Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article	Closed	Instantwatym (t)	11 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	In Progress	Avi8tor (t)	9 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Avi8tor (t)	1 days, 15 hours
shakshuka	Closed	LEvalyn (t)	4 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours
Norse Deity pages	New	Dots321 (t)	1 days, 22 hours	None	n/a	Dots321 (t)	1 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	New	98Tigerius (t)	1 days, 16 hours	None	n/a	Ravinglogician (t)	1 days, 3 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	New	Banedon (t)	21 hours	None	n/a	LokiTheLiar (t)	8 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	New	Gsgdd (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Gsgdd (t)	3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 22:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Men's Rights

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by CSDarrow on 15:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Men's Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CSDarrow (talk · contribs)
• Memotype (talk · contribs)
• Memills (talk · contribs)
• Perpetualization (talk · contribs)
• Cailil (talk · contribs)
• Slp1 (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An impasse has been reached at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Allegations_of_Rape_2

as to whether the statement,(which atm is),

"Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime".

The argument is over whether this statement is reliably sourced and/or of undue weight.

The section being

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Rape.

Discussion has been lengthy and has clearly reached an impasse. There is a need for some impartial eyes. If anyone could help it would be appreciated. This page is under probation and deals with a controversial topic.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from very lengthy debate, nothing else. This is the first appeal for help.

How do you think we can help?

Atm I feel an experienced neural editor could aid the discussion in reaching a consensus.

Opening comments by Memotype

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 Memills

Inclusion of the statement that men's right groups support marital rape is clearly WP:UNDUE.

By analogy it is as if statement by one feminist that "All men are rapists, and that is all that they are" should be included in the article on the feminist movement because it represents an important platform of the movement.

In both cases, these are outlier statements that fall under WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE Memills (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Perpetualization

In my mind the issue is simple. The statement is: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." WP:UNDUE gives us three scenarios:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

This viewpoint is not held in the majority. CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

"Some men's rights activists" is sentence that does not name adherents.

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The last option is does not belong in wikipedia.

WP:UNDUE therefore calls for us to remove the statement. If another editor wished to add the statement again, with specific "prominent adherents" named, as required by WP:UNDUE, I would not object to that. Without named adherents, the statement is certainly given undue weight.

Editing/Extending:

I will add that it appears that the statement may be true outside of the United States. Still, the use of the word "some" is necessarily prejudicial and the article is generally US focused (and reads as such). Perhaps naming countries where the viewpoint is mainstream, noting that it is not mainstream within the United States, and providing prominent adherents from the minority within the United States.

I also vigorously object to dated sources in the discussion. The Mens Rights movement in the United States is leaps and bounds from where it was 20-30 years ago. A history section noting view that were formerly mainstream would be a welcome addition to the article, but the article would be prejudicial to conflate current advocacy with advocacy of the late 80s and early 90s (as Cailil has done).

Lastly, I note that there are several variations on this viewpoint, not all of which are identical and which are easily misstated from sources:

• men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws
• men's rights groups feel that marital rape laws are often used for false claims as a weapon in divorce cases
• men's group opposes marital rape laws because they feel that accusations of marital rape are fundamentally irrefutable (as |Slp1 found a source for).

If the sources indicate that different men's rights groups hold varied opinions on marital rape, then we can state that, and provide a brief summary of the prominent adherents and their viewpoints. It seems slanderous to cover such a wide range of viewpoints for such different rationales with "some men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws"

Perpetualization (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Cailil

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.

Very simply, sources state that there have been (and are) attempts by Men's Rights groups to campaign against Marital Rape legislation. I listed the academic peer-reviewed sources and the relevant text from them (with page numbers) on the talk page[3]. Kaldari listed the material about current action by groups in India[4] related to this.
The interpretation by CSDarrow & Perpetualization of NPOV makes no sense. The point about "adherents to a POV" in that policy refers to sources. The construction being placed upon it is that we should find individual Men's rights activists who hold these views to prove the sources correct - that's original research.
As it stands the point about marital rape is sourced, and accorded the weight of one sentence in an appropriate section in the article. It is not being given undue prominent in the article itself or relative to the sources. I'll also note that this area is under probation and edits removing sourced content as well as tendentious argument are sanctionable.
I've stated on the page, as has, to the best of my knowledge, Kevin that we agree with the removal of the "marriage contract" piece but the sentence about campaigns about marital rape law is appropriate WRT to this site's policies. I've already suggested alternative wording ("scholars contend") to resolve the "some" issue.--Cailil ^talk 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Slp1

CSDarrow and Perpetualization appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of various V, NPOV and RS policies. The same arguments keep getting repeated, and then the goalposts moved.

• First, WP's NPOV policy and Jimbo's cited comments do not support the deletion of this well-cited information. In fact WP:UNDUE says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." As has been pointed out over and over again, multiple highly reliable academic sources include this information, so it actually would be undue NOT to include it. Jimbo's (cherrypicked) requirements have actually been more than achieved as for this possibly minority opinion (at least in the West), it is actually very "easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".
• Nevertheless, when these editors asked for prominent adherents, other editors provided several examples of notable men's rights organizations and their officials who have made opposed marital rape (see Kaldari's comments).
• Attempts have been made to dispute what the reliable sources say by doing original research to prove them "wrong". The research was actually faulty since there are at least two of the websites listed that do oppose spousal rape laws (Kaldari mentions one, and here is another[5]). And in any case, original research by editors to "disprove" reliable sources, is simply not how we write an encyclopedia article.
• But now the goalpost has changed...We now have arguments that the sources about the US are out of date (20-30 years is mentioned), when the reality is that the US-based sources were published in 2005, 2003 and 1994. Not one is even 20 years old, and most are quite recent.
• We also now have arguments that the statement may refer only outside of the US. However, the key point is that's not what the sources say; and once again examples of the website of current US-based men's rights activists have been provided to show that this is false.(See Kaldari's comments)
• And now we have claims that this material might be libellous and slanderous. Well, if that is the case you might want to warn the scholarly presses that published the material in the first place. Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Binksternet

I have not been arguing this point. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kaldari

First, I would like to respond to a misleading argument above by Perpetualization:

• "CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it."
  • This is simply false. At least one of the pages linked to from CSDarrow's list does actually list decriminalizing marital rape as an agenda item: "Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and pardon all men who have been arrested for "statutory rape," "date rape," "spousal rape," "pornography," "soliciting a prostitute," and other weasel worded versions thereof. A woman's hurt feelings do not turn a man into a criminal."[6]
  • Secondly, CSDarrow's list doesn't include any Indian men's rights organizations, such as SIFF which successfully campaigned against criminalizing marital rape only 2 years ago.

The statement under contention has met every criteria that has been offered. First of all, there are numerous reliable 3rd party academic sources that back up the claim (can't include quotations due to 2000 char limit):

• Current Controversies on Family Violence[7]
• American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia[8]
• Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure[9]

Despite this, some editors have insisted that WP:UNDUE requires that prominent adherents be named. Here are some prominent adherents (in their own words):

• Tom Williamson, founder of the National Coalition of Free Men: [CNN Interview] "First off, I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws."
• Virag Dhulia, Public Relations Officer of SIFF: [Speaking to the press about a proposal to remove the marriage exemption from the Indian rape law] "This means that the government wants police to enter bedrooms now, which is a sure shot way to break a marriage as no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."[10]

I'm open to revising the wording to address concerns, but I don't think there's adequate reason to remove the statement entirely.

Opening comments by Kevin Gorman

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've been, unfortunately, too busy irl lately to involve myself in this article as much as I would like. I view this as a relatively minor issue compared to those the article as a whole suffers from. I have not studied this dispute in depth; I've reviewed the posted on-wiki sources and most of people's on-wiki posts, though. From what I've seen no one has made, so far, a convincing argument as to why this information shouldn't be included. Slp and Kaldari have found a pretty significant number of RS'es that contain this information. Some of them I would describe as high quality, some of them have recently been published, and most of them have been published recently enough that their age shouldn't cast doubt on their accuracy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights discussion 1

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.

• Note: Please note Men's rights movement is under probation; please let me or another uninvolved admin know if there are any sanctionable actions which occur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Right now I am waiting for more of the comment sections above to be filled in. In the meantime, I would encourage everyone involved to read the "Guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am another DRN volunteer and will be assisting Guy Macon in resolving this dispute. The participants should also be aware of WP: BRD. After all of the users involved make opening statements, a DRN volunteer will open up this discussion. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

While we are waiting for the opening statements, I would like to point out that This article has been placed on article probation. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it, I actually pointed that out in this section[11] above before you accepted this case so that anyone considering accepting it would be prepared, and so they would know to notify me or another uninvolved admin if sanctions were indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Read right past it without it registering. Sorry about that. (Note to self: Next time, edit Wikipedia after smoking crack...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Timing. It's all about the timing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist and will also be assisting where needed in this DR/N but to a lesser extent as the first two volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:INFLUENCE covers editing while in a altered state of consciousness. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding waiting for opening statements, Binksternet has been actively editing other pages but has not responded here, Memills last edited Wikipedia on 30 September, and Memotype last edited Wikipedia on 14 September. How long should we wait? I want everyone involved to weigh in, but i also don't want to frustrate people with undue delays. Opinions? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As both sides of dispute are here, the discussion may be opened IMO. The others may jump in later if they become active and/or willing to participate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. This thread is now open for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - [from uninvolved editor] I looked at the sources that are listed above to support inclusion of the material. They look satisfactory to me. The Segal source in particular, p 276, is conclusive (describing a campaign against laws which define marital rape). That source is published by the University of California. So, the essence of the sentence should be included. Can it be wordsmithed? Sure ... in situations like this it is always better if the specific advocates are named in the sentence. But WP:UNDUE does not exclude this sentence. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea of including specific advocates or groups so that it doesn't sound like a sweeping statement about the movement in general. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to discuss for a moment the citations for the current article's statement "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.[74][80][83][84][85]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=515903480 in case it changes).

When examining something like this, I start with the question "does the source say what we say it says" and I look at the quality of the sources.

For Ref [74], the source supports the statement. It says that http://www.ejfi.org "demands .. to eliminate laws defining marital rape as a crime". I could not find evidence supporting that claim on the ejfi.org website. That's a typical problem when a source is more of an advocacy source that an academic source -- they don't say where to look on ejfi.org and they don't give the exact wording.

For Ref [80], Google books gave me this error: "Restricted Page: You have reached your viewing limit for this book." Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref [83], The section before it says "The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia" does not support the claim. The "free one day trial" asks for a credit card number. Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref [84], the source supports the statement. Again, an obvious advocacy publication, not academic research or unbiased reporting, and the source only says that some unnamed men's groups campaigned against the legal recognition of marital rape in 1994. That's 18 years ago.

For Ref [85], The source supports the statement. The mens group is named; it is the Save Indian Family Foundation ( http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ and a person is qouted: Virag Dhulia. Furthermore, it appears to be from a legitimate news source rather than an obvious advocacy book and is less than 5 years old If it were me, this is the only cite I would use for this statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Without commenting on the issue, some of the editors seems to not be aware of WP:PAYWALL. Unfortunately, not all sources are available for free. Indeed, many high-quality sources are only available either by buying a book or article, or using an academic library. Wikipedia explicitly endorses the use of such sources. If you have trouble getting them, WP:REX can often help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:PAYWALL. My philosophy is this: if you recently added a citation or you are vigorously defending a citation, then I can only assume that you have access, and it seems quite reasonable to ask you to look at the source that you can presumably access and give us an exact quote that supports the statement in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have access to all the sources and listed all the quotes on the talkpage of the article quite a while ago [12]. So did Cailil here. I disagree with the contention that books published by highly reliable academic sources can or should be marginalized as "advocacy" books, and I don't know of any policy or guideline that would support this. On the contrary, they are precisely the books that have the highest reputation for fact-checking etc (e.g. published by University presses) that we are supposed to privilege per the verifiability policy and Identifying reliable sources Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Guy you've made some rather extreme comments above. You've inferred that nobody bothered to list sources and quotes when in fact, as Slp1 said, both she and I had done so - and I linked above to it above. You've dismissed a number of sources' reliability in a way that has no basis in policy.
In relation to your readings: Re ref 80 - try this link[13]; regarding ref 74 are we looking at the same source Current Controversies on Family Violence written by 3 academics and published by Sage? Furthermore a search using google of EJFI site for "spousal rape"[14][15] and "marital rape"[16] does indeed generate a number of hits. It is this source's opinion that this site is advocating something. It's not our job to go outside policy and do original research to prove OR attempt to disprove a source.
Regarding ref84 you've claimed that Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure is NOT an academic piece. It may be a feminist text but last time I checked that doesn't disqualify a source's as academic, or make it advocacy. That is your opinion and NPOV does not requires that sources are neutral - merely that they are reliable. Your conflation of these core policy concepts and dismissal of these sources is frankly incredible and raises questions about the ability of this board to handle topics under probation (which need extreme care and precision) - I will ping KC about this--Cailil ^talk 23:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cailil, please refrain from making accusations against the volunteers here. I do not see Guy's comments as extreme or suggesting anything of the sort. Remember this is where you show your sources and the article talkpage is seperate. We will not be jumping back and forth so please be prepared to share all sources here. If there is a paywall and sources are unavailable someone will need to provide the text and we, of course, will trust the good faith of the editors. Please do the same with the volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist my above is not an attack on Guy - it's criticism. It's also quite fair. I'm taking the matter to the talk page. AFAIK there are no paywall issues - the relevant sources were listed and quoted from, albeit in a diff I presented in my statement - perhaps this was missed by you & guy--Cailil ^talk 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cailil. You may call your comments what you choose of course, but please do not overstate comments by myself or other volunteers. I did not say you attacked anyone.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with Cailil that it is inappropriate both in policy and practice to seek marginalize sources based "I can't confirm it"-type statements, (most especially when we are talking about websites that may have changed a good deal), in the spirit of good faith, here is Charles Corry, the longtime president of Edfiin a 2007 ejfi article, mentioning the introduction of "the crime of marital rape in many localities" as one of the "false flags...used to insure that any action by a man can be used against him.". It can't be the original source for the book because of the date, but it shows the way the wind blows in that organization. Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As a dispute resolution volunteer, I choose which cases to help with based upon the basic principle of having no opinion one way or the other about the topic of the dispute. And indeed, the actual question of what some men's group did or did not say bores me. I am just here to help you to resolve your dispute.

Attacking one of the volunteers who is working on your case accomplishes nothing (it doesn't hurt you either, BTW; we are all committed to be fair and impartial despite such behavior.) Please write about article content, not about user conduct. If you have s serious accusation concerning a volunteer's competence or impartiality, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, not here in the middle of a dispute.

I have inferred nothing, and if anyone thinks that I have they need to go back and read the guide for participants at the top of this page again. All I am doing is confirming that the sources say what we say they say. I fully expect that they will, but I am still going to check. I have to start somewhere, but be assured that I will verify any claims made any party to this dispute. In the following, I may seem to be challenging one side of the dispute and not the other, but rest assured that this is just an artifact of my having to start somewhere. I will look at the claims of the other side of the dispute very soon. Also note that I have purposely avoided checking to see who wrote the text and added the citations I am examining. I don't want that to affect my evaluation.

I have not "dismissed" any sources' reliability. I have every intention of questioning every sources' reliability, which is not the same thing. In particular, in the above I am asking which of the following claims the citation to Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure supports:

"Some men's rights activists^[who?] assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.[84]"

or

"Lynne Segal, author of Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure, claims that 1n 1994 certain unnamed men's rights activists in Kansas City asserted that marital rape should not be considered a crime.[84]"

When I see a source that says

"Their [men's rights groups] agenda suggests that the origins of these middle-class men's fears in women's growing readiness to abandon marriages with men who make them miserable, once they have some means of economic independence. They may be miserable because of men's emotional illiteracy..."

I am reluctant to accept that source as being reliable on the topic of the positions of those same men's rights groups. If you want Wikipedia to report that this source made that claim, the source is reliable for that. If you want us to use Wikipedia's voice to present that claim as an established fact, you need a reliable source for that, and this simply isn't one.

I am also concerned by the overall nature of that string of citations. Normally, we want to find a reliable source and report what the source says. When I see citation to a book criticizing a 1994 event in Kansas City followed by a 2010 news report from India, it makes me suspect that the conclusion came first and then someone started looking for citations to support it.

Again, I have every intention of giving any claims made by the other parties in this dispute the same level of scrutiny. This is just where I happened to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you see my criticism above as an attack on you - it's not, it's a (very serious) note, not primarily about you Guy but, about this board. I will take that aspect of the issue to the talk page as you suggest, but for the record I do understand that you are acting in good faith and with very good intentions (but I'll remind you that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions")...
Guy perhaps you read past the part in my openning statements where I stated above that I already made a suggestion regarding the "some" issue and regarding the necessary attribution on the article's talk page. I agree sentence needs to read along the lines of:

Scholars argue/contend that men's rights groups have campaigned against "marital rape" legislation.

Scholars may need clarification etc, but that's fine, and your suggests are good - however I'm not sure that listing all the individual cases is wp:due, whereas the overall point that different actions at different times have criticized/campaigned against marital rape is definitely due. However as you see below the actual dispute is not about wording but inclusion - and as we have all outlined in our statements above this rests on CSDarrow's novel interpretations of policy--Cailil ^talk 16:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I would argue the use of 'Scholars' here violates WP:IMPARTIAL , WP:WEASEL, in fact 'Scholars ' is prominently highlighted as a weasel word.

Secondly the opinions of scholars are of little note unless they are indulging in scholarship. I am sure some scholars also think broccoli is revolting or that basketball is boring. Scholarship involves the use of a scholarly methodology Scholarly_method. Unsubstantiated opinions, on a matter of verifiable fact, concerning those you at ideological odds with is not scholarship. There is another word for it. CSDarrow (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to wordsmith scholars but the rest of your point doesn't make sense CSDarrow. What your comments above and below do is attempt to disparage the work of academics that have opinions you seem not to like. The essence of NPOV is thus: wikipedia records all notable POVs neutrally (i.e we don't put our spin on them), according them appropriate weight as per how widely held they are in the mainstream (see WP:YESPOV). Your constructions on site policy are both tendentious and unreflective of those policies--Cailil ^talk 16:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad we are in agreement on the use of the word "Scholar". As to the rest of your response, I am at a loss what to say. CSDarrow (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No apology needed. There is a huge difference between claiming that a group has campaigned against marital rape legislation and claiming that a group says that marital rape should not be considered a crime. A cursory look at the websites of various men's groups shows a lot of talk about false accusations and the problem with accepting the word of the accuser without collaborating evidence, complaints about the name of the accused being revealed while the name of the accuser is kept secret, etc. I think those positions should be cited and put in the article, along with common counterarguments like the problem of requiring witnesses or physical evidence of a crime that by definition does not leave witnesses or physical evidence. That would be quite easy to document. So far, nobody has come up with a citation to a reliable source for the entirely different claim that some unnamed men's groups say that marital rape should not be considered a crime. All evidence suggests that there are no men's groups in any western country that hold that position. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the distinction between the words crime and legislation is important and agree that "legislation" is the more sourcable one. However the "crime" construction is also sourced - did you get to read the Encyclopaedia of Masculinities entry that you couldn't access days ago, here's the link again[17] - this one uses the "crime" construction: "the status of marital rape as a crime" p.167. I can transcribe the whole paragraph if you can't get to read it--Cailil ^talk 12:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I have to say that I continue to strongly disagree with several of your comments here. WP doesn't use opinions about bias as determinant in determining reliability. Let's take another example. If an academic text or journal article came out against homeopathy would you really be "reluctant to accept that source as being reliable on the topic of [homeopathy]"? Assuming no, why is this different here?

Please note that the disputed text talks about "men's rights activists" opposing the legislation, not "men's rights groups". While I strongly disagree that we should be trying to prove reliable sources "right" (or "wrong") with our own original research on websites etc, editors have already presented on this page direct, primary evidence from multiple sources that there is evidence that men's rights activists and groups in the west and elsewhere have and do opposed marital rape legislation. I linked above to a 2007 post from the president of EJFI above, an [18], Kaldari above linked to a list of men's rights objectives on the anti-misandry.com [19], and also above quoted the President of the National Coalition of Free Men who appeared on CNN stating that marital rape laws shouldn't exist. (For the record, CNN's introduction to the interview says "and we're going to meet the attorney who wrote the recent proposal to strengthen California's spousal rape law. And we'll meet the president of a men's rights group [Williamson] who believes that such laws should not exist.") (CNN transcript on Lexis-Nexis). I'm on a very slow internet connection, and can't do more at present, but it is indisputable from primary sources that (some) men's rights activists do oppose marital rape legislation and much more importantly from the point of view of inclusion, that this has been noted in reliable secondary sources, with four of them stating it in the particular format that they oppose marital rape as a crime " Other men's rights advocates have used family conflict research to justify demands [..] to eliminate marital rape as a crime (www.ejfi.org); "...some emphasized such issues as child support, the status of marital rape as a crime and....";this source has the founding of "International Men's Day by the men's rights groups, celebrated in Kansas City in 1994 as a day for campaigning against the legal recognition of 'marital rape'";"Much of [Hetherington's] support has come from men's rights organizations and conservative Christian groups, which tend to argue that a crime such as marital rape should not be on the books because consent to sex is part of the marriage covenant" --Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

spl1, Concerning National Coalition of Free Men and the CNN interview, did Williamson state he opposed Marital Rape laws in a manner that suggested he felt a man should be able to rape his wife and be immune from prosecution? If so could you post the quote? I believe you have the transcript. CSDarrow (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Setting up a strawman argument is unhelpful. Neither I nor anyone else has ever claimed that Williamson said anything close to this. You can oppose the specific crimimalization of marital rape, while still recognizing that rape within marriage can happen. See [this 2002 commentary by yet another prominent men's rights activist who has opposed such legislation. Stuart A. Miller, the founder of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, argues that "while there may be legitimate cases of marital rape" these are covered under existing laws and that additional marital rape legislation likely does more harm than good. (BTW this formulation seems eerily familiar, doesn't it?!)--Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So Williamson does not support a husband's right to rape his wife, thank you for confirming that. I would argue that most people understand word marital rape as the raping of a woman by her husband. In fact the Wiki page Marital_rape in essence defines it as that; Kaldari has been a content contributor to that page and a contributor to this discussion. Also since I merely asked you a question I fail to see how I could have been attempting to strawman you. CSDarrow (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, because you have (and are) seeking to refute positions that nobody has ever held.

This was the original formulation of the disputed sentence "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape....". This is what it is currently: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." In my view, both are eminently sourceable from secondary sources (with confirmation from primary sources too). But if your concern is that the sentences confuses views about the legal situation regarding marital rape with attitudes towards an actual act of a violent marital rape, then let's put the emphasis more on the former (which is how it was originally, actually). How about "Some men's rights activists have opposed legislation criminalizing marital rape."? Slp1 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the legal systems of the UK, Canada and the USA. As far as I am aware there is no such crime designated "Marital Rape", and never has been apart from in 7 States of the USA; it is a legal oddity. In the West spousal rape is almost exclusively prosecuted under existing legislation for rape or sexual assault. The common definitions of the words in the phrase "decriminalize marital rape" are as follows

• Marital rape:- The raping of one's wife.
• Decriminalize:- To no longer make a crime.

i.e its common meaning is:- to no longer make it a crime for a man to rape his wife. It beggars belief to suggest in an encyclopedic setting, in absence of other context or clarification, that it actually means:- to remove the legal oddity "Marital Rape " from the books and to prosecute the raping of one's wife with existing legislation. Up until I you asked for clarification, the only reference you provided that explicitly defined the term was from SIFF. SIFF's definition is immunity from raping one's wife. I am smelling equivocation in the air.

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom" - Confucius

CSDarrow (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me, I am sorry to say. Where are you getting the idea that anybody is suggesting including stuff about "decrimimalizing" marital rape? It seems another strawman to me.

For years and years, rape laws in the US and elsewhere in the West contained a marital rape exception which meant that husbands could not be charged under rape laws. Rape of a wife was simply not a crime a man could be convicted of. Between the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s, all US states and the federal government moved towards criminalizing that act: most did it by removing the marital rape exemption from their original rape laws, some eliminated marriage as a defense to the charge of rape, while others introduced separate marital rape legislation. Depending on the method used, there remain some exemptions or increased evidence requirements in cases of alleged marital rape as compared to rape of others. [20][21][22][23]. Some men's rights activists, including prominent leaders, have opposed these changes in legislation which have had the overall effect of criminalizing marital rape, and some of which have been incremental in nature, and we have multiple high quality sources for it. I really don't know how you can continue to deny it. Even the antimisandry.com site, which you yourself described as a "significant Mens Rights Organization" on the talkpage of the article, lists as one of their objectives |List to "End the criminalization of normal men's sexual behavior. Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim" and advocates the freeing of all men convicted of spousal rape. Since at this point I am just saying the same things over and over again, this is going to be my final post, until we hear from Steven. Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because you edit reverted my removal of and vigorously defended the statement

• "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of Marital Rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant."

The statement we are now discussing in DRN is the next version of the above and being 'supported' by the same references. That's why Slp1.

CSDarrow (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)]

Men's Rights discussion 2

Comment - Firstly I would like to thank all those participating in this discussion, in particular the volunteers for the giving of their time. My arguments are based on WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY . Sorry if this is a bit long, I have tried to be succinct.

(1) Undue Weight

My argument that the statement

• Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.

is undue-weight is based Jimbo Wales' paraphrased statement from WP:UNDUE, I see nothing overriding this statement.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In essence if a minority hold the view than you should be able to easily name prominent adherents, and imo the spirit of the statement is that there is an expectation to do so. With the possible exception of someone in India, no one can find any adherents of this view let alone prominent adherents. Despite not being able to demonstrate a significant minority holds this view, Cailil & Spl1 make the argument that the first statement applies and as such the second statement is now moot, (I am trying not to Strawman here). They absolve themselves of considering the 'significant minority' case by saying it requires original research even though it is patently not satisfied. If a minority do not hold a view I fail to see how a majority can hold it. Their stance imo is not in the spirit of WP:UNDUE. The first rule of Wikipedia is that there are no rules, a statement designed precisely for this sort case and for common sense to prevail.

In short if a majority or even a significant minority supposedly hold this view and hardly anyone can be found with this view, then a common sense test has been failed.

Furthermore claiming a group or individual campaigns for the decriminalization of marital rape, ie. impunity from the law for raping one's spouse, is a significant claim. Before any group is impugned with this view on Wikipedia, the burden of proof that the claim satisfies wp:Undue, wp:Reliable and wp:Verifiability should also be significant. Wikipedia also has a moral and legal obligation not to libel any individual or group. Atm all we have supporting this statement is the unsupported opinions of some who think Men Right's groups hold this view. This is entirely inadequate.

(2) Reliability of the Sources.

The claim is made here that because a source is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' that its reliability is beyond reproach, even if it fails any common sense test. There are many media through which academics publish their work such as:-

• Rigorously peer reviewed journals involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations

• Reviewed conference publications which are generally checked for appropriateness of subject matter, glaring errors , format and suitable citations.

• Unreviewed conference publications, the work is generally only returned if it is patently absurd.

• Journals and essay collections serving an ideologically based community eg, Journal of Marxism.

• Collections of papers or essays published by an Academic press, sometimes with a degree of meaningful peer review and sometimes none at all..

• Books by a single 'scholarly' author published by an Academic press, which usually have no meaningful review at all.

There is nothing wrong with opinionated work and limited peer review. Diversity of opinions are essential to debate and the life blood of new ideas. With the exception of sometimes the hard sciences, academics are not automatons deterministically sifting through evidence and logically coming to conclusions like Data from Star Trek. They play with ideas; try and say seeming absurd things; sometimes have strong ideological bases and are sometimes deliberately provocactive. Fully rigorous peer review is very time consuming and requires a lot of resources, having other less rigorous outlets of publication allows work to enter the melting pot of ideas that is Academia, Ultimately it is from this melting pot that we get :-

• Rigorously peer reviewed work involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations.

Which in general can be accepted as reliable without reservation. Other forms of academic publication require more scrutiny. A glaring example of scholarship gone awry being the Sokol affair.

In short just because a work is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' does not necessarily make it a reliable source. This very point is addressed in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

• Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

The notion that if the adjectives 'Scholarly' or 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' can be attached to a piece of work then the source is reliable, is prevalent in certain parts of Wikipedia and is causing enormous damage imo. The notion is based on a lack of understanding of the way Academic publishing works. The sources cited here are not reliable and are the unsupported opinions of those the authors are at ideological odds with. Guy Macon has summarized my thoughts on these works succinctly.

Ultimately the reliability of these sources, or not, is largely an argument of opinion. If we can not reach consensus then I feel the matter should go to experts at RSN to adjudicate, the result of which I think will have a profound effect on Wikipedia. This is a serious precedent setting matter.

Thanks again CSDarrow (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"With any claims rigorously supported by citations" is not something I have ever encountered. It's an entirely unreasonable claim - the primary aim of scholarly publishing is to present new knowledge, or, in Wikipedia terms, "original research". New claims need to be supported, sure, but not only by citations, but in particular by data and argument. And claims that are widely accepted in a given community are often published without any citations - we know that $|N|=\aleph _{0}$. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is however an expectation to justify how that new knowledge was obtained with citations where appropriate. My list was a summary not an exhaustive description. CSDarrow (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights discussion 3

It certainly seems like the pro-statement side have a number of citations with specific names on their side. Dismissing them because they come the world's largest English-speaking nation (which should have some importance to the English WP) hardly seems fair; and the whole Anti-dowry laws section is all about SIFF, so mentioning them in respect to martial rape laws doesn't seem unreasonable. Nor does it seem that the same standard is being held to other cites; Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements is 12 years old, and used it many, many times in the article. In the section "Military Conscription", it's the newest cite; the next most recent is Redeeming men: religion and masculinities from 1996.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

user:Perpetualization has addressed the issue of the Indian Men's Right movement above. From what I know it is many ways a separate movement from that in the West operating in an environment of different cultural mores and practices. Although there are intersections in the views of both movements there are also vast divides. I feel they should mostly be dealt with in a separate section, else their views could be pejoratively impugned on the Western movement and visa versa.

Also before the SIFF statement is included it should verified that the view is also held by either a majority or significant minority of the Indian Men's Rights Movement, ie that wp:undue is satisfied. I know very little about SIFF and the quote was only recently added during the discussion of this section. Atm all we have is a report of one statement and little to no contextual background. Having someone with more than a passing knowledge of the Indian Men's Rights Movement would be helpful here.CSDarrow (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

From hereon in, I'll be handling this dispute. I have some more reading to do, so please bear with me. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: taking over the dispute, I strongly approve. Re: SIFF, can we all agree that a citation that refers to the Indian Men's Rights Movement should not be used as a source supporting a statement that simply says "Some men's rights activists assert that..." without any mention of India? I would say the same if a reference was specific to men's rights activists in Saudi Arabia; some countries have cultural and legal frameworks that are different enough from the rest of the world that they really should not be lumped together with the rest of the world. When I read in Wikipedia that "Some men's rights activists assert X", that seems to imply that there is at least one men's rights group in the US, EU or Australia/New Zealand that asserts such a thing. Sort of like saying "some political organizations support a ban on women driving." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Guy I missed what you were saying here, but yes...you are correct. Just because a source says that the Men's rights group in India believes something, is not supportive of the statement unless it says the group is the India group itself. Otherwise this is original research and synthesis. Now I will comment no further...--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also strongly approve of Zhang taking this DR filing and will not be making further comment on the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"When I read in Wikipedia that "Some men's rights activists assert X", that seems to imply that there is at least one men's rights group in the US, EU or Australia/New Zealand that asserts such a thing." Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus specifically addresses this and says it's a violation of NPOV. An Anglo-American bias is something to be avoided. There are one thousand crore people in the English speaking nation of India; that's more then in all the nations you mention combined. By all rights, the nations you list are the outliers and India should be the norm. In practice, instead of handling this in an ethnocentric way, we should take care to make it clearer which groups assert what; if there is a sufficiently clear distinction, US/Canadian groups (or whatever division) could be handled on a different page from Indian groups, otherwise an attempt should be made to make clear who's holding what positions in the single page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody is trying to suggest that only the India reference be used to support the phrase. As has been pointed out over and over again, there are multiple reliable secondary sources pointing out that MRs activists and groups from the US and elsewhere have opposed such legislation. Recent primary sources from Western based Men's rights groups, activists and their leaders have also been presented. At this point, I am not going to relist them all yet again, but they are to be found here and on the talkpage of the article. Slp1 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If I see a Wikipedia page that says X with ten citations, and I point out that one of the citations does not support the statement, I don't care whether the others support it and neither should you. If indeed they do, that simply means that there should have been nine citations, not ten. If someone is able to knock down nine out of the ten as not being reliable sources, not supporting the statement, etc., that just means that it should be a statement with one citation. Each citation needs to stand by itself. Other nearby citations are completely irrelevant. --Guy Macon (talk)

I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. But I'm really not sure of its point, as the other references have not been "knocked down" (as you put it) by most of the independent commentators here, have they? And here, for the record, are a couple more citations, this time from the UK.

• A Guardian article from January 24, 1994 available on Lexis-Nexis called "Women: who's afraid of the big bad women" notes the 1993 keynote speech by Roger Whitcomb at an International Men's rights conference, in which "he reserves particular venom for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape [which removed the spousal exemption in the UK] in 1991 ("A long-standing feminist dream")".
• A second, related article, also in Guardian on the same day, entitled "Men's rights" and listing the key features of the movement. Among the listed "anti-heroes" are "the law lords (for their decision on marital rape)" Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• And the material about Whitcomb, who was the chairman of the UK Men's Movement[24] and his opposition the House of Lords marital rape ruling is retold in this 2000 Edinburgh University Press book. Not sure why it didn't show up on prior searches. Slp1 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Roger Whitcomb and the UKMM

• The House of Lords decision on marital rape was with respect to a husbands immunity from prosecution for raping his wife. You have claimed in very enfatic terms that that was not what you have been talking about. Also your source is clearly an advocacy book.

• I see no other commentary by Whitcombe on this issue or any evidence of he or the UKMM 'campaigning', regardless of how you define the term.

• Roger Whitcomb was apparently active in the 1990's, ie 20yrs ago. He is described by the Independent newspaper http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/men-who-moan-too-much-1575321.html as from ".... the more extreme end of the men's movement".

• From what I can tell the UKMM is in fact an organization started by Whitcomb who simply chose the name 'UK Men's Movement'. Suggesting the UKMM represents Mens Rights views in the UK is simply untrue. The Mens Rights Movement is a grass roots movement which by definition has no central leadership.

• UKMM's web domain UKMM.org.uk is vacant.

CSDarrow (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea where you get the idea that I haven't been talking about immunity from prosecution for rape of a wife. Of course I am. That legal decision by the House of Lords was what ended the marital rape exemption, permitting people to be criminally convicted of raping their spouse. It's the way the UK got rid of the marital law exemption, and that's what Whitcomb etc opposed. There are indeed other sources about Whitcomb and the organization available. In fact, when he died in the late 90s he left 150K pounds to the organization to continue legal battles through the European courts of Human Rights, according to various newspaper reports. All the sources aren't on line, however. Once again, a scholarly book from a University Press is not to be dismissed as an "advocacy book" per policy and guidelines. If you want these rules to change, you need to do the work on the policy and guideline pages, not here. I totally agree that the UKMM does not represent all men's rights views, but it clearly represents some of them, and given the extensive evidence of primary and secondary sources that these views in multiple men's rights groups and activists, it is amazing that you continue to try to try to marginalize source after source after source. But see below and the article for a new proposal.Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment To my mind the discussion is becoming exhausted and losing focus. The stance is now being taken by some that the statement, (and it variants), is not infering that men should have impunity from the law for raping their wives. I feel the statement at hand, ie

• "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.",

in the absence of clarifying comments or context, would leave the majority of readers with the impression that the Men's Right movement supports impunity from the law for raping one's wife. This is not the case apart from possibly a very extreme fringe. Variants such as "..have campaigned against marital rape legislation" are also not sufficiently clear imo. If others feel the Mens Rights Movement has campaigned for the removal of "Marital Rape Legislation ", with marital rape covered by existing laws, it is for them to present an entirely unambiguous statement supported by reliable sources that does not violate undue-weight. The "Scholarly/Academic" sources presented here are entirely inadequate by any measure, they are shocking examples of "Scholarship" that if need be should go to RSN. My sense is that the Mens Rights Movement has had little to say on the issue. My stance is still that the statement should simply be removed.

CSDarrow (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to all, I have been fairly absent from the discussion. A good comment was made about not being anglo focused, which I agree upon. However, that does not prevent two sentences

• "In India, men's rights groups generally oppose marital rape. In the United States, [whatever is true in the US]"

with appropriate citations for each. I cannot say that I am in complete agreement with CSDarrow in all of his arguments though I do agree with many of them. I think the material on the British house of lords would make a great inclusion to the article written as you wrote it above rather than in a weasel worded statement (as currently). The unfortunate odor of finding cites for a claim rather than building a claim from citations lingers over this entire discussion. We don't have a word limit for articles and shouldn't shy from writing as much as a paragraph detailing the different opinions of mens rights movements in different countries (india, britain, us) and times (now, 20 years ago, 40 years ago). I would be disturbed to see sections upon sections for such a claim but there is to not have a few sentences (US, Britain, SIFF?), each somewhat more specific and sourced appropriately.

Lastly, I wanted to bring back the rationale point (as it has been absent to the discussion). If the consensus is that mens rights groups oppose marital rape laws, the claim still seems insufficient on its own. Advocacy positions are formed in reasons and unfamiliar positions (like this one) should have their reasons stated. "some mens rights groups advocate against marital rape laws because they feel [feeling]." If that task seems impossible, I suggest it is the result of weak sourcing. A strong source would always spend enough detail to explain a position rather than just simply stating it. Perpetualization (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm yet another DRN volunteer and I would like to probe for disputants' opinions on the following statements:

1. US Men's Rights group used to oppose marital rape laws, though it is not the case now.
2. UK Men's Rights group opposes marital rape laws.
3. From the worldwide perspective opposition to marital rape laws among Men's Rights groups is currently not as prominent as the acceptance of such laws.

May we assume that these statements are supported by all disputants? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help Dimitrij. I really appreciate it!

1. US Men's Rights group used to oppose marital rape laws, though it is not the case now.- Not agreed. Men's rights activists in the US have written lately as 2007 [25], 2008 [26] and currently [27] that they oppose them.
2. UK Men's Rights group opposes marital rape laws.- Not agreed from a technical standpoint as the particular m men's right group (and activist) mentioned in the reliable sources is now defunct. Also see below.
3. From the worldwide perspective opposition to marital rape laws among Men's Rights groups is currently not as prominent as the acceptance of such laws.- Impossible to say as none of them actually say "yes, we support and accept marital laws". In any case, this is the sort of analysis and interpretation of primary sources that is outside the scope of WP editors, and classified as original research. I think this discussion really needs to focus on the secondary sources, which should be the basis of the article.

A suggestion to guide future discussions: note that the current disputed wording talks about "men's rights activists" not "groups". Nobody has suggested using the term "men's rights groups" (even though many of the activists who have made pronouncements on this subject have been leaders of prominent groups). Let's discuss something that is actually on the table.

A final note of clarification for those who state "the unfortunate odor of finding cites for a claim rather than building a claim from citations". I added the original information in February while rewriting the "allegations of rape" section. I did general searches for "men's rights" and "rape" and the topic of "marital rape" came up several times in reliable secondary sources.e.g [28]. So I included a short sentence about it. As to the extra sources that have been found since: it's an inevitable artifact of people arguing the reliability sources that additional searches get done to confirm the original ones. --Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment from an uninvolved editor. I've looked at these last few sources you've provided and it's clear from all of them that the criticism of these laws is related to false accusations. When you say things like "Men's rights activists oppose marital rape laws" it makes it sound like they want to be allowed to rape their wives, when in fact their concern is mostly about being falsely accused of doing that. It's a gross misrepresentation, and the sources do not support it. Reyk _YO! 21:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple statement of fact; it makes it sound as if MRAs don't believe that people should have legal recourse if they're raped by their spouses, which happens to be entirely true. Giving their justification is okay, though the fact that they oppose rape victims from having legal recourse should not be missed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the three sources I read say anything even remotely like "rape victims should not have legal recourse". That is entirely your own interpretation. Reyk _YO! 02:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You claim that "When you say things like "Men's rights activists oppose marital rape laws" it makes it sound like they want to be allowed to rape their wives" with no source, but when I say that removing martial rape laws will mean that people raped by their spouses won't be protected by them, it's WP:SYNTH?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between making a claim in an article, and relating my impressions of an article. The former requires sources, the latter does not. The difference really isn't that hard to understand. I also think you're attaching implicit moral judgments to your interpretation of the sources and presenting those as fact. To take your statement "they oppose rape victims from having legal recourse" as an example, it's as if I reasoned this way: "Mr Jones wants a Fribblitude Law because of reasons A, B, C. In my opinion, this law will also have adverse consequence X. Therefore, I will claim that Mr Jones supports X and word that claim in a way that suggests X is the reason Mr Jones wants the law." That's exactly what you're doing when you leap from "MRAs criticise marital rape laws" to "they oppose rape victims from having legal recourse". Your silly "silence implies consent" statement from earlier suggests to me that you're perfectly happy to cast aspersions on Men's rights advocates based on nothing whatsoever and you should have a think about whether you're being fair. Reyk _YO! 13:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no "In my opinion, this law will also have adverse consequence X." MRAs who oppose marital rape laws are saying that the state should not have laws that criminalize martial rape. That is the logical meaning of what they're saying. The fact that you attack me does not change that. The fact that I think groups that stand for X, when other groups who stand for X also stand for Y, need to say "We don't stand for Y" or implicitly let the whole movement including them be seen as standing for Y, does not change that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not attacked you. That is yet another false accusation. I am done with this conversation and with you. Reyk _YO! 11:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm happy to support changes to the sentence, in part because of these concerns of ambiguity. I don't agree, however, that the sources present all speak about the opposition being based on concerns of false allegations. In fact none of the original sources sources do, and in fact one talks about something completely different - that sex is part of the marriage contract/relationship. That reasoning is echoed in part here here [29] and here [30] (and here are less reliable ones [31][32][33][34][35]). Indeed Warren Farrell in his The Myth of Male Power book, when writing about spousal rape says "But in a relationship this is especially true: Both sexes engage in "mercy sex". And that's the difference between having a relationship and not having a relationship - all good relationships require "giving in," especially when our partner feels strongly. The Ms. survey can call it a rape; a relationships counselor will call it a relationship". However, based on finding the Farrell source, I have a new version to propose, and I think I will do it directly into the article. I think nobody is terribly satisfied with the current version, and this way I can easily provide the quotes from non-online sources.Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Giving their justification is more than simply ok, it should ABSOLUTELY be part of the article. The alternative is a very negative and untrue implication Perpetualization (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dimitrij, thank you for entering the discussion. Your questions on the face of it seems straight forward and one would think lead us to to some consensus. However I feel trying to answer them we will lead to a nightmare of an argument over semantics and definition of terms. The questions are far more complex than they initially seem. Frankly I don't know the answer to the questions, and I am not trying to be obtuse here. Personally I don't think the Mens Rights Movement has had very much to say on "marital rape" regardless of how you define that term, and certainly not to an extent that satisfies Jimbo Wales criteria. But it not me who is making any claims here, it is others who in particular are making the claim

• Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.

which in my mind is ambiguous and does not satisfy wp:undue, (the suggested variants are no better imo). Which is why I have brought it to DRN. If others can come up with a variant that satisfies wp:undue then that is fine, in fact Jimbo Wales suggests this should be easy to do so if true. It is not for me to do research for others though I would, and to some extent have, if I thought it would resolve matters; however I don't think it will. This is clearly a contentious and complex discussion that will not be resolved unless it stays focused.

CSDarrow (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any cites from groups that explicitly support marital rape laws? They would help balance it. If not, well, silence is easily interpreted as consent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's putting words in their mouths and is unjustifiable. Reyk _YO! 02:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights discussion 4

Part of the problem here is semantic. By "rape" most people think of forced sex, or sex under threat of physical violence. Virtually no one in the MRM endorses that (and a few outliers who might are just that -- outliers, and fall under WP:UNDUE).

Rather, as noted several times by CSDarrow, this is a very complex topic that involves understanding context and other considerations. As noted by Warren Farrell (above), "mercy sex" happens all the time, but it is not rape; neither is having sex for non-sexual motives (which both sexes sometimes do). If the term "rape" is to be used it really should be defined as most folks think of it -- as physically coerced sex with a partner who has given a clear "no." Again, I don't see the MRM as supporting rape; those who do represent a outlier, fringe position -- and thus this falls under WP:UNDUE. Memills (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not part of the problem here. I think everybody knows what "marital rape laws" refers to. The question is, do people in the MRM endorse repealing them and not passing them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And much more importantly, the evidence according to multiple reliable sources is that some have and do oppose them, including some prominent names. That's what key here. The personal opinions of editors about what the MRM supports (most especially strawmen about "supporting rape"), or how most people would define "rape" are simply irrelevant. Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Strawman? Then explain to me why you vigorously objected to my removal of "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant", ie here [36]. My removal of this phrase started the whole debate.

CSDarrow (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss. I objected to the removal because removing well-sourced material for no good reason is not how we build an encyclopedia. And, surely that you can see that there is a huge difference between "questioning the criminal status of marital rape" and "supporting rape"? Try this parallel. Someone who questions the criminal status of marijuana possession, for example, isn't automatically a supporter of people possessing marijuana. Surely you can see that. Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

'I think everybody knows what "marital rape laws" refers to.' - I don't. CSDarrow (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. I have no idea how "marital rape laws" differ from "rape laws." A better term would be "marital rape exemption" laws. In some [countries] the forcible rape of a spouse is not a legal offense. However, a perusal of this list of countries is revealing: these are not countries with active MRM groups who have pushed or supported such legislation. And, in countries where forcible rape of a spouse is already illegal, I don't see evidence that MRM groups are actively supporting legislation to make forcible rape legal (again, perhaps with the exception of a few fringe outliers).

Also, the comment above that "some have and do oppose them [marital rape laws] , including some prominent names." Are you referring to Warren Farrell? If so, that is a real stretch -- he most certainly opposes any form of forcible rape.

Some may have concerns about what implications Implied_consent has with respect to marital rape, or the expansion of the definition of rape to include more ambiguous cases of post-sex regret, "mercy sex," or where consent was ambiguous. But who specifically supports decriminalizing the forcible rape of a spouse? No one that I am aware of.

Let me propose revising the sentence in question from

"Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant"

to this:

"While virtually no MRM activists question the criminal status of forcible rape, some have expressed concerns about the expansion of the definition of rape to include more ambiguous cases that may involve post-copulatory regret, "mercy sex," or where consent was ambiguous or implied (which may be especially relevant in cases of allegations of non-forced marital rape)." Memills (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cites, please. This is not what the cites shown say. The cites say MRM activists have opposed women in marriage being protected under the law from rape by their husbands, rape of any type. Full stop. Bringing in the entire issue of the MRM movements attitudes towards rape in general seems off point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the "rape of any type" or "full stop" claims in any cite shown. Would you be so kind as to tell us exactly where you read that? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not quote a sentence to be added to the article. But yes, for future reference, in English, when someone says they oppose marital rape laws, they're not saying they oppose marital rape laws of a certain type. To limit the type of marital rape they're talking about is to put words in their mouths.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Evasion noted. No, you are not excused from the requirement to provide evidence backing up your claims. If someone opposes a law, they are opposing whatever that law specifically says. Any marital rape law must differentiate itself in some way from the general rape laws in that country. If you have a law that specifies a $10 fine for stealing fruit, you don't pass a law that specifies a $10 fine for stealing apples. Just as any apple theft law must specify wow it differs from the existing fruit theft law, likewise any marital rape law must specify wow it differs from the existing rape laws. Thus it is fair to ask about the details of the law that they are opposing, and it is fair to ask you for evidence when you make specific claims about the law they are opposing. As a DRN volunteer I don't care what is in the article. All I care about is that whatever is in the article is supported by citations to reliable sources. You are not allowed to claim "The cites say..." and then wave your hands and evade the question when asked where in the cites it says that. ---Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

General rape laws historically didn't protect people from rape by their spouses. [37] explains exactly what marital rape laws are; they're laws that protect women from rape by their spouses, and provides a quote from a MRM person say that they're bad. (This is a cite that was brought up at the start.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The above is a prime example of what I am talking about. I asked you where in the cite you saw what you say is in the cite, and you ignored my request, provided a link, and claimed the page at the other end of the link says something that it does not say.

Your claim: "[The cite] explains exactly what marital rape laws are; they're laws that protect women from rape by their spouses"

What the page actually says: "redefining rape by including sexual assault in any form in its definition [...] the proposed new law, besides terming sexual relationship of a man with a wife under the age of 18 as rape, also specifies ... that if a man commits sexual assault even on his wife, who is above 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment"

Somewhat related, but not the same thing. Your cite doesn't say what you claimed it says.

Given the fact that we know that at times you claim that a citation says something that it does not say, I am going to have to insist that, from now on, when someone asks you "where in the cite does it say that?" that you respond by quoting the exact wording where you believe the cite says what you claim it says. This is not an unreasonable request. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Which I notice is not a requirement you put on User:Memills, who has never provided cites for anything I asked for cites for above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Comment I do not think Slp1 should be editing, as we speak, the phrase in Men's rights that's under consideration here. CSDarrow (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We are waiting for feedback here. Memills (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed in principal though I note that his edits have been moving the sentence in a productive way. I have also made a small number which I do not feel change the dynamic of this discussion. Perpetualization (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment:- This discussion has been going on for over a week. To mind it is going round in circles, losing focus and has become unproductive. It has become a discussion about the subject as opposed to the resolution of the conflict that was brought here. Spl1 has to stop changing the statement in Men's Rights so then we can decide the following:-

• Do the sources support the statement?
• Are the sources reliable?
• Is wp:UNDUE satisfied?

To mind in all its incarnations the statement fails all of the above. Unless we can move forward I feel the sources should be taken to wp:RSN for evaluation.

CSDarrow (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes -- time to wrap this up. Memills (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Save Indian Family Foundation help block a proposal to remove a marital rape exception from the law of the largest nation in the world, home to 1/5 the world's people. Even if that were the only evidence brought up here--and it's not--that would over whelm WP:UNDUE massively.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"It seems like" doesn't cut it as a reliable reference. Memills (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

SIFF successfully campaigned against criminalizing martial rape in India.[38] The argument (further up) that the PR spokesman for SIFF was only speaking for himself when discussing the issue with the media is the most absurd argument I've heard in a while. Regardless, the opinion is not limited to India. Antimisandry.com, which both sides of this argument have listed as a prominent Western men's rights group, lists decriminalizing martial rape as part of the men's rights agenda. I don't believe that it is the majority view in the West, but it is more significant than a fringe viewpoint. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

SIFF link you provided is apparently broken. Also, please give cite link for your claim re Antimisandry.com. Memills (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not modify the article itself on this topic until there is some resolution to this issue. Feel free to add to discussion here, first. Memills (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights discussion 5

Source Check I was checking some sources and had a question about source 88, which references the south china morning post quoting the "All India Harassed Husbands Association." I copied the name of the organization from the news article to attribute it to a specific group. However, I realized that I can't find the All India Harassed Husbands Association with a simple google search. I didn't look very thoroughly but does this organization actually exist? Perpetualization (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Searching Google for "All-India Harassed Husbands Association" (with the quotes) shows about 30 references, all from 2006. Every reference appears to be from someone with an axe to grind saying how evil this group is. There is no evidence that the organization was ever notable or even that it actually existed. (Who is the founder? Where is the headquarters? Can anyone name four members?)

Alas, this is the state of a bunch of statements in this article: It is full of statements that are not supported by sources, and we have multiple editors who falsely claim that sources say things that they don't actually say. Often there is a long string of citations, none of which support the statement. Someone who is uninvolved in the current dispute with no strong opinions about the topic needs to go through the entire article, removing every statement that is not supported be the sources that are attached to it. Then the editors of the page need to decide that they will not allow any unsourced material back in. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely - CSDarrow (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Further, much of the information presented in the article presumably about the MRM cite sources that are hostile to the MRM, rather than from sources from MRM writers/activists themselves. Memills (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Right; that's why it's called WP:NPOV, and not Sympathetic Point of View. That we do cite all sides is a distinction between Wikipedia and some of its competitors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, not "all sides" are adequately presented or cited in the article. Most of the cites are from those critical of the MRM. MRM folks should be allowed to themselves identify what their objectives are, not have those hostile to it define (or mis-define) them for them.

This is the very issue under discussion here. Critics of the MRM are cited here suggesting that MRM folks are advocating things (like forcible marital rape) that in fact the MRM does not (a few fringe, outliers excepted). Memills (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And the solution to that is something that we here at Wikipedia have a lot of experience dealing with. Step one: make it so that every controversial statement is supported by a citation to a reliable source. If any editors are not willing to follow that basic principle, warn them and then apply a series of longer and longer blocks. Step two (only after step one is accomplished), work toward consensus about WP:WEIGHT.

Note that as a dispute resolution volunteer, I have no position on the actual dispute, which I find rather boring, and I am not willing to devote a bunch of time to doing the above. If, however, someone who is interested (even if previously involved) is willing to put in the time and willing to set aside any personal opinions and make sure all statements are sourced, not just the ones from the other side, I am willing to spend a reasonable amount of effort advising and guiding that person or persons. She/He/they must be willing to take this in whatever direction the sources lead and to try really hard to be unbiased. Any takers? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Andromedean on 08:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 4#Dispute on removal of objective evidence on Olympic bikes
• User talk:Sport and politics#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Users involved

• Andromedean (talk · contribs)
• Showmebeef (talk · contribs)
• Sport and politics (talk · contribs)
• 88.88.166.111 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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:

• 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.

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.

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 Wikipedia: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

Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. _{Do not uncollapse.}

<span id="Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. _{Do not uncollapse.}">

“The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[1] They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.”

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:

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.

France had hoped the progress they had made in the men's team sprint would win them gold. They finished second to Britain, and struggled to accept defeat.

"It feels bitter," said Frenchman Gregory Bauge, who also went on to lose in the sprint final to Britain's Jason Kenny.

France were not the only team puzzled at the extent of Britain's progress since the Melbourne championships four months ago.

Although he believes the home crowd played a motivating role, Australia's high performance director Kevin Tabotta said: "There's been a bit of thought as to how the gap has become so big since Melbourne."

But the French were the most vociferous.

Admitting she was "puzzled", French track cycling chief Isabelle Gautheron told AFP: "They haven't dominated for the past four years, they were among the best teams in the world along with Australia, Germany and France.

"Here, they're crushing everybody."

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

Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. _{Do not uncollapse.}

<span id="Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. _{Do not uncollapse.}">

“In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[1]
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."

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

Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. _{Do not uncollapse.}

<span id="Volunteer has responded and collapsed section for readability of overall DR/N. Comments may still be added and replied to. _{Do not uncollapse.}">

“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.[1]
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.”

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

“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.[1] 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.”

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 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.”

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

“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.”

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?!? Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 44#Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 czarkoff (talk · contribs)

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 czarkoff, the case is now open. ~~Ebe123~~ → 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:

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.

Does any involved party argue any of these observations? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[126] They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[127] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play. Especially regarding the use of technology [128]

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.[129] 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.[130] 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."[131]
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 [132][133][134]
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.[135] 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.[131]

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.[136]:p. 15 A report released immediately before the Olympics quotes an 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.[137]

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

From the article itself as confirmed above [39]--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:

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.[1] 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."

--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)

Volunteer proposal

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.[1] 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.[1] 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

• 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:

Team GB Cycling introduced new bicycles for the London 2012 Olympics, having opted to not use them several months earlier at a non Olympic event.[1] They subsequently outperformed rivals, Australia and France with margins, greater than those nations had expected.

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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.

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. 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.

--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.

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."

--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.

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."

--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:

British Olympic cycling is secretive and its advances achieved through ‘marginal gains’. 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 Home advantage was a possible reason as to why the British performed better than expected. Victoria Pendleton stating "It really does inspire you". Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott stated "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home."

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)

Team GB Cycling introduced new bicycles for the London 2012 Olympics.[1] 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 allegations of cheating which were vehemently defended against by British Prime Minister, David Cameron. 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. 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." The British team stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’, including training, preparation and home support. A "Home" advantage was a possible reason for the British performance. Gold medalsit in Keirin, Victoria Pendleton stated "It really does inspire you", and Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott said "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home."

--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:

Cycling received attention due to the impact technology may have had, similar to the now-banned FastSkin swim suits of the Beijing Games. Aerodynamics and lightness in equipment are more important than any other Olympic sport and continued refinement is relentless. The British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, kept under wraps for months.[1] 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 and subterfuge, vehemently defended against by British Prime Minister David Cameron, but France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded the U.K. reveal their secrets. French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British, believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment, also 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, when asked if the British will put some countries at a disadvantage, replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." British Cycling's technology is built at Advanced Composites Group, who manufacture high-end composites used in racing and aerospace. The UCI recently amended interpretation to allow a grace period to bring a product to market, but all bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and fit for use.

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

Prose being replaced

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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I can accept this:

Cycling received attention due to the impact technology may have had, similar to the now-banned FastSkin swim suits of the Beijing Games. Aerodynamics and lightness in equipment are more important than any other Olympic sport and continued refinement is relentless. The British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, kept under wraps for months.[14] 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 and subterfuge, vehemently defended against by British Prime Minister David Cameron, but France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded the U.K. reveal their secrets. French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British, believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment, also 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, when asked if the British will put some countries at a disadvantage, replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." British Cycling's technology is built at Advanced Composites Group, who manufacture high-end composites used in racing and aerospace. Home advantage has been mentioned as a possible explanation for the British team exceeding expectations. [insert appropiate ref] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and fit for use.

--

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)

Team GB Cycling introduced new bicycles for the London 2012 Olympics.[1] 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 allegations of cheating which were vehemently defended against by British Prime Minister, David Cameron. 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. 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. French world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge demanded that the British reveal their secret, but 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." The British team stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’, including training, preparation and home support. "Home advantage" was given as a possible reason for the British performance with Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott stating: "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home."

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

[[ http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34033&LangId=1%7C: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:

Team GB Cycling introduced new bicycles for the London 2012 Olympics[1] that subsequently outperformed, Australia and France with margins, greater than expected. In France the performance was greeted with suspicion and allegations, which were vehemently defended against by British Prime Minister, David Cameron. All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use. Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that the spirit of equal footing had been broken. French world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge demanded that the British reveal their secret, but French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British, believing the secret is the best equipment being revealed at the last moment, also stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively.." When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." The British team stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’, including training, preparation. "Home advantage" was given as a possible reason for the British performance with Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott stating: "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home."

--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?"

• 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".

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)

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, [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

Team GB Cycling introduced new bicycles for the London 2012 Olympics[1] that subsequently outperformed, Australia and France with margins, greater than expected.

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

In France the performance was greeted with suspicion and allegations, which were vehemently defended against by British Prime Minister, David Cameron.

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

All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed, fit for use. Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that the spirit of equal footing had been broken.

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

French world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge demanded that the British reveal their secret, but French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment.

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)

5

When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."

6

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 stating: "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home."

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)

Is there compromise?

Have we been able to all agree on prose that everyone can live with?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is still a significant difference between views; since myself and showmebeef have been basing the discussion around your first draft, whilst Sport & Politics and 88 seem to be basing the discussion around your second draft which is very different. I also think that that the discussion has been diverted along the issue of home advantage, which is just a straw man debating issue, which is not provable one way or the other, is not essential to the controversy, and could run on indefinitely.

I'm not trying to be unhelpful here but just attempting to avoid the article to drift to a version which doesn't seem to address the key facts. For me, there is a fundamental difference between Chris Boardman's statement when 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."

and the UCI rules which are explicitly referenced in the media

"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".

unless these can be prominently displayed (and I have seen no reason why they can't) I doubt if a compromise can be made since this goes to the heart of why this is a controversy.--Andromedean (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, you have put your finger right on the problem with this statement: "For me, there is a fundamental difference between Chris Boardman's statement when asked and the UCI rules which are explicitly referenced in the media." (emphasis mine) What it is for you is wholly irrelevant. As we have stated repeatedly we cannot compare and contrast the rule with statement when no secondary sources have done so. Instead we mention the the French views, the British views (hence home advantage) and one independent (the cycling magazine) view on the matter. That you cannot agree to this version in principle, if not in wording, is borderline incredulous. I have unilaterally changed the version in the article(per WP:BOLD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE). You cannot argue that the version that has been removed has ever been close to consensus. The version proposed which I have added is the one I deem closest to achieving consensus (bearing in mind that Showmebeef as accepted some form of mention of home advantage and that consensus doesn't have to be unanimous). I hope we can continue the discussion here, and that you will be more eager to compromise when you are not perfectly happy with the version in the article.
Regarding the volunteer question: Apparantly not, though it really should be acceptable to all. The arguments set out by Andromedean against it are extraordinarily week. On the other hand WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require unanimity, so you could argue that there is a 3 to 1 consensus on the proposed version's content, even if there are some disagreements about the wording. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the unilateral change

Before I am lambasted for this action I would present the following defence:
Really, there is not much to say. The version in that was in the article has never been close to consensus, and it makes a power disbalance in this discussion. Imagine how you would feel if the version in the article during the discussion introduced the French views in one sentence ("In France there were claims that the use of technology was cheating"), and then used the rest of the section to argue against them. (note: I would not support such a version based on current knowledge, if I have supported something like this in the past it is because at the time I felt that only the comments themselves had been demonstrated as controversial.) For me the version I removed is as totally unacceptable as the one I described presumably is for you, and it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the consensus version as a result of this discussion. I hope discussion of this action can be kept to a minimum, and that we return to the business of finding the best version to install in the article "permanently". 88.88.167.157 (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I support you in your bold action, something had to be done to remove the wholly out of date version with Zero consensus and as you have pointed out we are here for consensus not unanimity. If Andromodean is the only hold I think its not time to ignore this person as they are just being plainly obstructive. The three of us have made sensible compromises and Andormodean has made wild statements and nonsense "straw-man" claim simply to attempt to demonstrate their POV and OR as the one which must be accepted. If Andromodean cannot compromise in anyway like the other three involved editors have then they are being obstructive and are disrupting Wikiepdia. I can agree to the version placed boldly in the article with no hesitation. Amadsceintist has pointed out their first draft was not taking BLP in to account fully and had unweighed criticism which skewed the piece. All the information now in the section has a reliable source which is accurately quoted and not deliberately selectively misquoted as was done by Andromodean. The whole section is balanced and give fairness to both sides unlike Andromodeans version which were skewed to further their POV of GB being the most unethical technology users and biggest dopers since Lance Armstrong and Marco Pantani. Its time to draw this to a close. A version which has fairly good acceptance by most is now in the article and has been discussed thoroughly. Its time to move on or this will end up in mediation. Sport and politics (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by GeorgeLouis on 04:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)
• Andrewman327 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• HtownCat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A paragraph in the Frank L. VanderSloot article stated:

In 1997, Vandersloot received a warning letter from the FDA to stop marketing Melaleuca dietary supplements ProVex, ProVex-Plus, and Replenex as drugs for the treatment of disease conditions in contravention of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[38][39] The warning, issued subsequent to an FDA inspection of a Melaleuca manufacturing facility, noted that the products carried claims that their use resulted in "halting and possibly reversing the process of articular cartilage degeneration" and that they were "an alternative in the treatment of degenerative joint disease or common osteoarthritis." Melaleuca subsequently announced that the claims would no longer be used for marketing the products.

This paragraph was separated out into a subsection marked as WP:Undue at 23:33, 5 October 2012. The separation, subheader and Undue note were reverted at 16:10, 6 October 2012‎. A Discussion was begun on the Talk Page. The crux of the debate is: Should the paragraph be deleted or not?

One editor believes: "There is only one Source given for this item, in a trade website. (The other Source is the letter itself, which is not good enough in Wikipedia's eyes to use as a Source alone.) This factoid about Melaleuca was never the object of scrutiny in any other Reliable Source, nor reported on elsewhere. It is therefore de minimis. It is, given the thousands of products made by Melaleuca, just not worth trifling about. Nor, given the fact that this article is about a Living Person and not a company, does it warrant even a mention in the biography of this man.

A second editor has responded: "I disagree that it is unduly weighted. It has been mentioned by secondary sources and is described succinctly in the article and only in as much detail as is necessary to convey the gist. Suggesting that FDA warnings are analogous to a speeding ticket is nothing more than a personal opinion (c.f. WP:OR) and it demonstrates a lack of understating of their significance. It's especially relevant given that VS had a serious run-in with the FDA for similar issues while running Oil of Melaleuca. . . . FDA warning letters are indeed significant and highly notable."

A third editor has said: "FDA has a 21 page manual explaining what warning letters are and I stand by what I said about it being too wonky to be able to describe without either making it sound worse than it was or giving the section undue weight. As far as I can tell, FDA has never taken an administrative action against the company. Even the letter they sent 15 years ago did not apply to the company writ large. . . . I certainly agree that it should be removed."

A fourth editor has said: "The letter is just talking about wording on a product label. Doesn't seem notable."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this on the Talk Page.

How do you think we can help?

One of the editors suggested taking this to Dispute Resolution before going any farther. You can suggest a next step for us to follow.

Opening comments by Rhode Island Red

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.

VanderSloot is the CEO and owner of a multilevel marketing company called Melaleuca. The FDA sent a warning letter to FrankVanderSloot regarding illegal marketing of his company’s nutritional products – i.e. making claims that the products can treat, prevent or cure diseases, which positions them as drugs in violation of DSHEA. Such infractions are considered a very serious matter, and warning letters are used as the FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs’ first line of defense; the next step being heavy fines and/or closure. When it comes to such warnings, the FDA has final authority (i.e. the warning letter is not a mere suggestion nor is it open to debate – it is a final opinion). The statement in the article is backed up by two WP:RS and there is ample precedence for both the importance of such warning letters and their inclusion in WP articles. The objections to inclusion of this information raised by the disputant are vague and without merit, and collusion/vote-stacking is an additional concern. I have addressed the issue in detail under the discussion section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Andrewman327

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.

My position is that there is no way to include this letter without either using original research or giving it undue weight due to the complex nature of administrative rulemaking.

First off, warning letters are common. FDA has issued 11,224 warning letters since the letter in question (admittedly original research from here). That works out to an average of roughly 3.5 of them per business day over 15 years.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was passed in 1994 and applied to the company after it went into effect. In 1997, FDA sent the company a letter stating that it should change the wording used on the packaging of three of its products because they contained health claims that had not been approved by FDA. I can’t find any response, either from the company or FDA, but it appears that the company subsequently changed the wording on its packaging.

In 2001, Pearson v. Thompson found that FDA overstepped its constitutional authority in regulating health claims of dietary supplements. Although DSHEA is still in effect, the nature of FDA’s enforcement has grown less strict and it is difficult to say how the company’s claims would be treated in the modern regulatory environment. What is clear is that the company was never the target of any official action by FDA. The letter itself states that it was not a reflection of the company writ large. Even the FDA guide to sending warning letters states that they are a tool for voluntary compliance, Template:PDFlink.

Opening comments by Collect

WP:FORUMSHOPPING applies here as the overwhelming consensus of all but one editor has been clear on the article talk page. DRN is not a place to forumshop where such a clear consensus exists. The person suggesting that it be posted here is the one I refer to, not the good faith poster of this section. Collect (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the ongoing discussions on the article talk page and consensus arrived thereat render DRN usage moot. Collect (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by HtownCat

My position is that one FDA warning letter issued 15 years ago to a company that has since marketed hundreds (possibly thousands) of products since is not notable, especially on a BLP. The warning letter was for a claim on the label, which the company changed, and there aren't any sources saying that they've had problems with the FDA since. Also, I'm not a member of the Conservatism Project, if that matters at all.HtownCat (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot 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, I'm a DRN volunteer and I would like to ask Collect to replace his statement with his position on the dispute. Not only comments on others' conduct are discouraged on DRN, but the filing editor asserts the conflict between local and global consensus, so the case may have a potential per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. P.S.: please, disregard the template stating that the case is opened and comments may be made in this section – we are still waiting for other parties' comments and won't proceed unless anybody from another side of the dispute would indicate their readiness to participate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

In assessing the FDA warning with respect to VanderSloot, I considered various factors.

1. WP:RS: The statement in the article is backed up by a high-quality secondary WP:RS (i.e., The Tan Sheet). The Tan Sheet is not some insignificant trade rag as one editor implied. It is in fact a highly reputable publication, and is considered a definitive source on such matters, albeit not a publication that’s widely familiar to laypeople. The statement is also backed up by the primary source itself; i.e., the FDA letter. Thus, the statement easily passes WP:RS and WP:VER, which stands in stark contradiction to the implication by the other disputant that the source is not reliable; clearly this implication is baseless.
2. Relevance: The FDA warning letter has special relevance in VanderSloot’s bio because Vandersloots previous MLM company (at which he also served as CEO and co-owner) prior to forming “Melaleuca Inc” was shut down for exactly the same type of violative marketing (i.e., his previous company “Oil of Melaleuca Inc” also made curative claims about their nutritional products). This fact about Oil of Melaleuca’s demise was mentioned by VanderSloot himself and by other WP:RS; the detail is currently mentioned in the article[40] and is not being contested. Thus, the FDA warning letter, which is relevant in its own right, is especially so given the connection to the marketing practices of VanderSloots’s previous company.
3. Importance/notability: Two of the disputants argued that FDA warning letters are (a) insignificant, and (b) analogous to a speeding ticket, neither of which is remotely true. It was also argued that such warnings are given to thousands of products. This is also untrue. In fact, the FDA hands out only a handful of such warnings annually to nutritional supplement companies, and when they do, it is a big deal. In general, FDA warning letters, exactly like the one that VanderSloot received, are highly noteworthy as indicated by numerous high-quality sources that have reported on such events with other companies[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] FDA warning letters are also commonly included in WP articles about nutritional supplements (several of he following examples are also MLM companies)[50][51][52][53][54] There are also dozens of examples WP articles that mention FDA warning letters issued to makers of pharmaceutical products.

One of the disputants issued the claim that “"FDA has a 21 page manual explaining what warning letters are and I stand by what I said about it being too wonky”. I’m not sure of which document the editor is referring to, because he never provided the name or a link, but the claim about FDA warning letters being “wonky” is purely speculative opinion (baseless to boot) and constitutes WP:OR.

Although I don’t want to get into the matter of user conduct issues, a brief note is warranted. There has been a long history of partisan editing on the article by a couple of the disputants here, who belong to WP Project Conservatism, which is currently under fire for potential POV violations. In my experience, the group is used in a partisan manner for POV pushing and vote stacking. In practice, this has a very destructive effect on the integrity of WP and it makes neutral discussion about editorial matters next to impossible. VanderSloot is a controversial and polarizing figure, and he is a major financier of conservative political candidates; hence the WP project group’s tendency to whitewash articles that contain criticism of conservative figures seems to be at play here. Because Melaleuca is MLM, the company’s legions of thousands of distributors (along the lines of Amway) also have an interest in whitewashing article critical of MLM, and having edited several such articles in the past, I ca n safely say that this is a chronic occurrence here on WP.

Given these background factors at play, it’s next to impossible to have a reasonable balanced discussion on the talk page or achieve a legitimate consensus on even the simplest of issues. Edit warring and incivility are often the result. It is imperative that editorial issues under discussion get input from uninvolved parties that are not part of the WP project conservatism bloc, and hence DR seems like the best means to solicit reliable unbiased input from the community. I do not by any stretch believe that my opinions are the final word on this editorial issue, but it’s simply not possible at this point to have a an unbiased discussion about it given the current crop of editors who are opining, and instead it would be nice if we could get input on this from at least half a dozen or so editors for guidance. I’m open to hearing what the entire community thinks; not just the one-sided opinions of a particular COI conservative group or MLM voting bloc that marches in lockstep on every issue. Going forward, it would help things go much more smoothly if there were more impartial editors watching the page and weighing in on any editorial disputes that arise. We need more eyes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Another uninvolved volunteer here. DRN does not deal with conduct disputes, and conducts disputes should not be brought up on this noticeboard, no matter how brief. The wider dispute between American liberals and conservatives, especially during election season, is not something that DRN can resolve.--SGCM (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, understood. My bad. Main point is just that it would be really nice to have more impartial eyes on the article so that these sort of disputes can be avoided. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Response to Andrewman

• “My position is that there is no way to include this letter without either using original research or giving it undue weight due to the complex nature of administrative rulemaking.”

I don’t see how that position can be defended. The current text describing the letter uses no original research. It cites a reliable secondary source and a reliable primary source, and the event described is unambiguous. The statement about the “complex nature of administrative rulemaking” is so vague and nebulous that I don’t see any way to apply it here. It’s that assertion that sounds like WP:OR to me. It’s a red herring to suggest that the text should be deleted because the entire matter of FDA warning letters is simply too complex; it’s simply not true.

As for the frequency of FDA warning letters, they do issue them for various types of violations, but not that many letters are issued to supplement manufacturers for violative advertising claims (and even less often after having conducted a facilities inspection). I’ve already supplied sufficient evidence that the letters are noteworthy in general, as indicated by the significant coverage they have received in the past. That notwithstanding, the argument about frequency is weak. It matters not whether the FDA sent out 10 or 100. The fact remains that VanderSloot was the subject of regulatory action for misleading advertising claims suggesting that his products have curative properties (i.e., illegally positioning them as drugs), and this followed similar FDA action against VanderSloot for similarly illegal claims made about his “Oil of Melaleuca” products (claims which at least in part responsible for the company being shut down).

• "In 1997, FDA sent the company a letter stating that it should change the wording used on the packaging of three of its products because they contained health claims that had not been approved by FDA. I can’t find any response, either from the company or FDA, but it appears that the company subsequently changed the wording on its packaging."

It wasn't the “packaging”, it was product “promotional materials” – the terms are not synonymous. Furthermore, when the FDA refers to “product labeling” it applies to any and all claims used in product marketing and promotion, whether it appears on the product label, a brochure, or a website. Additionally, I don’t see why it would matter whether this editor was able to find the company’s response. The secondary source says that VanderSloot complied with the warning (stopped illegally marketing those products as drugs).

• "What is clear is that the company was never the target of any official action by FDA. The letter itself states that it was not a reflection of the company writ large. Even the FDA guide to sending warning letters states that they are a tool for voluntary compliance, not a regulatory action PDF."

What is clear to me is (a) your statement is incorrect, and (b) you seem overly eager to use incorrect assertions in order to have this detail whitewashed from the article. The FDA’s position was unambiguous and Meleleuca was in fact the target of an “official regulatory action” by the FDA. The FDA asserts that such letters are significant and are issues only in the case of clear-cut violations of legal statutes:[55]

“The agency position is that Warning Letters are issued only for violations of regulatory significance. Significant violations are those violations that may lead to enforcement action if not promptly and adequately corrected." A Warning Letter is the agency's principal means of achieving prompt voluntary compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The Warning Letter was developed to correct violations of the statutes or regulations. Also available to the agency are enforcement strategies which are based on the particular set of circumstances at hand and may include sequential or concurrent FDA enforcement actions such as recall, seizure, injunction, administrative detention, civil money penalties and/or prosecution to achieve correction. Despite the significance of the violations, there are some circumstances that may preclude the agency from taking any further enforcement action following the issuance of a Warning Letter. For example, the violation may be serious enough to warrant a Warning Letter and subsequent seizure; however, if the seizable quantity fails to meet the agency's threshold value for seizures, the agency may choose not to pursue a seizure. In this instance, the Warning Letter would document prior warning if adequate corrections are not made and enforcement action is warranted at a later time.” Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. I have to weigh in on this one on the side of removing the paragraph. If this was an article about the company, the inclusion of this material might or might not be justifiable, but this is a BLP article about the person, not about the company. Yes, the letter was addressed to him, but it was sent to him in is role as an officer of the company, not as an individual, and had nothing to do with him as an individual. The most information this conveys about him as an individual was that it happened "on his watch" as CEO and with a company of this size that's simply not enough on a matter as minor and routine as this warning, in my opinion, to avoid having this provision constitute undue weight in a BLP article. By the way, I am not a participant at the Conservative Project (and, indeed, am both a political liberal and a skeptic as to things like health claims made by supplement manufacturers), but this paragraph doesn't belong in this article purely on Wikipedia principles. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the first reasonable argument I've heard so far. Thanks for weighing in. Hopefully we can get a few more editors to comment too. If there is general agreement with your point, that will be good enough for me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue back that, in practical terms, the differentiation between VanderSloot and the company he owns -- Melaleuca -- is murky. The article portrays events sponsored by Melaleuca (e.g. the Freedom Celebration) as acts of philanthropy on VanderSloot’s part; and it attributes awards for Melaleuca to VanderSloot personally, because of his role as the company’s CEO. Therefore, if awards and philanthropy related to Melaleuca are attributed to VanderSloot personally, it wouldn't seem rational to exclude the FDA warning on the basis that it was related to Vandersloot’s role as CEO, rather than VanderSloot as private individual. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if we have a dispute resolution volunteer ???? Is Dmitrij our volunteer of record? Or is it TransporterMan? This is the first step in a dispute resolution process, so it would be nice if we could have a recommendation as to what to do with this paragraph, or anyway what to do to forward the process. Thanks very much. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What would be nice is what I had originally requested -- i.e., that we get multiple sets of independent eyes on the article for guidance. If we don't, then we'll have to refile the DR request.

---

Response to HTownCat

• Comment 1: "My position is that one FDA warning letter issued 15 years ago to a company that has since marketed hundreds (possibly thousands) of products since is not notable, especially on a BLP."

Reply: The date has no bearing on notability. The article currently mentions many details that happened 15 years ago. Had it been a more recent entry, then presumably this editor would have argued about WP:RECENT or WP:NOTNEWS. There is no WP policy or guideline concerning notability that excludes information merely because it's 15 years old. In addition, the number of products the company has is irrelevant (and obviously they aren't going to get FDA warnings for misleading health claims about laundry detergent, toothpaste, etc).

• Comment 2: "The warning letter was for a claim on the label, which the company changed, and there aren't any sources saying that they've had problems with the FDA since."

Reply: First, it is disingenuous to repeat arguments that have been discounted. It was not the product label that carried the violative claims; it was the product marketing materials.[56] Secondly, where the claims were made (label or other promotional materials) has no bearing on the notability of the information or the seriousness of the violation. Third, it matters not whether the company continued to violate the law; the entry in the WP article makes no allegations about ongoing illegal claims, and in fact it accurately discloses that the company complied with the order (had they not, they would have likely been heavily fined or shut down, as these are the next steps in the FDAs process). Lastly, the fact that the company complied with the order doesn't make the initial infraction or the FDAs warning any less significant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument with the most consensus at this point is to not include the paragraph on the grounds of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. If there are no further objections, this case should be closed as resolved. @Rhode Island Red. While I understand your concerns, bringing in more editors to a talk page is not something that DRN can always accomplish. Consider notifying a WikiProject or using Wikipedia:Request for comment. A word of caution, disputes between American conservatives and liberals on Wikipedia have been ongoing since the site was founded and are especially heated during the election season (just take a look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log and this discussion on ANI). @GeorgeLouis. The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal, there are no assigned volunteers. It's a venue for establishing consensus with the input of uninvolved editors. Cases can be closed when a consensus has been reached. --SGCM (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely object. No one has elaborated on their initial arguments and the counterarguments are simply being ignored without response. The discussion has barely advanced an inch since coming here. This isn't about a straight up or down vote. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. DRN is an informal noticeboard, and participation is not mandatory. Consensus is about the quality of arguments, and so far, the strongest argument has been TransporterMan's point about BLP. BLP policy does apply here, particularly Wikipedia:BLP#Due weight, regardless of the subject's actual role in the company..--SGCM (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ten bad arguments don't add up to a good argument. Wikipedia:BLP#Due weight states: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." In this case, criticism (the FDA action) was sourced to a reliable secondary source (and the primary source) and presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. It was not given disproportionate space, nor was it a "viewpoint" (it was a fact) of a minority, tiny or otherwise. It was also logically/thematically connected to an identical FDA action against VanderSloot's previous company, which has is mentioned in the article and has never been contested. The article also includes relatively trivial details about Melaleuca's awards and philanthropy, which are attributed to VanderSloot personally. Including these details without the FDA letter would be a violation of undue weight. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments failed to get support at the article talk page, and failed to get any backing at BLP/N. They have not attracted support here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would concur in closing this discussion as "Resolved. Consensus for removal of the paragraph." Being part of that consensus, however, I would prefer that SGCM or some other uninvolved volunteer make an independent evaluation of whether that is the right thing to do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has no interest in American politics, this is my opinion so far: BLP policy requires that controversies must be widely covered by the media. For public figures, "if you cannot find multiple [emphasis not mine, from the original text] reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Unlike the incident that was covered by the Idaho Statesman article, the warning letter has been mentioned in only a single source so far (a Google News search indicates that there are unlikely to be others). The source, based from what I've read of the available summary, does not seem to focus on VanderSloot's involvement, unlike the Idaho Statesman article. I understand Rhode Island Red's argument that VlanderSloot is a controversial figure because of his involvement in Mitt Romney's campaign, but as an uninvolved editor and based on BLP, I concur with TransporterMan's assessment.--SGCM (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have found several more references that refer to the FDA's actions. I'll have those posted by the end of day. BTW, what I said previously was merely that he is "a controversial and polarizing" figure, not that he is a controversial figure "because of his involvement in Mitt Romney's campaign". The reason he's a controversial figure is because of the attack ads he bought against political foes, his actions regarding hot-button LGBT issues (like prop 8, billboards against a TV program about homosexuality in the schools, and outing of a gay reporter), and his involvement in questionable business practices that have landed him in hot water with the FDA and FTC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I'm not familiar with American politics, but my point is that the subject, known for his conservative stances, is controversial, and as a BLP about a controversial public figure, caution is required when handling the page. This applies to controversial liberal public figures as well, and indeed, all public figures. Providing more references may help, and the incident must be demonstrated as noteworthy, otherwise BLP discourages its inclusion.--SGCM (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The argument for removal now rests solely on the charge that the information about the FDA is given undue weight; i.e.:

• “The warning letter has been mentioned in only a single source so far (a Google News search indicates that there are unlikely to be others).”

That cursory Google search attempt (i.e., restricted to articles from 1997-2000 and not including the term “FDA”) does not prove absence of evidence, and furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The underlying argument, however, is easily addressed. There are in fact several additional reliable sources that refer to VanderSloot’s run-ins with the FDA, so the charge about undue weight and lack of multiple sources does not hold up. The following reliable sources all referred to VanderSloot’s run-in with the FDA during the Melaleuca Inc-era (and note that these were not general articles about his company but were about VanderSloot specifically).

• ”Not everyone has been so admiring of Melaleuca's business practices: The "wellness company" has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations.”[57]
• “The Food and Drug Administration previously accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements.”[58]

• ”The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid."[59]

• “Dickinson claims that what VanderSloot specifically seeks are, “Fewer consumer protections. The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making ‘false and misleading’ claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to ‘not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[60]

In addition, as I mentioned before, the details about VanderSloot’s run-ins with the FDA over misleading advertising during the Melaleuca, Inc. era are especially significant given that this is exactly the same thing that led to the closure of VanderSloot’s previous company Oil of Melaleuca, Inc. Immediately following the closure, the company was reincarnated as Melaleuca, Inc., and VanderSloot again had the same problems with the FDA over illegal/misleading advertising. The following are relevant quotes from WP:RS:

• “VanderSloot says the company was a mess. A supposed 80 percent corner on the tea tree market turned out to be 5 percent. The FDA came knocking, because salespeople were exaggerating medical claims.”[61]
• ”On his first day as president and CEO at Oil of Melaleuca, Frank VanderSloot told salespeople to stop distributing a tape about company products because the tape had too many false claims. On his third day, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration agent showed up at VanderSloot's Idaho Falls office. The agent said he planned to shut down the company for false advertising, and would seize the building.”[62]

• (Quoting VanderSloot indirectly referring to run-ins over misleading advertising claims with Oil of Melaleuca): “We had all kinds of other problems as well. A lot of our distributors were making claims in regard to what melaleuca oil could do that were not substantiated with good science."[63]

VanderSloot’s FDA run-ins with Oil of Melaleuca are also described in detail in this puff-piece autobiography (heavily skewed POV mind you).[64][65]

It also bears repeating that the key phrase about VanderSloot’s FDA run-in mentioned in the WP bio is not “contentious” in any way – it is an indisputable fact, as indicated by the primary source (the FDAs warning itself) and a rock-solid secondary source (The Tan Sheet).

The documentation provided above easily satisfies WP policy on public figures (WP:WELLKNOWN), which states:

“In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.”

The FDA issues are just the tip of the iceberg too. There are also numerous reliable sources that have provided in-depth coverage questioning the legitimacy of VanderSloot's business practices in other areas, charging that it is essentially a pyramid scheme. We can save that discussion for another day, but just be advised that there are several other significant controversies about VanderSloot's business practices that have been covered by multiple sources and would therefore also satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The topic at hand is the 1997 letter, hence the restrictiveness of the cursory Google search. A more general statement on VanderSloot and Melaleuca's business practices may be warranted as per BLP, but that doesn't address the inclusion of the letter. I have no comment on the other controversies that the subject has been involved in, other than to say that, like you, I'm personally sceptical of supplement claims and MLM (see my stance on the Monavie DRN). A discussion on replacing the current paragraph with something more general could work as a compromise between the involved parties. Hopefully, more fellow volunteers will weigh in.--SGCM (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we're headed in the right direction. I appreciate your effort and patience. I too think that some sort of a compromise could be reached, and more input from outside editors would be helpful. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sigmund Freud#Science_section

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Esterson on 18:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sigmund Freud#Science section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Esterson (talk · contribs)
• Almanacer (talk · contribs)
• Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs)
• Bus stop (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two editors, namely me [Esterson] and Polisher of Cobwebs, believe the Freud page is already over-extensive [some 13,000 words, compared with, e.g., Einstein 8000 words], and PoC has proposed that the lengthy "Legacy" section (mostly posted by himself in the past) should be reduced in size (at the moment the debate has concentrated on the Science section). In contrast Almanacer argues for the article/Science section to be "improved" (begging the question of what constitutes improvement), and over recent weeks has posted or proposed some extra items, all conducive to his own strongly-held viewpoint on Freud. When I pointed out that for every item he has posted/proposed I can reference a viewpoint contrary to the one he is keen to promote (and indeed could do the same in relation to some items already on the Freud page), he has responded by saying there is no objection to my doing that. My view is that this process can only lead to an already overlong page increasing almost indefinitely, and that the increased posting of contrary views in this way only cancel each other out. This dispute has been going on for many weeks as the Science section on the Freud Talk page indicates (now separated into five subsections to keep it manageable!). The latest stage can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigmund_Freud#Science_section - though I strongly advise any editor who wants to gen up on the dispute while remaining sane to skip entirely the first four sections, and skim over section 5 down to the last half a dozen or so postings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None other than weeks of exchanges on the Freud Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By getting the views of other editors

Opening comments by Almanacer

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 Polisher of Cobwebs

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.

Although, as Esterson says, the Freud article's Legacy section is largely my work, I believe myself that it is too long. At present there is no agreement on whether or how the legacy section should be cut back. This, although frustrating, is not a surprising or a very unusual situation. I am not sure that it is going to be resolved soon, and I am not sure either that this discussion is going to be much help, frankly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bus stop

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.

There is not a big issue here. It doesn't matter if Freud's work was "scientific" or not. The reader deserves to know the variety of positions on that question. This isn't primarily an NPOV issue. If the article is getting lengthy it should be trimmed back in places where editorial objection is not encountered and where your own inclinations lead you to believe that less text would not overly harm the article. I would rather see a lively and jostling exchange from prominent commentators on this question than to read a supposedly "neutral" view. I don't think there is a final answer to the question this dispute supposedly revolves around. I am not sure if there is a dominant opinion. I think it makes for more interesting reading to see the arguments put forth by those who address this question. These are not simple yes or no answers. The individuals addressing this question support their conclusions with reasoning and that is potentially of interest to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Esterson responses

(I hope it is appropriate to have a separate section to respond to the above, rather than mix such comments in with the general discussion below.)

Response to Bus stop: I am not objecting to there being a variety of positions given on the question of Freud's "scientific" credentials. In order to accommodate Almanacer's concerns I myself contributed three sentences referencing three pro-Freud authors arguing that psychoanalysis is a science. But as I have pointed out several times now, one should not expect there to be anything like equal representation for positions on this specific issue, as there have been far more anti-Freud authors writing on this than pro-Freud. On the one hand anti-Freud authors (with major exceptions, such as Grunbaum) tend to place great emphasis on arguing that psychoanalysis is not scientific, whereas this is far less of an issue with pro-Freud authors, many of whom either do not believe psychoanalysis is, in essence, a scientific discipline (and is none the worse for that) or do not regard the issue as of any great importance. Some major supporters of Freud/psychoanalysis have argued that it is wrong to regard psychoanalysis as a science. One such is Louis Breger, professor of psychoanalytic studies at CalTech and founding President of the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis. Notable academics such as Habermas and Ricoeur have argued that psychoanalysis should be regarded as within the field of hermeneutics, i.e., it is an explanatory discourse, not a scientific discipline. The prominent psychoanalytic authors George Klein, Roy Schafer, and Donald Spence have taken an essentially similar approach, arguing that psychoanalysis seeks not "historical truth" but "narrative truth", and they urge the abandonment of claims that psychoanalysis offers objective explanations of human behaviour – rather that its goals are interpretative. Esterson (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to Polisher of Cobwebs: I agree that the dispute over "pruning" the Freud "Legacy" section is not likely to find resolution on this Dispute page, but I think there is a more immediate issue of greater importance. This is Alamancer's determination to remove/add items is accord with his own views on Freud, and to ignore opposition to his specific changes from two editors as expressed on the Talk page. See my comments on this in the general discussion section below. Esterson (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sigmund Freud#Science_section 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.

Comment in general: It seems like you're complaining that the article is too big as it currently stands and makes it unreadable/un-maintainable. It seems like this really isn't a dispute, but looking for advice. My suggestion would be to consider spliting 2 sections off the article (Ideas of Sigmund Freud, Legacy of Sigmund Freud) into their own articles so they can be elaborated upon. Obviously leaving a very high level summary paragraph with a "Main Article" that is typical of split out sections. Obviously we'll see if there are any "disputes" in this, but this way we can let each of the sections expand as appropriate. HasteurMobile (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the actual dispute, but to expand on what Hasteur has said, as per WP:SIZERULE, the general rule of thumb is that articles with over 50 kB of readable prose may need to be divided. These are the current statistics of the page, as of today:

• Prose size (with HTML code): 111 kB
• Wiki markup size: 144 kB
• Prose size (text only): 79 kB

--SGCM (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. It's a bit more than a dispute about excessive length, though I agree with PoC that the Legacy section could do with some pruning. Almanacer is in the process of adding/proposing material (always suppportive of Freud) which increases the length even more, while I have pointed out that for every one of his postings/proposals there are authors who take a different view, and these have every bit as much right to be referenced as his preferred authors. The problem with that, as I see it, is that it is a process that can only lead to more and more expansion of the Freud page virtually indefinitely. (I have also pointed out some other items favourable to Freud in regard to which I could post references to differing views but have previously refrained from doing so because of not wanting to increase the length of the Science section even more.) Esterson (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is also worth pointing out, to understand why PoC and I have concerns over Alamancer's current propensity to post items forwarding his own strong views, that for weeks there was a dispute over his posting a paragraph consisting of five sentences giving details of the views of a favoured author. (No other author's views on the Science page are given more than one sentence, at most.) This was only eventually resolved after I brought it to this Dispute page and with not a single editor supporting his position he finally agreed to relinquish the five sentences for a single one (followed by three other references to authors taking a similar viewpoint that I provided). Esterson (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. To summarise your argument, without commenting on it just yet, your main concern is that too much weight is being given to authors defending Freud's scientific credentials. Although the length of the article is problematic, the length is a consequence of the neutrality dispute. Just so that there are no misunderstandings, is that assessment correct? --SGCM (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite! I think it would be more accurate to say that PoC and I believe that the current balance in the Science section is roughly representative of the balance of views in the literature on the issue of whether psychoanalysis is a science, but Almanacer has argued for what he considers to be more balance. But it would be best, of course, if Almanacer and PoC would express it in their own terms. Esterson (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. So your objections are not to the article as it is, but to Almanacer's proposals to change the article. And you're completely right, it would be best to wait for PoC and Almanacer to comment.--SGCM (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On the Freud Talk Page Almanacer wrote he did not agree with this issue going to the Dispute noticeboard, and evidently has decided not to take part, despite the differing viewpoints being the subject of a huge number of exchanges over several weeks with no resolution in sight. This may reflect the fact that (as already mentioned) when his insistence on maintaining five sentences summarising the views of a favoured author on the Freud page was previously referred to this Dispute page he received no support from other editors.

Since Polisher of Cobwebs has mostly opposed Alamancer's recent postings/proposals, the dispute on the Talk page is unlikely to end. This leaves us with the situation, as he has made clear on the Talk page, that Almanacer is determined to add items to the Freud page in line with his strongly-held views. My position has been that since virtually every issue in relation to Freud is the subject of pro and contra responses in the literature, I shall regard it as legitimate to add references to authors expressing views contrary to those he posts. As these effectively cancel each other out, my view is that it is best not to have an editor actively seeking to pursue the posting of fresh items conducive to his viewpoint on an already very extensive page. However, it seems evident from his Talk page contributions that Almanacer is determined to continue with his current plans, so I shall feel free, where appropriate, to post references to authors taking a different viewpoint to those he cites. Esterson (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Because DRN participation is informal and not mandatory, there's not much that can be done on DRN at this point. If you want to attract more outside editors to the Freud talk page, there are multiple options to consider. You could notify the WP:FT/N and the Psychology Wikiproject. The regulars at FTN are experienced at handling subjects where the scientific basis is disputed, like psychoanalysis. Starting a Wikipedia:Request for comment on the talk page is another alternative.--SGCM (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bus stop. Welcome to DRN. The amount of coverage given to each position in an article is a NPOV issue. There may be a variety of opinions on a topic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should all be represented.--SGCM (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the Science subsection of legacy is the one that needs the most cuts. It is roughly twice as long as it should be. Much of the material is about Adolf Grünbaum, and in my view ought to be transferred to the Grunbaum article. I have proposed adding the relevant material to the Grünbaum article on its talk page (which can be found here, but have had no responses so far. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Response: Polisher of Cobwebs—you say "Although, as Esterson says, the Freud article's Legacy section is largely my work, I believe myself that it is too long"[66] and you say "I believe that the Science subsection of legacy is the one that needs the most cuts. It is roughly twice as long as it should be."[67] How do you reach the conclusion that it is too long? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not, like Esterson, a Freud scholar, I have made some effort to familiarize myself with debates over the scientific value of psychoanalysis, and I consider that I know something about the subject. Based on what I know, I believe that the main pro and con points of view can and should be summarized more briefly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As I anticipated, Almanacer has resumed removing items and adding items in accord with his views on Freud. These changes have already been opposed by me and by Polisher of Cobwebs on the Talk page, and for the moment PoC has reverted them. Judging by previous experience, Alamancer will no doubt revert these reversions, in other words, something like an edit war is in progress, with one editor determined to make changes conducive to his views on Freud. Since Almanacer has stated he did not want the issue to be taken to this Dispute noticeboard, and has thus far taken no part in this discussion, all I can do is ask advice as to the next stage (if any). Esterson (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I only just noticed SGCM's suggestions above, and I shall investigate following them up. Esterson (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Esterson—you say above:

"My view is that this process can only lead to an already overlong page increasing almost indefinitely, and that the increased posting of contrary views in this way only cancel each other out."

and:

"As these effectively cancel each other out, my view is that it is best not to have an editor actively seeking to pursue the posting of fresh items conducive to his viewpoint on an already very extensive page."

I don't think the various observations found in the Science/Legacy section cancel one another out. There are many facets of Freud's work addressed in that section and I don't think they refute one another but rather provide perspectives or opinions on various aspects of Freud's work. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Prosimetrum

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Elvenscout742 on 11:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Prosimetrum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elvenscout742 (talk · contribs)
• Deor (talk · contribs)
• Bagworm (talk · contribs)
• Tristan noir (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article until very recently consisted of a one-sentence definition and a list of "examples". The article defined "prosimetrum" as a text that consisted of alternating passages of prose and poetry.[68] Two editors started expanding the list, based on the overly generic criterion of "it contains both poetry and prose".[69] When I asked the two editors to cite sources[70], they presented sources that simply stated that fact, without ever using the term "prosimetrum".[71] When I pointed out the fact that this is basically original research, and Wikipedia should not unilaterally apply rare terminology to literary works, I met with a personal attack from one[72] and my arguments were basically ignored by the other. Reliable sources cite a much more restrictive definition of the term "prosimetrum", and the article is based almost entirely on those sources (no diffs, but the two are Prosimetrum: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, pp. 55-6, and The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, p.1115). I have tried to discuss the issue calmly, but the two editors have a very liberal definition of "original research", and I have thus far got nowhere in the discussion. I therefore would like to bring this dispute to the attention of the Wikipedia community -- WP:OR is pretty clear on this issue. If no reliable sources use a term in reference to certain works, it is OR for Wikipedia to apply the term, whether or not it is accurate (also, in most cases, it is not). elvenscout742 (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried extensively to discuss the issue on Talk:Prosimetrum, with little success.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an objective opinion as to whether the issue at stake is OR or not.

Opening comments by Deor

I've decided to walk away from this article, at least for now. Though the term prosimetrum has apparently been adopted (fairly recently) to describe a variety of works from various cultures, it has traditionally been used principally in the study of ancient and medieval European—and specifically Latin—literature. The dispute that's occurring now is the result of the arrival at the article of several editors whose main interests seem to be in Japanese and other Eastern works; this is a topic of which I have little knowledge, and I fear that the article is likely to lose focus as a result. I basically agree with Elvenscout742's position on OR in the article, and I've said so on the article's talk page, but I'm not inclined to argue further about the matter there. If I think that I have anything useful to contribute to the discussion here, I will, however, do so. Deor (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bagworm

Editor Deor has been reluctant to admit that any non-European works might be included in the term prosimetrum (cf. his reversion of my edit here) despite the fact that Prosimetrum: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, a book which has been in the Further reading section since the article was created, (largely viewable online here) deals with work from a global variety of backgrounds including Japanese, Indian, and Chinese.

Elvenscout742 accepts here the broadly-held definition that "any work that combines poetry and prose is prosimetrum", which usage is easily confirmed by a search on prosimetric at JSTOR here. Yet Elvenscout insists, against all logic, that including a work combining poetry and prose in the prosimetrum article is OR unless a citation is found applying that actual term. It is my contention that this flies in the face of common sense.

If we accept that prosimetrum is "any work that combines poetry and prose" (as Elvenscout has done), then it is entirely illogical to refuse to accept the converse, that any work that combines poetry and prose is prosimetrum.

Opening comments by Tristan noir

My view of the dispute is ably summarized above by Editor Bagworm. I will therefore keep my comments to a minimum. Editor Elvenscout742 accurately reports that The article until very recently consisted of a one-sentence definition and a list of "examples". The expanded opening paragraph and the paragraph on “History” are largely additions by Bagworm and Deor. Neither editor has added anything therein that might be characterized as tendentious or that might fairly be construed as OR. Their additions, in fact, are positive first steps in improving an article that all present participating editors, on the article’s Talk Page, agreed to be short on explanation. The article currently offers two brief definitions of prosimetrum as a text that is: 1) “made up of alternating passages of prose and verse,” (from the Princeton Encyclopedia, p. 1115), and 2) “the mixed form . . . when a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose” (from Peter Dronke, p. 2). I do not see how these common definitions of prosimetrum are in conflict. If a sample text is as simple as one paragraph of prose that is followed by one short verse, it is a text that has alternated from one mode of writing to the other and, simultaneously, it is a text in which “a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose.” But I mention this because Elvenscout742, above, asserts that Reliable sources cite a much more restrictive definition of the term "prosimetrum” and, on the article’s Talk Page here, has attempted to interpret the above definitions as somehow in conflict. If a reliable source provides a “much more restrictive definition,” then Elvenscout742 should cite that source and, of course, balance that citation against the many less restrictive definitions available from other reliable sources. In fact, I inquired on the Talk Page here if any editor could advance a “more restrictive definition,” but Elvenscout742 has yet to offer such a citation.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Prosimetrum 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. With Deor's withdrawal from the article, is there still a dispute here which needs attention in this forum? The opening statements, above, suggest that there might not be one, though perhaps I've misread or misunderstood them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the other users remaining in this dispute continue to assert that we don't need a reliable source to include an item in the list of examples, and at least one such unattested item (Izumi Shikibu Nikki) is still in the article. The dispute over whether or not a more restrictive definition exists seems to have been resolved (in my favour), but whether or not the unilateral application of terminology qualifies as OR is still under dispute. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The main dispute, as I see it, is whether (1) classifying a literary work as an example of a prosimetrum requires that a reliable source explicitly call it a prosimetrum—which is basically my and Elvenscout's position—or (2) editors can call works examples of prosimetra on the basis of the works' satisfying a definition of the term (and, as an ancillary matter, what definition of the term is to be used). Given the ongoing back-and-forth on the article's talk page, I'd say that the dispute is definitely not yet resolved. My withdrawal from making substantive edits to the article itself should not be interpreted as my not disputing certain changes that have been made to it—I just have no interest in getting involved in the repeated reverts and possible slanting of sources currently going on there. Deor (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello TransporterMan. I'm sorry to report that nothing has been resolved. A read-though at the article's talk page will confirm that Elvenscout742 is being less than accurate in saying, "the other users remaining in this dispute continue to assert that we don't need a reliable source to include an item in the list of examples". No-one is making such an assertion. The nub of the content dispute is quite straightforward, though:

A prosimetrum is a literary text combining verse and prose.[1] It is my contention that it follows that a literary text combining verse and prose is therefore a prosimetrum, and a trawl through these 175 JSTOR results should leave no-one in any doubt of it. However, Elvenscut insists that such logic involves WP:SYN, and that before any such work be mentioned in the article, a RS must be found applying the precise term prosimetrum (a relatively rare term) to it, and that otherwise to mention such a text constitutes WP:OR. That is the core of the dispute here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me start by acknowledging that we're all volunteers here at Wikipedia and none of us have to do any more or less than we have to do, so long as we stay within the minimum standards set by policy, but in looking at this article, my first reaction is to ask why it is not being deleted under the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. The citations in the article and a quick Google books check strongly suggest, however, that there may be encyclopedia-like material about prosimetra — perhaps its importance in literature or its history as a distinct literary form or something like that — which could justify the presence of this article in this encyclopedia. But instead you are fighting over how to arrange the deck chairs on this Titanic. Here's my suggestion for solving this dispute: Let's nominate the article for deletion at Articles for Deletion. If it doesn't survive, then voilà: dispute solved. If it survives, spend some time fleshing out the article in an encyclopedic manner and then go back to fighting over this if you must. Look, this article especially in its current state does not need an extensive list of examples. Give a couple of examples which are incontrovertible and move on. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort, TMan. I have to admit to being a little nonplussed by your response. You begin by wondering why the article should not be deleted, but then go on to discover the reasons why it shouldn't. Yet you end up by suggesting it should be AfD'd regardless. Because "then voilà: dispute solved". Well, forgive me for feeling a little underwhelmed by the level of assistance offered in resolving the content dispute. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect we might get help from another volunteer who might be prepared to engage with the actual issue? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello TransporterMan, and thank you for your voluntary effort. I’ll merely record here my agreement with grab what you can’s initial address to you above, viz., that “nothing has been resolved” and that the core of the dispute involves Elvenscout’s insistence that the application of a simple definition (and simple logic based upon the same) somehow transgresses WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. I am dismayed by your initial response above, however. You acknowledge that your quick survey revealed sufficient matter for a worthy article, then propose AfD as a solution, and then offer this advice: “spend some time fleshing out the article in an encyclopedic manner.” This, I believe, is exactly what we have been attempting to do – to flesh out the article – but the current content dispute hinders that progress.Tristan noir (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not application of a simple definition. It's overly liberal application of what is in reality a quite restrictive definition, apparently in order to promote a particular point of view. Deor and I have already pointed out to the two of you numerous times that the term refers to alternating passages of poetry and prose (Brogan), must involve (be a branch of) poetic composition in which the verse portion is a substantial part of the text (Braund, Hugh of Bologne), and it doesn't include historical chronicles that happen to quote pre-existing poems (Ziolkowski). elvenscout742 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither Braund nor Hugh of Bologna address what portion of the mixed form must be verse to qualify as prosimetrum (they do anything but!) while Ziolkowski, in his comment on chronicles, specifies that he is discussing prosimetrum there as defined within the Latin and Romance languages tradition. Ziolkowski, in the self-same passage that you refer to, explicitly acknowledges that prosimetrum was not so defined in other literary traditions, such as Old Norse-Icelandic or early Irish. We've discussed these matters on the talk page and yet you continue to misinterpret or misrepresent these scholars to serve your chosen POV.Tristan noir (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Both Hugh and Braund say that a prosimetrum is a poetic composition. The Kojiki is not a poetic composition. Ziolkowski, who so far appears to be the only reliable secondary source (not an encyclopedia) being cited in this dispute who gives significant coverage to prosimetra, specifically states that historical chronicles that quote old poems are not classified as prosimetra. The fact that no specialists in Japanese literature/history refer to the Kojiki as a "prosimetrum" is evidence of this. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TransporterMan - So what do you suggest we do in the meantime about the chairs? The article as it exists now includes several references that do not use the word "prosimetrum", as a result of this OR dispute. What we really need here is a fourth opinion as to whether it violates WP:SYN to do as TN and Bagworm have done, which is to assert that since A=B+C and D resembles a combination of B and C, we can cite D in a list of examples of A, even though there are no sources that directly state that D=A. Deor and I have argued that OR exists in the article as it is now, and what TN and Bagworm wish to insert more of is also OR. But no one has actually argued that the article itself is nothing but OR, and should be deleted on that basis. On the other hand, your Wikipedia is not a dictionary comment does make sense -- and I am honestly not sure how to address it, since I first came across this term a few weeks ago, and since my specialty is Japanese literature (where the term is never used), I don't really know all that much about its application, apart from the light research involved in this dispute. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A note of simple clarification to correct Elvenscout’s hyperbole above. He states, The article as it exists now includes several references that do not use the word "prosimetrum". The emphasis upon “several” is mine. The only reference now included in the article that does not have a direct citation which employs the term prosimetrum is that of Izumi Shikibu Nikki in the list of examples. E. might wish to add that of Grettis saga, though the context of its RS as a whole is prosimetrum, as thoroughly explained by the author in her introduction. If there are “several” more examples, E. should be willing and able to cite them.Tristan noir (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Hyperbole" is an irrelevant personal attack. My use of the word "several" was with reference to the Izumi Shikibu Diary (entirely unattested) and the Kojiki (practically unattested, but you and Bagworm continue to try to put into the article). PLEASE STOP RESORTING TO PERSONAL ATTACKS AND SPAM IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. You are cluttering up this discussion with irrelevant arguments, as you have done elsewhere 1 2 3, and it makes dispute resolution very difficult. We are here trying to establish whether what you and Bagworm are doing is WP:OR or not. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Single-payer/healthcare polls

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by CartoonDiablo on 14:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are two main issues: first, whether the polls in the public opinion sections are "single-payer" polls (as opposed to polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare") and second, whether or not to use the table for the polls. (Here's the table in question.)

I'm of the opinion that they are single-payer polls as illustrated by six different sources (among them The Washington Post and NPR) that say as much, and I think a chart would be the best layout for the polls.

We went to DRN previously and there is a NPOV dispute currently that's related but about a different issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page. Previous discussion.

How do you think we can help?

By deciding whether: (1) These are single-payer polls (2) A chart should be used for the section(s).

Opening comments by Thargor Orlando

This is premature as it's already at the NPOV noticeboard awaiting comment. Forum shopping is what it is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by North8000

The article has severe POV problems (doesn't even have poll data on the main law concerning this) but this particular "dispute" (or at least what I know of it) is on a minor side-issue (format for presenting the cherry picked data) where I did only one edit. Limited to that trivial side-issue, it would be a waste of time. But it has been a case of extremely bad behavior, including a 100% found-baseless sock accusation against me. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Scjessey

I do not see a need for dispute resolution at this point. I think WP:3O and WP:RFC are earlier steps we have yet to pass through. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States, United States National Health Care Act 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 related issue discussed in NPOV noticeboard that was moved:

We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article ([73] [74]) as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo ([75]). Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" ([76]) and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table ([77]), creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.

Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling it a push poll on article talk pages and edit summaries because it is a push poll. It is obvious from the wording, and implicitly obvious because of the skewed result it yielded at the time (almost all other polls in the field have yielded results that are more or less the opposite of this one). I have not referred to it as a push poll in any actual article and I have not removed it from any article. There is no NPOV issue with my editing. In contrast (to use the same original research neutral wording as Thargor does in the article), Thargor Orlando acts as an SPA using Wikipedia to push a US-centric, right-wing agenda - something that is more for the auspices of WP:RFC/U than this noticeboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is the NPOV pushing, really. It requires no request for comment, just for the editors in question to follow basic policies and stop POV pushing. Rasmussen does not push poll, and few other polls have yielded an opposite result. This is a fact that you're unwilling to concede, which is why we're here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I am not pushing anything except neutrality. You are trying to take certain articles and impose your personal point-of-view upon them. In this particular case, you are inflating the importance of a single poll that asks a question about single-payer healthcare (after a bunch of other questions asking about Occupy Wall Street protests) and attempting to give it equivalence ("in contrast") with the scores of polls that say the complete opposite. That's as pure an example of POV pushing as I've ever seen, and sadly reflects the bulk of your Wikipedia contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not neutral to mischaracterize a reputable poll as a "push poll," to claim that polls say something they don't. Two questions about Occupy does not make a 9 question poll about it, sorry. You couldn't be more wrong on this, and I look forward to the noticeboard volunteers to look at this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not I am "neutral" (by your definition) on talk pages is irrelevant and of no interest to this noticeboard. All that matters is editing performed in actual articles. In this respect, my actions are beyond question and your own lack of neutrality borders on shocking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well a few things: there is criticism of Rasmussen's polling methods but not in that particular poll. If we used criticism in general and applied it to the one example I think it would be synth since there is no RS criticizing that poll. Personally I think it probably is skewed since it's the only one with a majority opposed but that's not really a basis for removing or commenting on the poll.

That aside, there is another issue in those articles regarding the polling sections. For what seem like obvious POV reasons, North8000 and Thargor Orlando reverted the charts to the earlier prose that they originally disagreed with. I think its obvious the charts were both easier to read and gave more information. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a uninvolved editor that volunteers on the noticeboard. No comment yet on the actual dispute, but as a reminder, the discussion should occur either on DRN or on NPOV/N, not both. One of the two discussions should be closed.--SGCM (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lionel Messi

– New discussion.

Filed by Adnan n2 on 16:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#2nd Discussion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Lionel Messi#a seperate page for statistics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Proposed template (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Adnan n2 (talk · contribs)
• Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)
• Ftj1357 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

few people is messi's page fit some people own opinion and idea something big as that needs people own impression over that . because wikipedia is a collective work.. so its one source for many references not just an own idea of the editors if needed or not . there is a section at messi career and statistics a guy called Mattythewhite tried to remove additional infos before the removal has been over turned by Ftj1357 and had discussion at messi's page and the issue resolved..

but Mattythewhite decided to discuss it away from talk page without mentioning it or inviting people to discuss it, and decided with other 5 people its not needed and decided in next section to change the whole table shape entries (which has been edited by millions as that not just now) which means they are accepting it this way and need this kind of information ... but 5 people voted over it and decided its not suitable without even inviting other people or discussing it in somewhere so people can give their impression and opinion over it .

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i contacted wikipedia customer service & chatted with them and they advised me to go into it here .

How do you think we can help?

leave the referenced tables or make other people vote for it and not like for 1 day give the sometime to over turn and give their opinion at it .

Opening comments by Mattythewhite

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 Ftj1357

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.

Talk:Lionel Messi 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.