plummet, then it would be good to revisit the example. But today the sources are limited, the reaction appears to be short-lived Twitter spike, and the dispute isn't all that interesting. It's a savvy newspaper stepping on a naive brewer for political gain. The newspaper could have just replied "No" to the letter, switched photos, cropped the photo, or photoshopped the bottle. It doesn't do that. Instead it wants to crush Labatt's. There are no sympathetic players here. MG is neither a conservation-minded photographer or a 9-year old girl.

To me, right now, the Labatt's incident should just be a footnote in the murder case. My arguments for excluding the Labatt's example do not include that it would continue to celebrate the photo of an accused murder. I am not trying to censor that elephant. I just think it is a poor illustration of SE.

Glrx (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

C++


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Innocuous line breaks were added to the article in order to reduce the output of diffs involving subsequent edits, so that they don't overwhelm the user with walls of text. These line breaks are innocuous in the sense that they don't change rigorously anything in the structure of the article and even how it is presented to the user. In spite of this, it appears that a user opposes them, and refuses to accept that some line breaks are added to the article, even when it is between fields of a template.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

A discussion was started in the article's talk page (Talk:C++) in order to gather opinions on the pros and cons of introducing line breaks to an article.


 * How do you think we can help?

The discussion is limited to two participants. It would be important if someone else gave their opinion on the subject of adding line breaks to an article. Mecanismo | Talk 23:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

C++ discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' The issue is not suitable for dispute resolution, although I was thinking of gently letting Mecanismo know about WP:3RR but decided against it as I was the one who initially reverted their introduction of superfluous line breaks in the article, and the reaction was a little excited for such a minor matter. I was planning to ask for thoughts at WP:VPR by posing the proposal that editors should be encouraged to insert line breaks into paragraphs consisting of one long line (I oppose that, but some kind of central discussion should occur before changing the style of established articles). Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you the one commenting on the article under the account? -- Mecanismo | Talk 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? My comments there (which have had no reply) are timestamped "01:58, 26 June 2012". Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I found it odd that you were the only signed user who participated in the talk page's discussion, and only at the start, and once you stopped contributing the IP user picked up where you stopped. Then, when I informed the IP of this discussion, suddenly you started contributing here. I believe we can agree that it's an uncanny correlation.-- Mecanismo | Talk 14:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no need for me to comment further since the points I raised had not been addressed. I have not been active at DRN (my last contribution was in December 2011, although I removed a junk comment from the talk page earlier this month), but this page is on my watchlist so I noticed it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't edit as anyone but myself. At a minimum, even a cursory glance through my and his contribs should have shown that I'm not Johnuniq.  (Nor, for that matter, Tedickey, the other user who's commented on this matter.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought this rose to the level of dispute resolution either when I made my revert, either, though I must admit some irritation at how Mecanismo's imposed this "innocuous" edit on the article four times now (discarding intervening edits to the actual article content the latter three times) while arguing only semantics on talk contra WP:BRD. You don't get your way on a Wikipedia article by being the one to revert it last; that's just not how it works. I also encourage Mecanismo to look for a wider consensus on WP:VPR, but I can't help but wonder in the meantime what's so urgently wrong with the status quo ante at the article in question that it can't wait until he's gained even minimal support for it first. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you repeatedly revert other user's edits without any reason and justification, and therefore insist on starting a edit war, then you should expect that disputes like this are better handled by involving the community, instead of relying on petty stubbornness. If involving others leaves you irritated then that's an issue which has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.-- Mecanismo | Talk 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made one revert. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&diff=499441978&oldid=499378327]. You have made three [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&diff=499373242&oldid=499349059] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&diff=499378327&oldid=499377772] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&diff=499520222&oldid=499441978] in addition to the original edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&diff=499110853&oldid=499105689].  Please just answer our substantive objections on talk rather than edit warring, arguing semantics, reverting without comment, refusing to accept community consensus or the WP:BRD cycle, and baselessly accusing us of doing all of these. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Mecanismo has been making similar edits to other topics (I noticed some other resistance, but C++ is the most noticeable). Making cosmetic changes that interfere with other editor's ability to see what other changes (such as the "powerful") are not generally a good idea. If Mecanismo had been making changes to content, actually improving it, then situation would be different. As it is, the edits are a nuisance because that style is rarely done, is easily confused with spurious line breaks which do show up in the browser. TEDickey (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Breaking massive blobs of text isn't a cosmetic change, as it significantly simplifies the way subsequent editions are presented to editors without being forced to parse a long wall of text to pinpoint where, for example, a small typo was changed. Doing this considerably improves the way changes in an article are tracked, and therefore help editors who actually monitor the article to stop vandalism.  Regarding the rest, the line breaks are added in a way that they do not show in the browser.  If you believe otherwise, feel free to point out an example.-- Mecanismo | Talk 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I am editing a highly controversial article which is subject of intense debate. The debate has intensified over the last months following the involvement of a group of 2 or 3 editors who seem to be editing the article in a WP:GAME fashion. One editor in particular, IRWolfie, refuses to allow a WP:BALANCE to develop in the article by allowing edits to remain that are contrary to the edits he is making. The insertion of the material would bring a more WP:NPOV to the topic but by refusing to allow this material to be inserted it leaves it somewhat one sided.

The material I want to insert is based on a book, published by Oxford University Press, written by an theologian of repute and subject matter expert named Hvidt. Furthermore, Hvidt was a primary witness this material which makes him an invaluable source.

Here is a summary of what occurred:


 * 1) IRWolfies primary argument to keep the aforementioned material out was that Hvidt was not an WP:RS despite considerable efforts to point out the contrary.
 * 2) When it became clear that the discussion to justify that Hvidt was an RS was not going anywhere I went ahead and sought WP:CONS by posting on the WP:RSN to get outside opinion regarding Hvidts work to see if it was in compliance with WP:RS.
 * 3) When I attempted to get some outside opinion by posting in the WP:RSN IRWolfie attempted to thwart public opinion about my RS and divert attention before other contributors had a a chance to review it. It was nonetheless subsequently approved as an RS by the commentators involved.
 * 4) Despite the approval of Hvidts work as an RS by uninvolved editors, IRWolfie has continued to deny (see comment 13:57, 4 June 2012) that Hvidt was an RS and continues in his efforts to remove it.
 * 5) Hvidt not being a RS was used as a primary justification to keep his material out until the RSN process was concluded. Now he has put full focus on the WP:WEIGHT argument since he lost the RS argument regarding Hvidt.

Now that IRWolfie has put full focus on WP:WEIGHT, I remain certain that even if I was to prove WP:WEIGHT regarding Hvidt, IRWolfie and certain other editors would likely resort to consensus to block any text based on Hvidts work as there are at least 2 other editors in the article that share his questionable views. Their prejudice against Hvidts work was also noted by Fifelfoo, who commented that "the treatment of Hvidts work was appalling". I have not included the other editors in this dispute as their activity seems to have subsided ever since the Hvidts source was approved in the RSN about 10 days ago, and it is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text, hence this DR is addressed to him alone.

Furthermore, IRWolfie has inserted material based on a source which he himself criticized (see comment 14:20,3 June 2012) which begs the question if IRWolfie is capable of WP:NPOV on this article or does he have a WP:COI? Either way, this, combined with his continued denial of Hvidt as an RS seems to indicative of tendentious editing.

With IRWolfie being a more experienced wikipedian than myself I would have hoped that WP:DONTBITE would have applied to my being WP:BOLD in editing my first wiki article. The edits I have made to this article had taken it from a rather undeveloped page a couple of years ago to a more comprehensive version which was live until a couple of months ago following which numerous edits performed in a rather WP:GAME fashion resulted in the article being trimmed to this version. During the cdf tlig debate I revealed that I had comparatively in depth knowledge of the Rydens dealings with the Vatican and mentioned that it was necessary to have such knowledge of the subject matter to edit the Church Stance section of the article. When I did so, it was automatically assumed that I was a WP:COI. My points regarding wikipedia guidelines were ignored and instead the WP:SPA card was also played on me (see comment 12:51, 24 May 2012). As a result I went ahead and explained why my wiki contributions have been primarily focused on this article and where my knowledge came from.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Absolutely. The talk page speaks for itself. The discussion has lasted at least 3 weeks and also involved an RSN post. The steps that were taken to attempt to resolve the dispute can be read in points 1 to 5 in the Dispute Overview section.


 * How do you think we can help?


 * 1) By arbitrating the dispute and make judgement on the inclusion of the CDF material in the Church Stance section.
 * 2) To make sure all editors adhere to wikipedia guidelines by allowing properly sourced material to be inserted in the article and removing any material that is based on primary sources such as this one.

Arkatakor (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

This whole DRN is phrased as an attack focussing on me and not on the issues. Note that there were a number of other individuals involved in the discussion who appear to have not been informed. Note also that two other SPAs have been pushing this issue, one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a number of sources that say there has been no acceptance by the catholic church of Vassula Ryden, exceptional claims to the contrary require exceptional evidence. Hvidt is an active supporter of Vassula's who has met her on a number of occassions (see "He made specific mention of his apparent heroine, Vassula Rydén, who has made a name for herself " ). : "Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt, a very active Danish supporter of Mrs Ryden. Dr. Hvidt has done much to promote the TLIG messages in Denmark and in the world. ".  This was not considered at RSN because comments were not allowed. WP:REDFLAG specifically requires multiple high quality reliable sources.
 * The text is phrased to mislead the reader into thinking the catholic church has accepted Vassula even though this is contradicted by other sources (WP:WEIGHT) before and after the event.
 * The primary source I have added supplements the points in the rest of the section, I make no analytical claims and have used the source carefully, it is not misleading and this meets WP:PRIMARY. Note also that the arguments raised above are also self defeating, there is mention excluding primary sources above, but Hvidt is a primary source; he was a primary witness according to Arkakator! IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also I never claimed the source was unreliable at RSN, nor did I refer to it being an unreliable source post RSN for the claim that the meeting occured (that I can see anyway). I suggest other uninvolved editors look at the diffs and links posted above by Arkatakor rather than taking them at face value as there are a number of misrepresentations of my actions. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, I have not included the other editors in this dispute as they have not been involved in editing the article nor have they actively posted in the article's talk page since Hvidt was approved as an RS 10 days ago. It is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text which cited an approved RS and who commented accordingly. As the CDF text is the primary focus of this DR post, this DR was addressed to him alone. However, if the commentators feel its necessary to alert the other users, I will go ahead and do so, though it seems that they have opted out of this article. I will not refer to IRWolfie's other points, rather I will leave that to the commentators. Arkatakor (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You specifically mentioned that there were other editors in your above statement. There are other reasons why besides reliability that text is rejected. Per WP:BEANS it's good to not mention every issue all at once, just because a source is reliable source for a sentence doesn't mean we should add that sentence. It is not the job of RSN to form a consensus about inserting material, and noone did so. Note that you also misunderstand what noticeboards are for, they pool interested editors together into a single board, they are there to offer a second opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: "one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31" - My text and reference differs substantially from that of Sasanack. This has already been explained to you in the RSN - see my comment dated 14:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Arkatakor (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by involved editor: I am one of the editors mentioned obliquely by Arkatakor above. I agree with IRWolfie that the source, though published by a university press, is not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents. The author of the source is an avid champion of the subject of the article by his own admission, and was not only a witness of secret Vatican talks, but was a partisan participant, as well. His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available. These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN, so I do not hold their opinion as well-informed or binding.
 * Furthemore, as IRWolfie says, WEIGHT is a serious problem with the material proposed by Arkatakor, as the addition appears to undermine and misrepresent the official public stance of the Vatican.
 * Last of all, consensus is pretty firm about not including this material. The addition has been reverted by several editors, including me, user:IRWolfie-, user:Sgerbic, user:LuckyLouie, user:Eldamorie and user:SkepticalRaptor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dominus;

RE: "These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN". RE: "not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents" and "His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available.". Which other reliable sources? EWTN? The only official Vatican document used to back up the Church section is the 1995 notification. Everything else that discusses the Vatican's views is backed by EWTN, a confirmed primary source, strictly prohibited in BLP's.
 * 1) The commentators of the RSN were given the link to the Catholic Stance section so they could check the sources for themselves
 * 2) The commentators of the RSN stated that they were aware that Hvidt was a follower of Ryden. One of them even said "I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.".  All these comments have been linked in this DR report.

It is rather interesting that IRWolfie and Dominus continue to deny that Hvidt is an RS in this discussion. In doing so they have further showed how they refuse to get the point. Yet they seem content with leaving text in the article that uses primary sources like EWTN. Being greater in number does not make you right, nor does it mean that the users that you listed are necessarily adhering to wikipedia guidelines. Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am a regular editor at RSN, and I commented on the original RSN question brought there. I received a note on my talk page, and after looking at the comments here, I have a couple of things to say.
 * First of all, I want to be clear, I have nothing to say about WEIGHT or other issues.
 * Secondly, the RS value of the source is completely independent from other sources (Other regular editors at RSN aside from myself also found the Hvidt source to be RS). Finding other RS sources that have different conclusions in no way reduces the RS value of the Hvidt source. That argument is incorrect/false/wrong, take your pick, unless there is a multitude of RS sources that directly address the Hvidt source specifically and its conclusions. It is completely possible, and in fact, not uncommon, for RS sources to have different, and even opposing, material. It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and agree about the reliability of the source. The arguments I was using against it fall under WP:WEIGHT, but still support excluding the material and the source from the article, regardless of its reliability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN and I closed the previous discussion about this issue. Let me start by saying that we are not going to discuss COI, SPA, puppetry, failure to get the point, tendentious editing, or other conduct issues here and I will close this discussion if any such discussion continues. Talk about edits, not editors. Next, I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source. I do think, however, that the WP:WEIGHT issue is plausible and, indeed, I raised that issue indirectly in the prior discussion. My comment and the listing editor's response are as follows:"Mostly-rhetorical inquiry: In light of the Vatican's subsequent statement in 2007, I'm not at all certain why this 2004 statement is worth arguing about. What do you, Sasanack, see that it adds to the article? (For reasons I'm about to explain, this is mostly a rhetorical question at this point and place in time, though you are free to answer it if you care to do so.) ... TransporterMan ( TALK ) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)""It is important to recognize that the 1995 Notification and the 2007 letter are effectively warnings and are not rulings. The Vatican has no jurisdiction over Vassula who is Greek Orthodox. Also, neither document involved any dialogue with Vassula on any level.  The ONLY dialogue that has taken place between Vassula and the Vatican is that which took place between 2001 and 2004 and it resulted in the positive letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which is being blocked from Wikipedia. And Cardinal Ratzinger is now the present Pope. Hiding this information from the Wikipedia page totally destroys the neutrality of the Roman Catholic stance section. ... --Sasanack (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"Because my comment was rhetorical at the time, I did not choose to comment on Sasanack's reply, but I must say now that I find it to be unconvincing and would like to hear from Arkatakor what it is that he feels that it adds to the article and why he feels that the section is NPOV without it in light of the 2007 statement. The use of the term "doctrinal judgment" by the 2007 statement could not seem to be any clearer and while its prohibition on participation in Ryden's prayer groups can be seen as a contradiction of Ratzinger's earlier statement about following the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops it is in fact not logically a contradiction of Ratzinger's statement, especially in light of the fact that Ratzinger's response was being sent to (per the desired addition diff'ed above) "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings". In light of that clarification by Hvidt, if the addition is correct in making that clarification, then Ratzinger's 2004 letter would appear to be to be wholly inconsequential and it's inclusion would be to invite a false interpretation of its meaning by incautious readers. In short, it would appear to me that it's inclusion would invite a misreading of the Vatican's position and rather than preventing the section from failing NPOV would instead invite a false NPOV reading. Finally, in accordance with this section of the consensus policy the burden to obtain a consensus for the inclusion of challenged material is on those seeking its introduction. Unless there is a policy which mandates its inclusion, which would not seem to be the case here, challenged material must be supported by a positive consensus and if the foregoing analysis is correct, then there is either a consensus against its inclusion or, at best a no-consensus situation, which gives the same result. (Finally [really this time], I would be remiss if I did not note that it would appear that every independent editor who has looked at the question of whether EWTN is a reliable source has opined that it is not and I tend to agree with that evaluation. In light of that, then it is not a reliable source for the Vatican documents being cited from it. The argument that "EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available" is false; a source is a source.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While EWTN is indeed unreliable for material it itself generates, it is quite reliable for the official Vatican documents it hosts. In any case, the document hosted on EWTN is available on more reliable sites, such as the University of Daytons's site: [], so changing the citation is a trivial matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I've inserted a sentence into the article based on the Oxford Univ Hvidt source, but was careful to present it in Hvidt's voice rather than the encyclopedia's voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. See the article's Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And I've reverted it because 1) it was premature as the discussion is still going on here; 2) it does not at all address the WEIGHT issue inherent in balancing two high-level Vatican rulings with the opinion of an ardent promoter of Rysen, even if we identify him as such. Please discuss further suggestions here before making changes to the article space. When consensus is reached to include the material, and the final wording is agreed upon, it can be added then. There is no rush. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already includes multiple statements that the Catholic church disavows AV to some extent. If Oxford publishes a book by a professor  which says that the church maybe (in his interpretation) backed off from those disavowals, there is no harm in presenting that information to the reader.   If Hvidt were a horribly biased partisan, maybe it could be excluded - but is there any evidence of that? --Noleander (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Horribly biased partisan" is exactly what we're talking about. He is her chief advocate and defender, or certainly most visible one, as a cursory perusal of Google hits will confirm, including his own website on which he defends her against her critics [] (in Danish, but it is titled "Niels Christian Hvidt responds to the criticism of the prophet Vassula Rydén", written by himself. Note that "prophet" is unqualified). And he is also very close to the Pope, as well, who wrote the forward to Hvidt's book. He wasn't present at the meeting described in the source as a neutral observer, but to actively intervene with the Pope on behalf of Ryden, something he had been doing so for years. Last of all, the "relaxation" of which he speaks is not documented by any other source, and in particular by any document from the Vatican itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All 3 uninvolved editors at the RSN agreed that the Hvidt source was acceptable under RS criteria. Then here in this second DRN, the argument shifted to UNDUE WEIGHT, which doesn't hold water since the article already has a lot of "Catholic church doesn't endorse VR" material.  Now we are back to "he is her supporter".  So what if he is the only source for the relaxation?  There is no WP policy which requires multiple sources.   So what if he is her supporter?  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers that.  Just say he is her supporter, and identify the "2004 letter" material as merely his opinion.  This is a professor's book from Oxford press ... WP is supposed to present both sides of a debate.   --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the interests of trying to gain consensus here, how about starting with some draft text and tweaking it:
 * In accordance with WP:BALANCE it is much smaller than the "Catholic church does not endorse VR" material already in the article, so it does not violate the UNDUE WEIGHT policy. Thoughts on this proposed text? --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dominus Vobisdu: Yes, Hvidt is actually an admitted biased partisan (although I'd leave out the "horrible" part). According to True Life In God Hvidt introduced Ryden on her 1998 twelve city speaking tour by telling devotees "of the impact that True Life in God (Ryden's writings) has had on his spiritual life" and how he managed to handed the Pope a signed copy of Ryden's latest book during a general audience. He also maintains a personal web page that promotes favorable interpretations of the CDF's dealings with Ryden, and there's even a YouTube of him giving public lectures promoting Ryden's mystical writings. Also, as IRWoflfie mentioned, Hvidt tirelessly lobbied Ratzinger and other Church officials on Ryden's behalf. Saying he's a fan might be putting it lightly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Noleander: The only source we have that there is a debate at all is Hvidt. The Vatican apparently doesn't think so. Without a response from the Vatican side, we cannot even say that a legitimate debate exists, never mind that Hvidt's opinion is part of it. Hvidt can be used as a source on his own opinion about Ryden, but not on the opinions of the Vatican in this matter, in which he has a big fat conflict of interest. The Vatican did indeed subsequently release a second document on Ryden, affirmed the continuing validity of the first document from before the meeting ("no opportunity may be provided in their Dioceses for the dissemination of her ideas") and directly contradicted Hvidt's conclusion about the meeting with the words "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden".
 * Sorry, but I still can't see any basis for assigning any weight at all to Hvidt's interpretation of the meeting, especially when he is contradicted by the head of the CDF itself, the supreme and final arbiter in this case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not up to editors to "assign weight" to a reliable source. The Hvidt source is discussing the relationship betwen AR and the Church, and anything he says on the matter is appropriate to include in the article.  If the source is biased, the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy says that his bias must be mentioned.   If the material is the author's interpretation of an document, the article can state that.  But there is no policy-based reason to exclude material from an Oxford-published source that is directly relevant to the article.  Your objections are unreasonable:  first this went to RSN, and 3 of 3 uninvolved editors said it was okay; now would you like to take it to WP:NPOVN?   Uninvolved editors there will reach the same result.   Better would be to simply find some wording that satisfies all editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not up to editors to "assign weight" to a reliable source. The Hvidt source is discussing the relationship betwen AR and the Church, and anything he says on the matter is appropriate to include in the article.  If the source is biased, the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy says that his bias must be mentioned.   If the material is the author's interpretation of an document, the article can state that.  But there is no policy-based reason to exclude material from an Oxford-published source that is directly relevant to the article.  Your objections are unreasonable:  first this went to RSN, and 3 of 3 uninvolved editors said it was okay; now would you like to take it to WP:NPOVN?   Uninvolved editors there will reach the same result.   Better would be to simply find some wording that satisfies all editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course we assign weight to reliable sources. That's part of our job. As for the rest of you post, it does not convince me to change my stand. The three editors on RSN most certainly did NOT say that it was OK to include this material. That is a complete misreading of their findings. As far as I'm concerned, better would be to omit the material altogether. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Noleander: Whether Hvidt is biased or not, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply except to "Biased statements of opinion" and says that one way to avoid the issue is to "specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." Based on the diff at issue, this does not appear to me to be a statement of opinion, but a mere recitation of facts which should have been subject to fact-checking by this reliable publisher. Moreover, if the author is biased in favor of Ryden, it seems odd to me that he would specify that the recipients of Ratzinger's letter were "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings" and that Ratzinger clearly says that in the matter of the prayer groups people should follow the instructions of their [negative] bishops. Ratzinger's statements that Ryden's clarifications were "useful" is semantically neutral: they could have been useful in identifying her writings as appropriate or in identifying them as inappropriate, the letter does not say one way or the other. It is possible to read the letter as saying virtually nothing or as being negative in approving the negativity of the bishops to which it is being written, but it is not possible to read it as saying anything which contradicts the other statements of the Vatican. Whether neutral or negative, it adds nothing to the section but can be seen as violating WP:OR by inviting a misinterpretation at worst and making the section a prohibited WP:INDISCRIMINATE selection of facts at best. If the Vatican has contradicted itself, a reliable source needs to be found which says so. Inviting unwarranted conclusions is, in part, what WP:WEIGHT would seem to be intended to prevent. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan I was disappointed by your comments here after having expressed my thanks for your previous, constructive comments. You say, regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter (which is being kept from Wikipedia readers), "It is possible to read the letter as saying virtually nothing or as being negative in approving the negativity of the bishops to which it is being written, but it is not possible to read it as saying anything which contradicts the other statements of the Vatican." I'm sorry, but the Cardinal's letter is quite short and clear and states, "a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God", in which Mrs. Ryden supplies useful clarifications....". That is a very clear statement giving specific information which includes informing the bishops where the dialogue has been published. To continue to argue that the Cardinal's letter and the dialogue to which it refers is not relevant to the Roman Catholic stance seems bizarre to me.--Sasanack (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I have notified some other users about this ongoing dispute and have updated this discussion accordingly. @TransporterMan; I will get back to you in a later post regarding your points. Arkatakor (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You only notified the two other SPAs (one of whom has a disclosed conflict of interest related to this) and did not notify any individuals who disagreed with you that were mentioned above. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I received a note on my talk page regarding this DRN, as I read it, is it a fair summary to say the issues are as follows: 1) Hividt is a WP:RS? 2) Regarding insertion of text regarding the Ryden/Ratzinger (CDF) dialogue and subsequent 2004 Letter, is it significant in itself / WEIGHT? 3) Is Hividts opinion on dialogue and letter relevant/WEIGHT and if so is CONS required to put it in? Webwidget (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie: The status or not of another editor as a SPA is a conduct issue not appropriate for this forum. Feel free to issue whatever warnings and make whatever complaints you may feel to be appropriate at other, appropriate, places but do not discuss or mention them further here. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, but this is not the place to raise those allegations. Discuss only edits, not editors. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a Single Purpose Account (WP:SPA) is not something that warnings are issued against, it's not negative in itself, but something to note. Being a SPA is not a conduct issue or necessarily an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Webwidget: 3 arguments have been used against Hvidt in this discussion. First it was RS (before Despayre stepped in), then it jumped to WEIGHT, then back to RS (as soon as Despayre stepped out), then back again to WEIGHT and now finally its WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (Transporterman came up with this), the last which is based on the assumption that Ratzingers statement is either neutral, negative or otherwise does not contradict the 2007 letter in any way hence it has been argued that its inclusion could be misleading and Transporterman wants to know how it would contribute to the article.   It is Transporterman who has come up with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV based on his interpretation of the CDF dialogue.  Transporterman is the only person participating in this dispute who has been consistent and has not hopped from one argument to another, though I disagree with the conclusion he has come up with. I will go through the correspondence with Ratzinger and Ryden in more detail before I come up with an appropriate response and explain why having this text is helpful to the article.  Arkatakor (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Transporterman: I have done some reading on the CDF dialogue topic, hence its taken me a while to get back to your points. RE: "Moreover, if the author is biased in favor of Ryden, it seems odd to me that he would specify that the recipients of Ratzinger's letter were "five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings" and that Ratzinger clearly says that in the matter of the prayer groups people should follow the instructions of their [negative] bishops.". You made a very accurate observation. It was indeed correct to state that it seemed odd that Hvidt would specify the recipients of Ratzingers letter being negative if he was supportive of Ryden. He actually never stated that. For some reason I overlooked this when I cross referenced the book versus the actual text I was inserting into the article.

Below is an excerpt from paragraph 1 on page 119 of Hvidts book, the source of the CDF dialogue claim that I wish to insert into the diaolgue. Take note that the wording: '"to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén"' which appears in my proposed CDF text actually does not appear in the Hvidts paragraph below. I have taken a look at older versions of the article and it has been there for years yet I am unable to find a reference that specifies the aforementioned information. Here is what Hvidt wrote:

Note that the aforementioned text is exactly identical to the text I pasted in the RSN. I am stating this lest certain users in this discussion accuse me of some sort of manipulation. In my view the aforementioned does not seem as neutral or negative, rather positive, albeit cautiously positive. Being cautiously positive, it actually does contradict Levada's 2007 statement which states "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden.". Ratzinger says, "consult your bishop first", Levada says "Do not pariticipate". Thus according to Noleander, this contradiction warrants the inclusion of my proposed text under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. At that point the following text: "to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén" would have to be removed and replaced replaced by Hvidts text. This would enable it to fall under WP:NPOV which states that all viewpoints from prominent sources must be included. If you agree with this, we still need to negotiate the text as there may be a couple of more reasons that I will eventually come up with to warrant its inclusion based on further research. Arkatakor (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan Inclusion of the CDF Dialogue text demonstrates that whist the 1995 Notification was issued without any prior consultation with Ryden, that the CDF then subsequently did engage in dialogue with Ryden (2000-2004) demonstrates the scope & process of that dialogue. (Since at the time of the issue of the 1995 Notification there was no consultation with Ryden nor any Catholic/Orthodox Clergy or Theologians of repute who supported Ryden.) A brief background to this: In 1995 Ryden was given no hearing/right of reply. The CDF's issuing of such a Notification regarding an Orthodox Christian breaches the Balamand Declaration *29 (according to Fr. O'Carroll, see below) “After the appearance of the Notification, I went as president of the Association based on Vassula’s writings, True Life in God, to plead her case in Rome.” [Fr. Michael O’Carroll (1998) A Priest in Changing Times, Columba Press, P190, ISBN 1-85607-229-0] “On 5 December (1995) I saw Patriarch Bartholomew in London. He was aware of what had been done to a member of his Church in violation of the Balamand Declaration.” [Fr. Michael O’Carroll (1998) A Priest in Changing Times, Columba Press, P190, ISBN 1-85607-229-0] Quoting Fr. Michael O’Carroll: “it seems to reject the spirit if not the letter, No. 29, of the Balamand Declaration.” [Michael Dore (1996) Vassula and Rome, JMJ Publications, P3, ISBN-13: 978-1899228034]

29. Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. When cooperation becomes necessary for the good of the faithful, it is then required that those responsible to an agreement among themselves, establish for this mutual assistance clear principles which are known to all, and act subsequently with frankness, clarity, and with respect for the sacramental discipline of the other Church. In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts. Webwidget (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Arkatakor:

I have been re-reading the DRN and perceive there to now be 2 issues in dispute; WP:WEIGHT and then depending on if WP:WEIGHT is affirmed how an edit would be worded in accordance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

The previous issue of Hividt being an RS has not been challenged or contested (If I have read correctly) since user:TransporterMan commented: “I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source.”


 * @Dominus Vobisdu:

RE: Without a response from the Vatican side… What @Arkatakor quotes from Hividt above is the Vatican response all be it a "low-key" response as described on Hividts site CDF-TLIG

“May 2004 Fr. Grech confirmed that the response to Mrs. Rydén’s answers had indeed been very positive. Despite this, however, the CDF would not issue a "new" Notification that would abolish the first one of 1995. Rather, the positive response would be "kept low-key".” Webwidget (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is waiting for me to say something, let me note that I may be unable to do so due to real world issues for another two or three days. I'll try to jump back in sooner if I can but don't be surprised if I can't. Pretend this is Coffee Talk and talk amongst yourselves. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes and with the nuts and bolts of opening, closing, and formatting discussions here. We need more volunteers; see Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details.

How close to a resolution are we? What can we at DRN do to help resolve this dispute? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You can comment as to where you see the WP:DUE weight on the text inserted here: . The statement is sourced to Hvidt an admitted supporter of Vassula's and an observer of the meeting (i.e a primary source), but reliable for saying that the meeting took place. The issue is where it's being inserted and the weight issue as a result: Vassula_Ryden, it's being used to counter the two CDF notifications, one before and after the event and only serves to mislead and act as if Vassula Ryden has more acceptance from the Catholic Church than actually exists, this omission is consistent with WP:VALID. I think this is the core of the issue IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A small but important detail, according to Hvidt's web site he was not just an observer to the meeting(s). He persistently solicited church officials until they agreed to meet Ryden. He then orchestrated the meetings and actively participated in them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was not aware of that detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by dispute resolution volunteer
The following is my opinion as someone who has never looked at the page before and who has never heard of the Vassula Ryden. Remember, DRN dispute resolution volunteers have no special authority and our opinions do not carry any extra weight.

First, an overview, then on to the specific question asked above

I think the page needs to be reorganized to correct the following "good material, wrong section" problems.

The lead needs to have everything removed that is not an uncontested factual description of who Vassula Ryden is and what she has done. All material that describes someone's opinion of her, reaction to her, etc. should be moved to another section, such as support or criticism. In particular, the "...vouched for the authenticity", "welcomed her", "false prophet" and "con artist" material need to go elsewhere. Make the lead purely factual, like an encyclopedia. The articles on Thomas Merton and Bede Griffiths are good examples.

The biography is short on biographical facts (names of parents, spouses and children, degrees (if any)) and contains details that are not really relevant (religion of parents and spouses). Try digging harder; surely her husband has a name.

The writings section is mostly biographical. Move things like "One day while writing a grocery list, she claims..." into biography, put the name of the book into "she is the author of..." form and move it into the head, and delete this section.

In the Activities section, instead of "In 1998, Ryden initiated the Beth Myriam (Mary's House) project to feed the poor, sponsored by the True Life In God Foundation", write something like "In 1998 she founded of the Beth Myriam (Mary's House) project, an organization that feeds the poor in [name of city]." Delete the "made speaking appearances" - not notable; we want to hit the high points. Change "In February 2003, she was invited by the Venerable Suddhananda in his monastery in Dhaka to honor her with the "Peace Gold Award" for for her efforts in propagating peace in the world." to something like "In 2003 she was awarded the Peace Gold Award by [name of monastery] for her efforts in propagating peace in the world." (Double check the sources to verify that that is the exact wording of what the award honors.)

Move the "Eastern Orthodox Church's stance" section into the Skeptics section, renaming it "Criticism", and answer the obvious question of why we say she is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church and then say that the Greek Orthodox Church says that her teachings are heretical. Also, in the future watch for errors like a section titled "Eastern Orthodox Church's stance" with text that details the Greek Orthodox Church's stance. They are not the same thing. Every so often you need to read the article one sentence at a time and ask yourself "is this true? Is it in the source we cite?"

Finally, the "Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden" section is far too large. This often happens with disputed sections. Cut it way back, delete non-notable events like the Cathedral of Los Angeles withdrawing an invitation, and merge it with the Criticism (formerly Skeptics) section.

As for the Niels Christian Hvidt material, write it up as Niels Christian Hvidt being a supporter, report his opinions in a neutral tome as opinions, and put it in the supporter section. Do not attempt to portray him as a reliable source for interpteting Ratzinger's positions. He is not a reliable source on that topic, and you are not allowed to use it to cast doubt on what appears to be a well-documented position of the Roman Catholic Church. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * GuyMacon's suggestions seem sensible to me. Regarding the Hvidt material:  I think a single sentence (where he is identified as a supporter) is appropriate.  The objection raised above that Hvidt should be excluded because his views are fringe per WP:VALID is not right: Hvidt is a scholar and the source book is published by Oxford Univ Press.   Even if he is biased, his opinion can be included per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV provided it is identified as an opinion. --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Guy Macon: its good to have another neutral editor in this discussion.  I agree with your proposal of the article remake, especially with regard to the introductory paragraph and the eastern orthodox changed to greek orthodox, etc.  The article badly needs a makeover.  However I am confused by your concluding paragraph.  I am frankly irritated by certain editors (I am not referring to you at all but rather those who have been active in the articles talk page) in this dispute, who never miss an occasion to discredit Hvidt wherever they can, despite the fact that his work was published by Oxford University Press and was also   confirmed as an RS in the RSN.  It is this approved work and this work alone that I intend to base the CDF dialogue text in the article on.  I would like to direct you to some of the following statements made by other users in this particular DR regarding Hvidts work:


 * Transporterman stated: "Next, I wholly agree with Despayre and the other independent editors who commented at the RSN discussion that there is no doubt that Hvidt is a reliable source."
 * Despayre stated that: "It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN."


 * Noleander, another uninvolved editor (until about a week ago) tried to insert Hvidts text in the Roman Catholic Church's section (because the dialogue that Ryden had with the RC Church is part of the history between Ryden and the RC Church), until Tansporterman (rightfully at the time) pointed out that such an edit could be a possible WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have pointed out why WP:INDISCRIMINATE would not be an issue in my comment of 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC). Unfortunately this is the time that Transporterman was unable to respond. I would very much like to also hear his feedback on this.  Arkatakor (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The first thing to do is to realize that DRN deals with conflicts over article content and not user conduct. This means that everybody needs to stop talking about other editors and focus on talking about article content. Please don't take this as criticism; it is natural human behavior to describe disputes in the form "...and then he did this, and then I did that, and then she did the other thing..." Natural, but not helpful. Here at DRN we have found that focusing in on the content dispute usually solves any user conduct issues, and if it doesn't we know where to send you to deal with user conduct issues -- but please wait until we either solve the article content issues or give up on solving them.


 * Getting back to the content issue, could one or more of you start implementing the things we all agree on such as making the lead purely factual with criticism and support moved to the appropriate sections?


 * (Saving my comments so far while I do some study on Hvidt; more on that topic within the hour) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that a single sentence identifying Hvidt as an ardent promoter of Ryden can be included, and that he should not be used in the section pertaining to the Vatican documents. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu The section is not about "Vatican Documents" its about the Church's Stance on Ryden. The purpose of that section is to offer a brief summary or history of what has happened between Ryden and the RC Church and what the RC Church has had to say about Ryden, right from the beginning until the present.

@Guy Macon: I am glad that you are taking the time to read up on Hvidt. It can be noteworthy to state that Hvidts book is not about Ryden, rather Ryden is merely an example within a chapter of a larger framework of content that deals with Christian Prophecy. Thus its not exactly a "propaganda leaflet" like some people might have suggested. Here is a direct quote from paragraph 1 of page 119 within Hvidts work that I wish to extrapolate information from:

The idea is to insert the content of the aforementioned paragraph in the Church's Stance section as part of the history between Ryden and the Church. The main points I want to bring forward from the above in the Church's Stance section are the following facts:


 * 1) From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF in which the CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors and submitted five questions in a letter dated April 4, 2002.
 * 2) At the request of Joseph Ratzinger (head of the CDF at the time), Rydens answers to the aforementioned five questions were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.
 * 3) Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Ryden through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’.

On top of Hvidts source, there are also letters from both Ratzinger and Levada that support the aforementioned facts. The following are Hvidts interpretation of the aforementioned facts:


 * 1) Interpretation of point 1 above: The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine.
 * 2) Interpretation of point 3 above: The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Ryden in their diocese. On the basis of the ‘‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings were allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop (the "follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop's" is also mentioned in Ratzinger's 2004 letter).

Bear in mind that although the aforementioned points are interpretations, as they were part of Hvidts doctoroal dissertation published by Oxford University Press, they would have been subject to scathing peer review and scrutiny for fact checking. Despayre also commented in the RSN that "There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.". So personally I am leaning towards using the above "as is" since this work is a confirmed RS. Having said this, I want to state that I am uncertain about potential WP:WEIGHT issues pertaining to the aforementioned interpretations. Arkatakor (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions on the use of a doctoral dissertation as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#University_Thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Dissertations.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Dissertations.3F

Hvidt is a reliable source. Everyone should stop pointing out that Hvidt is a reliable source unless you are replying to someone who says Hvidt is not a reliable source. As in "exclude Hvidt from the page; not a reliable source".

Being a reliable source means you can use the source for some purposes, as opposed to not being a reliable source meaning that you cannot use it for any purpose.

Saying that something is not a reliable source on X is not the same as saying that something is not a reliable source. Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Quantum Mechanics, just as Alain Aspect is not a reliable source on Roman Catholic doctrine -- but both are reliable sources.

Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Vassula Ryden.

Joseph Ratzinger is not a reliable source on Niels Hvidt.

Vassula Ryden is not a reliable source on Joseph Ratzinger.

Vassula Ryden is not a reliable source on Niels Hvidt.

Niels Hvidt is not a reliable source on Joseph Ratzinger.

Niels Hvidt is not a reliable source on Vassula Ryden.

Anything that we put on Wikipedia about any of the three people I just named needs to be supported by reliable sources on those individuals.

For example, we can report the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Vassula Ryden with a citation to Joseph Ratzinger, who is a reliable source on Roman Catholic Church stances (was/is a RS as a professor, cardinal. and pope). We cannot report that Vassula Ryden believes X if the only source we have is Joseph Ratzinger. He isn't a RS on that.

Likewise, we cannot report that the Roman Catholic Church's stance is Y if the only source we have is Niels Hvidt. He isn't a RS on that.

Here is the bottom line. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951006_ryden_en.html is the official position of the church. It has not been retracted or modified.

When Ryden and or her supporter asked for clarification, Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, talked with Ryden, and later with Hvidt. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfryden2007.pdf pretty much sums up the RC church's position after those meetings.

I realize that Ryden's supporters claim that all of this somehow adds up to the RC Church not really meaning what it wrote, but until the RC church prints a retraction or modification and reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject (Not supporter Hvidt) report on same, that claim is not going to make it into any Wikipedia article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Guy Macon: There are quite a few points that I would like to clarify which feel you have overlooked, I will get back to you at a later point regarding your latest post in which I will compile a fact sheet based on my re-reading of the discussion here. I feel this dispute needs remain open for another good few days until we have all had the chance to clarify things. Arkatakor (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am completely open to the possibility that I completely got it wrong; after all, I am just looking at it for the first time. Take as much time as you need - we want to get this right - but if you see that two or three days have gone by with no discussion, just drop a quick "I am still working on this" note here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now thought about this for several days and my belief is that the Roman Catholic Church stance section cannot be based upon the four Vatican documents (that is, the 1995 and 1996 Notifications, the 2004 Ratzinger letter, and the 2007 Levada letter). While I believe that sourcing issues for these documents have not been adequately resolved, that issue plays no part in my feeling about this matter. The problem lies in the fact, first, that these are indisputably primary documents under Wikipedia policy and under that policy any interpretation or synthesis of them is absolutely forbidden. Second, I have read and re-read these documents, Hvidt's very useful but Wiki-unreliable analysis of them and history of Ryden's relations with the Vatican at cdf-tlig.org, Hvidt's interview with Ratzinger which touched on these issues, and a couple of other sources, and am still uncertain what exactly those four Vatican documents mean. They are extremely vague and, indeed, appear to be self-contradictory even within the same document, and can thus be read in a number of different ways. (Indeed, I keep re-reading them and thinking, "oh, THAT'S what they mean," only to decide a few minutes later that I'm wrong about my conclusion.) In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis. To set them out in their entirety would give this issue undue weight and, even if it did not, the situation is analogous to Wikipedia's position on scientific and medical research papers, whose use is disapproved because, among other reasons, they can easily be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreted by non-experts. For that reason I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it. Hvidt's book is one such secondary source, but it makes no reference to the 2007 Levada letter and appears to have been published before that letter could be taken into consideration by Hvidt and its use alone would, I fear, raise neutral point of view issues. It appears from the footnotes in Hvidt's book that there has been, at least in the past, a great deal of secondary writing about Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Those references, like Hvidt's book, may be too outdated and/or non-Wiki-reliable to provide a complete and neutral point of view, but the number of them gives me to believe that there have probably subsequently been at least a number of potential secondary sources written which take into consideration the 2007 letter. My opinion is, therefore, that all use of those four Vatican documents and the Hvidt book as references should be removed and that unless new Wiki-reliable secondary sources can be found for the section that it ought to be removed from the article altogether. The Wikipedia verifiability standard is that no information is preferable to inadequately or non-neutral information. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TransporterMan's comments are, as usual, thoughtful and balanced. It has always been my view that if WPrules prevent any reference to the CDF dialogue, then the Roman Catholic stance section should be removed in its entirety.  It is certainly the case that the 2007 Levada letter should not be on the WPpage as, apart from the criticisms of its EWTN reference, the letter was never published by the Vatican.  It simply 'leaked' on to the internet.  But, in truth, I remain puzzled that Wikipedia struggles to allow the inclusion of basic FACTS on its pages.  This matter of inclusion of the three documents which have come from the Vatican referring to Vassula should not be a problem at all.  Their inclusion does not involve anyone's opinion, it is just about facts.  Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to provide?--Sasanack (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sasanack: Is not just the 2007 letter leaked onto the internet which uses an inappropriate citation but in particular this:
 * The aforementioned also uses ETWN - I have made efforts to remove it alongside the CDF dialogue as they were both based on primary sources. My efforts were undone, despite wikipedias obvious rules about excluding material based on primary sources.
 * RE: "I remain puzzled that Wikipedia struggles to allow the inclusion of basic FACTS on its pages" I believe what TransporterMan is trying to say is that facts should not be listed alone as they can be misinterpreted, especially when it comes to the vague, self contradictory documents in question.  They need reliable updated secondary sources to analyze them.  Otherwise its up to the readers to interpret those facts which are based on 4 documents and they could easily be misinterpreted thus a possible breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  TransporterMan mentioned this in a previous post with regard to the CDF dialogue but now he realized the same could be attributed to the Vatican letters / documents as they are ambiguous.  At least this is my understanding of his latest post.  If thats the case, I can state that the whole thing is starting to make sense to me.
 * RE: "I remain puzzled that Wikipedia struggles to allow the inclusion of basic FACTS on its pages" I believe what TransporterMan is trying to say is that facts should not be listed alone as they can be misinterpreted, especially when it comes to the vague, self contradictory documents in question.  They need reliable updated secondary sources to analyze them.  Otherwise its up to the readers to interpret those facts which are based on 4 documents and they could easily be misinterpreted thus a possible breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  TransporterMan mentioned this in a previous post with regard to the CDF dialogue but now he realized the same could be attributed to the Vatican letters / documents as they are ambiguous.  At least this is my understanding of his latest post.  If thats the case, I can state that the whole thing is starting to make sense to me.


 * @TransporterMan: I am glad that you took the time to read up on the history between Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, making suggestions or comments about how to improve this article requires quite a bit of background reading and it is clear that you have taken the time to do that.  I concur with you that the Vatican documents are vague and self contradictory and that there are very few secondary sources published by subject matter experts to actually interpret them, apart from Hvidt's book.  However as you mentioned, his book was published prior to Levada's 2007 letter.  There is currently a shortage of recent, secondary reliable sources to interpret the Vatican's documents.  For this reason I would like to state my support of your notion of removing the Roman Catholic Church's stance section on Ryden in its entirety until better / more numerous reliable secondary sources can be found to interpret the Vatican documents. Arkatakor (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead Section

 * Note that Arkatakor is wiping content from the lede and article and apparently says you said so: (The DRN specifically mentioned removing controversial topics such as support / criticism / reaction / controversy etc from the introduction, read Guy Macon's comment dated 07:59, 23 June 2012 . I've also found extra sources for the 1995 notification: . IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie:That is correct.

@Guy Macon: I am still in the process of working on my "fact list" regarding the CDF dialogue. I want to try and keep it simple but informative. In the meanwhile I have taken note of Webwidgets many edits and have decided to action your request regarding the lead section as per your comment dated 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC) in which you wrote:

Thus I would like to propose changing the lead from this (current) version:

To this version:

Let me know if this is consistent with what you had in mind when you made opening comment. Arkatakor (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is the direction I suggested, but keep in mind the following:
 * My suggestions are just that, and my opinions should not carry any extra weight. The final decision needs to be made by consensus of the editors working on the page. I hope that the consensus agrees with my suggestions, but if it doesn't, my suggestions should be discarded.
 * Make sure that any material removed from the lead is still to be found elsewhere in the article. I suggested moving material, not deleting it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Guy Macon I thought as much. Here are my comments as to why the following should be removed / shifted.
 * The statement "Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her "messages"" adds a positive, non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral.
 * The statement "Although two Catholic bishops in California welcomed her into their cathedrals" bears no weight in the light of the fact that Ryden has been to well over 900 meetings (select 'All' for both Select by year AND Select by country in preceding link). Many of those meetings are documented (see 'report' under specific meetings) with photos of clergy higher in rank than these particular 2 bishops.  So why should 1 meeting with 2 particular bishops be stand out compared to the 100's of others?
 * The 1995 notification is already in the article under Church Stance section. Thus there is no reason to include it in the introduction as, like mentioned for the first point, it adds a non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral.


 * Thus I feel its clear that we both agree to remove / shift all the above as per your suggestions to keep the lead as merely a description of who Vassula Ryden is and what she has done, leaving the reaction parts to the appropriate designated sections. Arkatakor (talk)


 * I reverted the removal and instead moved the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No you have not. The paragraph still contains all the 3 non neutral / non contributing points I mentioned above. Arkatakor (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Still not encyclopedic
The article still has a lead section that is full of opinion:

"Ryden has attracted a devoted following"

"Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her messages"

One issue I see from looking at the page history is that there is an effort to move material as I suggested alongside a parallel effort to remove material over sourcing issues and to add material which then is questioned on sourcing issues. May i suggest that you all take a brief break from adding and removing material, work together to get the existing material in the right place, and then resume the discussion about what to add/remove? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. Please check my comment after yours on 22:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC).  I attempted to remove everything that is non neutral or already mentioned in the article from the lead.  However, my efforts were undone by the very user that made me initiate this DR.  Here is a proposed text for the lead:




 * I am sure most of us can agree that the aforementioned lead is neutral. If the users who have been involved in this discussion do not have specific objections to the aforementioned text, I will go ahead and make the necessary edit to make the lead as per above.  Arkatakor (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a good lead. Please put it back, but as you do, make sure that all removed material is either already in another section or gets put into another section rather than deleted. I want to get the organization right and then go back and see what needs to be added or removed. Other editors; if you think he got it wrong, improve, don't revert. pick one small improvement and propose it on the talk page. Repeat until the article is perfect (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I have made the lead as per the proposed version above. Justifications below:
 * "Various priests, bishops, theologians and religious scholars have vouched for the authenticity of her "messages"" adds a positive, non neutral tone to the introduction which should be purely neutral. Status: Removed - supportive theologians already mentioned in the supporters section.
 * "Although two Catholic bishops in California welcomed her into their cathedrals" Status: Removed. If we were to list all the clergy that invited her to their Cathedrals they would be in the multiple 100's since Ryden has been to well over 900 meetings (select 'All' for both Select by year AND Select by country in preceding link).  Many of those meetings are documented (see 'report' under specific meetings) with photos of clergy higher in rank than these particular 2 bishops.  There was no reason to mention them in particular in the lead.  What would be more appropriate would be to state in the lead that Ryden has been in more than 900 meetings in over 70 countries.  More on this below.
 * "The Roman Catholic Church has issued statement advising Catholics "not to regard the messages of Vassula Ryden as divine revelations, but only as personal meditations"," Status: Shifted - this is already in the article under Church Stance section.


 * Regarding point 2 above, in the light of the fact that the only up to date web source that confirms not only the number of meetings but that documentations many of them properly is tlig.org, I suggest that we insert a statement in the lead in the line of: "According to the tlig.org website, Ryden has been to over 900 meetings in over 70 countries".  This would make it usable under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.  Any thoughts / comments? Arkatakor (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent job! I advise leaving out the "According to the tlig.org website..." mentioned above, and I advise that if anyone really wants it in, to rewrite it so that it fits in the activities section. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Content Addition / Removal

 * OK, now that everything is pretty much in the right place, I want to take a quick poll; who wants to add or remove material, and what do you want to add or remove? (Just a brief description, please - details later). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I dont know if you happened to read TransporterMan's comment dated 17:07, 26 June 2012 and the two comments that followed. Basically TransporterMan has highlighted WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues with basing the Church's stance section on 4 documents. I suggest that everyone who participates in the poll takes the time to read that comment. If you read my follow up comment, I supported TransporterMans notion of removing the Roman Catholic Church's stance section on Ryden in its entirety until better / more numerous / more up to date secondary reliable sources can be found to interpret the Vatican documents as some of them are ambiguous and possibly self contradictory. Arkatakor (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with TransporterMan 100% on this. I am trying to get a feel for what the consensus of the editors working on the page on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We do have reliable sources that cover the notification, including two secondary sources: L'Osservatore Romano English edition and and . It's also appears to be mentioned in the times in 11th February 1996 if you have access to this . It's also mentioned in several books: . Even Hvidt notes it: &f=false]. There is no reasonable way this can be undue. These are just some of the sources found online, no doubt newspaper scans would have even more. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Guy Macon:Yes, his statements makes sense and have been consistent throughout this discussion. It would also be good to hear from editors who have not been too involved in editing the article itself but rather in discussion pertaining the article / sources.  I am thinking Noleander and Despayre.
 * @IRWolfie:This kind of media is hardly a reliable source for interpreting the true meaning Vatican documents. The journalists who write such articles have no credentials when it comes to CDF / theological / Church matters.  As an example, when the 1995 notification came out, a lot of mainstream newspapers falsely published that Ryden was "condemned" by the RCC even though Ratzinger, who issued the 1995 notification, specifically stated that it was a warning, not a condemnation.  In Sweden last year, all the mainstream religious newspapers falsely published that Ryden had been excommunicated from the Greek Orthodox Church when the latter had issued a disapproval of her teachings and instructed all Orthodox Christians to not associate with this movement.  Media such as these, simply love to have explosive headlines and are prone to exaggeration or misinterpreting of facts.   The only scholarly account that I am aware of written by a subject matter expert is that of Hvidt, however his book predates the 2007 letter, thus it could not accommodate for the latest 2007 statement of the Church in its analysis. Arkatakor (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The reliability of the text is not under doubt. We are discussing due weight. We have about 8 sources, including 4 reliable books. There is no doubt that there is sufficient due weight established. The current text makes no interpretations at all, it's almost all quoted from the notification. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: "The reliability of the text is not under doubt.". Yes it is, when comes from mainstream journalists.  As per my comment above. Arkatakor (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * TransporterMan's reflections are of course referring to the whole Roman Catholic stance section, not just one part of it. Certainly I agree with the removal of that section if all the Vatican's involvement cannot be included within it.--Sasanack (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it, as TransporterMan pointed out. I agree that it is better to delete the section than delete everything we can't source and end up telling half the story, but my opinion means very little. The decision needs to be made by a consensus of the editors working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (Moved here from my talk page -Guy) You posted this Alas, we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it, as TransporterMan pointed out, after I had replied to you with 6 secondary sources covering the notification. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (Moved here from my talk page -Guy) You posted this Alas, we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it, as TransporterMan pointed out, after I had replied to you with 6 secondary sources covering the notification. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sasanack wrote: "TransporterMan's reflections are of course referring to the whole Roman Catholic stance section..."


 * I replied "we don't have reliable third party sources for all of it". As in, "there are some parts of the "6 Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden" section that we do not have secondary sources for."


 * Your response said "We do have reliable sources that cover the notification, Including two secondary sources." (emphasis added). We still do not have reliable third party sources for all of it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The text itself is coming from the official Vatican newspaper, it is eminently reliable for the position of the catholic church and the authenticity of the letter. The due weight is coming from the secondary newspapers and books. The newspapers are not being used to analyse or interpret claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I have one for and one against deleting the catholic church section. Are all the other sections acceptable as they are? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie is overlooking the fact that the item he refers to was simply the first comment by the Vatican about Vassula about 17 years ago. Much has happened since and if those later developments can not be included in the RC stance section, then it is best to leave out the section altogether.--Sasanack (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems a rather strange stance to take considering that we have the further clarifications and notifications from the CDF to complement the existing secondary and primary sources, which is hardly undue (it's not an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and meets WP:PRIMARY). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon I am in favour of deleting the Church section, Like @Transporterman I also read through the various letters / notifications and sources that I could find for them and found it to be vague and self-contradictory. Webwidget (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with IRWolfie's arguments for retaining the section. Furthermore, I don't think that a poll here on DRN accurately represents the opinion of the editors working on the article. I propose an RfC on the article's talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon "Are all the other sections acceptable as they are?" I previously moved this from the lead to Criticism

> Critics see her as a "false prophet" and "a con artist who has duped a few bishops and thousands of Roman Catholics longing for modern-day miracles".[2]

then deleted it after re reading WP:BLP

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source

I also was looking at the WP:BLPN and saw a mention about this under Vassula Ryden

Was the information removed here correctly removed? Edit summary says "any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". Loads of arguments about this article.

Interesting article - There appears to be some conflicted/involved editors- personally I don-t see a need to add some critics have called her a con artist using that citation - it seems unduly attacking portrayal and just unnecessary - there is still a fair bit of critical content remaining so its not too much of an issue imo

I would like to propose that this is removed unless there is something contrary to what wp:blp says Webwidget (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding IRWolfie's suggestion of sources; If IRWolfie feels that the sources that he suggested are reliable for interpreting Vatican documents, then I am sure he would not object to submitting each and every one of them to the same public scrutiny on the RSN as I did regarding the sources I proposed, which were excerpts from Hvidts book, Swiss magazines and indeed EWTN.  Making such RSN posts would entail quoting specific paragraphs from the books / magazines as well as stating their publishers as I have done. Let the RSN commentators decide whether or not these sources are reliable.  Until then, I vote that the Church's stance section be removed in its entirety.


 * As for consensus, I hope that the opinions of non involved editors who have participated in mediating this dispute will bear the same amount of weight as those of the editors who have participated in the article. The purpose of this dispute was to acquire some insight and arbitration from external users.  I believe that this has been largely achieved sofar. Arkatakor (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the removal of the "false prophet" and "con artist" claims. They clearly violate Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Catholic Church Section

 * As I have already stated, there is no interpretation of the Vatican documents in the article. We merely quote it, that is all. The Vatican newspaper is reliable for the text of the notification. The multiple secondary sources give due weight, some of the secondary sources also quote it. If you really think it's not a reliable quote, I will take it to RSN but I think it is pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are way too many objective RS that mention the Vatican's stance on Ryden (some even referring to it as a ban), so removing the Church's stance section is not going to happen. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The above objection was already answered by TransporterMan, and I agree with him 100% on this. For your convenience, I am adding a copy of his comments below. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've now thought about this for several days and my belief is that the Roman Catholic Church stance section cannot be based upon the four Vatican documents (that is, the 1995 and 1996 Notifications, the 2004 Ratzinger letter, and the 2007 Levada letter). While I believe that sourcing issues for these documents have not been adequately resolved, that issue plays no part in my feeling about this matter. The problem lies in the fact, first, that these are indisputably primary documents under Wikipedia policy and under that policy any interpretation or synthesis of them is absolutely forbidden. Second, I have read and re-read these documents, Hvidt's very useful but Wiki-unreliable analysis of them and history of Ryden's relations with the Vatican at cdf-tlig.org, Hvidt's interview with Ratzinger which touched on these issues, and a couple of other sources, and am still uncertain what exactly those four Vatican documents mean. They are extremely vague and, indeed, appear to be self-contradictory even within the same document, and can thus be read in a number of different ways. (Indeed, I keep re-reading them and thinking, "oh, THAT'S what they mean," only to decide a few minutes later that I'm wrong about my conclusion.) In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis. To set them out in their entirety would give this issue undue weight and, even if it did not, the situation is analogous to Wikipedia's position on scientific and medical research papers, whose use is disapproved because, among other reasons, they can easily be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreted by non-experts. For that reason I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it. Hvidt's book is one such secondary source, but it makes no reference to the 2007 Levada letter and appears to have been published before that letter could be taken into consideration by Hvidt and its use alone would, I fear, raise neutral point of view issues. It appears from the footnotes in Hvidt's book that there has been, at least in the past, a great deal of secondary writing about Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Those references, like Hvidt's book, may be too outdated and/or non-Wiki-reliable to provide a complete and neutral point of view, but the number of them gives me to believe that there have probably subsequently been at least a number of potential secondary sources written which take into consideration the 2007 letter. My opinion is, therefore, that all use of those four Vatican documents and the Hvidt book as references should be removed and that unless new Wiki-reliable secondary sources can be found for the section that it ought to be removed from the article altogether. The Wikipedia verifiability standard is that no information is preferable to inadequately or non-neutral information. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No he didn't address it because the secondary sources weren't there two days ago, I added them yesterday. Also, to claim that the Vatican newspaper isn't reliable for statements by the Vatican is truly bizarre. I've pointed out about seven sources which specifically mention the notification as well, ample due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read it again. In particular, read the part that says "I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it" . I just looked at that section again. Paragraphs two and three each have a citation to a primary source. Not the analysis that TransporterMan called for. Paragraph one has two newspaper reports which could arguably be called analysis of that one document -- not the others in the section, two primary sources, and one cite to a book that not only contains no analysis -- just a mention in passing of two Ryden supporters -- and which does not support the text it is attached to (see http://books.google.com/books?id=QOa_6HNsp_EC&pg=PA146). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: more citations added after I wrote the above. Have not evaluated them yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I will travelling for the next 5 days and will have limited internet access so I will not be able to participate much in these discussions until the 5th of July. Before I do so I would like to highlight a few points:


 * 1) The purpose of this RSN was to point out that the Church's stance section was very one sided and that I was being prevented from being able to inserted the interview with the CDF.
 * 2) TransporterMan asked me how it would help improve the article since he deemed it potentially misleading considering his (then) understanding of the documents he read - this was also in part because I had misquoted Hvidts book (see my comment dated 11:15, 21 June 2012).
 * 3) I had since started to compile a list of of reasons for the inclusion of the CDF dialogue with Ryden based on my reading of information from certain theologians who are familiar with the Vatican protocol with dealing with alleged mystics. However I will not post them at this point as the discussion has shifted in another direction (see point 5 below).
 * 4) There is also another truth missing from the Church's stance seciton. Although a notification was issued against Ryden in 1995, in 2005 the work True Life in God was  officially endowed by the Catholic Church with the Nihil obstat by Bishop Felix Toppo, S.J., D.D., bishop of Jamshedpur and official Censor Librorum (official ecclesiastical authority duly charged with reviewing texts and granting the Nihil obstat) and - the Imprimatur by Archbishop Ramon Cabrera Argüelles, Archbishop of Lipa. This used to be in the article but a proper source was not available so one of the editors involved in this dispute removed it.  There are   surely scanned documents that confirm the above, however I am sure they are probably only sourced on TLIG.org.  I am aware of various religious magazines that have written about it, though I am not sure if they would pass RS.
 * 5) TransporterMan made a very insightful comment (quoted above by Guy Macon) that made me rethink about the whole Catholic Church section. Most importantly, he made this comment after taking the time to read all the information out there.  His contention was that the Church's stance be removed until reliable secondary up to date sources are available to interpret them.  I support this view.

Other users have since attempted to come up with secondary sources, though I am sure most of them would not pass RSN consensus for reliability, especially when compared to Hvidts publication. Thus my view is in the absence of 2 truths in the Church's stance section (CDF dialogue and Nihil Obstat), I would rather have the Church Stance removed in its entirety then having it as is. My decision is also based on what TransporterMan pointed out, which was that there are very few sources out there that are qualified and up to date to interpret the Vatican documents objectively.

Sofar the way I see it, 3 editors involved in the article support TransporterMans view, and from the looks of it, so does Guy Macon. This currently puts the headcount to 5 editors if the votecount for the 2 mediators in this discussion are accounted for (unless they have not fully made up their minds). 3 editors have already stated they want the RC Stance section to remain. Thus I would suggest that, to get an even greater consensus, Noleander and possibly even Despayre who have participated in this discussion also be called to vote for / against removal of the Church's stance's section after taking the time to read through TrasnpoerterMans quoted comment above. Perhaps this would give us a consensus and way to move forward? I will be back on the 5th of July but will try to monitor whats going on here, given the chance. Arkatakor (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "So far, the way I see it, 3 editors involved in the article support TransporterMans view, and from the looks of it, so does Guy Macon." That is correct. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1.This isn't RSN.
 * 2. TransporterMans comments don't take into account the secondary sources I have since found.
 * 4. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth, there was no citation for TLIG being official endorsed. I find your reliance on scanned primary documents a little disconcerting considering you specifically complained about primary sources being used to justify text earlier.
 * 5. same as 2
 * Note headcounts aren't how consensus work.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the only thing not secondary sourced at the moment in that section is the 2007 statement. Due weight is already established by the numerous reliable sources covering the original statement, the later 2007 statement is a repetition of the earlier statements. It seems a very strange stance to delete everything because the 2007 statement can't be secondary sourced although it is reliably sourced. I can search the newspaper archives and find a secondary source though. edit: I've added some secondary sources for that statement as well, they aren't in English though. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, we have at least two secondary source that cover the 1996 and 1995 notifications both at the same time (Hvidt being one of them), we have a secondary source that cover the 1995 notices and the 2007 notices, we also have many other secondary sources that I have not mentioned, this is not an exhaustive list, I can find more if desired. We also have the primary sources themselves for the authenticity of the notices. There is no requirement that sections be covered by a single reference, I don't know why that would be required. (there are still more reliable sources if you want them added as well but verification and due weight have been met). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy to finally be able to agree with IRWolfie about something. I agree with his statement that "headcounts aren't how consensus works".  But the way 'no consensus' has been used in justification for deletions on the Vassula page has generally been as an alternative to 'no unanimity' which of course is something different.  IRWolfie continues to totally ignore the third Vatican document about Vassula (Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter).  This betrays a total lack of a neutral POV about Vassula.--Sasanack (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Edits, not editors, must have a NPOV. This discussion has so far stayed focused on content, rather than on one another. Let's keep it that way, please. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Edits not editors need to have a NPOV" - a very good point which I will try to remember. It reminds me of the Christian directive to hate the sin but not the sinner. Unfortunately, this whole problem does relate to specific editors who, for whatever reason, are not prepared to make the slightest compromise regarding the RCchurch stance section.  The two DRN discussions have brought forward many balanced comments and suggestions from independent editors but it seems to me that when this discussion is closed, the 'group of 4' (if I may so describe them) will be able to revert any attempt to remove or change that section.  They will simply say there is no consensus to remove it and that will be that.  If I am mistaken about this I would very much like to hear of possible ways forward.  --Sasanack (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above and share the same concerns as Sasanack with regard to this particular group of editors. I feel thus that the insight of all the uninvolved editors, be it in this discussion or the RSN that I had posted has been far more helpful to help find a way to move forward with the article.  Arkatakor (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I am new to this topic, never having seen it before, and here is my take on it. I think the Catholic Church section as now written is neutral and suitable. If this section were taken away, the reader would not be fully aware of the negative force of the official Catholic position. With secondary sources providing ample support, the section stands up without depending on primary sources and especially without interpretation and synthesis. The material that Arkatakor wished to add to the article made my head spin, it was so nebulous and opaque. Just like TransporterMan's response to the primary sources, I could not make heads or tails of the various statements. I do not see any value brought to this Wikipedia biography by adding such unenlightening text. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you say you have never seen the topic before, yet you view the RCchurch section "neutral and suitable". On what do you base that assessment?--Sasanack (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not use inflammatory wording, it uses reliable secondary sources combined with specific quotes cited to primary sources, and it tells the reader the status of Rydén with regard to the Catholic Church's official position; a very important point in her biography. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, there's an effort to sort out the sourcing issues going on at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Can I please ask that if anyone takes a content issue to another board that they at least mention here that they have done so? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did mention I was taking it to RSN because Arkatakor asked me to, see the top of this subsection. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am glad IRWolfie has taken the time to put his sources up on RSN. I have taken note that one of them mentions Rydens dialogue with the CDF:  "Mrs Vassula Ryden has however provided clarifications on certain problematical points which appear in her writings, and also on the nature of her messages, which do not present themselves as divine revelations but, rather as personal meditations (cf. attachment 2: Letter of April 4th 2002 published in the True Life in God vol. 10). From the normative point of view, then, after the above mentioned clarifications, it is advisable to make a prudent evaluation, case by case, taking into account the concrete possibilities for the faithful in reading these writings within the framework of such clarifications.".


 * Certain sources that IRWolfie wants to use for mentioning the 1995 notification also confirm Rydens dialogue with the CDF. It seems bizarre to me that in the light of the multitude of sources that confirm the dialogue, there continues to be this push to keep it out of the article. Arkatakor (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet:

RE: I think the Catholic Church section as now written is neutral and suitable. I suggest you do more reading on the topic then. There is "The Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Writings of Vassula Rydén" by Fr. Tiberio Munari who based part of his book on his meeting with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in Guadalajara, on May 10, 1996. Ratzinger then stated: "The Notification is not a condemnation but a warning, a notice of caution. Anyway, you may continue to promote her writings, but always with discernment."

There is also "Christian prophecy: the post-biblical tradition" by Hvidt and also Hvidts website, cdf-tlig.org (not hosted or owned by tlig as the name implies but by Hvidt) which offers a good but non wiki usable description of Rydens dialogue with the vatican. There are also quite a few articles / magazines our there that also mention the dialogue.

The 2000-2004 dialogue is significant for the following reasons:


 * The dialogue gave Ryden her first opportunity to defend herself since the 1995 notification.
 * The dialogue was held with the same Cardinal that issued the 1995 Notification (Josheph Ratzinger).
 * It is very unusual that the RCC has a dialgoue with an alleged living mystic / prophet - it points to the impact Ryden has had in Catholic circles.
 * The fact that the RCC / CDF had a dialogue with an Orthodox alleged mystic / prophet is even more significant, since she is not under the jurisdiction of the RCC.
 * Towards the end of the dialogue Ratzinger held a private audience with Ryden and Hvidt, which again is signficiant.
 * At the conclusion of the dialogue Ratzinger himself reqeusted through Fr. Prospero that Rydens answers be published in her books.

Having Ratzingers questions and Rydens answers mentioned in the article and linked externally would give the wikipedia readers a chance to read and deduce for themselves what Ratzinger meant by "uselful clarifications", a statement that TransporterMan rightfully said was ambigious.

Thus the way I see it, in order to keep that section neutral, all the important events between Ryden and the RCC should be mentioned. Tell the full story or dont tell it at all. Having it as is would give readers the incorrect impression that everything has always been "all bad" between Ryden and the Church.

''Note: This comment is only noteworthy if we are back to keeping the Catholic Church section. However, the issue of lack of synthesis and interpretation by updated reliable sources continues to apply for most of the events between Ryden and the RCC (including the CDF dialoge). Thus I still support TransporterMan's views of keeping the section out in its enterity until the latter issue can be resolved.'' Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The suggestion by TransporterMan to eliminate the Catholic Church section was made before IRWolfie added secondary sources and improved it. TransporterMan has not provided an updated suggestion, so we must discount the previous one as a few days too old.
 * Regarding the January 2007 letter printed in CatholicCulture.org, you are misrepresenting it; I can see plainly that it is mostly negative. You cannot use the letter to provide only positive information about Ryden! It says that the old 1995 Notification remains in force, and it says that people should not join Ryden in prayer groups. The only portion that can be thought of as remotely positive does not specify anything concrete; it says Ryden "provided clarifications on certain problematical points", but it does not say what sort of positive result came from it. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Binksternet: RE: "TransporterMan has not provided an updated suggestion." Yes he has.  It seems a lot of people are missing his point here.  Having reliable sources that mention the notification has never been an issue.  Having reliable updated RS's that analyze and interpret and offer a synthesis of all the vatican documents from 1995 to 2007 HAS been an issue.  And this is what Transporterman has been pointing out.  The only one that comes close is Hvidt, but it only covers 1995 and 2004, not 2007.


 * RE: "You cannot use the letter to provide only positive information about Ryden!" That was never the intention.  If you read my previous post, dated dated 18:38, 29 June 2012, I clearly stated that I wanted to use the letter (among other sources out there) to tell the full story.


 * At this point however, I am still in favor of removing the Catholic Church section in its entirety for reasons mentioned by Transporterman. Last I checked, Guy Macon also agrees with this. Arkatakor (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When I registered on Wikipedia, I was presented with advice which pointed to the five pillars of Wikipedia. All the discussion regarding Vassula on this Noticeboard and all the other talk pages ignore the following WP principles:

''The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate.''

''The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion.''

The problem is that there is no system on WP to implement the above principles. It should be obvious to anyone that the CDF dialogue with Vassula should not be excluded from the Vassula page but the mindset of a group of editors which discards totally the above principles seems likely to ensure that the dialogue will remain blocked.--Sasanack (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Disrupting the DRN process by talking about users instead of content

 * Bear in mind that the above user has an conflict of interest on this topic which was established at COIN: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_57. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of "talk about article content, not about other editors" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about article content: the inclusion on the Vassula page of a proper reference to the dialogue between Vassula and the Vatican. A reference to such can and should be included under the principles (rules) I quote above. Yet any attempt to insert such a reference will be removed using the normal rules. Blocking that information devalues Wikipedia as an informative and balanced encyclopedia--Sasanack (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits are fine. The above comment was for IRWolfie. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, it appears that Binksternet has not taken the time to read this discussion in detail, specifically the "Still not encylopedic" section where the lead was discussed and approved. This user has gone ahead inserted his interpretation of the Church's stance section.  Could you kindly inform this user that any proposed changes to the lead (or any other section) should pass through this DRN? Arkatakor (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So it seems we have confirmation that the text is reliably sourced from RSN: RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously suggesting that it's not worth taking into account a user with an established conflict of interest on this very topic. The article is even tagged with the connected contributor warning. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Arkatakor, please post such requests on my talk page. DRN is for discussing article content, not user conduct. Thanks!

IRWolfie, I am not going to answer your question because it is a question about user conduct. DRN is for discussing article content, not user conduct. Your behavior above presents me with a problem. You were clearly informed that DRN is for discussing article content, not user conduct, and yet you decided that the rules don't apply to you.

These rules are there for a very good reason. Long experience with a large number of disputes has shown us that discussing article content, not user conduct, then addressing any remaining user conduct issues after the content issues are settled, has the best chances of a positive result.

I can address this in one of several different ways. First, (and this is by far the best solution) you could voluntarily decide to follow the rules and stop talking about other users. Second, I could simply start deleting your comments about other users. This is allowed under WP:TPOC, "removing harmful posts" section. I would consult with the other dispute resolution volunteers before doing that -- it is not an action to be taken lightly. Third, I could close this discussion and mark it as failed. I don't think I would, considering what we have accomplished here, and again I would consult with the other dispute resolution volunteers first. Finally, and I include this just for completeness, I could start down the path of posting a waring template after each incident, ( Template:Uw-disruptive1, Template:Uw-disruptive1, Template:Uw-disruptive1) then escalating it to the appropriate noticeboard and asking an administrator to give you a series of blocks (typically 24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week, one month, indefinite) I really don't want to do that. That path is for very disruptive editors, which you are not. The admin might very well decline my request, and even if we finish the process, you would get to talk about other editors at least 7 more times before being indefinitely blocked. I would really like it if you made this choice unnecessary by voluntarily agreeing to discussing article content, not user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will not be taking further part in this DRN. Being unable to point out that a certain editor has an established conflict of interest WP:COI on the very topic under discussion, is outside the norm of wikipedia and seems in spite of WP:COMMONSENSE. I will not be taking further part in the discussion here as it mostly seems to involve a consensus between Guy Macon and the Single Purpose Accounts WP:SPA, and not a consensus involving the other editors in the dispute. Also, the guidelines at the top of the page says: However, we do accept disputes where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes". IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I, too, will no longer be taking part in this DRN, and propose it be terminated. It accomplished its original purpose long ago and has moved on into areas which should properly be discussed on the article talk page. I don't have time to follow two separate discussions about article content. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anyone object to this being closed? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with closing the thread. Lively discussion is taking place at the article talk page. More eyes are on it. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear a last comment from TransporterMan before we close this thread. Personally I do not think that some of the users have understood / wanted to understand what TransporterMan meant with regard to finding secondary sources that sumarize or otherwise offer a synthesis of all of the vatican documents (not just the 1995 notification and 2007 letter but also the 2004 letter), in order to give a compreshensive view of the Church's stance.  Take note that only the 1995 notification and 2007 letter were chosen by the particular group of editors and sumarized in the lead as well as the article. The 2004 letter which focuses on the dialogue was omitted.  Thus I do not consider this DR resolved.


 * Personally I wont have a problem with the closing this thread as long as the Vassula Ryden's talk page (and possibly article) can continue to benefit from the participation of Guy Macon, TransporterMan and Noleander, at least for the next few weeks. I feel this would be especially useful now that they have taken the time to familiarize themselves with some of the material, which in itself can be a duanting task.  The purpose of this DR was to acquire some insight / arbitration, and possible involvement from editors who were neutral to the topic.  I am stating this because dealing directly with certain other editors who have already made up their mind about VR and how they want the article to look simply is a no go as far as I am concerned.  The discussions on the talk page, my RSN as well as this DRN bear witness to my attempts to reason with them.


 * Again I hope to hear from TransporterMan before this topic is closed. Arkatakor (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Arkatakor's hope for a 'final' contribution from TransporterMan on the dispute. His thoughtfulness and constructive advice has been refreshing in an environment which I have found rather aggressive and argumentative.--Sasanack (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've not been following the discussion on the article talk page. Someone suggested an RFC and I think that is a very good idea unless the discussion of the issues at the talk page is making progress. Either way, I support the closure of this thread here at DRN. As I discussed in the RSN discussion, I do not believe that the sources added for the 2007 Levada letter are reliable but without it being taken into consideration that the stance section has NPOV (and also, perhaps, though I have not said much about this, BLP issues). I do not believe that those issues necessarily require the removal of the section if the inclusion of the 2007 letter cannot be resolved, but I do believe that its removal is in the best interest of the encyclopedia if they cannot be resolved. Best regards to all, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

American Staffordshire Terrier


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Last fall, the American Temperament Test Society (ATTS) test summary statistics were attempted to be added to the temperament section of the American Staffordshire Terrier entry. I initiated a movement to have them removed because they were primary statistics from the ATTS corporation themselves or from a self-published source. The section has been re-instated by an anonymous editor who is the same person, I believe, I had the dispute with earlier. The source now is a law professor who wrote a book about animal law that was published by the American Bar Association. My contention is that this author has not demonstrated the ability to analyze statistical information and it is unclear if the publisher of the book would be stringent in that regard. Other sources that point to ATTS test summaries are usually dog advocacy groups with the same issue. There are obvious problems with the claims made based upon ATTS test summaries by breed that are not addressed by the author, and so her credibility in this regard is dubious. Namely, the sampling frame for the summaries are those dogs with owners that will know of the test, voluntarily bring their dogs in, and then pay for the test. Even among the sampling frames of various breeds, there is no guarantee of a random sample. Therefore, interbreed comparisons are worthless from a statistical standpoint, and the test results only hold for individual dogs as the population being sampled is not the breed itself but an unknown subset.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

89.123.208.58 is likely k84m97 but is not signing their changes with their username.


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

removed the edits, got accused of deceiving the public by the anonymous user in the talk page, anonymous user reinstated entry, I removed it again


 * How do you think we can help?

provide a perspective, objective voice in analyzing whether sources are credible for the page at hand

Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

American Staffordshire Terrier discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I was the one who inserted the new text. I read up the talk page where it was agreed that a reliable second source can be used on the subject. This second source is a work published by the American Bar Association which we all can agree is a trustworthy source. User Wvguy8258 posted on the article's talk page links about pit bull attacks from the news as a reason why the information about temperament tests shouldn't be included. As I know "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or what others perceive as truth.89.123.208.58 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Temperament Tests are widely used in the US by state authorities, canine organizations, city councils and layers. In some towns you can keep a bigger dog if the dog passed the Temperament Test. Since it is a research it can't be published here from the primary source therefore I looked for a trustworthy secondary source. It is also mentioned and used in many dog fancy journal, American Kennel Club, Dogs in Canada, American Veterinary Medical Association and so on but its use in a work of a reputable organization as the American Bar Association can be accepted as a reputable source beyond any doubt. Furthermore the work published by ABA extensively analyzes the issue using the results in the court. 89.123.208.58 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer the use of temperament tests being used by state authorities etc...A test can be perfectly valid to evaluate a specific dog, yet summaries by group may be inappropriate to describe group differences. So, a state humane org using the ATTS to evaluate a particular dog means little to this discussion.  For example, we put out fliers to examine the thickness of men's hair in two states.  Each male that shows up gets an accurate examine, yet you cannot describe the difference in means for the general population of two states with the samples.  Why because guys with thinning hair in both states do not show up.  If a state has more bald guys per capita, they will simply have a smaller per capita sample size, and the means of the two states will be remarkably similar and hold no information. Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Anonymous poster is misrepresenting my case against including the ATTS test summaries. It was based upon: 1. statistical argument which is obvious to anyone experienced in data analysis (that the sampling frame and sample generation mechanism for these test summaries by breed are not reliable to generate the information many purport) and 2. that the sources of the ATTS test summaries is not reliable.  So, I will ask this as a thought question, is the American Bar Association (ABA) a reliable publishing house in terms of sifting through truth claims made by pharmaceutical companies based upon data in order to determine a particular drug's effectiveness?  Is a law professor published by the ABA a reliable analyst for biomedical claims like this?  Where are the bounds of law professor and the ABA's expertise?


 * Is the American Temperament Test Society Inc. a trustworthy group to come up with a sampling design to compare breeds when in fact comparing breeds is not their aim at all? Is the reporting of their findings by a lawyer germane?


 * You know what? I give up.  I just google scholar'd the ATTS test and it seems that many people with no expertise in judging numbers are using it to prop up a PC agenda in regards to animals.  So, anonymous use can find poor research to back up their claims. By the way, this is why wikipedia is often so unreliable when it comes controversial issues.  A democratic approach to sifting truth doesn't work when people insist on discussing things beyond their competency.


 * I'll try to post on the talk page a brief mathematical description of what the "dog experts" and lawyers are missing.

Wvguy8258 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - In controversial topics like this, it is often best to try to present both sides of the story, rather than eliminate the material and leave the reader with ... nothing. See WP:BALANCE. I would recommend including the ABA material described above, but doing the following: (1) make sure it states exactly what is in the ABA publication ... no added interpretations by the editor; (2) make sure the article identifies the ABA as the source (in the prose, not buried in a footnote); (3) include any sources that critique the ABA's material (provided they meet the WP:RS requirement); and (4) include material that present the opposing point of view about Temperament Tests  (in a general way, without reference to ABA)  for instance, claiming that the tests are flawed or unreliable. As long as everything is well sourced, and any biases are identified, that will give readers the full picture. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems fair to me what Noleander wrote. I agree with all of them but of course point 3 and point 4 also should be based on a reliable source.92.82.24.232 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It likely doesn't exist. There is not much call for the deconstruction of the incorrect claims and reasoning made by folks in journals related to animal rights and advocacy. I would have to direct folks to information about the ATTS test and sampling design in statistics, which would likely be cumbersome and partly based upon mathematical common sense (since I would have to indicate what stats principles are violated since someone hasn't likely published this exact breakdown of the ATTS summaries).  There are many mentions of these stats by folks in 3rd rate journals, so anonymous users can wear me down and end up getting their way by finding at least one cited sources.  SO, I formally withdraw this dispute.  There are simply too many people lying or passing on lies around the world in print in order to clean up the image of pit bull breeds, and so wikipedias policies will be exploited to include incorrect information.  I'm guessing the claim that pit bulls were nanny dogs and were used as baby sitters is coming next (yes people actually say this).Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But the aim of Wikipedia is not to publish information perceived as "truth" by some, instead it is verifiability of the information included, by a reliable source, a respected publisher. You are arguing against the inclusion of the ATTS with your own work which was published by yourself (copy/paste) on the article's talkpage. Your work isn't reliable nor was it published therefore it can't be used.92.82.24.232 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You will see that I have conceded. I know you will find some source that have these ATTS stats cited and be able to get it in.  No one to my knowledge has published a critique of those that use the ATTS summaries inappropriately, however it is common statistical sense.  But I cannot simply put links to self-selection bias on the page because the suggestion that it is a problem would be my own work. You will notice I likely cannot find any literature stating that umbrellas are not dessert toppings either, so I suppose the insistence that they are not is off limits per wiki rules so long as someone has published it in earnest.  I expressed clearly that I wanted to at least show you the problem with what you are doing mathematically.  You have no personal page, so I posted that in the talk section with qualification.  That's all.  Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you can.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit confused Dodo bird, was this snarky as in you can because you did, or are you actually expressing that it is legitimate? Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was being snarky.
 * I tried and anonymous user that is here removed it. Wvguy8258 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed your un-sourced edits. You are more than welcome to insert new information in the article until you are respecting Wikirules. Materials inserted must be sourced, primary research can't be used directly just from a secondary source if that source is published by a reputable publisher. You inserted your own work which can't be used in Wikipedia. As I said you are more than welcome to edit, just use a reliable source and respect Wikirules89.123.229.29 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you in agreement or not with the moderator above named Dodo bird? I placed a link to sampling bias and self-selection bias. The wiki links do a good job of explaining this.  I also added in to the ATTS section that the dogs brought in are from owners that volunteer and pay for the test.  Is this not true and directly reflected by the ATTS organization itself?  Does the lawyer author of the book you reference mention anything about the ATTS besides breed summaries?  No mention of how the data is collected? Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As wikirule states and as Noleander said we should make sure that nothing is added that is not mentioned in the source. Every information inserted must have a reliable source. As you agreed on the article's talkpage a few months back the ATTS can't be used directly because it is a research therefore you need to use a secondary source which must be from a reputable publisher. You are more than welcome to edit but please mention your sources, and as listed above these sources must be from a reputable publisher.89.123.229.29 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added properly sourced information. 90% shot that anonymous user will remove it within a day.  Wvguy8258 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you added primary research from the ATTS site which is against wikirules plus some references from some dubious sites and those which weren't, were instead taken out of context. You also added info about canince temperament which wasn't about the breed, it was general.89.123.229.29 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was being snarky. Don't know what gave you that impression, but I am not a moderator. Regarding your recent edits, I agree with the addition of some information about the test and the addition of the Duffy (2008) study. Everything else is mainly original research/synthesis. The Cornell study is not based on ATTS tests.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Noleander's comment upstream. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BUT the cornell study addresses the claims based upon temperament tests, that they are not reliable, and should it not be part of this when claims are being made using a temperament test? Anonymous user of many numbers has even removed additions I made from the text HE CITED where the author says to take the ATTS stats with a grain of salt.  It is right after the part anonymous user quotes.  The anonymous user simply wishes to block me from touching this article.  I can no longer assumed good faith and will go another level higher in the wikipedia chain.  Everything is mainly original research?  An interview in a book of the president of the ATTS is not allowed?  And anonymous user calls Applied Animal Behaviour Science a dubious source when it is in fact much better than his lawyer's book?  This is ridiculous.  Please rename the wiki article "Pro-American Staffie Propaganda Page". Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Original research is not allowed in wiki just if it comes from a reliable secondary source. Your other reference was about the pitbulls however this is the Staffordshire Trerrier article. None has agreed with you here however you keep vandalizing the article:

1.you can't use directly info from the ATTS site since it is primary research 2. your second source Christensen, E. et al. (2007) Aggressive behavior in adopted dogs that passed a temperament test doesn't mention the American Staffordshire Terriers, nor does it the ATTS, it's another temperament test. perhaps it needs a different article 3.your third source Snopek, Roxanne Willems. (2006) Dangerous Dogs. Altitude Publishing. Alberta Canada is from a person who run various anti-pitbull sites. 4.your forth source Duffy, D. et al. (2008) Breed differences in canine aggression is reliable, even if you misquoted it as the article states that Pitbulls showed to greater aggressiveness toward other dogs however less toward humans compared with other breeds. However the American Staffordshre Terrier is not mentioned, t is about the American Pitbull Terrier Usre Wvguy8258 is making fun from the article trying to push his personal views, basing his edits on "comon sense", own research published on the article's talk page, links to pitbull attacks on the article's talk page and calling owners idiots and wikipedia unreliable because its democracy.89.123.229.29 (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Wvguy8258 is right that the info from Joan Schaffner should stay in. The STCA can't be used as it was deleted years ago. The History section of the breed was from the STCA website and users removed it as unreliable.  The source from Duffy, D. et al. (2008) is seriously misquoted.  Direct quotes: "Canine aggression poses serious public health and animal welfare concerns. Most of what is understood about breed differences in aggression comes from reports based on bite statistics, behavior clinic caseloads, and experts’ opinions. Information on breed-specific aggressiveness derived from such sources may be misleading due to biases attributable to a disproportionate risk of injury associated with larger and/or more physically powerful breeds and the existence of breed stereotypes. The present study surveyed the owners of more than 30 breeds of dogs using the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ), a validated and reliable instrument for assessing dogs’ typical and recent responses to a variety of common stimuli and situations. Two independent data samples (a random sample of breed club members and an online sample) yielded significant differences among breeds in aggression directed toward strangers, owners and dogs (Kruskal–Wallis tests, P<0.0001).

Eight breeds common to both datasets (Dachshund, English Springer Spaniel, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Poodle, Rottweiler, Shetland Sheepdog and Siberian Husky) ranked similarly, rs=0.723, P<0.05; rs=0.929, P<0.001; rs=0.592, P=0.123, for aggression directed toward strangers, dogs and owners, respectively. Some breeds scored higher than average for aggression directed toward both humans and dogs (e.g., Chihuahuas and Dachshunds) while other breeds scored high only for specific targets (e.g., dog-directed aggression among Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers). In general, aggression was most severe when directed toward other dogs followed by unfamiliar people and household members. Breeds with the greatest percentage of dogs exhibiting serious aggression (bites or bite attempts) toward humans included Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell Terriers (toward strangers and owners); Australian Cattle Dogs (toward strangers); and American Cocker Spaniels and Beagles (toward owners). More than 20% of Akitas, Jack Russell Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers were reported as displaying serious aggression toward unfamiliar dogs. Golden Retrievers, Labradors Retrievers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Greyhounds and Whippets were the least aggressive toward both humans and dogs. Among English Springer Spaniels, conformation-bred dogs were more aggressive to humans and dogs than field-bred dogs (stranger aggression: Mann–Whitney U test, z=3.880, P<0.0001; owner aggression: z=2.110, P<0.05; dog-directed aggression: z=1.93, P=0.054), suggesting a genetic influence on the behavior. The opposite pattern was observed for owner-directed aggression among Labrador Retrievers, (z=2.18, P<0.05) indicating that higher levels of aggression are not attributable to breeding for show per se." The source Christensen, E. et al. (2007) seems to be reliable but it doesn't dealing with the American Staffordshire Terriers nor with the American Temperament Test Society. It might became another article about Temperament tests or canine aggression and a direct link could be inserted in the American Staffordshire Terrier article. Greetings,Citizen of the USA (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please describe how it is incorrect that the pit bull group (with Staffies in it) scored above average for dog-directed aggression? It is right in your quote.  What parts of the quote should be included so that I am not misquoting?  Should I also state that pits are above average toward humans?  That's fine. Also, you did not include the part where Duffy et al. states that this is all a volunteer survey and so self-selection bias is likely.  That must be included as it puts all their results in proper perspective. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In relation to the ASTC, that's fine. The akc says the same thing. It's funny how people don't want to admit that staffies are very likely to be aggressive toward dogs.  It seems a bit immoral (dangerous to others) to try to leave that out purposefully. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting half of a sentence is incorrect, see above. But as I suggested a new article about canine temperament testing should be made and a direct link inserted in the American Staffordshire Terrier article. The American Pitbull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terriers are two separate breeds, however related. It shouldn't be included here because it's irrelevant regarding the debate, I was a volunteer at the Human Society, from my experience Staffies aren't more aggressive toward dogs but if they get into a fight they won't give up. But again, how about creating a separate article about temperament testing and a link included in the amstaff article?Citizen of the USA (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the APBT and the AmStaff are as close to the same breed as possible.You can register you APBT with the UKC and register the same dog with the AKC as an AmStaff.A recent champion AmStaff in the AKC was....wait for it.....also the champion APBT in the UKC. Further, if you read the whole stud you will find that Pit Bull Terrier as they are called here include: american pit bull terriers, american staffordshire terriers, and staffordshire bull terriers. So it is germane. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ASTCA reference removed. Duffy reference expanded to include that the breed group has a good temperament toward people.  Of my remaining edits I would be fascinated to know right after a claim is made based on the ATTS temperament tests why is is a no-no to: 1. post information from a Cornell study calling into question the predictive ability of temperament tests, 2. an interview with the President of the ATTS that was published in a book that speaks to the sensitivity of the test in regards to detecting aggression, 3. information from the ATTS itself that is not data analysis or a claim but just states who can come in and take their test, 4. part of the AKC breed description previously referenced (except with "gameness" scrubbed), and 5. a wikilink to a caveat about sampling mentioned in the Duffy study. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the edits you made on Duffy, D. et al. (2008). However sources 5 and 6 shouldn't stay in the article as they would constitute a different article, as I suggested above. For the sake of a consensus what about leaving your source from Duffy, D. et al. (2008) and removing the others, including the ATTS as it seems to be a very hot topic where consensus can't be archived. Duffy, D. et al. (2008) should please both of you as it is impartial.Citizen of the USA (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AKC should stay in because you use it yourself and it pertains to Duffy. Also, Duffy themselves mention the limitations of their work very specifically.  I provide a wiki link to it.  It should stay in as well.  Go look at my offer. Wvguy8258 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Wvguy8258. Now let's see what will say the other user you have the dispute with. Wikipedia can be tricky as wikipedia rules can be used to block each other to the infinite. Also consider what I proposed above, writing an article about canine temperament tests.Citizen of the USA (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is literature published by the AVMA appropriate here? Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)