Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-16/Eurymedon vase

Where is the dispute?
The article in dispute is Eurymedon vase, and the conflict between the parties is located entirely on Talk:Eurymedon vase under the heading "Enough with the headlines" (assuming that User:Twospoonfuls has not moved it to an archive again).

Who is involved?

 * 1) User:Blue Danube, filing party
 * 2) User:Twospoonfuls
 * 3) User:Number36

What is the dispute?
Several different editors, including User:Julia Rossi, 149.254.200.222, User:MisfitToys, myself (Blue Danube), User:Number36, and possibly others have tried to add two or three headlines to the article Eurymedon vase. Each attempt was and continues to be summarily reverted by User:Twospoonfuls, who eventually posted a complaint on Talk:Eurymedon vase against headlines.

The resulting discussion regarding the value of headlines in this article can be found entirely at Talk:Eurymedon vase. I and User:Number36 defend the inclusion of headlines for the purposes of readability and visual browsing consistency with other articles on Wikipedia. User:Twospoonfuls removes the headlines on the grounds that they are "intellectually insulting", and when the discussion continued, he called the inclusion of headlines and the defense of using them "trivializing, self-indulgent and destructive". On 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) User:Twospoonfuls decided that all headlines were "vandalism" and he would summarily revert them as such, which has happened numerous times.

User:Twospoonfuls then said the discussion was over and demanded "arbcom" to become involved if we wanted to discuss it further. He archived the discussion but I reverted this because of the RFM, which was rejected.

What would you like to change about this?

 * 1) Foremost I would like an opinion on whether User:Twospoonfuls has the ability to unilaterally reject the two or three headlines from the article on the grounds that he personally dislikes them and that they are "vandalism".
 * 2) Secondly I would like the mediators to determine if User:Twospoonfuls is exhibiting improper article "ownership", which I believe to be the case, and also if he is violating the civility expectations with what I believe to be destructive usage of the term "vandalism" when he calls the addition of headlines "vandalism". Twospoonfuls was the first contributor to the article, but I believe at this point the rejection of community involvement has reached a tipping point.
 * 3) Third I would like the mediators to determine if I and the other editors who added the headlines are behaving in an insulting manner, and if the accusations of disruptive editing to the article leveled against us are true.

How do you think we can help?
I would like third-party opinions on the above matters to help prevent another edit war regarding headline addition/subtraction to this article.

Mediator notes
Have all parties shown that they are willing to join the mediation? If they have, I will accept the case. If not, we can't force them to join. Firestorm Talk 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We all agreed to mediation via the previously requested Arbcom here Requests for mediation/Eurymedon vase if that will suffice. As I note there the main issue for myself, is simply the issue of adding sections, any behavioral issues I see as more the reason why we require mediation than the issue itself.Number36 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the Mediation Cabal, we handle primarily content issues. If the main issue is user conduct related, I would direct you to the appropriate noticeboard or Request for Comment/User conduct. If all parties could focus solely on the issue of section headers, then I would be willing to accept the case. Firestorm  Talk 13:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that suits me obviously. I've added a note to the other two named party's talk pages asking them to indicate they agree here in the interests of expediating matters. Cheers Number36 (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Bed-wetting about incivility is almost always a complete red herring. Maybe now the complainants would like to clarify what it is they're complaining about. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 09:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bed-wetting"? We may have to revisit the concern about civility at WP:RFC/U at another time. But to simplify the matter, I've crossed out the two subordinate user conduct-related issues, and isolated the true problem, which has always been the addition and subtraction of the headlines. No need to clarify further, Twospoonfuls, since that topic has always been listed as the first item of concern. All I did was strike out the other two. Blue Danube (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Alright, i'm officially accepting this case now that all parties have agreed and the debate has been narrowed to content issues only. What I would like are statements by all parties, stating their position with regards to including or not including sections in the article. One or two paragraphs will suffice; please be succinct so I can be sure that we all understand each others' positions. In addition, please do not reply to each other yet; time for that will come. Firestorm Talk 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Number36
BlueDanube has already outlined the main issues, as I see them, very well, and probably more succinctly than I would have, below. I would like to add to this that while I consider this a relatively minor issue, it has to do with the readability of the article itself, which I think is certainly a substantial reason to change it and not merely an aesthetic style preference, improving the flow of the article, as well as consistency with the presentation of similar articles, and style conventions. According to this page, the guidelines for section size are as follows; ''There is no strict rule about how long a section may be, just as with wikipedia article size. Nevertheless, a proper section size is probably somewhere between 80 and 500 words. More specifically, "hard" knowledge articles should contain between 80 and 250, while "soft" ones may contain more than 250.'' The proposed sections in question are 340 words and 130 words respectively, with an opening paragraph of 151 words. These appear within the normal and recommended range, actually even a bit longer in the first one's case, history falling somewhere within the area of "Hard" knowledge I would imagine. This also serves to keep the flow of the article, with the sections for references, sources and external sources below the main text.Number36 (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Blue Danube
In its present state, the article is divisible clearly into three subsections based on topics. The subsections are clear since the topics are divided by paragraphs. The first paragraph is an introductory section with a broad overview of the notability of the vase. The second section deals with the interpretation of what is seen on the vase: the historical message and the metaphors used to express it. The third section describes how the vase is used as scholarly evidence in a separate historical examination, this being the theory that sexual penetration "is the privilege of the culturally dominant Greek citizen class..." put forward by those like our post-structuralist friend Foucalt in one of the volumes of The History of Sexuality.

In short, there are three sections to this article. Each has enough text in my opinion and the opinions of other editors to warrant the use of two headlines: one for the second section ("Interpretation") and another for the third ("Evidence" or perhaps "Scholarly evidence" to distinguish the evidence as peer-reviewed). It is natural and logical that the article receive these simple, helpful, organizational headlines given these facts. In addition for meeting the textual threshold for warranting headlines, the headlines will also contribute to the readability and ease-of-browsing of the article. Third, they will also present it more consistently with other articles on the wiki (the alternative, a block-of-text article, simply looks disorganized and unappealing).

Three sections, two headlines for the larger paragraphs... that's it. I and several others want them for the reasons stated above; Twospoonfuls does not. That's the extent of the content debate. I'm holding my tongue about any and all comments regarding civility, and I do hope everyone else will as well. Blue Danube (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Twospoonfuls
Part of the difficulty of settling this matter is that two points are being made here over which the two filing parties are evidently not in agreement with one another. Blue_Danube is quite candid in stating that it is his style preferences he would like to impose on the article: “[it] simply looks disorganized and unappealing”. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but from what I understand this is not Number36’s view, instead he insists sections are a structural requirement of wikipedia articles. On the first point it is a well-established principle, about which the Manual of Style couldn’t be clearer, that decisions on style and layout are the prerogative of the principle contributor. On the second point, Number36 is yet to demonstrate that there is a formal requirement anywhere in wikipedia for sections. What he has demonstrated is that he is confusing a guideline with an imperative. At the risk of being tautologous a guideline is not a requirement, since by definition a guideline is non-binding. Moreover his argument that consistency with the rest of wikipedia demands the use of sections would be more persuasive if he was also conducting a headline writing campaign on those thousands of other short articles that do not have sections.

The reason I’m making an issue of this, to my own exasperation as much as anyone else’s, is that here is a point of principle that can’t be allowed to let slide. No new content was created by the addition of these headlines, they explained nothing that wasn’t evident from the text, therefore they are entirely a matter of style and layout. If such things are decided by consensus rather than precedent then the result is, as Blue Danube and Number36 have shown, instability, versions churn and disruptive editing. This is also why I suggested the compromise position on the article talk page; if either of them wanted to research and add a significant amount of new content then they would be justified in doing what they like with the headlines, needless to say neither of them wanted to do so. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Okay, it seems all parties have provided their statements, and we can begin. It does seem that there is no policy that states that articles are required to have sections. However, nearly everything with substantial content has sections, and all of our GAs and FAs do. There's a huge precedent that it looks better and is easier for the reader, which is who we're writing for anyway. Twospoonfuls, do you know of a reason not to use them, other than personal taste? The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 07:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would maintain that the headlines as they have been written caricature the argument of the article by making a false distinction between evidence and interpretation; in the hermeneutics of archaeology describing is interpreting.


 * But perhaps it would be better to ask what is the purpose of headlines as a way of organizing text? Scholarly monographs don't necessarily have them, not do academic journal articles. If they are more than just herbaceous borders for the text then surely they must also elucidate and explain. But can you formulate a rule for their use? And if you can't (and I don't think I can) then surely it is a matter best left to author discretion. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the first point, if the words of the headlines aren't sufficient currently, I'll recommend we toss around a few ideas for making them more accurate then instead of removing them completely.
 * In reply to the second: this article is found in a general interest encyclopedia. A Wikipedia article is therefore neither a "scholarly monograph" nor an article of an academic journal. Questioning headlines as a way of organizing text calls us to scrutinize the usefulness of all headlines on all Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure how that is a better question to ask since it broadens this discussion beyond the borders of this particular article we're focusing on. As Wordsmith notes, all the FAs and articles with sufficient text have the headlines, and I and numerous others say that this very article does have sufficient text. Only one user claims otherwise. Additionally, where Wordsmith says headlines are a "huge precedent" I'd like to call that an understatement. They are nearly a matter of course after this quantity of text and number of differently-focused paragraphs. Finally in reply to the claim that headlines must "elucidate and explain", surely that's a noble goal, but all that matters here is that they "summarize". Blue Danube (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The hermeneutics of archaeology would recognize the distinction between and not conflate, the evidence an interpretation is drawn from and what the interpretation itself could be taken as evidence of, which from the context of the text is clearly the distinction here. It's actually a pretty important distinction to make and to make this as clear as possible is another good reason the sections should be separated.
 * Also section titles, by way of summarizing, do help to elucidate the wider subject within the article in the sense that they clarify the context of the sections, that is their function. The text then elucidates on the subject of the section which is not the function a section heading.
 * There's perhaps room to discuss alternative wording for the sections if it serves to better clarify the subject of the section in a suitably succinct fashion. If there is a succinct way of rendering "Use as scholarly evidence for discerning wider sociological implications" perhaps, as an example of the possible meaning that might be desirably conveyed. I mean really I think it's unnecessary to be verbose in the subject heading though, it's the job of the text itself to explain the subject, or specific aspect of the subject dealt with in the section, not the heading, which merely needs to set the parameters for the context of the section.Number36 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sooooooo... What now?Number36 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The hermeneutics of archaeology would recognize the distinction between and not conflate, the evidence an interpretation is drawn from and what the interpretation itself could be taken as evidence of, which from the context of the text is clearly the distinction here. That is precisely what it doesn't do. Post-processual archaeology has emerged as a critique of the naive view of values and facts that you've just sketched; Ian Hodder is quite clear on the problems of using the positivist deductive model of data to theory in chapter 1 of "Reading the Past". If there is a topic in ancient history where values and ideology precede and inform descriptions of material culture it is the highly fraught one of sexuality, and that is what this article attempts to explain. This isn't about James Bond or Dr Who, these are complicated issues that require finesse, that the elude you is a good sign you shouldn't be tinkering with this article. I don't barrel into the article on quantum physics and expect to be able to rearrange it for my own amusement: I respect other people's expertise. If you want a simpler representation of the subject matter what is stopping you writing a simple English wikipedia article and linking it to this one?Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Still ongoing?
Alright, I notice that nobody has commented here in a while. Are parties here still wanting to sort this out? If not, i'll close the case. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I am still interested in resolving this issue, I don't believe that anything said by Twospoonfuls above has been a valid argument, especially his last comment which despite the attempt to intimidate one and all with his ability to use a thesaurus and arrogantly proclaim himself lord and master in this matter because of his 'expertise' (of which I am not convinced given his faulty and contradictory interpretation of what distinctions hermeneutics would draw, not that it is even actually relevant in any case). He also still appears to think that he can interpret wiki policy to say he owns the article (for 'precedent' read 'all my edits', the precedence of how all other articles are arranged doesn't seem to concern him). And lets just take a moment to remind ourselves that the matter at hand concerns nothing more than adding section headings to the article I still can't see any reason why such a non-controversial matter is of such concern to him. We agreed to not discuss the previous behavior issues here but clearly Twospoonfuls did not take that as an indicator to cease said behavior and it completely blocks any attempt to discuss the actual topic rationally, instead of arguments for his position he prefers to belittle and insult those who disagree, unfortunately there can be no progress with this behavior.Number36 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I see above that Twospoonfuls questioned the purpose of headers, and I don't see any satisfactory answer being given. According to the MOS, "Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." So, the purpose is to make things ewasier ont he readers, many of whom want information on only one aspect of an article's topic. Providing section headers lets them go right to the part they want rather than inconveniencing them with a wall of text to search through. Since there is something to be gained by having sections (and nothing lost), and a loss of convenience for the readers by not having them, I think the correct decision here is to have them. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 02:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not making myself plain enough. I don't question the use of headlines per se, I've used them in other articles were they are appropriate. The headlines used here as they are written are misleading. To make a distinction between evidence and interpretation in this context is begging the question that such a dichotomy can be clearly drawn - it is not universally agreed in the academic community that you can do so, as the Hodder book I directed you explains. This is an issue about content, fact and meaning not wikipedia norms. As you yourself put it, Number36, you can't understand why this is controversial because you haven't understood the issues involved in this topic. And I say this again, that is why you should not be tinkering with it.

I've already set out a compromise position: research and augment the article to the point where meaningful headlines might usefully be included, or write a tributary article on Simple English Wikipedia. Unless some other constructive solution can be reached I'll veto any decision and the matter can go to ArbCom.

And Wordsmith? I've yet to see any mediation going on here.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 09:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, you cannot veto decisions. Even if you are the primary contributor, you do not own the article and must abide by consensus, as we all must. So, you are not against sections in general. Since you appear to be the only party here that has a problem with the ones used in this article, what sort of section titles do you feel would be appropriate? The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, erm, this mediation process is voluntary and, yes, I can veto it. Also it isn't your place to decide what the correct decision is, Wordsmith, you're here to mediate not arbitrate. Lastly, I don't have any feelings on what appropriate headings for the article might be, I'm the one not calling for any. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, this is mediation and I cannot impose any judgments or sanctions. You may also withdraw at any time. What I meant to say was that outside this mediation, your status as the primary contributor does not give you the right to veto any changes. We all must abide by consensus. In addition, ArbCom is unlikely to be interested in this case, as least not yet. A better next step would be to consult the WikiProjects that this article is a part of. I really don't see how anything more is going to be accomplished here, so I will be closing this case in 24 hours. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a few ideas for compromises for heading labels but am heading out the door. Close it if necessary, but I'll post my ideas here in a few hours if we're willing to entertain them. Blue Danube (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to discuss alternative headlines, if you agree that consensus doesn't trump fact or logic. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Questioning the mediator's role here
User:Firestorm, you appear to be making a decision for the parties rather than helping them reach a compromise. Furthermore, you have initiated a MOS change to support your view of how this debate should be solved. Is that what a mediator is supposed to do? It appears to me you have become an involved party in this dispute by taking sides in a way obvious fashion. Pcap ping  06:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)