Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 50

Michael Welner
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statesment about peer review being controversial, without any appropriate reference was included. In the middle of discussions about contentious edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934. - disregarding discussions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussioon talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette.

How do you think we can help?

Protect page until editors agree upon new edits. I think Jcally66 and stewaj7 can resolve this with a little patience. Or get more editors to pitch in.

Opening comments by Jcally66 and stewaj7
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I think that the issue is that I was not in the courtroom for this case as was Jcally66 and I was not so closely attached to this outcome so my only point is that we keep the page free of biased reporting - keeping in mind that this page has a history of bad faith editing. I raised issue with Jcally66 edits because in accordance with WP:ORIGINAL reliable, verified references must be included to support your statements about peer review being controversial. Concluding from your review of a source(s)(that are not available to the public via a citation) that peer review is controversial is not WP:NPOV but rather vested interest commentary. Wiki editors are cautioned to avoid such practices in biographies of living persons. In accordance with WP:NPOV introducing points of contention (either positive or negative) that are reliably sourced should be balanced. I think we should be sure to remain neutral so that you don't introduce contentious content just for the sake of controversy.I also think the point of a BLP is to be factually informative - it is not the forum to argue forensic peer review or other opinions about practice. Just because an expert is question about peer review as Trestman, Marcopulos and others were does not make something controversial. Please remember that experts are questioned about their opinions all the time. This is the nature of being an expert.Stewaj7 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Welner discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Fall River, Massachusetts
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User keeps changing intro paragraph for Fall River, New Bedford and Brockton to include multiple "distances from" other cities that are irrelevant and detracting from the main articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted in the talk page for Fall River, contacted the user on two occasions, and he keeps changing.

How do you think we can help?

Contact the user.

Opening comments by Id420x
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Fall River, Massachusetts discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. A discussion should take place on the talk page before the dispute is brought to DRN. If the user remains unresponsive after repeated contacting, it can become a conduct issue.--SGCM (talk)  01:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Long s#Historical_Usage_Graph
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * Talk:Long_s

A graph,, was created by myself, Farry, based on data published in Google's web n-grams database, and placed in the Long s article. User Prosfilaes, supported by user BabelStone, believed it to be unsuitable, but I believed it to be acceptable by Wikipedia's self-creation criteria for diagrams (as opposed to article text). The graph remained in place and no further comment was made there for nearly 2 years. In the meantime, two people gave appreciation for the graph on my talk page, and somebody added the graph to the French article. Then recently, I noticed that Prosfilaes had deleted the diagram from the Long s article. Since two people had spoken against it, I would have let it go at that point, were it not for the evidence that other people did approve of it. Not wanting to lose something that people found useful, I reinstated it, and explained why. Prosfileas didn't agree and deleted the graph a second time, and now a third time.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussions are now at a deadlock.

How do you think we can help?

Some approve of the graph and others don't. As the creator, I'm too close to be dispassionate, so I'd be grateful for an assessment of its acceptability.

Opening comments by Prosfilaes
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The graph is original research and is only being used because of some exception for OR in images; it would be vastly better to summarize the results of the graph as saying in English, the transition between long s and medial round s started around 1790 and was more or less complete by 1810, if we could use OR or find a cite. It's a graph from Google Ngram Viewer; due to how it was produced, a lot of what the reader sees is really about "last" not the long s. More unfortunately for our purposes, the OCR transcribes LAST as last and sometimes laſt as last instead of laft. The bubbles in the round s/last around 1720 and 1780 are pure noise. Moreover, it was labeled "Replacement of long-s with short-s in English documents from 1700 to 1900", giving absolutely no idea to the reader of the article that the top line was meaningless and movement in the bottom was frequently noise. (All labels are unreadable at thumbnail sizes.) Even the label on the graph, "Incidence of the word-forms "laſt" and "last" in English documents from 1700 to 1900", is inaccurate; this is raw data and can't be trusted.

It's original research; it's being presented as an image only because OR rules stop us from saying what it says in the article uncited. It's bad data; we're showing a bunch of curves that reflect trends in "last" or OCR issues as if this were a graph about the long s versus the medial round s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Long s#Historical_Usage_Graph discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. It seems to me that policy prohibits this image. The policy in question is No_original_research, which says in pertinent part (emphasis in original):"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."Since the research needed to produce the chart has not been published in a reliable source, the chart is prohibited. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am another volunteer here at DR/N. I have to agree with TransporterMan. While the effort was made to base the graph on information found elsewhere, it used a non RS as the basis. Oddly enough I just began a proposal at Identifying reliable sources on the talkpage to address this very subject where it recieved no response. Clarification on using an image as a reliable source and using a relaible source as the basis for an original image is sorely lacking.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Another volunteer here. I have to agree with the above, the image does qualify as original research, for the reason that TransporterMan mentioned. The information could be conveyed as prose, but a reliable secondary source should be cited instead of Google NGram Viewer.--SGCM (talk)  11:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's that then. Thanks all. --Farry (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Frances Hugle
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Regarding the history of Frances Hugle, a female scientist.

This article (Frances Hugle) was repeatedly corrupted by Lhugle who introduced a number of factually incorrect statements and deleted others she personally did not like.

One of her reasons was: protect the identities of living relatives.

In an article of this type, names of children are often given in Wiki articles, for instance, read the articles on Wilkins and Watkins, discoverers of the helical structure of DNA. Frances was an esteemed female scientist, not a criminal requiring all those related to fear for their lives or reputations.

Additional info was also included regarding education, career path and hobbies. These inclusions in the original Frances Hugle article though were deemed 'irrelevant' by Lhugle who protested certain inclusions to Wiki staff and had them removed.

I am not attempting to be exclusive. I told her repeatedly that I welcomed her contributions and corrections but not the introduction of personal biases and intentional corruptions of the record.

For instance, she edited the education section, deleting at first some parts and then falsified the record to state that Fran had earned a 2nd degree in Chem in 1957. The facts are, all course work for both degrees, Fran's PhB and S.B., was completed during or before 1947. Lhugle had the facts but appears to have wanted to sabotage this article (because it was not initiated by her?).

This is not the only case in which her 'corrections' can be proven to be false. Others involve the development of Fran's career, where Lhugle's assertions contradict Fran's own writings and that of her former boss.

Therfore, I respectfully request that these sections of the original article be reinstated for they provide insight into the life and times of the actual inventor of the IC and Microprocessor:

Family Frances Hugle was born Frances Betty Sarnat in Chicago on August 13, 1927 to first generation immigrants, Lylian Steinfeld from Romania and Nathan Sarnat from Poland, both of Jewish descent. Frances was the eldest child. Her siblings are Irwin (now deceased, b. 1930), Sheila (b. 1935) and Marlene (b. 1938). She married William Hugle in June 1948 and had four children: Margaret Hugle Harris (b. 1949), David Hugle (b. 1951), Cheryl Hugle (b. 1952) and Linda Hugle (b. 1954). In addition to two sisters and four children, she is survived by 6 grandchildren; Jacob Loomis (b. 1972), Tabashir Nobari (b. 1974), Brandy Loomis (b. 1974), Nassim Nobari (b. 1978), Frances Elizabeth Harris (b. 1982), Tracy Hugle (b. 1984) and 4 great grandchildren. Education and teaching She attended Hyde Park High School in South Side Chicago, where she participated in many of the school's science clubs, including the chemistry, physics and biology clubs. In the spring of 1944, just before her graduation, she was selected to represent Hyde Park High in Chicago's Math Contest, where she took first place. Following high school, she attended the University of Chicago. She received a degree in chemistry with minors in physics and mathematics. She also did graduate studies in crystallography including studies in x-ray diffraction techniques at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY. In 1960, she received an MS degree from the University of Cincinnati. Her thesis is Cathodic Deplating of Rhodium.[28] She also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Montreal. In the mid 1960s, she taught physics and math courses at Santa Clara University. Hobbies and personal interests Frances enjoyed many outdoor activities, including camping, skiing, gardening and hiking, as well as competitive games and sports such as water polo and ping pong (at which she excelled). After reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, she took an interest in organic gardening. In the mid 1960s, she bought the book Europe on 5 Dollars a Day, and used it to travel alone for six weeks throughout Europe. She enjoyed reading on a wide range of topics, from botany to political science, and often gave the impression of having an encyclopedic mind. She also enjoyed science fiction and the occasional crime or romance novel. She preferred simple Danish designs in furniture, but also fashioned some of her own furniture from salvaged doors and made hanging lamps from Mexican pottery. Frances enjoyed the counter culture experience of Haight-Ashbury and would dress in Mexican painted skirts and serapes whenever she visited. As a rule, she never wore make-up except lipstick on occasion, but when visiting Haight-Ashbury, she would draw dark, wide and dramatically extended lines around and her eyes and across her temples. Just before she discovered she had stomach cancer she had decided to begin studying law.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussions on the edit page. A protest email sent directly to Lhugle.

How do you think we can help?

Reinstate some of the sections of the original article that were deleted following objections by Lhugle or deleted by me (one) since they were targets of repeated corruption.

Opening comments by Lhugle
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I won't respond to the personal attacks but rather to two threads: 1. The conflict of interest guidance for Wikipedia users 2. Accuracy of sample information discussed by CH

1. There is a substantial conflict of interest issue with the Frances Hugle wikipedia entry. Both CH and I are daughters of Frances. For reasons I will not discuss here, CH believes and has posted elsewhere online that Frances was murdered by the CIA because of secret military work she did. Her research is dedicated to proving that assertion. I have no wish to engage in conflict but am concerned that information is being publicly disseminated that is inaccurate and for which edits are rejected outright and with personal attacks. In the current climate, it is not possible to contribute.

2. Much of the entry created by CH is accurate. Where there are inaccuracies, I took considerable time to list the specific sources of information. CH uses Frances' college record as an example. It's a good one. I have (and scanned and sent to CH) a copy of the UC transcript which clearly shows her graduation with honors, earning a PhB June 14, 1946. Additionally, the same document shows an SB in Chemistry conferred Dec. 20, 1957. This particular detail may not be of particular importance but is illustrative of the type of conflict occurring over this edit. I would be more than happy to provide a pdf of the transcript to the moderator if requested.

Finally I have only asked that edits be permitted and that personal attacks not result (nor hostile emails broadcast far and wide within the family) whenever they are submitted. The merits of the evidence ought to determine what succeeds and what is replaced. If this cannot be achieved, I question the validity of having an entry for our mother created by either one of us.

Thank you for your time and for your volunteering and dedication to an open internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhugle (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Frances Hugle discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. User:Cheryl Hugle I am Amadscientist, a regular volunteer at the DR/N. Before we get started I need to make two requests of you. First, please edit your opening for brevity and remove the prose from the article (or version) itself including the names of all living persons (the children) from your opening comments and replace with links or diffs. I would also ask that you strike through or remove the accusation made of the other editor about "the record" that is beyond incivil and makes an accusation without basis. In fact you should only be discussing the content not the contributer. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

24 Game
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The page is about a card game, and included links to a blog post asserting the number of possible playable hands and other facts. Editor Uucp added links to a second blog asserting corrections to the first one and offering computer code showing all solvable hands, among other things. Editor 24guard reverted this, saying that the new blog post was too recent and must therefore be viewed as "spam". This began a revert war with editor Uucp, who disagreed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Comments in the edit changes and on the talk page. Both sides seem set in their views, though the discussion has remained civil on both parts.

How do you think we can help?

24guard has changed his grounds for reversion over time, variously claiming that recent blog posts are not allowed, that the content could not be linked to as he could not prove it accurate, or that the blog post constituted original research and should therefore not be allowed. In his most recent change, he removed both blog posts; I'm not sure why. I think a cool head can help resolve this.

Opening comments by 24guard
On September 26th, 2012, a blog post appeared on wheels.org (which has an Alexa global ranking of 7,202,473), titled "A perfect solution to 24 game". 0 days later, Uucp edited a paragraph of the 24_game page, removed some perfectly fine text in the Strategy section. And added a new section "Solutions" which heavily quoted some original research from "A perfect solution to 24 game" on wheels.org. The research quoted on the wheels.org blog post is a pdf file (unpublished) of more than 200 page long.

On September 28th, 2012, I reverted Uucp's edit per wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies.

On September 28th, 2012, Uucp reverted my reversion and claimed his source is "superior" to the sources (2 other blog posts) before his edit. I checked the sources, and decided to remove all these blog posts per wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies.

As of October 2nd, 2012, Qwyrxian and Paddy3118 further cleaned up the 24_game page and I have no problem with the current version.

24guard (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC).

24 Game discussion
OK. The site 24theory.com is not a reliable source. It appears to be self published with no editorial oversite and no fact checking, and that isn't even the blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * wheels.org is also not RS. Vanity site. No editorial oversite or factchecking. That means the blog is just not acceptable but will be clear about blogs as references. WP:USERGENERATED: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." also ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." You may see more on blogs at WP:NEWSBLOG.


 * On the talkpage User:24guard has stated that he believes the dispute is resolved as the current version appears to be holding and I tend to agree and feel that this case is resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Uucp has engaged discussion again at the talkpage were he has stated that this is not resolved and has expressed a desire to resuurect this DR/N. I have informed the user at the talkpage that the DR/N is still active and awaits his comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I, like Amadscientist, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Wikipedia policy clearly says that blogs are not acceptable reliable sources except for (a) certain newspaper and magazine blogs which are acceptable because they come under, and are subject to, those publications general editorial and fact-checking policies and (b) "[s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per the self-published sources policy. Indeed, blogs are so generally unacceptable as sources that one of the nicknames for the self-published sources policy is WP:BLOGS. If an editor wishes to use material from a blog, therefore, it is incumbent upon that editor to establish which of the two exceptions to the self-published sources policy applies to that material. @Uucp: Which of those exceptions applies in this case, and how does it apply? If neither applies, how do you contend that these blogs are acceptable sources under Wikipedia policy? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Torah
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The following section Orthodox, Sphardic, a majority of Israeli Jews [25], many of whom are not observant [25], and other Jews, maintain that the Torah was given to Moses by God. The Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24,25 and 26, as well as the Talmud (Gittin 60a, Bava Basra 15b), states that Moses wrote the Torah, and The Mishnah[26] asserts the divine origin of the Torah as one of the essential tenets of Judaism.[27] Many Jews also accept the 13 Principles of Faith that were established by Maimonides, one of which that states; The Torah that we have today is the one dictated to Moses by God.[28] Is a mistepresentation of the source, and OR. I have rewritten it to reflect what the source actually says, as follows.

An opinion poll of Israeli Jews, showed that a small minority (55%) accepted the statement that the Torah was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24,25 and 26, as well as the Talmud (Gittin 60a, Bava Basra 15b), states that Moses wrote the Torah. The Mishnah asserts the divine origin of the Torah as one of the essential tenets of Judaism. Many religious Jews also accept the 13 Principles of Faith that were established by Maimonides, one of which that states; The Torah that we have today is the one dictated to Moses by God.

However the misrepresentation keeps being added back in.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Explain to the other parties that unsourced claims can not be made. Advise if admin action is appropriate should they continue.

Opening comments by 208.84.53.129
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Learned69
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Torah discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Turkish Cypriots
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In September 27th part of article deleted with argument "some infos not stated in source given". And after deleting that part only one user manipulated article and filled with unreliable and subjective informations. And today with adding new sources, i turned article back to old version again. But after few minutes E4024 user undo my edits with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". With current situation article is looking highly under Turkish nationalist ideology, subjective, weak sourced and far from reality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to ask whats his reason to undo my sourced edits on users talk page and i didnt get reply. Also I opened section in talk page of article again with giving reliable sources and try to explain situation. But only thing that user did was making fun.

How do you think we can help?

You can look at current situation of the article (objectivity, reliability of sources and info) and also look edit that i tried to do today (again objectivity, reliability of sources and info). Also in Talk Page of an article you can check last two title to understand situation and perspectives. And help to protect one Wikipedia article.

Opening comments by E4024
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Turkish Cypriots discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party editor and a regular volunteer on the noticeboard. I have a question: the September 27 edits were made between User:23x2 and User:Turco85. The editing between User:Ghuzz and User:E4024 occurred on October 4th. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are all four users involved in the same content dispute? If so, the first two users should be listed as involved users, and notified of the DRN.--SGCM (talk)  21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, a reminder: DRN does not handle conduct disputes and cannot protect pages. For other volunteers interested in participating, the prior discussion seems to be located here. Although there was a prior discussion, it barely qualifies as extensive. And @Ghuzz, it's best to assume good faith and avoid labeling edits related to a content dispute as vandalism, even if you disagree with the edits. Wikipedia has a very strict definition of vandalism, and it does not include neutrality contraventions (see VANDAL). --SGCM (talk)  22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply SGCM. Regarding User:23x2 and User:Turco85 - I think they are not directly involved in this situation. Turco85 had an argument (right or wrong) about source and deleted that infos. And yesterday I tried to back that info with more supporting source. The main problem here we have is User:E4024's behavior. About my first messages, I do accept that maybe I wasn't behaving right as well but because of it i created a new title to discuss situation with other users with nice way. And User:E4024 still continued his behavior. Also I saw that he had similar discussions with other users too User:TremoloKid. Basically there are some fact about one subject and as a Wikipedia user I'm trying to edit one article with include both perspectives which are real but some user come and first says like "old one was better" and then change ground and says "this sources are stupid". The sources that he claim to be stupid: One is European Union member and the legal owner of island Republic of Cyprus, and the other one is one intercultural training research project which funded by European Commission. Lets look both version of article again and all of these things and try to reasonable. How in Wikipedia when someone try to edit one page with this kind of sources other can have a luxury to say "thats humorous", "i didnt like it" etc. (Ghuzz (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Lorena Bernal
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There has been a slow edit war for more than a year over this person's age/birthdate, eye color, height, weight, etc. I attempted to create a discussion of the age issue on the talk page four weeks ago, but there were no responses at all, and the slow edit war continues.

Note that there are around 20 distinct users who have participated in this mess over the last year. I am only including the 5 who have participated in the last 3 months.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to initiate discussion on the talk page, and also added a comment in the actual page mentioning the talk page discussion. No response.

How do you think we can help?

Help identify reliable sources of this information or other ways of resolving the dispute.

Opening comments by 95.16.191.188
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 66.186.69.50
Hello, let me begin by saying (Per No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Comment removed by DR/N volunteer, Amadscientist) I have simply corrected misleading information in the stats of Lorena Bernal that what seems like many others have continuously reverted back to uncorrect untruths designed to make her look like a liar. The stats I inputted are the very same stats given by Ms.Lorena Bernal herself on her own personal website, as well as being stated upon many a reputable site, sites that are not as simply changed by people that dislike her. She is in fact 5'8" tall, Brunette with Blue-Green eyes, 90-76-96(although she had 2 babies recently, that may have changed since, as she has not restated her measurements, naturally) She was born May 12 of 1981, do the math, she was barely 18 in 1999 when she won Miss Spain. Look at all of her photos, her eye colour is the same in all, look at photos of her & her husband, he is slightly taller than her in all photos where she is not wearing heels as he stands at 5'9". MATH & SCIENCE DO NOT LIE. (Per No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Comment removed by DR/N volunteer, Amadscientist) Contact PePe London, Freixenet or Miss World/Miss Spain CO. Ask around, scour the net, you will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.69.50 (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

''User:66.186.69.50, you are encouraged to participate in this DR/N discussion, but please refrain from further personal attacks. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)''


 * What attacks? Come on. attacks. It was a question & a good one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.69.50 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just about to leave a note on your talkpage. The above edit was left unsigned under the opening comments for User:Marcoplo78 . Is this your registered account? If so, please sign in and comment with your registered account. If this was simply a mistake, please take care with your edits. Could you clarify this?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 95.16.188.126
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Marcoplo78
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Lorena Bernal discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hachikō
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A number of users have requested a photograph of a statue which is in a public place in Japan. Initially image was uploaded to commons and was rightly so removed as the photo is of artwork still under copyright. However Japan copyright rules does allow for non-commercial use. After myself and others advising of this on the talk page I decided to upload an image to Wikipedia. The image however as been removed from the article each time I have added it. As you can see from numerous discussions on the talk page some people believe that it is fine to use a Non-free content image others believe it is not or are unsure and believe removal is the correct course of action.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Media copyright questions User talk:Oda Mari User talk:7&6=thirteen

How do you think we can help?

Someone who can give an authoritative interpretation on image copyright status for use on Wikipedia.

Opening comments by Oda Mari
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Masem
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Buck Owens
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Msc_44 has made significant changes to the Buck Owens article. These changes seem to be referenced to a biographical book that I don't have access to. The problem is that many of these changes directly contradict multiple reliable sources that are available on the internet. Examples include claiming that he had multiple female children when publicly available obituaries from multiple sources indicate he only had male children, and claiming he had more wives than other available sources indicate. I'm not disputing that some of the changes may be correct. I simply would prefer the editor to engage in discussion on the talk page before making such controversial changes to the article.

I have reverted Msc_44 3 times and Tbhotch has reverted him twice in the last 24 hours. He/she has reverted back to their preferred version after every attempt. I have opened up a new talk page section to discuss the changes, but my requests to discuss have been ignored. I don't want to report them for 3RR violation because he/she appears to be a new user and probably doesn't understand the way we do things. Their edits seem to be in good faith.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to engage the editor on the talk page of the article. They have not responded. Tbhotch has warned them about vandalism of the article, (and I disagree with that assessment,) to no avail.

EDIT: While writing this, the editor has now engaged on the talk page. I will try to work this out there now. Sperril (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

I would like to see if uninvolved editors have more luck than I have had in drawing Msc 44 into a conversation about their edits.

Opening comments by Msc 44
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Tbhotch
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Buck Owens discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Gangnam Style
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In this section of the talk page of Gangnam Style, I believe the quote should be removed.

Other editors (User:Castncoot and User:A1candidate) believe the quote should be restored

My arguments are policy based. Theirs are not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have used edit summaries when I removed the quote (which has been done in several versions).

How do you think we can help?

I need more editors to provide a consensus. Otherwise, I will file a RfC.

Opening comments by Castncoot
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Please see the talk page of the article in question. User User:Curb Chain at this time appears to be the lone holdout carrying his or her viewpoint, while four others (including myself) have arrived at the conclusion that the quote should be restored. It is informative, constructive, and well-cited exactly as a quote which was indeed stated, if one views the citation properly; no more and no less. I believe that Curb Chain is misinterpreting a policy; otherwise, four others would not hold an opinion in opposition of him or her. Castncoot (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) My apologies, correction - two other editors, not four. I should mention, however, that this quote has held up for a matter of either many days or weeks now before this dispute - obviously many other editors were in agreement with it. Castncoot (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by A1candidate
Giving undue weight to an opinion only applies if that opinion is held by a small minority. In this case, ABC News isn't by far the only one who reports about "Gangnam Style" taking over/conquering/spreading over the entire world (I can quote from Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, any respectable newspaper you can think of)

Gangnam Style discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me begin by noting that one of the more interesting things about this dispute is that no one has noted that the quote is misstated. The quote comes from a point at 3:13 in the video and the reporter clearly says "intrawebs" (sic, both as to the term and its plural use), not "Internet". I disagree entirely with Curb Chain's analysis of the matter, which he asserts to be policy-based, which is set out in this edit. WP:SYN has no part in deciding whether or not sources are reliable; while undue weight could have some application here, I do not believe that it does; and, similarly, the fact that the quote is taken from a larger context could also have some application if the way in which it was extracted causes it to be misleading as to the entire content, it does not do that. Since the quote is set off in a box by itself, it serves the same function in the article as does an image, to illustrate the article. Since the section of the article to which this is attached is about the widespread popularity of the song and video and, in particular, the Internet meme and the flash mobs which have been inspired by it, I'm of the personal opinion that the quote would have been an acceptable illustration for the article as it is presently, incorrectly, stated with the word "Internet" included, instead of the correct word, "intrawebs". However, if it is corrected to say "intrawebs", rather than "Internet", as it must be, then I think that its use is potentially confusing and that, at best, the use of "intrawebs" is distracting and my personal opinion is that it ought to be removed from the article for those reasons. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" (in this particular context) appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs". All in all, it isn't a perfect quote, but adding it to the article would do more good than harm, in my opinion -A1candidate (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with A1. The quote seems to be doing just fine and is a valuable addition in its corrected form - I don't believe there's anything to be gained from removing it. This discussion really should be closed, I feel. Castncoot (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the matter that serious? It's just a nice quotation, it looks good there in the box. Could Curb Chain explain what exactly he or she doesn't like in the quotation? That "Gangnam Style" took over the world? (just guessing) By the way, I think that the article needs some criticism. It's strange that everyone likes the song. Why hasn't any publication received the song without enthusiasm? It's completely unrelated to the dispute, though. --Moscowconnection (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * While I don't think that the quote had more than marginal utility, which was further diminished by the correction, I also think that this is one of those things where it's a close judgment call as to what's best for the encyclopedia. My objection to the quote is only slightly on the negative side of the issue and I certainly do not mean to pursue the point further. If Curb Chain wishes to do so, that's his call, but he probably needs to do so through an RFC since the weight of opinion here and at the article seems to be mostly the other way. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This dispute has been inactive for some time. Is our assistance still required? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to ask the filing editor about it. Since he doesn't participate in the discussion, then I think the discussion should be closed. He was the only one who wanted the quote removed. (I'm not one of the users involved. I voted to leave the quote too, but I came later, when the DRN had been already filed.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

English Vinglish
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

the dispute is for the promotion part, the self published legal owner websites, blogs, facebook and twitter which are normally only source to identify the issue is questioned against the newspaper or electronic media post who does not post, print news without the help of legal owner post in self published pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have tried to convince the user to understand that the post published in media is just after the post published by the legal owner on there self published pages, facebook profile and twitter accounts. so the self published source in this particular post is most reliable to refer for the actual date

How do you think we can help?

to let the user convince that the wikipedia verifiability policies does not blame in clear that self published post and youtube facebook or twitter account can be questioned for the reliability and authenticity specially when the post is about something whose details can be most reliably obtained by there self published post

Opening comments by Vivvt
Dispute?? That's interesting. I've been asking editor to use free references like newspapers than social media, then it becomes dispute!! Editor is consistently providing all the non-RS sources like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Is date of promotion disputable? Not for me. As long as you provide free references, any date should be OK. 14th or 15th June does not matter to me. What matters to me is the sources editor is providing. Use the newspaper sources and go ahead with the desired date. FB, Twitter, Youtube and social media is not considered as reliable source.

Again, I do not own any page for that matter, so any discussion need not "convince" me for anything. -  Vivvt  &bull;&#32; ( Talk ) 12:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

English Vinglish discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I suggest reading WP:RS. I think the two parties will be able to discuss a resolution here. We will not try to convince anyone at DRN. Ebe 123  → report 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

hi. i have read the wp:rs also wp:sps and there its also said that when the context is related to the person or body or company for whom the article is all about then the self published sources along with the social media content can be used as source instead if they are published by the authentic publisher

also on newspaper source is concerened news agencies are always dependable on the same self published sources. here the date is not an issue rather its an issue of fact that why in the basis of context of article we can not use the social media if that source is most reliable for that particular context. its in same way ask the person directly for whom the article is all about. aditionaly i provided the additional non facebook twitter and youtube sources to other user for the same date issue.its not to convince him over page on date, it is the matter to use some wp:sps based on context and the dispute is about using wp:sps and wp:rsvkdlms (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Has nobody considered poking WP:RSN to see what they think about the article and the sources used to back up the claims? Hasteur (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As I get it, the problematic date is September 14, 2012 as a release date. If so, probably this source could be used to verify this information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism#Usage
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The usage section of "anti-semitism" lacks a neutral point of view and does not make careful use of the source material and references. False arguments are being used to block changes.

There is clearly a conflict between the origin and etymology of antisemitism and it's modern usage. It was originally coined by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider to mean "anti-Semitic prejudices", with Semitic people being those who speak Semitic languages - people ("&languages) descended from Shem (one of Noah's sons), included Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, etc. It was popularised in 19th century Germany to refer to Jews (presumably there were few other Semitic peoples in Germany).

As well as being a misnomer, the modern definition is offensive to non-Jewish Semitic people. From a NPOV the article should at least acknowledge this before going on to discuss the horrendous antisemitism directly towards Jews.

I tried to include a quote from the lede in the Encylopedia Brittania article on anti-Semitism, and this was irrationally rejected as lacking neutrality.

"Although this term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites."

There is no dispute that antisemitism usually means hostility to Jews, but there is dispute about whether this definition is appropriate, particularly as noted in the quote. A NPOV requires this to highglighted NOT censored.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to discuss the issue with Singularity42 & Rainbowofpeace.

There is discussion of ways of including the changes, just outright rejection.

How do you think we can help?

Arrive at a NPOV for the lede and usage sections of the article that recognise that the modern usage of antisemitism is a misnomer, and so its blind use in the context of other semitic peoples is potentially offensive.

Opening comments by Rainbowofpeace
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Singularity42
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Antisemitism#Usage discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Michael Welner
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

My apologies as I was not logged in when I filed my earlier dispute - though I thought I was. Regarding Michael Welner page, this page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statement about peer review being controversial, without appropriate referencing was included. Jcally66 statments are unsupported by the source that she lists. When this was brought to Jcally66 attention, the editor noted their personal knowledge of events as a source and the court opinion which only vested parties have access to - non verifiable. In the middle of discussions about edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934 - disregarding discussions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette.

How do you think we can help?

1. protect the page until discussions have been concluded. (See closing statement above. Comment about user removed Ebe  123  → report 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)) 2. another editors objective input would be helpful. My fear is the this will turn into another editing war if the page is left open to edits.

Opening comments by Jcally66
I made a 3 sentence addition to the BLP for Dr. Welner in the section "The Forensic Panel" where it states: "Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of its forensic consultation." The wiki BLP and subject's use of the term "peer review" flatly contradicts all accepted definitions of the term by scientific and medical professionals. I cited a recent, publicly-available, federal court ruling that threw out a "Panel" report that hinged on their conflation of terms 'peer review" with "co-authorship" or "consulting". I have only used Wiki references to define "peer review" and only used publicly-available sources to make statements of fact. I considered this necessary to add since the ruling was for a capital criminal sentencing and because this issue has been on-going focus of controversy since 2006 (the Andrea Yates trial, which I also referenced.) All accusations of vested interest or bad faith are unfounded.

Michael Welner discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I will help with this dispute. I will remove all comments about conduct and users. We can start when the other party responds. Ebe 123  → report 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Stewaj7 here. I have asked Jcally66 to chime in on their talk page, but have not heard back. We have been engaged in more discussion on the talk page. They were kind enough to remove their edits while discussions were ongoing.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jcally66 here. I'm not sure how this works - first edited 3 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcally66 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jcally66, please use the section title "Opening Comments by Jcally66" to state your reasoning on why you feel justified for your contributions, why you may feel the other editor is incorrect or any other comments in regards to this case you feel need to be addressed. Discuss the edits not the editor and remain civil. Thank you and happy editing! Once the case begins and talk is intitiated, use this section for the main dicsussion. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is this at DRN? Other than the filing editor, a WP:SPA, summarily reverting well-sourced text, coupled with invective and personal attacks against anyone who dares insert material to this BLP that provides anything other than a PR flackweasel's spin on a highly controversial subject, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the edits in dispute. Fladrif (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Fladrif's comment's on the article's talk pages. There was no serious discussion between the two editors before filing here. Removing well-sourced content while accusing other editors of bad faith and malicious activity is a bit inappropriate. If you have a specific BLP issue, I recommend taking it to WP: BLP/N. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, DRN only deals with content disputes, not conduct disputes. Conduct disputes should be taken to WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean conduct for your last sentence.  Ebe  123  → report 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been and continues to be extensive discussion on this issues both prior to and during the initiation of this dispute (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#Revisiting_New_Edits). However, the dispute resolution was initiated when Jcally subverted discussion to post content on the BPL. While initiating this resolution indirectly helped curb that behavior, the issues about the content still remains. I ask that you please take a close look at the most recent edits both by Fladrif reinstating Jcally66 misrepresentation of her sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&diff=next&oldid=515706246.Stewaj7 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fladrif raises a separate issue above that I agree should be addressed in a more appropriate forum. Those involved in resolution, please see additional edits by Fladrif under discussion . Fladrif, should this content matter be address separately as well? I am still figuring out proper forums.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, we at DRN will help you fix the NPOV and OR issues, but any allegation of another user's misconduct should go to WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be free of original research and has an ample amount of citations. I tagged the page, as it uses bare URLs for citations, which are prone to link rot. This can be fixed by filling them in using Cite Web templates (using Reflinks), but this content disputes stems from OR and NPOV issues. The article is well-sourced, and I don't see original research in it. Perhaps you can link me to it? --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Electriccatfish2, I am referring to 2 sections in particular. The first is "The Forensic Panel" under the Professional Career section can be found here. Jcally66 wrote, “Welner's theories and practice regarding The Forensic Panel's “peer-review” are controversial, and have been criticized as for Welner using employees rather than independent experts to conduct the review. The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” This paragraph is completely unsourced. Jcally66 goes on to write, "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers." . From the source itself the DA were asked about how they felt about the fees and they replied “If we were right, and Mrs. Yates was sane, how much should Welner's testimony cost, in nontax dollars per dead child? Especially when the media poisoned the well from which prospective jurors drank?” This is in contrary to prosecutors stating they were misled. The second source Jcally66 lists does not support the statement either.  The issue is that any one can link a statement to an non-supporting article, because  no one polices the reliability of the source. In this case, the references might as well be an add to an eye cream, because they do not contain anything about prosecutors claiming they were misled by Welner.  These are just a few examples.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The lines "The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” and "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers.” were written by Fladrif, not me. Your dispute is with him.--Jcally66 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The second section is here. Fladrif wrote "Proceedings of the U.S. military against Omar Khadr by a Guantanamo military tribunal, in which Welner's testimony has highly controversial and largely discredited." When I brought to Fladrif's attention that he added a link to an article or site that is no longer available, he disregarded the input and subvertted the issue claiming that it was "my opinion" that the sources were wrong and making false allegations. But all one has to do is read the articles cite to see that they say nothing of the sort.  When asked to remove the contentious unsupported content Fladrif, blew me of plain and simple. I am asking that you take a closer look at what is being done here. I know those governing this forum are savvy enough to see through these subtle violations of Wikipedia policy.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This dispute has been inactive for some time. Is our assistance still required? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Although, given the history of SPA's with a clear connection to the subject insisting on polishing this turd, it would be helpful for previously uninvolved, disinterested and neutral editors to weigh in on the talk pages.Fladrif (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fladrif, more neutral editors are needed to weigh-in on the talk page since some SPAs continue to misinterpret referenced materials so bizarrely and one-sidedly (including academic journal articles) that I have to think some must have some direct connection to Dr. Welner or his organization.--Jcally66 (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An eyewitness without last name is been disputed as reliable source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on Talkpage

How do you think we can help?

Interpretation of the WP:Disputed statement regarding source.

Opening comments by I7laseral
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Syrian civil war discussion
Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer. Given that the dispute mainly boils down to reliability of a source, may be Reliable sources noticeboard is a better venue to gather input? People there are better prepared to judging on sources then we (DRN volunteers) are. Note, I don't defer this dispute, but if my suggestion makes sense to you, feel free to open a thread there (and don't forget to notify us of doing so!). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be active much this week, but I specialize in content disputes relating to reliable sources and BLPs, but WP: RSN would be a better venue. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto the above. RS/N is the right venue.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Deism lede is in need of updating, and we've been working on this for many days. no one seems to be willing to help constructively other than rejecting every version for one reason or another, rejecting references and giving no alternative answers. This is a religious or belief philosophy topic, with multiply references for multiple views. from modern to ancient times. we should be concerned with the current views, not the outdated historical views. since deism is an evolving belief system, based on science and observation. We need help. simple as that.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lots of time in talk:Deism (see Talk:Deism)

How do you think we can help?

Help verify or find new References for content of Lede description of Deism.

Opening comments by JDefauw
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I agree with Bkonrad. Dispute resolution is not yet necessary. We need to be patient. We all agree that the lead sentence of the article does not adequately answer the simple question: "What is deism?" I do not have any strong opinions about what the lead sentence should say as long as it is 1) NPOV 2) reasonably clear 3) is not misleading or inaccurate 4) tells us what sets deism apart from other religions that also believe in a creator of the world, and 5) is acceptable to all the other contributors who are knowledgeable about the topic and are acting in good faith. I believe that JimWae is knowledgeable about the topic and that he is acting in good faith.  I also believe that he is trying to be helpful.  I do not believe his comments were too long to read.  We need to take the time to seriously consider his proposed lead sentences and his later comments.  After we have done so, if we still cannot settle our disagreements, we will be ready for dispute resolution.

Opening comments by JimWae
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
 * I do not see a specific content dispute mentioned here. Complainant is at least as responsible as anyone else for the long time it is taking to write a new 1st paragraph. Three or 4 people have expressed concerns about his wording, sometimes proposing alternative wordings. Complainant briefly responds, sometimes with fabricated reasons for objection, then begins a new section with minor changes in his own version and other contributors' suggestions mostly disappear into previous sections. Complainant's versions do not provide a definitional sentence which distinguishes deism from other religious philosophies. Complainant's versions are so unnuanced that although he claims to be a deist, he excludes himself by his own definitions -- because, as he admits, he, himself, does believe in frequent divine intervention. Complainant is a relative newbie, and it is difficult to take some of his more erratic suggestions seriously. He is a deist enthusiast who only a day or 3 ago wanted to include "truth" as part of the definition of deism. Despite repeated reminders, attention to sources and to the actual wording of sources has been minimal. To repeat: No particular content objection is identified here, the dispute is over several unnuanced/nuanced wordings.--JimWae (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser)
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. At present, I don't see that dispute resolution is necessary. So many diverse proposals have been suggested by Dsomeone (and to a significantly lesser extent JDefauw and others) in relatively short order that it is difficult to follow any continuity in development. The various proposals seem to make wholesale changes based on interpretations of single remarks. If anything, DR might help in exercising some control over how the proposals are made and discussed. I don't have any strong preference with regards to how the lead is presented apart from expecting it to be 1) NPOV, 2) verifiable, and 3) that it reflects the entirety of what the topic Deism encompasses. older ≠ wiser 21:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Deism discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.


 * As indicated above. This will be closed shortly as being premature/unnecessary. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Jobie Hughes
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Constant edit warring as well as accusations of bias and vandalism from another user. I have backed up my editing with reliable sources and have written in a neutral manner. Despite this, Ohioana has constantly reverted the edits (which include blatant copyvio) with the justification of "this is incorrect", while never actually stating why it's incorrect or providing anything to prove that it is. We're expected to take the user's word for it rather than given any evidence. Part of what is being removed are parts of the article that aren't outright glowing praise, such as the coverage of Hughes's contract with Frey and Full Fathom Five. This is necessary to keep in since this takes up a large portion of Hughes's coverage in the news. Most of his coverage has been in relation to the contracts FFF had their authors sign, in specific the part of the contract that required that Hughes remained anonymous as the author of the Lorien Legacies series. To not include it shows a bias towards the author as well as doing the article a disservice because it makes it incomplete.

So far I've reported this on the edit warring forum as well as the admin board, to no avail. Other than someone other than myself saying "please don't", Ohioana has consistently been reverting the article for at least five times in the last 24-48 hour period... with no repercussions.

There was also some ongoing revert warring over the article At Dawn (novel), which is filled with some copyvio (although not as much now), overly promotional content, and other things that would fill WP:NOT. I was originally just redirecting it to the author's page, but Ohioana has reverted it constantly to where I'm listing it at AfD since redirecting isn't an option for them.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've contacted Ohioana on the article page, their talk page, yet they have not actually responded except to revert my edits and the edits that any other user does back to an article that contains only glowing praise and copyvio. They have yet to explain why the information is incorrect other than "I said so" and "I don't like it".

How do you think we can help?

I hate to say "please block", but this editor is bent on having the Hughes related articles only say what they want to say, which is predominantly promotional in nature. I suspect a conflict of interest here due to the highly promotional nature of their edits and to be honest, this is getting to the level of vandalism now because this has been ongoing for so long with no intervention. They're not going to stop even after being warned multiple times.

Opening comments by Ohioana
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Jobie Hughes discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm an uninvolved volunteer. Extensive prior discussion has to occur before a dispute can be brought to DRN. If an editor is refusing to discuss, it's considered a conduct issue as per WP:UNRESPONSIVE.--SGCM (talk)  09:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Ohioana has been indef blocked today, Oct 11. I suggest closing this dispute as no longer active.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nair
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is wide difference of opinion between some of the users and others, the latter being able to exercise some editorial power over the former. This is fundamentally detrimental to the overall objective of Wikipedia. There is a possibility that many of the opinions of the wider user group is being ignored in pushing forward the POVs of some of the users.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have written a note in the talk page, which has merited no comment from others - this was done before i registered here

How do you think we can help?

an independant verification of the points of view of the various participants in this debate, or an arbitration by parties who may not have any connections with any of the users or the subject matter

Opening comments by sitush
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by vettakorumakansnehi
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Bdb484
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Qwyrxian
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Nritop1983
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by MatthewVanitas
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Boing! said Zebedee
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by CNRNair
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Rajithmohan
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by sreekanthv
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Vipinhari
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by SidhardhRamesh
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Anandtr2006
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Naveenpf
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Kjrajesh
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by ARUNKUMAR P.R
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by SineBot
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by vekramaditya
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Pprasadnair
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Article "Nair" discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

hell
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

no

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

large steps

How do you think we can help?

close wp

Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

hell discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Bow Wow (band), User talk:27.33.143.93
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User repeatedly removes a sourced statement of the band's ranking on a list by Rolling Stone, claiming it is fancruft. I have explained to them that Rolling Stone is a reputable music magazine, therefore it is reliable and as such is used on thousands of Wiki articles. Yet the user insists and constantly reverts its addition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explained it to them on their talkpage and previously reported them to Administrator intervention against vandalism, but it was deemed a content dispute not vandalism.

How do you think we can help?

Third opinion so the user knows it is not just me who believes it is a notable achievement. If they still remove it, allow their actions to be labelled vandalism so they can be blocked.

Opening comments by 27.33.143.93
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

It is clearly stated on the magazines cover that the list is arbitrary and biased, as can be seen here with the sentence 独断と偏見で選んだ. It is a random list created as an article to fill in pages for that issue, and Rolling Stone have made that perfectly clear and even noted that on the cover of the magazine (which is a dignified act for a magazine to do) It is not an achievement, award or anything of merit such as being given a medal of honor or the Order of the Rising Sun etc for accomplishments in music. It is just a random (literally) top 100 list which was not even written by a noted music critic and is just a journalists random pick. It provides no information to the article and does not belong on the wikipedia, shall we start adding VH1 top 10 lists and so on to music articles as well? It is fandom nonsense.27.33.143.93 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to their claim that it is a "notable achievement", an achievement is quite literally achieving something. As an example, Michiya Mihashi was the first Japanese musician to sell 100 million records. That is an achievement and belongs on his page. Sadao Watanabe has numerous awards from the government and universities for his contributions to music, that is an achievement and belongs on his page. Being placed in a random top 100 list (which has literally been called random and biased by the publisher) is not a f-ing achievement.27.33.143.93 (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Bow Wow (band), User talk:27.33.143.93 discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka was nominated for deletion by another user. During the Afd discussion a number of editors pointed out that the article has a number of issues, not least of which was NPOV. The result of the Afd was "keep and improve" and the closing admin noted that "this article is deeply flawed and written from a particular perspective". The same admin then tagged the article for NPOV. I then placed other tags (citations needed, factual accuracy, original research) and left a detailed note on the talk page explaining my tagging. Since then very little effort has been made to address the issues.

Himesh84, the creator and main author of the article, has removed the tags, stating he is "happy about current content". He has also asked me to "pin point" the problems. I don't believe the tags require pin point explanation. The issues are self evident.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried discussing the issue on the talk page but Himesh84 refuses to budge and has challenged me to "raise the concern to administrators".

How do you think we can help?

Decide who, according to Wikipedia policies, is in the right.

Opening comments by Himesh84
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Abar Bochhor Tirish Pore
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I came across this page looking at recent changes. The page was originally not at all an encyclopaedic account and had no references. I do not know anything about the event discussed. I have added a NPOV and a Citation needed flag, I also tried to clean up the language a bit to make it more neutral. However each time I mark anything in the article as citation needed or change the language my changes are reverted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to talk to the user making the changes (Prat bose) and on the talk page for the article but he seems to think that the article is non biased and does not need any reference.

How do you think we can help?

I would like someone to have an objective look at the page. I realize I may be to strict in my following the wikipedia rules, so I would be fine with someone saying the page is fine as it is I don't know how objective i am at this point since it irks me if someone just removes tags that i feel are justified.

Opening comments by Prat bose
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Abar Bochhor Tirish Pore discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm an uninvolved volunteer. The article has currently been PROD'd by another editor. If the PROD is rejected, consider taking this to Articles for Deletion. Articles without references establishing the notability of the subject may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline.--SGCM (talk)  16:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 4
 * User talk:Sport and politics
 * User talk:Sport and politics

A few months ago I wrote an article regarding the use of technology to improve sporting performance in the cycling at the London Olympics (Technology in track cycling). Since then there has been intense editing and attempts at removal of the article. There are three main views amongst editors.


 * One editor (Sport and politics) who wishes the article to be removed entirely.


 * another editor (88.88.166.111) who wishes the article to remain in some form, with the background of the controversy to be removed or/and the entire article removed out of the 'controversies section'. (Perhaps a better title would be 'GB team introduces new bikes at the London Olympics' so it is specific to the section?)


 * two editors (Andromedean, Showmebeef) who wish the content, background and location in the controversy section to remain, although there are several possible versions, the latest indicated in the location contains most of the points.

There have been other editors which have been briefly involved in the early stages of editing, although the article has changed since then.


 * I have been asked to clarify what is under dispute. This seems to vary depending upon the editor, but to the best of my knowledge the following is the case:

According to Sport&Politics is is the excessive use of combining sentences to generate the impression that the GB team had cheated or was bad in some way. Sport&Politics also claimed that the concerns of French team was not warranted, it was simply not a controversy more of a conspiracy theory, and the incident was not widely quoted in the Anglo press.

According to 88.* it was initially the lack of evidence that the subject was controversial since the references to the French teams complaints were not included at that stage. When I did include these French comments, then 88.* said that the section could be included, but it should be moved away from controversies to the technological doping section (a term which encompasses all technology related improvements to performance not just training enhancements). 88.* claimed that the use of the 20,000 person survey was too general to justify the article in the 2012 controversy section.

To answer these criticisms I removed all references to issues not connected with the 2012 Olympics and cycling such as the LZ lasersuit and included the direct comments of the French team as reported in the press to show it was a controversy. However I still felt that the background material regarding the survey, the professional cycling body (UCI) principles, and the the recent rule changes was necessary to place the French concerns into perspective.

I hope this is a fair reflection, and explains the dispute accurately --Andromedean (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a long and protracted discussion on the talk page, and it has also been subjected to a RfC without any additional outside comments to the best of my knowledge. I have attempted a dispute resolution before but this wasn't allowed during an RfC and was rejected. The Rfc has now finished so hopefully this process can be started. I have also briefly spoke above this on the teahouse page.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify if any significant breaches of Wiki protocol such as Synthesis or No original research was used, to justify the articles inclusion, modification or removal. Clarify if the background information from cycling regulations and the public survey mentioned in the IMechE technical paper help to clarify the context, and so if this should be included. Clarify if the issues mentioned are specific enough to the London Olympics for inclusion in this section.
 * I need to ask again that you provide the exact section that is being disputed. I cannot seem to locate what everyone is even talking about. If no such clarification is made and the volunteer cannot locate the actual dispute in a reasonable amount of time, it is possible this case will be closed as stale.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Showmebeef
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I believe that this section warrants its inclusion in the article for the following reasons: The assertions I made above are backed by various sources as referenced in the section. In particular, the article Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers provides scientific evidence from years of research into the subject. That it was published around the time of the Games is no coincidence.
 * CONTROVERSY: the infusion of technology (technology doping) into the sports of cycling, in particular track cycling, has been making headlines before and especially during the London Games. In a sports whereby placement is often determined down to 1/1000th sec, the impact is rather SIGNIFICANT. To the extend that one team (or maybe more) has poured millions of dollars into the research and safeguarding of such technologies thus obtained makes it an UNFAIR advantage.
 * RELEVANCY: the reason that this section warrants its inclusion in this article is predicated on the fact that the team who has possession of various technologies contributing to the advantages has been safeguarding the said technologies leading up to the London Games, for obvious reasons such as the significance of the prestigious Summer Games and the attention it receives as host nation. The result is an overwhelming dominance in the sports.

I would also like to draw the attention of the reviewers to a previous similar technology doping case (LZR Racer swim suit) where the technology employed, although LEGAL prior its banning, is so overwhelming it led to its ultimate banning years later. One notable difference is that one dominant technology is the main contributing factor, and it is available to ALL who have the financial resources to secure them. Note that the controversy is prominently covered in 2009 World Aquatics Championships, dubbed the "Plastic Games" where 43 World Records were set which were largely attributed to the use of the suits.

That the contribution due to the wide coverage and discussion of the controversy which led to its ultimate banning cannot be underestimated. It is for this reason also that I appeal that this section be included. Showmebeef (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Volunteer comment - The swim suit controversy was the first thing that came to mind when I reviewed this case. Let us use this as a possible starting point and see how we have handled that situation. The doping issue may not be as relative as it does not have to do with a technology as much as an artificial physical enhancement and may not be of the same vein. If you disagree, is there something more you feel could be used to demonstrate thid comparison?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The quote of the swim suit was to show that a prior technology doping case has been discussed and is included in the article considered most relevant to the discussion, as some have questioned the relevancy of this section to the 2012 London Olympics controversy section. As I can see that the discussion has already moved to content already, has the question of whether this section should be included the 2012 London Olympics controversy section been settled? Showmebeef (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sport and politics
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Requesting information from the user to be presented in this space to keep the text and prose sorted for convenience. The 2000 character limit is being waived here by the DR/N volunteer.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This section, (not article) which was written by Andromedean was subject to an Rfc and there was outside input. The problem is it was mainly opposing what ‎Andromedean had put in and called for its removal. The Rfc though was not formally closed.

This section is nothing more than trying to make out GB cycling cheated and is based up taking snipets from losing athletes, unrelated cycling events where the events and participation rules are different, such as the World Championships where more than one competitor can be entered per event compared to the Olympics where only one can be entered per event. Claiming that extra funding was a form of cheating and that using technology itself was a form of "doping" by providing an "unfair advantage". None of these claims are substantiated and the main source used is a academic industry report, where the section on technology doping is referring to athletes in hyperbaric oxygen chambers and not bicycles in anyway.

This section violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines on topic relevance, POV, undue weight, synthesis of sources, misrepresentation of sources, original research and what Wikipedia is not (not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal).

The section must be removed as it makes unsubstantiated claims based on cherry picking of information to suit the POV which Andromedean is trying to further. Further to this Andromodean has made claims of conflict of interest and that there is "an agenda of censorship" from those disagreeing with them, none of which are a demonstration of good faith editing from Andromodean.

Before the Wikkequette was closed a thread which can be found here was initiated laying out some more of the issues in this section.

This section should be removed forthwith due to the number of Wikipedia guidelines and policies violated.

Sport and politics (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Volunteer questions: I have to ask about the above violations you claim. First, it is best if you make claims about violations to explain in detail what these vilotion are and how they relate exactly to our policy and guidelines. If you are unwilling or unable to demostrate these claims they will likely not be taken into account for this discussion. As Wikiquette assistance has been closed I feel it best to leave all disputes there in the archive as unresolved, unless at the time they actually were resolved. So I ask you to do two things. Please demonstrate exactly how the section violates the policy and guidelines you point out and if the Wikiquette dispute never got resolved. I ask that we leave it there and start fresh. Should you object you may certainly bring up speicifcs but only as they relate to content and not behavior or conduct issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see the general discussion below which shows some of the beginnings of the answering to your questions above. Can you please set out how you would like the questions above answered and if you would like a new section started to deal wit your questions above. Sport and politics (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Show the exact text in question and how it relates to the policy or guideline in question using either a direct link to the policy or a copypast paste with attribution to the policy, and why you feel it is a violation. Please do so in your opening comments section here, where you made the comment and where the question is being asked.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The detailed response to the above question posed will violate the 2000 character limit can I please have it confirmed that if i post the response it will not be deleted and will be accepted even though it will violate the 2000 character limit. Sport and politics (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Confirmed and noted above. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the response below to the questions asked above: ---

1



 * This section is not a fair comparison as the World Championships and the Olympics took part in different parts of the world. The World Championships took place in Australia and took place in April. The Olympics took place in London In August. This is a four month gap between the two events. The events also have different qualification criteria and events. In the Olympics only one competitor per nation can be entered. The World Championships have no such restrictions. The events are also different. The Olympics also have five events for Men and five events for Women. The World Championships has ten events for Men and nine events for Women. The riders at the Olympics were not known when the World Championships took place. As GB cycling have bespoke made bicycles for each rider, claiming the same bicycles should be used at both events is ridiculous as different riders took part for GB cycling at two events; such as the GB Team in the Men’s Tem pursuit. This is clear violation of No Original Research as it attempts to make a comparison between two events which are not comparable. It is just a made up comparison.


 * Volunteer reply: I won't get into the fairness issue as that actually is a point of view. However, the claim that this is original research is clearly innacurate. The claims you are making on the other hand, are. While we may use OR in the discussion we are not able to apply them to the article. The sources clearly state:


 * So, in short - The claim of being an unfair comparison is OR and not the claims being made in the article section that are referenced and fully supported.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This section is also a violation of NPOV as it makes out that as a direct result of using different bicycles GB Cycling did better than other nations competing. This is wholly unsubstantiated. It also makes out the riders’ who rode on the bicycles were irrelevant. It implies that if riders from other nations had used the Team GB bicycles they would have had the same results as GB cycling. This is a clear POV statement of Original Research.
 * Volunteer reply: NPOV states this: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." I see this prose, as written, to be reasonable and non-biased. The section, prose and references are discussing the cycles as having a great deal to do with the overwhelming performance. They do not need to be removed or re-written but, if you have a counter argument and sources to support them they could be added. Would you like to present them here?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been a little bit of the missing of the point here. The section itself is about the 2012 Olympics, it is not a commentary on what GB cycling did during the 2012 track cycling season. Making the comparisons between the two events is not an accurate representation of the happenings at the 2012 Olympics. Why has only a comparison with the 2012 World Championships been made and not other events which took place closer to the Olympics. Why is there also no mention of the Test event which took place at the Olympic Velodrome which showed the Velodrome itself was fast, with world records being broken at the test event.

Velodrome lives up to its star billing In this source the tack itself is praised for being fast in and of itself The velodrome wowed visitors and competitors alike during February's World Cup test event and it got a worldwide audience on Thursday when Australian Ron Webb's design proved to be the super-fast track everyone had hoped for.

This source praises again the track itself for being a fast track London 2012 - Velodrome passes Olympic test

This source states the home crowd were advantageous to compitiors from the UK including GB cycling team membersLesson for Rio: Prepare the minds to exploit home crowd.

These sources provided counter to the claims levelled one sidedly that it is purely the bicycles which have made the difference, the sources clearly demonstrate the advantages of being in London to GB cycling and the speed of the Velodrome itself.

Sport and politics (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is a missing of the point SP. As I said your use of original research cannot be applied to the article and your opinion of the matter is very much that, your opinion. I will look at the sources you provided.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

---

2



 * This whole section is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims of foul play made by members of French cycling. It is again POV pushing and therefor a violation of NPOV. The statements are given too much weight and are there for Bias which is a further violation of NPOV. The language used is also very poor and POV such as “aided by subterfuge”, “demanded that his British rival”, “divulge the U.K.'s secrets” there is also a lack of direct quoting of the individuals reducing the ability to Verify the statements being attributed to the individuals. This is therefore a violation of the policy on verifiability. It is also to centric towards just the French Point of View and doesn’t give the views of the other nations competing.  Which is further violation of NPOV as it is Undue Weight to one nations view on the situation.


 * Volunteer reply: - Unsubstantiated or not, we don't exclude the information just because you just don't like it. The prose is fully supported by the references and does not actually represent POV pushing but I would say this particular section lacks balance as there is no mention of the replies of the British to the accusations mentioned in the sources. This should be added. I will also note the claim you make that the lack of direct quoting reduces verifiablility is innaccurate. However...the information is far too closely paraphrased and must be altered to comply with copyright. While these are not direct quotes the authors are attributing the claims to the parties but we must not use close paraphrasing. I do agree, however, that by not balancing the prose with the reaction of the British as mentioned in the sources the section is "to centric towards just the French Point of View". However, the claim that it doesn't represent "views of the other nations competing" is not releveant to NPOV on its own as we would not need to know the reaction of other countries to balance, just if there were any other "viewpoints in proportion to their prominence" in other sources (per WP:BALANCE). If you have such sources to add, would you like to present them here?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

3



 * This Section has language which is pejorative and therefor a violation of NPOV. Phrasing such as “the British teams high-tech warfare”, “British Cycling is secretive about its cycling technology”. Both phrases are worded to give off impressions of things which are not happening. There is no actual Warfare being undertaken by GB cycling. It also makes out only GB cycling keep what they are doing to themselves in relation to technology. This is without foundation and is therefore a violation of No Original Research. The section on use of the technology in other sports is not given any context and is not given any relevance to the 2012 Olympics or Track Cycling. This is therefore more original research and a lack of a demonstration of relevancy to the section and article as a whole.


 * Volunteer reply - This is beginning to seem a little like nit picking and a bit of an overreach with claims of NPOV violations. I believe the use of the term pejorative to be a bit misleading. You claim that using the wording "warfare" - "are worded to give off impressions of things which are not happening." But the word is defined as "conflict, especially when vicious and unrelenting, between competitors, political rivals, etc." I see nothing wrong with the use of the term in this manner and the section is balanced with a reply by the head of research and development who was asked the question. The other example "British Cycling is secretive about its cycling technology" is point on and even the British team admits as much. This is not controversial.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to also point out that the phrase "high-tech warfare" is used by the original author in the referenced source "Olympics track cycling: Will technology win the war for GB?". Actually the whole sentence is quoted almost verbatim from the source. Showmebeef (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

4



 * This section implies that there is actual cheating taking part by violating the “spirit of the UCI Code” It is also does not demonstrate a relevancy to the article in question. The article is directly about the 2012 Olympics. This is just a general statement about cycling in general and it is even more general than just being about Track Cycling. This is not even neutral background information as it is just a statement that there are rule infringements occurring in cycling. It makes a large numbers of suppositions and inferences without actually having direct sources to verify those claims. It also has individual sources for the individual claims and mixes them with personal Original Research to synthesise an impression of cheating and foul play. This is there for a violation of No Original Research, Synthesis of sources and Verifiability of Claims. The whole section is also made moot by dismissing the inferences of cheating by saying that no rules were broken. So lacks relevancy.

-

5



 * The source used for this is misrepresented in the Following way and is therefore a violation of Verifiability and Synthesis as it does not accurately represent the source being relied upon. The source in the Industry academic journal here It does not claim there is "technology doping" with regards to bicycles. It does state though state the following in the article which is used in the section "technology doping which is now officially recognized as a threat". That is though not the whole quote. The whole quote is in fact "“the hypoxic chamber episode created a fundamental shift in the way that HETs are viewed.” From this point on, physical apparatus created by sports engineering would be subject to the same scrutiny as biological & chemical HETs. ‘Technology doping’ was now officially recognised as a threat." The quote can be found on page 16 of the report. For clarity purposes HET stands for Human Enhancement Technologies. The quote does not mention bicycles at all and is reference to the use of Oxygen Chambers and similar equipment used by athletes to alter their bodies in some way.
 * The journal extensively covers issues such as laser eye surgery for golfers and prosthetics in Athletics. The journal covers lots of hypotheticals and theories of what may be possible and what could happen. It doesn't actually say anywhere advancements by GB cycling in cycling technology is “technology doping”. It is also not an accurate representation of what the source is saying, as the line being relied upon only appears once in the whole piece referring directly to Oxygen chambers and athletes modifying their bodies through technology. It is unrelated the equipment used by athletes in the sport, such as sports rackets or sailing boats or bicycles. The quote heavily relied upon is Cherry-picked to back up your minority POV; it misrepresents the source and inaccurately portrays the context of the sentence. It’s therefore Synthesis of Sources and a violation of verifiability as it is a misrepresentation of the source.

--

6



 * The use of a survey is not a reliable source so the whole of the final section of is based upon an unreliable source. It therefore violates policy on reliable sources.


 * As direct quotes from policies were asked for the Policies of Wikipedia state the following:


 * The Policy on Original Research states “Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research” This is clearly being violated as described above.


 * The policy on Synthesis states” Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources” Some sources here clearly are used to further a specific POV not directly stated in the sources and this has been pointed out above.


 * The NPOV policy states “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources” and “certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias” and “Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution” This is in clear violation as described above.


 * The policy of verifiability states “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight” the use of the survey is clearly not able to be checked that it was carried out un-biasedly and was overseen adequately not to have pushed a specific POV either deliberately, accidentally, directly or indirectly.


 * Sport and politics (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

--
 * Thank you. I will review your responses shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Before considering points 5 and 6 above consider whether the last paragraph of the section, which is general information on the concept "technology doping", belongs in the discussed article. The same concern was brought up by a DRN volunteer at the start of the discussion here. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I have already expressed some concern over the doping content, I have also seen this issue raised in a number of the sources being used. I am still not convinced it is relevant but at least one source makes a direct comparison. We'll see as sources are reviewed. I'm am not going to be rushing this.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point about not rushing things. My point is that there is no reason for the article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics to introduce the concept of technology doping except by linking to the article on it. Doping is not introduced as a concept when it has to be mentioned in an athlete's article, nor is the rules and history of the athlete's sport included in such articles or in articles on specific championships. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For the readability of the over all dispute this addendum will be collapsed after replies are made but may still be commented on.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 88.88.167.157 alias 88.88.166.111
There may be a case for inclusion of some parts of the section, hence my final opinion in the RFC. That said, I think most of the (includable) information in the section ought to be in other articles (e.g. technology doping, WADA, doping and track cycling). I also consider the information that belongs elsewhere as the most encyclopedic (e.g. general information on WADA's stance on the use of technology) and therefore the more includable information. (In light of the description in the "Dispute overview" I must add that move =/= remove.) The main reason for my neutrality to some inclusion of the French reactions in the discussed article is that I don't feel capable of interpreting WP:WEIGHT, specifically whether the controversy is "a viewpoint [that] is held by a significant minority", or "a viewpoint [that] is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". If the section is included it should (for WP:NPOV) probably be included that the unfounded claims were called out as violating the Olympic Spirit. I won't participate in this DRN beyond this comment as the previous discussion was a massive time sink. Furthermore, it was overflowing with accusations of bias etc. and therefore far from enjoyable. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC) (Yes, my IP has changed since the previous discussion. I think all IP editors (at least all 85.# and 88.#) participating in the discussion were me.)

Comments by (previously uninvolved) HiLo48
I'm confused. Did User:Andromedean write an article as he/she says, or simply a new section for the already existing article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics?

I regard articles like Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics as disaster areas. They inevitably attract lots of crap, largely comprising the personal whinges of editors with nothing better to do and no idea of WP:UNDUE. I have been waiting for the dust to settle and for most editors to forget about it, before I started to get rid of some of the real dross. This dispute, however, has delayed the arrival of that time.

As for this dispute, it does seem to be about a very narrow, technical issue related far more to a particular sport than to the Olympics. My opinion matches that of User:Sport and politics. It should go. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I realise now that the answer to my initial question is that User:Andromedean did not write an article, as he/she says, simply a new section for the already existing article. Having a major complaint made by someone who doesn't understand basic Wikipedia terminology somewhat confuses and weakens their case. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can support the claim that Andromedean started, and has been editing, this (section) article. Showmebeef (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What? That is no response to my question and point at all. A Section and an Article are quite different things. Are the people I'm communicating with here truly competent editors? HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by DRN volunteer Hasteur
This again?!? Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43 and Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 44 are previous attempts to get DRN to issue a ruling Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Andromedean
For the record it was Sport & Politics who suggested the DRN should be opened not myself. I thought RfC --Andromedean (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC) only lasted a month, and I assumed it was closed when the attempted removal of the article took place.

I'm unclear why you are raising these points Hasteur, when I already stated this in the opening, are you intending to be involved in this again? Please, remember my request.--Andromedean (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by DRN volunteer
Two previous cases mentioned above were closed without hearing due to then-ongoing RfC. Since the RfC is now archived, and at least two sides of the dispute are represented, the case will be opened 08:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC) or after all parties make their comments (whatever happens first). Parties are welcomed to summarize uninvolved editors' input at RfC if applicable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Per, the case is now open. Ebe 123  → report 16:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC) I would like to ask parties whether there are any references relating the last three paragraphs of the section (as it is now) with these particular games. I only see a direct connection between the event and the statement "All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code". Is there any published analysis of British technology compliance with the other mentioned rules and opinions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll answer this because this relates to important information placed in the wrong article, which was my main focus near the end of the discussion: No, hence this move and all my other contributions on that particular IP. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement was taken from this IMechE report which seems to be prepared with the games in mind. There is a background to British cyclings historic compliance (or lack of) at the bottom of page one and two of Britain's mysterious Bikes --Andromedean (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Andromedean, we are expected to avoid assessing others' minds; instead we are expected to interpret the written text the way we could avoid guessing the connections – this is the point of WP:SYNTH. That is: unless secondary source asserts violation of the rules, we neither state the violation, nor mention the rules. While obviously the controversy in question is verifiable (France24 is an excellent source for that), we can't go beyond the published asserted violations and published comments regarding them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I only mention this because there are six references to the 'London 2012 Olympics' in the report (and many more to the Olympics in general) and it was published one month before the games. However, it is unlikely that the original source of the survey has a direct connection with the games, so I see your point.

The overuse of synthesis criticism seems to be on ongoing theme in this section since it provides an excuse to remove sentences which editors simply don't like. I have raised these concerns with other Wikipedeans, who believe most articles in Wikipedia contain a degree of synthesis, it can rarely be avoided. As a consequence most of the material in this section now consists of direct quotes, but of course that doesn't prevent editors using synthesis as a blunt weapon for criticizing virtually any comparison between sentences. That's why we have rules in Wikipedia such as use common sense and make reasonable assumptions.

The reason for the background information is to place the controversy in context. Without this, we would be saying to the reader: 'your team won, my team didn't so I will accuse you of cheating.' This seems to be the agenda by one editor who also wanted the title changed to Irrational French Criticisms are something similar. The key background information includes the principles of the UCI "The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine" and WADAs consultation on "Technology doping’ which is now officially recognized as a threat".

These place the French concerns into context, especially when components were being conspicuously covered up during the games (something which perhaps we should mention). In fact the removal of these contextual sentences seems to create a bias. We could claim the same for the survey since it reflects natural feelings of 'justice' but the link is admittedly more tenuous, and providing it doesn't lead to the Hemorrhaging of other text, and in the interest of compromise, I would agree this could be removed. --Andromedean (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

An alternative would be to insert a summary rather than the entire text of these statements. For example in the mysterious bikes link there is this: "the IOC, and the UCI, [also] have a philosophy that the athlete should not only be paramount, but that technology should influence sports as little as possible'' --Andromedean (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a remembering that this is an article on the 2012 Olympics and not Track Cycling in general or the 2012 Track Cycling season. It also needs to be remembered that this is also not an article on GB cycling. Sources have been asked for on numerous occasions for direct claims of cheating and direct sources directly stating GB cycling cheated. To my knowledge none have been provided. What has been provided instead is a mix of pieces of sources, other athletes who lost, and unrepresentative comparisons with other Track Cycling Competitions which have differing numbers of events and rules on qualification for events and the number of participants per nation. This is synthesis of sources to further a specific minority held point of view.


 * I would also like to illustrate this as follows: This academic industry journal is overly relied upon by those wishing to include this section. It does not claim there is "technology doping" with regards to bicycles. It does state though state the following in the article which is used in the section "technology doping which is now officially recognized as a threat". That is though not the whole quote. The whole quote is in fact "“the hypoxic chamber episode created a fundamental shift in the way that HETs are viewed.” From this point on, physical apparatus created by sports engineering would be subject to the same scrutiny as biological & chemical HETs. ‘Technology doping’ was now officially recognised as a threat."
 * The quote can be found on page 16 of the report. For clarity purposes HET stands for Human Enhancement Technologies.
 * The quote does not mention bicycles at all and is reference to the use of Oxygen Chambers and similar equipment used by athletes to alter their bodies in some way.


 * This illustrates the level of cherry-picking and misrepresentation in the section and the high level of unreliability of presentation in the section. Sport and politics (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

S&P The section begins with:

''The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), established in 1999, has the remit to “promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms” [17]. For a technology to be considered for prohibition from sport, WADA sets three conditions [18] : 1. Is the technology harmful to health? 2. Is it performance-enhancing? 3. Is it against the spirit of the sport?''

So by suggesting this only refers to hypoxic chamber training it is you who are cherry picking. The point of the section of the IMechE report was to indicate that WADA was for the first time actually investigating technology doping, and hypoxic chambers happened to be its first technology target, it is no way suggests it will remain limited to hypoxic chambers. Incidentally Hypoxic chambers are widely used for training by professional cyclists. --Andromedean (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The journal extensively covers issues such as laser eye surgery for golfers and prosthetics in Athletics. The journal covers lots of hypotheticals and theories of what may be possible and what could happen. It doesn't actually say anywhere advancements by GB cycling in cycling technology is “technology doping”. It is also not an accurate representation of what the source is saying, as the line being relied upon only appears once in the whole piece referring directly to Oxygen chambers and athletes modifying their bodies through technology. It is unrelated the equipment used by athletes in the sport, such as sports rackets or sailing boats or bicycles. The quote you have heavily relied upon is Cherry-picked to back up your minority POV; it misrepresents the source and inaccurately portrays the context of the sentence.


 * You’ve claimed this undefined and wishy washy "spirit", can you please define this and that it has been violated through multiple reliable sources? The rules are set out in black and white on paper. It is not against the spirit of formula one to have cars covered by the same regulations having vastly differing budgets and capabilities. It is the same in this context. What is trying to be claimed is being successful through allocation of resources is against the spirit of track cycling, that is facile nonsense. If that were true cycling technology would never have advances beyond the very first bicycles produced.


 * Finally brining in WADA and stating their sporting code fails to demonstrate any relevance other than your inferences. There is no relevance to the 2012 Olympics, Track Cycling in general, GB Cycling or any controversy. it is just you saying these rules state this I think it violates them therefore I must be right. These selectively used sources, sore losers and my own comparisons to events which are not a fair comparison back me up so it must be right. You are wrong it simply goes to demonstrate the sheer nonsense being asserted in the section. Sport and politics (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Some observations: Does any involved party argue any of these observations? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The controversy exists and is noticed by reliable secondary sources (eg. Guardian, Yahoo! Sports, France24 look pretty much enough to warrant section).
 * 2) There is no source to report "cheating" of British team as a fact.
 * 3) The attempt at providing background information after reporting the event breaks the flow and creates unwarranted implication of guilt on British account.


 * I wholly agree with points 2 and 3 but as for point 1 this is a controversy over what? So far it just seems to be from the sources provided that it is the French complaining about the British beating them by blaming the technology, and the UK PM commenting to wind up the French. Hardly controversial when controversies usually have more than just one side complaining and usually have prolonged and meaningful discussion. There appears to be no meaningful discussion just the French losing and saying GB Cycling had better bikes than us. also the UK PM references to the Tour de France are not relevant to this article on the Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * France24's article leaves an impression that Cameron commented on Olympic games, and it appears that the whole story covers British performance throughout 2012, not just Tour de France. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Czarkoff It's useful to receive a fresh unbiased perspective on the article because it may read differently to those who have gradually developed and read in a hundred times! I have stressed your first two points many times in the discussion. Your third one is interesting


 * The attempt at providing background information after reporting the event breaks the flow and creates unwarranted implication of guilt on British account. Does any involved party argue any of these observations?

I recall earlier versions did precede with the background information. Are you saying you would be satisfied if it preceded the other statements? I am still of the view that without at least some background information, before or after, it makes the incident appear as pure 'sour grapes' rather than a deep seated grievance within the sport which has been festering for decades, but came to light most prominently at London 2012.

A further thought regarding the 20,000 survey quote. I placed that in at the end to confront claims that the issue wasn't controversial in nature and attempts to remove it on those grounds. This was before the quotes from the French were added. --Andromedean (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Czarkoff I notice this Dispute is requiring assistance again according to the board. Is that because you can't continue your role for some reason, or because you are asking for additional outside advice?--Andromedean (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am Amadscientist, a regular volunteer on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I will review the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I will add to my opening comments here, since I can't seem to edit them

Prose/section in dispute

 * This is probably the latest version, and it could be a good starting point for Mad scientist. 88.* wanted to remove the parts in bold here to a different topic, Myself and Showmebeef think they need to remain in the Controversy section, at least in some form to provide context. Whilst S&P wishes everything to be removed. Yes I think the short extract of the text on the swimming Lasersuit in the original draft could also be added to provide an example of technology which was legal that was subsequently banned.  This adds weight to the argument that the topic is controversial.

--Andromedean (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * From the article itself as confirmed above --Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting this. I will take a look shortley. Hilo48, Reign it in please. If you are not aware of the bracketed numbers...we call them citations, and they are numbered on each article.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if WADA has any authority in the area of technology. It's not a drug, is it? And Andromedean, what on earth are you posting there, with all those numbers in brackets all over the place? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We have been over that ground already, it is all areas of technology, not just biochemical see P.16 in the report in the references ^ "Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage?".--Andromedean (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this. Not just the claims about WADA, but the seeming incompetence of editors here, combined with an unbelievable arrogance. Of course we use fucking citations, but that's not what they should look like. It's as if some material has been copied and pasted from somewhere else, with no attempt to recreate the actual links for the citations. And I get the impression a reply to a post of mine has been placed before it. We are not having coherent conversations here. Can a skilled Admin please come here and sort this mess out ASAP? HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, please, calm down a bit. Conduct-related comments are discouraged on DRN, and heated comments are particularly unhelpful for building coherent discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should I calm down? This is a classic case of one editor (me) being growled at for upsetting the precious sensibilities of some, while incompetence and POV pushing, without naughty words, runs rampant. Being nice while being incompetent is a bad look. This process isn't going anywhere. It's being driven by a very small number of mostly far too inexperienced, narrow focus editors. Why? Because they want to keep whinging and whining after their country got beaten in some event at the Olympic Games. This is Wikipedia at its worst. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---
 * HiLo48, you have been asked to refrain from disruptive behavior on this DR/N by two volunteers. You are an uninvolved party. If you cannot be more respectful you will be asked to leave the discussion and your contributions collapsed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---
 * I fail to see what the problem is here, it is indeed copied from the latest version which include the active links.

With regards the Sports engineering link although previously talking about hypoxic chambers, they are reasonably clear "From this point on, physical apparatus created by sports engineering would be subject to the same scrutiny as biological & chemical HETs. ‘Technology doping’ was now officially recognised as a threat"--Andromedean (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't say they CAN do anything about it. And it isn't actually a link. When you copy text with citations, you need to repair the links for the citations so they still work. The way you've done it, the links AREN'T active! And please learn something about indenting. Your lack of competence as an editor seriously damages your credibility and chances of convincing others of anything. HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem in the previous discussion with Andromedean was a lack of civility. I am very glad to see that this is no longer a problem for him. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

To the DRN volunteers: As illustrated with bold above I want the last paragraph to be moved (or, more correctly, I have already moved it; see diffs at the top of the discussion) to Technology doping as it consists exclusively of information on that subject. I also added a link to that article. The other bold bit I removed entirely as excessive detail on a rule that the rule-makers did not consider broken. While I am neutral to including the section (excluding the last paragraph) I think the degree of coverage this issue has received does not warrant a very detailed coverage here. The current version of the section is the longest section on a single issue in the article, which seems entirely unwarranted. The plastic swimsuit controversy is indeed a comparable case, in the sense that you can also compare two doping cases where one ends in a lifetime ban for an Olympic champion and the other in a warning for a mediocre footballer. The plastic swimsuits overshadowed the world championships, this failed to overshadow even one sport at the Olympics. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one way of comparing the two cases. Another way to look at it is that the swim suit case took several years for the authority to realize the significance of the impact and finally ban it. We have observed the peak impact, so to speak. While the bike case the authority hasn't even come to grips with its implications. We are obviously looking at these cases at different time line of their "development" cycles. Showmebeef (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the rule is changed based on this incident the section's inclusion would be incontestable and information on this would be added. I reiterate that I'm fine with including the section, excluding the last paragraph whose content is not about the incident at all (furthermore the content of the paragraph would still be available on Wikipedia). I would prefer if the section was additionally shortened based on the lenght of the other sections in the article and the level of coverage this incident has received, but as stated in the RFC: I won't fight you over it. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you think that "the rule has changed" and that it even makes section's inclusion "incontestable". To me, the rule(s) for inclusion stays the same--that whether it's controversial and relevant to the article. I am merely responding to your assertion that one case is controversial as we all can agree (lifetime ban for an Olympic champion) while the other one is not or less so (warning for a mediocre footballer). To me, I would rather focus on whether an unfair advantage is achieved through the use of technology (therefore compromising the spirit of the Olympics) rather than whether it's 10 gold medals or only 1 gold medal won by utilizing it. I could care less if it's "the Brit did this or the French said that" (in other words, that the Brit happened to be the focus here is rather unfortunate). I am in no way trying to "crystalball" (you learn something everyday) how this controversy is going to end up. Honestly, you don't have to "fight" me over this--just lay out your reasons and let the reviewers decide. Showmebeef (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that if, in the future, the incident is considered more important (e.g. it causes a rule change in track cycling) then the section will be changed to reflect that. I linked to crystalball because we cannot predict future importance; the article must reflect the current importance, which is decidedly lower than importance of the plastic swimsuit controversy. By becoming "incontestable" I meant that, if this were to happen, I would no longer be able to understand why anyone would be opposed to inclusion, whereas I can see why Sport and Politics is opposed now; it is by far not the most prominent controversy of the 2012 Olympics. By not "fighting you", I meant that, even though I have an opinion on the length of the section, I consider myself a party to the dispute only with regards to the last paragraph. I fully agree with you that it doesn't matter which nation did what.. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Showmebeef (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to Sport and Politics answer to questions from volunteer by Andromodean
I have a few comments regarding Sports and Politics objections,

Note we attempted to include results of the cycling world championships in April of this year before the new bikes were introduced in a previous edit, but this was rejected for dubious reasons in my opinion. Of course the respective teams would probably have been competing using different equipment here as well! --Andromedean (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I will start at point 3 since the volunteer seems to have addressed most of the issues regarding the first two.

Point 3)  This is just a direct and key quote which Chris Boardman chose freely to answer without complaint which confirms what the French team were saying.

Regarding being secretive, the British cyclists caused suspicion by conspicuously hiding the wheels whilst preparing the bikes. Whether this was a psychological ploy or otherwise it weakens the argument that they were not secretive! The French certainly said they are secretive so that is a third source! Note, all the really important aerodynamic data will be kept under wraps possibly indefinitely whether the equipment is eventually made available or not. It’s the testing of it and how the helmet, suit, cycle and orientation of the rider is used together which is important.

Point 4) Any implication of blatant cheating is refuted by the last sentence, place it first if there is any doubt. However, the widespread use of different technologies between competitors, combined with the delays to marketing them, strongly implies that the spirit of the UCI (and IOC) are not being adhered to. So this is highly relevant.

Point 5) These are of course quotes from the original report . And the report clearly indicates the expansion of WADAs remit to including technological enhancements as well as biological and chemical enhancements, and it in no way suggests that this will be limited to hypoxic chambers. (For example they might extend it to the electrically heated muscle warmers used by some competitors mentioned in the references)

Hypoxic chambers are however a case of using technology to aid performance which is widely used by cyclists.

Neither does the inclusion of this quote in any way indicate that only British cyclists are using enhancements. If there is any doubt simply precede the paragraph by another stating


 * Whilst British cycling may have used many advanced technological aids, some of these were also deployed by other teams.

Point 6) Is sport and Politics seriously suggesting this University researcher and peer reviewed report is less reliable than the average material referenced in typical Wikipedia articles? Here is the original primary source

DM James, 2010, The ethics of using engineering to enhance athletic performance, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Engineering of Sport – Engineering Emotion, (Eds A Sabo, S Litzenberger, P Kafka & C Sabo), Vol 2, pp3405–3410 --Andromedean (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Before i respond more fully to the above comments by Androdeam I would like to point out a direct quote regarding the survey in question which was stated by Andromodean "it is unlikely that the original source of the survey has a direct connection with the games". This goes to show the survey is unreliable as it cannot be shown to be about the Olympics. It is also not an opinion poll so it is not regulated in the same was as opinion polls are regulated so assuming it has been carried out correctly is just that an assumption, no evidence or proof that it has actually been carried out correctly and with integrity. The diff can be seen here. Sport and politics (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If it were up to the "reviewers" we could just make a decision, close the DR/N and leave it at that. What needs to happen is that all involved find common ground with some compromise that everyone can live with. Here is what I propose thus far from my reading of the situation:


 * The section is far from perfect, but no Wikipedia article is. Many feel that much of the information may well deserve a place in the article, but in it's current location it may be undue weight for both seperation and size. I would propose that all the information be incorporated into sections of this, and perhaps other aticles. I would propose that the copyright concerns be addressed as well as reviewing the rest of the secion for the same. So far, from what I am reading there appears to little wrong with inclusion except that it need not be made in a seperate section. How does this sound so far?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the incident having its own section, which seems to be the standard for the different incidents included in that article. It ougth to be shorter. Specifically, the last paragraph (from "The World Anti-Doping Agency...") does not belong in the discussed article. The information has already been added to a suitable article. Additionally the issue is discussed in greater detail than more prominent controversies; the standard length of sections on that page (excluding the most prominent cases and one multi-issue section) is four to eight lines (on my screen), I think this issue should not exceed six lines (approx. 1200-1300 readable characters.) I have added this as a proposed solution below. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution (IP)
1) The section is included (as a separate section) in the article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. 2) The last paragraph ("The World Anti-Doping Agency...") is removed as it belongs in the article Technology doping. 3) The rest of the section is rewritten so as to not exceed 1500 (changed from 1300) readable characters (including spaces). This is ample space to present both sides of the case in sufficient detail, and it matches the length of most other sections in the article. 4) A link to technology doping is included in the prose. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree parts of the article/section could be summarised in parts. The reason for its present unwieldy structure is down to having to quote every statement due to overzealous accusations of synthesis


 * I could add appropriate comments from the British side (in addition to those of the ex director) and the swimsuit controversy as suggested. Bear in mind though it may prove difficult to shorten it overall if we are to add these.


 * The issue of technology enhancement is controversial enough to justify a few extra lines, I don't see why we need to limit space unnecessarily.


 * When everyone has finished with their comments perhaps I should propose a version with a proposed compromise? --Andromedean (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and propose a version you think is proper here Andromedean and editors can discuss it or propose a counter version that perhaps we can work together to incorporate.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To Andromedean: Please add comments from the British side in your draft. Don't add the swimsuit controversy. It has only been discussed as a potentially comparable case to see how we should cover the current issue. Regarding the limit I won't count it exactly, it is more a suggested guideline. I have not chosen the limit arbitrarily, but based it on the length of the other sections of the article (see below for details). The issue of technology enhancement in sports in general is not an issue for this article, but for the article on technology doping. This section is exclusively about the controversial use of technology in one sport at the 2012 Olympics. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I second the suggestion. I would like to propose also that if space is a concern (i.e. 1300 char limit) then we can make this (existing) section a separate article or a section in an appropriate article, e.g. technology doping, but insert a section with a brief summary in Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics and a link to redirect to the more detailed article/section. An example of that is Opening ceremony Munich memorial.
 * I propose the above alternative because I think the 1300 char limit is rather restrictive (Cf. the 2 paragraphs 88 wrote took more than 1500 chars) and won't be enough to cover the topic adequately. However I think a leader section on the topic with a brief summary should fit into that constraint comfortably. Showmebeef (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed the proposed limit to 1500 characters. It is not a space issue, it is neccessary for a balanced coverage of a number of controversies. The section is in an article, not a vacuum, and if it is among the longest sections readers will be misled into thinking that this was the controversy of the Games. In the current article the sections on a single issue that are longer (feel free to check) are the "brand protection" (c. 2700), "badminton doubles" (c. 1800) and "individual épée" sections (<1600, was shorter before further development). Additionally, "one minute of silence" and "security" has their own article. It would be hard to argue that the current issue is more prominent and should be covered in more detail than these. Brand protection, security and one minute of silence are clearly the most prominent non-sporting issues, whereas badminton doubles is by far the most important sporting issue with multiple disqualifications. Fencing is closer to this case, but the extra length is due to later developments. I feel that there should be no problem in presenting the case fairly and sufficiently within 1500 readable characters. The case could perhaps be mentioned in part in other articles (I mentioned some possibilities in my opening statement; I think track cycling is best for what you have in mind), but I really don't think it merits its own article based on the current situation. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I had drafted this out before your latest comments and thought there was a preference for a mention of the LZracer. See what you think anyway. The Bold is just to indicate the parts in which I have attempted to create more balance by deflecting any blame from the British team and is obviously not intended to be highlighted. The references aren’t complete but sure I can find these. Not sure what the character count is either. Be aware that all cycling teams will use both embedding and enabling technologies and both can be controversial. ''
 * Many sports teams and athletes try to gain an advantage by using embedding technologies which help to enhance or fine tune athletic performance, and incorporating enabling technologies which improve the sporting equipment used in competition. The first is regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the second is responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.[142]:p. 15.  In both cases the rules state that athletes and teams are expected to conform to the spirit of the sport allowing natural athletic ability to dominate over technology. However, the degree to which this principle can be legally breached is vague, and occasionally the authorities may first allow, then ban a particular technology.  One such case was with the LZracer swimsuit used in the 2008 Olympics which allowed swimmers to achieve marginally faster times and was subsequently declared illegal for future use.


 * Although no clear advantage has been proven, a controversy surfaced in the London 2012 games when the British cycling team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[132] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the governing cycling body and passed fit for use under its sporting code[137] However, the team subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[133] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[134]


 * The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment with new bikes, skinsuits and different wheels.[136] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team seemed to confirm the importance of technology. When he was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[137]. However, the British team also stress that performance is achieved through multiple ‘marginal gains’ in many areas, including training and preparation. British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery, and is secretive about the various technologies adapted from Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [138][139][140]


 * The public, whilst generally supportive of technology in sport are still concerned that sports engineering could create unfairness between athletes and countries.[143]

--Andromedean (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)''

Proposal by 88.88.167.157
Use of technology in sports is common, but occasionally secret or new technologies are controversial. The use of technology is regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency and the governing body of the sport in question. A controversy surfaced in the London 2012 games when the British cycling team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[132] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the governing body of cycling and passed fit for use under its sporting code[137], and no clear advantage had been demonstrated. The British team outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[133] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[134] The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment with new bikes, skinsuits and different wheels.[136] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team seemed to confirm the importance of technology. When he was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[137]. However, the British team also stress that performance is achieved through multiple ‘marginal gains’ in many areas, including training and preparation. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the draft above is sufficiently detailed. You probably disagree, but remember that: 1) the article is not only about this issue; 2) if this is 2500 characters and the other are <1500 characters this looks like the main sports controversy of the Games, which it was not (that dubious hounor is held by badminton doubles); 3) some of the information can (and has) been included in other articles. (E.g. the last sentence of Andromedean's draft is about technology doping in general; I have included some such infomation in my draft in a limited way to start the section.) Disclaimer: Used Andromedean's draft as a starting point. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This may sound facetious but this must be remembered that this is an article on Controversties at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Specifically the 2012 Summer Olympics. It is not for vague and general statements on sports in general. The section needs to relate directly to the 2012 Summer Olympics and have been controversial at the 2012 Summer Olympics. lines such as "British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery, and is secretive about the various technologies adapted from Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats" and "Many sports teams and athletes try to gain an advantage by using embedding technologies which help to enhance or fine tune athletic performance, and incorporating enabling technologies which improve the sporting equipment used in competition. The first is regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the second is responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.[142]:p. 15.  In both cases the rules state that athletes and teams are expected to conform to the spirit of the sport allowing natural athletic ability to dominate over technology." are just general statements of Sports and British Cycling and are not directly related to the 2012 Olympics. In this case directly related means they would have been occurring regardless of if the 2012 Olympics had taken place or not.


 * Stating secretiveness that would have been going on regardless is irrelevant as Trade Secrets and Competitive advantage are undertaken in every walk of life, it is the whole basis for patent laws and please see the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, which demonstrates the secretive nature surrounding sports technologies in general and that iit is not a phenomenon restricted to track cycling or the 2012 Olympics as it implied above. The funding arrangements for Olympic Sports through the National Lottery would still have occurred even if Cycling was not an Olympic Sport it just would have meant Cycling not being funded. Making the point of how the Olympics are funded in the UK moot. Finally bringing up the swimsuits is unrelated to the 2012 Olympics as it was banned before the 2012 Olympics. The sections and its content needs to relate to the 2012 Olympics and not historical events which took place before the Olympics which were not even mentioned during the Olympics. Please remember to relate this section and its content to the 2012 Olympics and not general cycling information or general funding information or generalities in the wider world of sport or industry.


 * Background information is not needed in an article on Controversies at a specific event, if the section requires large amounts of background information it should be dealt with on another article as none of the other controversies require this level of background information to attempt to justify their inclusion. Cut out the background information and generalities and there is something to work with otherwise it is not relevant to this article as it is about more than just the 2012 Olympics.Sport and politics (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we all agree to at least make the changes on the copyright concerns? I would like to see if everyone is at least alright with this suggested prose:

--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No obvious problems that I can see. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Technology in track cycling
Cycling has received attention due to an impact of technology that may be similar to the now-banned FastSkin swim suits used at the Beijing Games. Aerodynamics and lightness are more important in equipment than any other Olympic sport. The search for refinement is relentless. While opting out of their use at the world championships earlier in the year, the British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics. They outperformed rivals, Australia and France with margins, greater than expected. In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.

The director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested subterfuge, and a little discussed, cutting edge technology was used to produce the quickest bike. British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the UK Olympic Cycling team to French news, "Of course there is no cheating," he said. But France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded the U.K.'s secrets be revealed. French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment as well as stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect." Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." British Cycling is secretive. Its technology is built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats  The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI recently amended its interpretation of the sports rules to allow a nine-month grace period after first competition use to bring a product to market. All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code.

--Amadscientist (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC) --
 * The above version has been edited for brevity and balance, accuracy, relevance and context. Some parts that were undue weight removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A few problems, The background stuff is not needed as this is about the 2012 Olympics and not sports technology in general. The swimsuits are not relevant to the 2012 Olympics, as they were banned well before the 2012 Olympics. "Aerodynamics and lightness are more important in equipment than any other Olympic sport. The search for refinement is relentless." This is again more background generalities with no direct bearing on the 2012 Olympics as it was happening before the 2012 Olympics and is continuing after the 2012 Olympics. The statement "British Cycling is secretive." is presented as a fact and as if no other national is secretive or that being secretive is a GB cycling phenomenon. Trade Secrets and Patent Laws are in existence for precisely this reason and please see the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, where being secretive is not a controversy it is an expected part of the "business of sport". I do not see the relevancy of where Team GB have their stuff built unless it can be shown it is so completely out of comparison with other similar nations. The other uses of the same technology in other industries and sports must also be relevant to the 2012 Olympics or it is just again a general statement on technology. "The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI recently amended its interpretation of the sports rules to allow a nine-month grace period after first competition use to bring a product to market." This just a general statement on bicycle availability and the rules surrounding bicycle availability. it is not specific to the 2012 Olympics it is a general Cycling statement and this is an article on the 2012 Olympics. Also recently when, the date the code was amended is needed, though the whole statement is not relevant as it is just a general statement on bicycle availability. There is also no mention anywhere in the section of the track itself being fast or home advantage being a factor. Sport and politics (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics revised proposal
Team GB Cycling introduced new bicycles for the London 2012 Olympics. They subsequently outperformed rivals, Australia and France with margins, greater than those nations had expected. In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and unsubstantiated allegations of cheating. In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of cheating which were vehemently defended against by British Prime David Cameron.

The director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested "subterfuge", and little discussed "cutting edge technology" was used to produce the quickest bike. British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the UK Olympic Cycling team to French news, "Of course there is no cheating," he said, but France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, "demanded the U.K.'s secrets be revealed". French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment as well as stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect." Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked "if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage[?]", he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." Home advantage for GB cycling was also mentioned as a possible reason as to why the British performed better than other nations had expected with Kerin gold medlaist Victoria Pendleton stating "You're so lifted by the noise. It carries you. It really does inspire you" and Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott stated "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home." All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale and passed fit for use under its sporting code.

--Sport and politics (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this or mine. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would very much endorse or support this version if you changed the wording "Unsubstantiated". I understand your wish to say that, but it is OR. Its not in the source. But if it just said something like: "In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of cheating vehemently defended against by BP David Cameron." - then I would say your version is better than mine, as it cuts out some overweighted criticism I now see, while still remembering BLP policy as well for WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM while keeping WP:WELLKNOWN in mind as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. Sport and politics (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I have pinged the other two participants.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem with the change. One style issue though: I don't think the quote is long enough to use italics. Also "secret" in "believing the secret is due to" should be "secrecy" or "secrets", I think. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Believing the secrecy is do to.." sounds good and I agree to the losing the italics in the quote. I'll make the change to the above with a comment to the alteration commented out as long and if SP does not agree can re-insert it.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The sentence is referring to secret of the British success, so the sentence reads fine with the word secret. Sport and politics (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

One issue which has always worried me about this article is that some editors seem to want to make it appear as if the controversy was merely a difference of opinion, a clash of cultures, or 'bad sport'. However, there is something very fundamental to sporting controversies of this type and how fairness is judged by the authorities, and we can't dismiss their rules.

It is assumed that in competitive cycling and olympic sport generally, that as a fundamental principle (unlike motor sport) that all athletes are competing on a level playing field. Hence it is important to mention this text, at least briefly, to avoid bias. I believe this is was what the French team were really annoyed about and the British teams long protracted battle with the regulators who have attempted to establish a level fair playing field, which seemingly failed at these Olympics. Compare the UCI rule with Chris Boardman's statement; this explains WHY why this is very controversial and not just sour grapes!

We must remember that the rules state that athletes and teams are expected to conform to the spirit of the sport allowing natural athletic ability to dominate over technology. now were does it say this? hopefully not tucked away in a reference were no-one will see it? Remember 88 and S&P have been determined to hide this bit away for much of the talk page discussion, that was the main difference between myself and 88 all along.

I also think that S&Ps version reads like a publicity article, or political statement. Surely we only need to mention that the British view was that factors such as training, preparation and home support were also vitally important in establishing their dominance. (The marginal gains mantra was a key point repeatedly made by them). --Andromedean (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We haven't dismissed the rules, however the rule maker does not agree that any rules were broken. In any case we cannot and should not imply that the rules were broken by selectively quoting one part of the rules, or by invoking the spirit of the rules. RE "It is assumed that in competitive cycling and olympic sport...": This is essentially information suitable for the article on the sport of cycling and the articles on the various other Olympic sports, or perhaps even the article on sport as a concept. It needn't be stated here, and it oughtn't be stated here. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * RE "One issue which has always worried me about this article is that some editors seem to want to make it appear as if the controversy was merely a difference of opinion, a clash of cultures, or 'bad sport'.": All controversies are differences of opinion. We do not belittle this controversy by not going into detail about rules that were not broken. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

the version I suggested addressed all those issues very clearly, so the reader would be presented with the real reason why this was controversial. This is just reverting the article back to a row between one nations pride verses another, and a more subtle attempt to give the impression of the 'Irrational French Views' title you suggested. I don't believe you want the information removed for any other reason than obscuring the important fact that their is a rule which states there should be a level playing field for all athletes, and this clearly has not been adhered to. Also judgements which are legal and controversial today doesn't mean they will be legal tomorrow. We will see what Showmebeef thinks about it anyway. I was attempting to encompass both our views in that the article should place the controversy into context, address fairness issues in this sport, and not attack any one nation.--Andromedean (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above includes a misrepresentation of an earlier comment where I suggested a "section on unwarranted French reactions to several British results in different sports" as one of the main sources used at the time included allegations of doping and other cheating by British athletes in a variety of sports. It is not clear that a rule has been broken. The term "level playing field" requires some interpretation (e.g. by rules on things like when new equiment must be universally available) except in sports where the athletes are provided with equipment by those arranging the competition (this is the case in some athletics events, at least at the World Championships). In this case the UCI does not believe its rules has been broken. If this changes in the future we can update the article. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is another slightly compact version, with the 'doping bit removed' I am not too bothered about that bit. How do you put it all in a box?

''A controversy surfaced in the London 2012 games when the British cycling team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[132] Although no clear technological advantage has been proven, the team subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[133] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[134] However, all bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the governing cycling body and passed fit for use under its sporting code[137]

''The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment with new bikes, skinsuits and different wheels.[136] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team seemed to confirm the importance of technology. When he was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[137]. However, the British team also stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’ in many areas, including training, preparation and home support in the case of the Olympics. British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery, and is secretive about the various technologies adapted from Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [138][139][140]''

''Many sports teams and athletes try to gain an advantage by using technologies which help to enhance or fine tune athletic performance or improve the sporting equipment used in competition. The rules state that athletes and teams are expected to conform to the spirit of the sport allowing natural athletic ability to dominate over technology. However, the degree to which this principle can be legally breached is vague, and occasionally the authorities may first allow, then ban a particular technology. One such case was with the LZracer swimsuit used in the 2008 Olympics which allowed swimmers to achieve marginally faster times and was subsequently declared illegal for future use. The public, whilst generally supportive of technology in sport are still concerned that sports engineering could create unfairness between athletes and countries.[143]

--Andromedean (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please show specifically how this section as proposed by myself does what you are claiming it does. The version I have suggested gives sensible balances between the French and British Points of View. It removes the unrelated information which are just general statements of technology and rules. There is also balance between the sources stating the technology allowed the British to be faster and that another factor home advantage may have also been at play in the British successes. The attempt to "place in a context" is the main problem it misses the point this is an article on the 2012 Olympics and not general Technology in sport, the Olympics in general or British Cycling in General or cycling or Track cycling in general. As has been pointed out by Amadscientist there needs to be a note taken of policies and guidelines on overweighted criticisms and BLP in the areas of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM while keeping WP:WELLKNOWN. Sport and politics (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

S&P we all know that rule is central to this whole controversy, and is precisely why you want it removed. If you think it unimportant, why not just allow it? I'm sure you wouldn't go to all this trouble for the sake of categorising a paragraph. That one statement transforms the whole argument from one of 'bad losers' to 'Ah, they have a good point' especially if there had been a 10 year argument in which the UCI threaten to ban them for blatant refusal to obey rules, then they just manoeuvre around the same rules again, a part I have agreed to take out. We don't need to go over all this again. I know you (both) know what is wrong with it.--Andromedean (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have suggested a revised section which you have summarily rejected without giving detailed reasoning other than it doesn't advance the point of view you prefer which is "Ah, they have a good point" and you don't like it. Stating "there had been a 10 year argument in which the UCI threaten to ban them" shows this is not an issue directly related to the 2012 Olympics and has been going on long before the Olympics and is a general issue in cycling as opposed to being a 2012 Olympics issues. You also claim "blatant refusal to obey rules" this has not been stated by any of the sources provided; your ways of attempting to synthesising this point of view is wider than the 2012 Olympics and is therefore not relevant to this article as it is just a general section on rules in cycling. lines such as "they just manoeuvre around the same rules again" are your OR and are not stated directly in any of the sources. Could you also please stop making inferences as to what I am thinking and that I therefore "know what is wrong". Please stop attempting to make this a conduct discussion and focus only on the content. Also please stop making sweeping statements like "we all know that rule is central to this whole controversy", you think this is central, not everyone agrees with you, it is your opinion that it is so. Sport and politics (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One of Sport and Politics's point, which both of us have made repeatedly, is that the article in question is limited to the 2012 Olympics. You have failed to respond to this problem except by claiming it is neccessary background information. I view it as unneccessary background information which is partly neutral and partly negative for one side. I have given reasons for why I find it unneccessary (e.g. "the rule maker does not think the rule has been broken") as well as suggestions like "not here, but link to it". I will also reiterate, as I have said ad nauseam, that while the article is limited to the 2012 Olympics you are not limited to this article. Write a section on the use of technology in track cycling (including the 2012 Olympics [in less detail with a link to the "2012 Controversies" article], but not limited to the 2012 Olympics) in the track cycling article. Include WADA's stance on technology in the article on WADA. It doesn't all have to be in this article. If you fail to agree to this point it is impossible for me to agree with you. Please consider moving in the direction of a compromise, so we can all finish this and move on. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First, remember that we are not here to vote on a version. Andromedean, if you have specifc reason for the portions that are still present in you proposal as re-written in Sport and politics please start there. I think there is a good rough consensus there for that portion. Then, propose how you can best address issues raised with the other material that has been removed. Let me look through the differences and see if there is something I am missing, but I believe we really have found legitimate reasons for the exclsuion of all material be left out. Let me see if I can address them for you.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Break
--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The opening in your proposal is not needed. "A controversy surfaced in the London 2012 games when the British cycling team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year." Its calling the sky blue and redundant to use the term "controversy" in the section. We already know it is a controversy by being in the article. I also think the wording is a bit odd, however if you are concerned we could try:


 * This line: In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[134] However, all bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the governing cycling body and passed fit for use under its sporting code[137] Is similar to this when some text is moved back up.

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This line: "The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment with new bikes, skinsuits and different wheels.[136]" Is a POV violation. It is not quite supported by the reference in this manner as it comes off as a criticism when it is praise and defense of the British team. I believe the new version is accurate and a more balance use of the source.

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This Line: "Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team seemed to confirm the importance of technology. When he was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[137]." Has undue weight issues and could use trimming for brevity and relevance. The whole first sentence appears to be original research and when taken out doesn't loose the same information or the claim.

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also the follwing: "However, the British team also stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’ in many areas, including training, preparation and home support in the case of the Olympics. British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery, and is secretive about the various technologies adapted from Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [138][139][140]" is better edited for brevity to and weight using a mix of your version, my version and S&Ps version. They praise/defense portion at the end was editied down a bit for balance from S&Ps original:


 * Volunteer comment - The above attempts to both stress reasoning for the changes made by myself and Sport and Politics as well as IP editor 88.88.166.111, but also attempts to address Andromedean's concerns.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to add in certain lines which were removed by myself as they add unweighed criticism to the article and have either been fully re-inserted or re-inserted in a slightly different format. Lines such as "Its technology is built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats" and "[British Olympic cycling] is secretive and its..." and "having opted to not use them several months earlier at a non Olympic event". I feel are examples of unnecessary waffle, with little justification. I believe the version I proposed which has been amended is the right tone for this article, removes waffle and remains focused on the scope of the article being a 2012 Olympics article. Sport and politics (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that something that the other involved editors can live with?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a comment ready with the same concerns re Advanced Composite Group. I also think describing an organisation as "secretive" would in most cases be unencyclopedic, and it would have had to be prefaced by "allegedly". This would be pointless as the alleged secrecy is already described in more detail above. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above is sort of a compromise counter proposal S&P to add a little more from Andromedeans version that may have due weight and context.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That took me a minute to work out. Saved too soon be mistake. I really hope this is closer to something everyone can live with.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I second the last sentence, and confirm my full endorsement of this version. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC) (minor fixes are of course accepted)
 * I have no problem with that set of prose as long as the PM acronym, is expanded to say "Prime Minister" and the duplication is removed and the addition that Pendleton won a Sprint gold. If those minor changes are made i can fully endorse the prose. Sport and politics (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about missing the redundant part. Also added a Wikilink to Prime Minister which may not be needed that far done in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that can you please add the fact that Pendleton won Gold in the Kerin. Then I can fully endorse the section.Sport and politics (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited that back in.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Input from Showmebeef
Sorry I was away for the weekend and it looks like a lot of exchanges have happened in between. I am trying to digest them, but I might have missed some. Here's some of my input:
 * I prefer Volunteer Amadscientist's first draft proposal. I thought it's well balanced.
 * I don't agree that the line "British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery" and "Its technology is built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats" should be removed, as they are the key reasons responsible for many of the technology enhanced "marginal gains", as revealed in multiple sources.
 * I don't agree with the addition of "home advantage" as a reason for the performance improvement, especially in such short and timed competition (it may in judged events or long distance events). The quote of Pendleton and Trott is especially irrelevant as it not only gives undue weight for the augment in such a short section, but there is absolutely no data (please provide source if there is one) to support the claim. Showmebeef (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope we don't portray this section as the French's suspicion over British's performance. This is about technology enhanced performance. The focus should be on facts revealed by various source attributing to this topic. As such, quote such as "the Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect" seems to be rather irreverent to the topic. Showmebeef (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In Amadscientist's own words their first draft contained unweighed criticisms and did not pay adequate attention to the policy on biographies of living people. Stating there is no data to support these claims is incorrect the source provided has the following line "In an analysis of home advantage published in the Journal of Sport Science last year, sports scientists found host nation advantage does show up in the final medal tables." SO there is actual data on this contrary to your claim. Wikipeida though is not a scientific journal based upon peer reviewed experiments. It is an encyclopaedia and this article is on the 2012 Olympics, its not about "technology enhanced performance". The section is about British cycling's performance at the 2012 Olympics being unexpected according to some of their competitors and inferences being drawn by other nations as to why this is so. Remember this is an Olympics article not a general technology in sport article. The extra lines you want included are just general background with no justification other than I like therefore I want in. They are not relevant to the 2012 Olympics specifically. GB bicycles in general are produced in this manner so stating the way they are made here makes out the Olympic bicycles are somehow a special case. The addition of Home advantage is necessary and is justified as the source directly states that it may have been a contributing factor to a better GB cycling performance. This is the same as what has been used to include the other claims made in the article such as the French suspicions and Chris Bordeman's reply. The piece must be balanced and excluding another possible reason as to why the British did well and only presenting one side in bias and pushing of a specific POV, as the final quote regarding the Australian performance is needed as that is what the whole quote was, it was not the selectively quoted section previously included that gave off the opposite impression of what was being said. The selective quote makes out there was more complaining about GB cycling when in fact it was saying GB did well and Australia were not as good because their technique wasn't as good as the British technique. Please remember what the main article is actually about and don't lose sight of objectivity in the face of pushing a specific POV on wider technology in sport on an article about the 2012 Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so here is the original version with your suggested tweaks without the home advantage angle and a slight edit for brevity:

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year. They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected. In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.

Isabelle Gautheron, director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested Britain's gold streak may have been aided by subterfuge, and cutting edge technology to produce the quickest bike. Also France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded that his British rival divulge the U.K.'s secrets. The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment. They have new bikes, new skinsuits and different wheels. Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."

British Cycling is secretive about its cycling technology. These are built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats

The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase, however, it amended its interpretation to allow a nine-month period after first competition use of a product to bring a product to market, and there is no limit on delivery time. The UCI code also states that "Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine". All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers prohibiting technologies if they are "performance-enhancing" or "being against the spirit of the sport". In 2006 WADA initiated a consultation on ‘Technology doping’ which is now officially recognised as a threat, whilst the decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.

A report released immediately before the Olympics quotes a extensive public survey that shows that people fear that sports engineering could: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.


 * Once again I wish to urge editors to remember that we are looking for a version that will upset each editor the least. Everyone may not get exactly what they wanted, but perhaps everyone can live with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I commend Sport and Politics making the largest move towards a compromise. (It may seem that I am not willing to change my opinion, but that is because I made the same move during the RFC.) There will never be consensus to include everything as a result of this DRN, and I, and I presume Sport and Politics, do not have much more to give. Speaking for me, barring very minor changes, I have accepted all I can accept. We have a consensus for including the case, but not the version currently in the article. Remember that this is not the default version if we do not agree here. If there is no movement from the other side the DRN might as well be closed as failed. A DRN is an attempt to find a compromise. You cannot expect to get everything that you want. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. Some context is OK to have. Perhaps gold medal winners are too central to mention home advantage angle but section still seems balanced and nuetral this way.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree to the Showmebeef based revised section at all as it is lopsided in its view point and forgets this is an Olympics article. The Home advantage is necessary or it makes out the technology alone was the only factor when Home advantage was cited by athletes and sports scientists as being a factor as well, the source provided talks about sports scientists as well as just quoting the athletes. The "context" sections are wholly unneeded in this article, no other section in the article has "context" and the "context" does not do anything except fuel a suspicion of cheating. The article is not about sports technology it is specifically about the 2012 Olympics. There has also been the re-introduction of a blog as a source; source 10 in this re-revised section. Sport and politics (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to continue discussing ways to compromise and find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both your inputs. Certainly showmebeef views are similar to my own and the first version of amadscientist is near to what I would agree to.  However, first I would like both your views the importance of the following statement, and if you would object to it being included in amadscientists version.


 * The UCI code also states that "Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing.


 * To me this statement, and how it conflicts with Chris Boardmans statement, is central to the controversy, and explains why it is a controversy.--Andromedean (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a general statement on rules, which implies rule breaking when the UCI have said none occurred. It is not for Wikkipedia to attempt to put spin or imply things which didn't happen by cherry picking lines we like, to further a specific POV that is believed by specific individuals; in this case GB cycling "broke the spirit of cycling". No single source confirms this as true. The Bordeman quote is also a direct rebuttal to the claims made by the individuals quoted in the section. Adding that line would be a monstrous POV push. Sport and politics (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * While it is not an improvement I can agree to it except for the following: 1) Home advantage is mentioned, but not neccessarily through quoting athletes. 2) The word "recently" is not permanently true, and the source is a blog. Furthermore, the blog does not state that this change was recent. In any case the rule change is irrelevant. It suffices to mention that all equipment were legal. That is all we need to mention of the UCI's view as that indicates that they are completely fine with it, which is, in fact, what they are. 3)Preferably the new introduction should be shorter and include a link to technology doping. It is a fundamental part of Wikipedia that not all related information has to be on the same page. E.g. "Cycling received attention due to the impact technology may have had when the British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, kept under wraps for months." 88.88.167.157 (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep going if you would like. Make a proposal and weigh out whatever counter proposal is offered, but...come on, we have to compromise on this. It the best way to give a little of what everyone wants, but you all have to start from what is already agreed on and try to accept some of the stuff you may not really like. The option is to simple close as "no consensus" and recommend mediation in this case as the next logical course. RFC, didn't seem to work and the issue has been here a couple of times. We've really been working here and I would hate to see all this discussion just archived and all parties have to use another venue if there was some common ground to work with. It doesn't seem to be something to just kick back to the talkpage and I don't think just asking a third opinion would help. Another notice board is likely to just continue the dispute without an outcome. I can't help but think this case just might not need to be Requests for mediation.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well. I can accept this:

-- 88.88.167.157 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The changes from the last are: Re-introduce home advantage as an alternative explanation and removal of the change of interpretation. The claim that it was "recent" was not backed up by the source, which, according to its URL is a blog. Please accept this version without major changes. Andromedean and Showmebeef: Remember that Sport and Politics's position was "no inclusion", and you will prefer this to that. Sport and Politics: Compare this with the version in the article. I hope you'll agree this is preferable. Amadscientist: Feel free to point out any errors and your general impression of this version with regards to policies etc. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot accept that. I have pointed out where there are flaws in including "context" and unnecessary "background", this is a 2012 Olympics article not a general technology or cycling or GB cycling article. There is also too much paraphrasing from some sources. I am not going to re-state my position over and over it has been done enough. I think we are unstoppingly off to mediation, and possibly even arbitration. Sport and politics (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that you would have to re-state your opinion there if we can't finish this now. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot see a way forwards unless the POV pushing slant attempting to be input by other users is dropped, the inability to be balanced in the section is dropped and a realisation that the section is a part of an article on the 2012 Olympics and this is an encyclopaedia, not a general discussion on technology in sport for a low grade magazine or biased blog .Sport and politics (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Last-ditch effort
Showmebeef and Andromedean: Please reconsider the version Sport and Politics has accepted: (changes has been made since she last accepted it)

You cannot reasonably argue that you have made greater concessions than he has if you accept this version. I truly believe this version from the volunteer (changed since then) is the best balance between the diametrically opposed views, both of us and of the subjects. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope Sport and Politics can accept re-including Gregory Bauge's comment, which he had in his own proposal. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are quoting the French cyclists you have to have at least one British cyclist quoted, otherwise it is too French centric and is unbalanced. So at least one of the Britons in the home advantage bit needs including, preferable Laura Trott. Please also consider adding ""around the phrase: demanded that the British reveal their secret, in the Bauge bit which i added in my version in the Bauge bit. Make those changes and you have my full support. Sport and politics (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can source 8 "Britain’s Mysterious Olympic Bikes" above please be removed as it is a blog.Sport and politics (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do, I can't seem to find it now. The Bauge bit is not a quote of him or the source, hence no quotation marks. Added wikilink to specify what kind of cheating they were accused of. Andromedean and Showmebeef: Please accept... This is practically meeting in the middle, that is, neither your nor our concessions are obviously greater. The views of both French and British cyclists are included. The sources are fairly represented. The comment of Boardman is included: this comment will be seen as an admission or a reasonable excuse depending on the reader's view on the use of technology in sports. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * please note, the quotes about the bikes being legal is from Chris Boardman, so that is three quotes I have agreed to include for 'balance'. I only wish to have a single key statement directly from the UCI rules, surely this is reasonable? --Andromedean (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would something like "the UCI's interpretation of its rules on technology can be found here" suffice?(rephrasing and using a ref instead of a link, obviously). It can be placed after the statement that all equipment was found to be legal. This will allow the reader greater freedom to make up their own mind than if we chose which part of the rules to present. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the updated proposal acceptable? feel free to fix the reference name 88.88.167.157 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the French cyclists or coaches have mentioned the part of the rule you which to include. If you can find one of them saying that this is an issue I'm fine with it being quoted, as that would no longer be an arbitrary choice. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the French who specifically mentioned it, it was in the American Bicycling publication however we have already agreed to quote that, and this also provides broader coverage. It also mentions the IOC, so it is far more directly appropriate.

'':But both the IOC, and the UCI, also have a philosophy that the athlete should not only be paramount, but that technology should influence sports as little as possible. The UCI’s noble ideal behind its rules is to keep the sport accessible to all, limiting the role of money and technology in creating a performance advantage. The irony in Team GB’s black, logo-less bicycles is that while they conform to the letter of the UCI rules, they make a mockery of the spirit. The UCI’s rules have successfully hemmed in traditional manufacturers to a degree, but it’s far less clear that it’s done anything to limit well-funded groups that have no commercial interest.''

I also think that is the wrong reference, it is this one: dated 1/7/12



Section 2: bicycles Preamble Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine''--Andromedean (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its the same as the first of the two I included. The bicycling.com source is a newsblog so it can, in fact be used as a source, unlike other blogs, but there are some things we must consider. We must attribute the claim of breaking the spirit of the rule to the blog writer Joe Lindsey. I can accept this, as the publication is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Something like: "An opinion piece by Joe Lindsey in the Bicycling magazine stated that while the letter of the rules had been followed the spirit of the rule, asserting competition on an equal footing, had been broken." We should still not quote the whole rule, but give it as an additonal reference. I hope everyone can accept this. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Edited for brevity:

--Amadscientist (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unconditional support 88.88.167.157 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If this was inserted into the first of madscientists drafts, I would be happy with it.

''Chris Boardman said that the UCI had declared the British bicycles and equipment legal and fit for use. However, Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that while they conform to the letter of the UCI rules (which state that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing ref) they make a mockery of the spirit.'' --Andromedean (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't see the improvement the rewrite is to minor for me to oppose. I'll just note that "made a mockery of" is so strong that we should probably quote, but if we use "had been broken" there is no problem with stating that she wrote it, which is normally preferable. Are you sure you placed the paranthetical sentence correctly. Isn't it the principle or spirit of the rule you describe in it? 88.88.167.157 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Break
I really don't want to appear to sabotage an effort at reaching a consensus here. However I do want to emphasize that there is probably a few time zone's difference between me and the rest of the editors. That plus the fact that I (probably others) have a daily obligation to fulfill to support a livelihood and family life. There have been so much going on between last Fri and now (for a total of 72+hrs of which 2/3 fell on a weekend) that just keeping track on the exchanges is a task for me (which I haven't been adequately maintained even now). I therefore appeal to other editors' patience as I try to provide my feedback here and would like to deflect the urgency (to some degree) as implied by the title of this section.

With that said, I would like to propose that we put each subject in contention in each separate section so we don't let the discussion become protracted and bogged down with back and forth discussions that often include so many other subjects as to make it unyielding just to follow. I have seen it worked well in other talk sections. Once we have reached a consensus on the subject, we can put it back into the main piece.

Note to volunteer: I hope by now you would have realized how contentious the discussions around this sensitive subject has been--if the current and past (archive of the talk section) level of discussion is of any indication, hence the necessary guidance of the DRN. I hope you can allow us the latitude to fully express our opinions, the desire to reach a quick consensus notwithstanding. Thanks!

All editors: please put each subject you would like to discuss down here in each separate section. Thanks! I will start one here and will add more as I find more time.
 * I understand your concerns about time and so on, but it would be helpful if you could at least loo kthrough the most recent proposal to see, what, if anything you would prefer to change, and what, if anything, you find completely impossible to include. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying very hard to catch up. I will post more sections for debate as I move along. Showmebeef (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just wished to point out that if you start with the proposal and you are happy with it it doesn't really matter how we got there. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as everyone is working so hard to keep finding a compromise I see no reason to stop.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Appeal for a level of civility in the discussion
As I've repeated several times in the discussion here, we should focus on the content. We should maintain a level of civility while discussing the viability and relevancy of the subject matter under debate. However, there have been several occasions already that the principle of good faith is not practiced by some editor and disparaging words or phrases have been used repeatedly. e.g.
 * "Showmebeef you are now doing exactly the same and are being obstructive."
 * to which I have rebutted mildly with: "If you were pulled up for doing exactly the same, were you being "obstructive" then?? I don't know why people are so aggressive here--can we just keep our focus on the content?"

I also want to point out that a certain 3-letter word has been employed more than its fair share here in the discussion. Remember this--we are all here to make a point, as long as it's valid and relevant. Showmebeef (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * and now this: "Showmebeef your points above are wholly irrelevant..., so go away and prove it the way i demand it be proved."
 * and this: "Andromedean there is nothing to support the claims in relations to technology and the implication of GB cheating through technology other than you just made it up".


 * Please do not selectively quote as you are making out some are two ends of the same sentence and missing out claratives, which is misleading. I have been more than patient and more than civil throughout the majority of this discussion. I have also made large compromises. Some users are not even prepared to even consider compromising in any way. If I show my frustrations I have justified cause to as I have had one editor throw their unjustified attacks around since the start of the whole discussion. Claims such as "agenda of censorship" come to mind pretty rapidly. Sport and politics (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on "Home Advantage"
(I took the liberty of moving the existing discussion by various editors on the subject here. If I missed some, please do it yourself. Thanks)

I don't agree with the addition of "home advantage" as a reason for the performance improvement, especially in such short and timed competition (it may in judged events or long distance events). The quote of Pendleton and Trott is especially irrelevant as it not only gives undue weight for the augment in such a short section, but there is absolutely no data (please provide source if there is one) to support the claim. Showmebeef (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In Amadscientist's own words their first draft contained unweighed criticisms and did not pay adequate attention to the policy on biographies of living people. Stating there is no data to support these claims is incorrect the source provided has the following line "In an analysis of home advantage published in the Journal of Sport Science last year, sports scientists found host nation advantage does show up in the final medal tables." SO there is actual data on this contrary to your claim. Wikipeida though is not a scientific journal based upon peer reviewed experiments. It is an encyclopaedia and this article is on the 2012 Olympics, its not about "technology enhanced performance". The section is about British cycling's performance at the 2012 Olympics being unexpected according to some of their competitors and inferences being drawn by other nations as to why this is so. Remember this is an Olympics article not a general technology in sport article. Sport and politics (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree to the Showmebeef based revised section at all as it is lopsided in its view point and forgets this is an Olympics article. The Home advantage is necessary or it makes out the technology alone was the only factor when Home advantage was cited by athletes and sports scientists as being a factor as well, the source provided talks about sports scientists as well as just quoting the athletes. The "context" sections are wholly unneeded in this article, no other section in the article has "context" and the "context" does not do anything except fuel a suspicion of cheating. The article is not about sports technology it is specifically about the 2012 Olympics. There has also been the re-introduction of a blog as a source; source 10 in this re-revised section. Sport and politics (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The quote "in an analysis of home advantage published in the Journal of Sport Science last year, sports scientists found host nation advantage does show up in the final medal tables" can be applied to sporting events in general, and as I have stated earlier that it would be most valid in judged events such as diving, gymnastics, boxing, etc, or long distance events where endurance and adrenaline play a bigger factor. However for timed and short events like track cycling, there is no specific data to show that the home crowd can contribute much to their athletes' performance. This is similar to short distance swimming, and the British teams' medals counts in those events prove that. Showmebeef (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Showmebeef you are adding your own Original Research by stating in effect in judged events, judges will be biased in favour of the home nations. There is also no backing up of your claims that it is "long-distance events" you have also not defined long distance. some of the "longer" track cycling events are endurance such as 4km Sprints and the Omnium. which go on over a prolonged period. There is also nothing objective in saying its judged and long distance event which are other than it makes it conveniently able to dismiss Track cycling events as they are "not long distance". This is one of the clearest examples I have seen of OR to push a specific POV and remove content which is just simply not liked. Stating swimming events are the same as cycling events is again OR and not objective and is wholly irrelevant. I was rightly pulled up for it earlier and that has all been removed from my revisions to the article Showmebeef you are now doing exactly the same and are being obstructive. Sport and politics (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were pulled up for doing exactly the same, were you being "obstructive" then?? I don't know why people are so aggressive here--can we just keep our focus on the content?
 * Even if we are going to drop the reasoning I proposed here (however I think Amadscientist has mentioned before that some reasoning cannot be avoided in the discussion here as opposed to the article itself), can you provide proof that the British cycle team has consistently performed better at home with the "home advantage" effect? If you can't then I think my argument is still valid. Showmebeef (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the notion of "home advantage" is inconclusive at best, and can turn into "home disadvantage" as this source has suggested: Could Team GB Suffer a Psychological Disadvantage in the Olympics From Being the Host Nation?, by Dr Raj Persaud and Adrian Furnham. The article has indicated that "...the very latest research from a team of psychologists at McMaster University in Ontario, lead by Desmond McEwan working with colleagues Kathleen Martin Ginis and Steven Bray, suggests that a normal home advantage for most kinds of competitive sports turns into a 'home disadvantage' effect, when dealing with particular sporting predicaments". In particular, the article lists "home 'choke' effect" as a prime example.
 * I content that the "home advantage" argument cannot be supported by available evidence conclusively, as there are researches to support the exact opposite. I therefore request that we take out any reference to "home advantage". Showmebeef (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Showmebeef your points above are wholly irrelevant you are treating this as if it is an academic scientific journal, this is an encyclopaedia. The source is Reuters which is clearly a reliable source and the source clearly talks about a Home advantage and the source is accurately represented in the section. These are the grounds for inclusion in Wikipeida, not I don't like what its saying, so go away and prove it the way i demand it be proved. Sport and politics (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheating has not been proven conclusively. Therefore we attribute the claims of cheating to those who claimed it, and should to the same for the counter-claim of home advantage.88.88.167.157 (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One side offers "cheating" as an explanation without evidence. The other side offers the alternative explanation "home advantage", which is known to exist in some cases but not neccessarily proven in this sport. Even if the claim that there is no evidence for it is true, it doesn't matter, because we must present both sides of the case, and one side brought this up. (Irrelevant speculation: possible explanations for the effect could be things like more practise hours at the used velodrome, mental effects from crowd support etc.) 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair. I guess my training might has tilted me to a different set of criteria. I agree to mention "home advantage" as a possible reason. However as it is only shown "sometimes" true (see below for Andromedean's argument), while other times not true, or even shown to have the opposite effect, I think the quote of Laura Trott would give it undue weight in such a short section.
 * I would agree to the following without the quote:
 * The British team stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’, including training, preparation and possible home advantage.
 * Showmebeef (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As Gregory Bauge is paraphrased in the current proposal, the quote from Laura Trott should be treated likewise, i.e. "The British team stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’, including training and preparation. Home advantage was given as a possible reason for the British performance with Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott pointing out the home crowd as a factor." (Note that the "possible" has been there all the time so it does not seem like Wikipedia support the British claim.). I'm very pleased that we seem to have reached a compromise in principle, if not yet in the exact wording. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Proof is not as much a threshold bas it is a perception. We can demonstate that secondary sources have mentioned home advantage in this manner. Great Britain's Home-Velodrome Advantage--Amadscientist (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * we may be missing the point here, we are not refuting that home advantage is sometimes significant, but that a technological advantage such as reduced aerodynamic resistance will always improve performance and provide a relative advantage between identical athletes with identical physical ability and motivation, and this is against the spirit of the sport.--Andromedean (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I should also add that the British director of athletics resigned because the athletics medal toll at London (six I think) didn't match his own target and average tolls in previous games. This was removed from the 'British performance at the Olympics Wiki article' without discussion. Athletics is a sport were technological advantage is more limited. This really emphasises what the British strategy was here: a) to focus on elite athletes only (gold over medals, medals over positions) b) to focus on sports were technology could be used to aid athletic performance and enhance the equipment used in competition (rowing and cycling).  Indeed these were the two sports in which the British outperformed in terms of Golds. Conversely in most sports without elite athletes and without technological advantage, they often performed below expectations, [|see the table.]  --Andromedean (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-add it there and start a discussion on that article's talk page if neccessary. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have secondary sources to support your claim here? It sure can be used to demonstrate that technology has been used purposely to achieve an advantage, and the medal count is proof to support the claim--of course you need provide secondary source to support the claim first. If you feel there is a need to discuss this, please start a new section. Thanks. Showmebeef (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Another note is that the title for this section was once "Technology used in Olympics". I haven't followed close enough during the lull period when this piece was lingering on the RfC to know why it's changed to "Technology in track cycling". If the title is "Technology used in Olympics", then what you have just mentioned is at least worth discussion for inclusion. Again, if there is a need to discuss the suitable choice for the title, please open a new section. Showmebeef (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The title was changed because the section was and is exclusively about the controversy at the 2012 Olympics about the use of technology in track cycling. Nowhere has any claim of a similar controversy in any other sport been brought up. If it has you can start a new section about that controversy. I would probably agree, not having read the actual removed part and having no desire to involve myself in a new dispute, that a resignation of the director of a sport because of the results achieved at an edition of the Olympics should be mentioned at the relevant "Nation at the xxxx Olympics" page. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean there is nothing to support the claims in relations to technology and the implication of GB cheating through technology other than you just made it up. Taekwando and Boxing were also two Sports GB did very well in at the Olympics and technology is about as far from those sports of brute strength as possible. Sport and politics (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim can be used to support that "home advantage" is sometimes true, as both me and Andromedean have pointed out earlier, and that's our POV (at least mine, and it's backed by GT's medal tally in those 2 sports you mentioned over the last 2 Olympics). I won't want to suggest that it could be yours also.
 * Medal table for Taekwando (GB): 2012: 2: 1G0S1B, 2008: 1: 0G0S1B
 * Medal table for boxing (GB): 2012: 5: M: 2G1S1B, W: 1G0S0B, 2008: 3: M: 1G0S2B
 * Showmebeef (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case this is an irrelevant discussion as what matters is whether the British cyclists mentioned this as an alternative explanation; the sources say that they did. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is indeed an irrelevant discussion, since we are not assessing home advantage or athletic ability but technology.

The issues are:

1) is there sufficient published material to suggest that there were technology differences between the teams? - yes, more than enough, different bikes, helmets and suits were introduced and vast quantities of money and time spend on optimising their whole setup.

2) is there evidence to suggest that technology could potentially make one team faster than another irrespective of any other differences? ''yes, it is well documented that at the speeds of modern racing cycles, small differences in aerodynamics can have large effects on times. Remember we censored the information in a previous edit? Even the technical director admitted as much

3) does this mean any team breached the spirit of the cycling code? Clearly yes, due to point 2) and the code which states 'Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine' 

so do issues of home advantage have any relevance? non at all

do we have to attribute the relative benefits of home advantage, athletic ability, and technology no

-Andromedean (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean on your point one you are again asserting your own POV that there is issue here at the 2012 Olympics,. YoursSecond point is wholly irrelevant to this section as it is a generalist statement on sports technology and is sod all to to do with just the 2012 Olympics. There is also no "censoring" as you are claiming merely removal of stuff deemed inappropriate and irrelevant and undue weight and out of line with the policies of Wikipeida. As for your continued assertion of braking this mythical spirit, it is just your POV and assertion that it was. You have no hard and concrete source stating it was. If you do please provide if not stop flogging your dead horse of a POV. The issues of Home advantage are relevant in exactly the same way as the issues surrounding the technology and claims and counter claims as to weather the technology enabled the GB cyclists to do better. The Technology may have been irrelevant and the home advantage alone may have been the thing which pushed the GB cyclists to win. It is simply not known and as reliable sources are provided, which is what Wikipeida is based upon, and not sweeping OR and opinion that home advantage is summarily irrelevant, then the section on home advantage has just as much relevance as the rest of the section. As for you final line the answer is in fact yes or you are pushing your own bias and your own OR to further your own POV. Without balance the whole section should be removed, as Wikipeida is not a low grade opinionated anti-GB cycling blog making out they cheated or broke rules of cycling. It is also not the place in this article for general technology discussions, general cycling discussion or general GB at the Olympics discussion. It is for "controversies at the 2012 Olympics". The clue is in the name it must be specifically about the 2012 Olympics and it must be a genuine controversy. It must also conform to all Wikipeidia Policies, in this case particualllt those on BLP, NPOV, verifiability, original research, synthesis and reliable sources. Sport and politics (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "It is indeed an irrelevant discussion, since we are not assessing home advantage or athletic ability but technology." We are not assessing either. We are describing a controversy. The claim, which we describe, is that technology caused a performance boost and that the technology wasn't or shouldn't be legal. The counter-claim, which we also describe, is that there where other effects, including home advantage, and in any case that the technology was legal. Add to this the unaffiliated claim in a bicycling magazine that it violated the spirit of the law, which we also include, and we have the currently proposed version of the article. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the currently proposed version is in any way unbalanced or biased, and I urge all parties to accept it in principle, even if you wish to discuss some of the wording, or whether to quote or paraphrase. (A lot of the recent discussion is about wording.) If anyone has any further inclusions they wish to add, I ask that we defer discussing them until after we have reached an agreement that none of what is in the currently proposed version has to be completely excluded. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

References, claims, due weight and compromise
Below is the current volunteer proposal, seperated into disussions. Try to be brief if possible and expalin if you support or oppose and if the is a way it can be rescued for spport. I will try to show how the references are supported and their strength and RS and we should decide if the weight in the section is proper.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Amadscientist for providing this frame work. This will definitely make the discussion much more focused and easier to follow. One question though is that if there are material that that are relevant to the section (with supporting sources), can we introduce them? Showmebeef (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that if you wanted to attempt to defend something you should feel encouraged to be bold and propose something but at this point too much is already in discussio, adding to it could just over burden where we are, but I am not placing limits, just encourage editors begin looking at what they can give up in order to get prose included or excluded and what argument they may have for either.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1
The first reference is The Wall Street Journal and is a reliable source and supports the claim. This is a compromise, as the full claim was about an earlier event, this source indicates that these bikes were not used by the team earlier as an option. "The bikes used by the British team, which has won five of seven gold medals in track cycling here, were newly introduced for these Games after the team opted to keep them under wraps at the world championships in Melbourne, Australia, this April." I think this should remain as it is.

The second reference, Super Sport - Cycling news appears to have editorial oversite and is also RS supports that margins were greater than expected."I think they felt that it was going to be touch and go, the margins were going to be very tight, the medals would be spread right across the different nations."--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem with anything, except a wording issue in 288.88.167.157 (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

2

 * allegations of what? Sport and politics (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * indeed: add "of cheating" 88.88.167.157 (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

3
Chris Boardman said that the UCI had declared the British bicycles and equipment legal and fit for use. However, Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that while they conform to the letter of the UCI rules (which state that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing ref) they make a mockery of the spirit. --Andromedean (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

4

 * Problem here the whole of the Cocquard quote is not included, please re-add the whole section. Sport and politics (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed Concord's full statement makes a mockery of the home advantage theory. The British bring out new equipment just before the 2008 Olympics, then the rest of the world catch up in technology and become competitive again, so the British bring out more equipment at the 2012 Olympics and win again!


 * "The Australians haven't changed their kit compared to the world championships, but on the other hand the English [sic] have new bikes, new skinsuits … Everything is brought out at the last moment, just like in Beijing. They have the same wheel sponsor as us but the wheels are different.


 * However, lets not get distracted here. We don't need to prove that technology caused all or even some of the performance improvement despite the strong evidence that it did, but show that it was used at all, and that it could have potentially have improved performance and that is not in the spirit of the rules. This is surely indisputable, it is a scientific impossibility that aerodynamic improvements don't increase performance.


 * Pervis' statement is also interesting,


 * Everyone here says the same thing, their kit is not within the rules.


 * remember I never insisted on this statement, or claims that British were using drugs, or claims that their suit is illegal, or French surveys that say the British were cheating, I have references for all these, but I didn't think they were either credible or widespread enough, so please don't pretend I am not being reasonable. Because I didn't start from an unreasonable position doesn't mean that it is right to push me further into censorship, it is up to others to be reasonable and use the publications and evidence.

--Andromedean (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There does though need to be a realisation of Weight of sources and only portraying one side is undue weight in earlier drafts the statement was as follows which is more that what you have placed up there to further your dramatically warped POV the GB cycling can only win by "technology cheating", there is also nothing in that which as you bizarrely claim "Concord's full statement makes a mockery of the home advantage theory" I am not sure who Concord is as I am referring to Bernard Cocquard. The fuller previous statement is as follows "French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment as well as stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect." The source is also critical of the way other nations produce their bikes by stating the following "Kévin Sireau, a silver medallist in the team sprint, added: "They always have innovative stuff. We often struggle to get our kit in time [for racing]. Our bike is good but we didn't have it early enough and had to get used to it quickly." There is also defending of the British position not to release equipment earlier and stating that Cocquard would have done exactly the same "Since Beijing, we haven't seen those wheels. But I can see why. If we had a seven-league boot we wouldn't bring it out at the world championships". As for your drugs claim the Sources states clearly the flowing that François Pervis "was certain the British were not using drugs". Andromedean you are again cherry picking to push your own POV please stop and provide sensible balance and not your own insistence that there is something awry about GB cycling at the 2012 Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

6
Before you complain about the inclusion of home advantage consider that the argument you have presented about it not being proven works equally well against the claim of cheating. In both cases the reason for inclusion is that one side claims it as an explanation, based on interviews in reliable sources. Also, it seems that this is the last bit that is controversial in anything more than wording so if you can agree to this we're practically done. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just discovered that we have an article on home advantage. It is mostly about team sports but the 2012 Olympics are mentioned. Surely the debate on whether the effect is true or not belongs in that article, which we can (and should) link to. Here we need only state that this was one of the reasonss the British cyclist gave for their good results. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Question
Are we agreed that "home advantage" is the final issue that is not a wording issue? (I include the decision on whether to quote or paraphrase as a wording issue.) In other words, is this the last issue that anyone is arguing for the exclusion of? 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my response under section "Discussion on Home Advantage". Showmebeef (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. If you are referring to the title change you presented no alternative (excluding mentioning the old title without giving any reason to change back) and no reason for it to change so I cannot infer from that that you wish to discuss. You even said that if anyone wanted to discuss it they can start a new section, and you haven't done so. I would consider the title choice a wording issue. If anyone wishes to discuss the title I ask that it is deferred until we have reached a compromise. (But please indicate if you desire to do so.) I feel the current title follows the relevant rules. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I was only referring to my position on "home advantage" in that secion as this paragraph is really about "home advantage" only. I thought it could save me some trouble of copying. The other topics should be covered in its new sections if they warrant discussion, as I have stressed again and again that individual topic should be covered its own section to avoid confusion and protracted discussion. Showmebeef (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So I take it that is the only thing you wished to remove from the current suggestion. You seem to have accepted it in a comment. Could you comment on my reply to that comment re:paraphrasing not quoting? The exact wording is not important but as we paraphrase the French claim, we should to the same with the British. As far as I am concerned both could be reduced to just mentioning or changed to quotes, but I think we should treat them equally. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)