The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dear Wikipedia-Editor,
I’m trying to resolve an issue I’m having with the user Espiral in regards to the articles Babak (given name) and Babak Khorramdin (both related to the same point “etymology” of the given name Babak). Based on the work of the renowned Iranologist Richard Frye available on Encyclopædia Iranica, I’ve edited both articles adding the fact that the given name Babak is the modern Persian form of the name Pāpak (or Pābag), which derived from Middle Persian. The link to the article can be found here http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babak-3rd-cent-ruler
I’ve therefore restructured the paragraph and removed the reference to “arabicised”. As per the Wikipedia article, Arabization refers to “a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture and Arab identity.”, which doesn’t apply since Babak (in it’s current form) is a Persian given name only in use in Iran and Azerbaijan and isn’t in use in any Arab country.
Since my changes keep being removed by the user Espiral, who doesn't accept the given sources and since we unfortunately couldn’t come to any agreement via my talk page User talk:Boboszky I would highly appreciate your help to defuse the argument, in order to have objective content on both pages. Many thanks in advance. Boboszky (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
With an unbiased approach on the matter and a detailed review of the given sources, I hope to clear the matter.
Opening comments by Espiral
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.
Babak, Babak Khorramdin 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.
This request will be closed by a DRN volunteer as stale unless someone objects within the next 24 hours after the posting of this notice, and will be closed even then unless Espiral chooses to participate here. There's not much that we can do at DRN unless both parties to the dispute choose to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Henry K. Van Rensselaer and Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The initial by Kraxler's uncontrollable urge to rename articles to fit their world view when it comes to Capitalizing the Dutch Prefix "van" in a surname within a mere 4 days of an article being started I get stuff like: 16:23, 24 December 2012 Kraxler (talk | contribs) m . . (2,341 bytes) (0) . . (Kraxler moved page Hendrick K van Rensselaer to Hendrick K. Van Rensselaer: I expect this to be moved around a bit more, since none of the sources so far mentioned in the article actually state his name...)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer&offset=&limit=500&action=history
If you look in the history you will notice the referenced I used... use both Henry and Hendrick. In addition to the WP:Wikihounding that started when the article was only 4 days old I get snide comments in the edit notes like 15:53, 24 December 2012 Kraxler (talk | contribs) . . (2,392 bytes) (-193) . . (removed irrelevant image, and redundant cats, needs to be moved back, this is NOT the Dutch wikipedia)
Now with scores of pages devoted to redirects for an article it has seeped into the DAB of Henry Van Rensselaer or Henry van Rensselaer (cap variation)
someone seems to think that even AFTER a WP:3O agreeing a DAB should not have one of the listings in bold and separated among other "Henry"'s as IF a Redirect page is a "primary topic"
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 JHunterJInitially
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Please 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.
The discussion will be closed as Kraxler has not participated in any discussion of the article, DRN is not able to delete pages. We can only facilitate discussion, not make binding consensus. ~~Ebe123~~ → report01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Comparison of_file_systems
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Resolved. (I base this on posts left by Bienengasse on the user pages of the listing editor and Enric Naval, as Bienengasse seems to have accepted the revisions/corrections made by Enric and FreeRangeFrog on the talk page in question. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User Bienengasse has made many changes to people's comments on this talk page without anyone's permission to do so.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I reverted with a brief warning in the edit summary field; we discussed the issue on my user talk page; he reverted back to his edited version; I came here for help to avoid a revert-war.
How do you think we can help?
As this is my first time requesting this sort of help, you're probably more familiar with what can be done than I am. The fact that it's not in an article but a talk page for an article complicates things; I imagine you can't just protect a talk page willy-nilly. Ideas needed!
Opening comments by Bienengasse
Comments from my side can be found on the Talk of Atario.
Modifications were done carefully with respect to the contributors and intention of Wikipedia.
Atario arguments with a wordly interpretation of the guidelines, I refer to a corresponding and logical interpretation.--Bienengasse (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Enric Naval
Old threads are archived, not removed. I archived a few to Talk:Comparison of file systems/Archive 1, and I added an archivebox to the talk page. Have a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. (removing old comments without archiving them will be considered vandalism, like FreeRangeFrog did. You can only do that at your own user talk page.).
Questions and requests are not archived as soon as they are answered, they are allowed to age until they are old enough to archive. Some editors are away from the articles for weeks or months, by looking at the talk page they can see what has been happening, and they can provide further answers or fixes.
Now, about "removed disrespectful comments about Reiser". Those are a lot of bad taste jokes about a living person, and none of them relates in any way to improving the encyclopedia. WP:BLP asks us to be careful about the privacy of living individuals, so I have replaced the jokes with a note[1]. I find that replacing with an explanatory note works better than blanking the section. People will see the note and they won't start new sections with the same type of comments.
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.
You NEVER modify annother user's (be it registered or IP) talk page comments. I'd like to suggest that Automated archiving be set up on the page for say discussions that are older than 2 years (730 days) so that truly old/stale discussions get shunted off to the archives where they belong. Also the preferred way of minimizing disruptive threads is by {{hat}}-ing them, not deleting them or modifying them. Hasteur (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
American Psycho (film)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
I'm going to quick-close this one as resolved as the filing editor appears to have accepted that a source is required (as indeed it is, see this policy). Remainder of request is a conduct matter not within the scope of this noticeboard. If new content disputes arise and cannot be resolved by thorough discussion, please feel free to file a new dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
American Psycho was deliberately left ambiguous by Bret Easton Ellis and that air of ambiguity was kept in the film. The article for the book makes this clear and doesn't appear to be in any threat of being changed. This is well-known, established fact for anyone who's bothered to read the book or watch the film, and isn't an opinion. The opinion would be if I or someone else stated what was actually happening when it's ambiguous. However, both TheOldJacobite and Grapple X have repeatedly edited the article to make it look as if it's nothing more than a slasher film with no complexity or interpretive elements whatsoever, and both of them have been unbelievably arrogant and disrespectful of me for trying to make the tone clear in the article. TheOldJacobite went so far as to say it was "rubbish" and that my opinion is "irrelevant", when it isn't about what my opinion is and never has been. Grapple X threatened to ban me for defending the article against his own edit war. Both of these people have shown a mob mentality against me, presumably because they think their status as regular article moderators makes them immune from mistakes, and neither of them are doing this from a position of actually knowing anything about American Psycho. They're reverting it for the sake of it, using the 'unsourced' argument as a crutch despite the fact that many other things in the article are similarly unsourced.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I started a discussion on the talk page, and was resultantly insulted by TheOldJacobite who once again refused to get the point.
How do you think we can help?
You could start by making it clear to them that threatening other users and undermining them isn't acceptable for Wikipedia moderators. Then, you can take a look at the phrasing of the article - perhaps comparing it to the article on the book and on the character of Patrick Bateman - and decide for yourselves if it requires sourcing.
Opening comments by TheOldJacobite
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 Grapple X
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.
American Psycho (film) 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
talk:Paul Krugman
Latest comment: 11 years ago102 comments12 people in discussion
Failed. Editing warring on both sides has resulted in both sides believing the "no consensus" result means the content should go or stay. Last bold edit was to remove the content. 3RR exceeded and content should be returned per policies. Article has been locked until January 20, 2013. Little movement in dispute. Suggest Article probation and general sanctions for further edit warring. Recommend arbitration for conduct issues and formal mediation for content disputes. Amadscientist (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I call to your attention a discussion of a reverted edit that is occurring at [1]
The edit in question was reverted [2] "... The trillion dollar coin is a joke (albeit with a serious point). Not suitable for inclusion."
Un-revered [3] with the reason "Krugman's not joking -- He describes the coin issuance as part of "most important fiscal policy debate of our lifetimes". Shouldn't we take him at his word?"
And again reverted [4] with the reason "oh for chrissake, he is too joking. He's using a joke to make a serious point. A point which has nothing to do with the existence of a trill $ coin but with the stupidity of the current budget process."
Much subsequent discussion occurred on whether Dr. Krugman was "joking".
Extensive discussion at Talk:Paul Krugman, added supporting citation.
How do you think we can help?
Would you(s) have a look at the talk page discussion [1] and assess whether the "joking" claim has/has not been sustained?
Opening comments by Volunteer Marek
You know, whether or not Krugman is actually "joking" or "half-joking" or "using a joke to make a serious point" or "being serious about something that is absurd" or whatever, is completely beside the point and irrelevant. What matters is that:
1. Putting in "Krugman supports the trillion dollar coin" into the article without explaining that this "support" is meant to highlight a problem with how fiscal policy is conducted in US completely misses the point, misinforms the reader and is... I'm not sure how to put it politely, but it's someone basically unable to understand the actual gist of something beyond it's very literal meaning. It's as if I said "I'm feeling blue today" and someone responded with a straight face "Of course you do not feel blue, it is impossible to feel like a color and besides you are your usual pinkish color". At that point you start wondering about the person's competence.
2. Krugman has written more than 750 columns for NY Times. Let's generously assume that half of them are throw away columns or repetitive. That means that in 375 of them Krugman has supported some position or other, made some point or other, commented on one policy issue or another. And since he writes about the top economic issues of the day, pretty much all of these 375 supports or columns are going to be on something "notable". The deficit, the fed, taxes, trade, etc. And because is he is one of the most widely read columnists, there will be a lot of secondary sources in blogs and other venues about "what Krugman said about X". Still, that doesn't mean we need to include all 375 comments or columns in his article. That would be ridiculous. So what is needed here is a demonstration that THIS particular column is somehow unique, way way more important than others, will be talked about for years to come, and is thus especially worthy of inclusion. That has not been done.
More generally, arguing over this seems like a total waste of time, though unfortunately "wasting other people's time until they give up" is a standard POV pushing tactic on Wikipedia. So: yawn.Volunteer Marek02:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Revised remarks: As I said in my original (slightly too long) response, the bias issues in this article go well beyond this one issue, and they cannot be solved by picking at the inclusion of any specific issue. The needs to make evident that criticism of Krugman is largely intradisciplinary rivalry between competing schools of economics, and the pretense that there is a consensus position against which his views can be judged needs to be abandoned. Therefore I don't think there is much point to participation in this DRV, because whatever we fix about this isn't really going to help the article much. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Arzel
That Krugman was 'joking' is clearly the opinion of editors and not backed up by any sources. The issue itself has garnered press and the topic has its own article as well. I don't see how Krugman's view on the issue is irrelevant to his article and consider the 'joking' argument to be somewhat spurious. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Sphilbrick
Oppose inclusion here I don't think Krugman's commentary on the coin belongs in the article. While there is enough coverage in RS to justify existence of Trillion dollar coin, and editors may or may not decide that Krugman's comments belong there, this "issue" is too minor for inclusion in the Krugman article. As someone else noted, we wouldn't list every single item that Krugman discusses in his regular column, and this one is far less significant than many items he discusses.
Support coverage elsewhere Wikipedia's coverage of serious economic and financial issues is woefully bad. To the extent that coverage exists, it is stronger on populist claptrap, such as Trillion dollar coin. I do not argue against coverage of populist claptrap, for the same reason I don't try to fight the tides. But we don't have to let that inevitability pollute articles about serious economists, just because those serious economists sometimes venture into partisan rantings. By all means, there should be acknowledgement of that role, but that doesn't require discussion of every single utterance. There's a place for Krugman's commentary on the coin, it is Trillion dollar coin. Let's keep the article about the individual as a comprehensive biography, but not a play-by-play. Krugman's recent column on Japanese Policy is a perfect example. 100 years from now, historians will look at Japanese fiscal policy as far more important than the coin. In addition, this is Krugman's strength. His knowledge of this issue is why he has a Nobel prize. Yet Wikipedia barely covers Japanese fiscal policy at all, and I see no coverage of Krugman's latest thoughts on the subject. I grant that is a large hill to climb, but we don't have to make it worse by cluttering his article with discussion of his ruminations on the coin.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Endorse this view This is almost exactly correct. I would endorse this (and Marek's above), as the correct view of this situation. LK (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
talk:Paul Krugman discussion
Hello, I'm Amadscientist, a volunteer here at DR/N. I will review the dispute and see if there is anthing new I can add. While I am reading through the dispute, if anyone feels they have a compromise, that everyone can live with please feel free to post it here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I am the editor who initiated this dispute resolution. I have not participated in the dispute resolution process before, so I hope my unfamiliarty does not cause me the act improperly. The questions I ask below aren't, in a strict sense a suggested "compromise", but are clarifying questions.
To what extent is this a discussion of a specific edit, [2] and the edit's removal claiming that Dr. Krugman is "joking"? This the specific issue that I had in mind when I filed the RfC.
To what extent is this discussion, as asserted by User:Mangoe, above, "[t]he scope of conflict is wider than this single issue"? I infer, from User:Mangoe statements above, that he is making an unstated claim of [[Wikipedia:NPOV. True? If that is true I ask that he explicitly make the claim. Deicas (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
If this discussion touches on POV claims on an article-level there are other editors that should be invited to participate. And, in any case, I am not statisfied that I invited all potentially interested parties when I entered the RfC for this discussion. How should I proceed.? 11:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs)
Per my questions, just above, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION? Is there someone authoritative involved with this RfC that can answer that question? Who? Or are we participants going to just go off arguing in multiple direction like we were back at [[Talk::Krugman]]? Is there an administrator to whom I should to directly via their talk page? Deicas (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of oversimplifying I think the dispute here is that Krugman's call to mint a trillion dollar coin looks outrageously gimmicky in the eyes of the general public but in the eyes of monetary economists his position on this issue isn't especially surprising or unsound. A decision based purely on the content dispute would support the side just concerned with the latter but arguably that wouldn't really answer those who are more concerned about the former, since they are concerned about the immediate takeaway for the typical reader. To be judged is whose responsibility it is to provide any necessary nuance. In my opinion those concerned about the optics of appearing unserious should be the ones to supply an adjustment since they are the ones who believe an adjustment is necessary but this is largely based on my view at least one of these editors is overly inclined to delete instead of adjust generally. Since a pure conflict dispute is typically beyond the scope of the dispute resolution process, I suggest the person adjudicating may wish to review the general Wikipedia behaviour of the disputants and first make a statement about that behaviour (if neither side is conducting themselves badly then an admonishment of the party who brought to dispute resolution something that shouldn't be expanded beyond RfC may be in order). A statement about how that would apply to the specific example would then follow.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked at what the dispute here involves exactly, but I'm a regular reader of Krugman's columns. My understanding of what he's written in the NYT is that while he considers the 'trillion dollar coin' option to be highly unusual and silly, he thinks that it would be worth pursuing if if a better solution doesn't eventuate given that a silly but effective option is better than what he sees as the disastrous alternative of defaulting on the national debt or the harmful alternative of further cutbacks to spending while the economy remains depressed (especially as he argues that its irresponsible/ethically dubious for Congress to not authorize raising the debt ceiling given that it's previously approved the levels of taxation and expenditure which will make increasing the debt ceiling necessary). My impression from the columns is that he's not joking, and regards the coin option as being legally, ethically and economically sensible if its necessary to avoid these alternatives. As such, it would be reasonable to say that he supports the option as one of the possible solutions, but such a statement would also need to explain his view (eg, that he sees it as a 'least worst' type option in certain circumstances rather than a good idea in its own right). This column sets out his views on the topic (the key passage appears to be "But wouldn’t the coin trick be undignified? Yes, it would — but better to look slightly silly than to let a financial and Constitutional crisis explode", and he then notes several other viable solutions). Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
At the moment there is overlapping discussion on "Endorsement of the potential issuance of a trillion dollar coin" occuring both, here, at the RfC[2] and at [3]. Is there a way to persuade/compel all parties to confine the discussions to the RfC until the RfC is closed? Deicas (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Joking as a revision reason: I'm not clear if anyone is *still* citing "...joking..." as a legitimate reversion reason for removing Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin. If so, please *briefly* assert that claim below and I will attempt to address it. Deicas (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If you read the responses here, you will see that there are indeed editors citing "joking" or at least facetiousness on Krugman's part for disagreeing with the original edit. See my "'Krugman column is a WP:PRIMARY source" comment below for discussion on why the very fact that there is disagreement on what Krugman's real point is, and how he is making it, makes the original edit unacceptable. Zad6820:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I assert that it is the consensus of, all participants in this RfC, that
1) All discussion bearing on or related to the "... joking ..." reversion reason is to henceforth occur in the "Krugman's column is a WP:PRIMARY source" thread below and;
Can we *please* have the "joking" discussion in *one* location? Please?
It is my assessment that the claim of "joking" has been entirely subsumed by the WP:PRIMARY source claim, see below, and further discussion of "joking" here only serves create noise and confusion. Deicas (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant: some of the discussion, above, suggests that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin is insignificant and does not merit inclusion in the article. If that is your assessment the please say it *explicitly* and cite the applicable Wikipedia guideline for non-inclusion. Deicas (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
When Krugman writes a column(s), and then that column's contents/ideas receive many mentions, in many news sources, then that idea is significant in describing Krugman's actions as public intellectual. Deicas (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say that most - hell, let's say ALL - of Krugman's columns are "significant". Wait, make that significant. Because, you know, they're in New York Times and all, and he writes about most important economic issues of the day. So... do we include all 750 of them in the Paul Krugman article? If no, then define "significant".Volunteer Marek01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that the issue under discussion is Krugman's on-going endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin, which has run in at least 3 of Krugman's columns, and the response to same. We are not talking about a single column.
Look at the results of this Google news search: [4] -- there are >1,000 hits on *news* sites. Please look at the number of news site related hits and then tell me that you are seriously asserting that Krugman's endorsement of the idea does not rise to the level of significance of inclusion in Paul Krugman. Are you confusing you personal assessment of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with your stated claim that's it's not significant? Deicas (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Extend text describing Krugman's endorsement: Some of the discussion, above seems to be *not* related to removing Krugman's coin endorsement but instead addresses extending the text that describes Krugman's endorsement. Eg.: Note User:Volunteer_Marek above: "Putting in "Krugman supports the trillion dollar coin" into the article without explaining that this "support" is meant to highlight a problem with how fiscal policy is conducted in US completely misses the point ..."
If my reading of this part of the issue is correct, then the consensus solution would be: "1) Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin stays and; 2) The text describing Krugman's endorsement will be extended and edited until everyone is satisfied with the results. True? Deicas (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that any such consensus has been reached. Volunteer Marek and I have both argued strongly against inclusion. Arzel's position isn't perfectly clear, but I'm guessing support for inclusion. Mangoe supports inclusion, but I suggest the argument is flawed. If we do raw counts, which is not the way to judge consensus, it is two versus two, hardly consensus. If we judge strength of argument, well, I'm biased, because I'm one of the participants, so I like to see someone experienced in judging consensus to make the call. I'll be stunned if such a person concludes consensus in favor of inclusion in the Krugman article at this time. --SPhilbrick(Talk)15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, what Sphilbrick said. My comment was conditional. IF we include the column THEN it should be described accurately. That doesn't mean that, at this point, I support including the column.Volunteer Marek01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick: Your comment, just above, largely bears on "inclusion" of the Krugman quote. Would you please move those sections of your comment to the "Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant" thread above? Deicas (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Article-level POV problem: Some of the issues discussed above seem to address POV claims. Per User:Mangoe: "The scope of conflict is wider than this single issue. The root problem is that there are rival schools of economics ...". This issue would bear on not just the endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin but also the Robert Barro and Edward Prescott quotes, the Enron sector, and other items. If someone wants to make a POV claim then please make it *specifically*, cite the specific offending items, and justify why the inclusion/removal of these items has an POV effect on the article. Note that an individual edit can't be POV, in and of itself, but must have a POV effect on the entire article. Deicas (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't want anyone to think I haven't been reading and looking at all this, but we are not pressed for time. I wanted to ask if the article might not have a few issues? Why is there a controversy section grouping POV bits altogether on a BLP? The Trillion dollar coin issue deserves a mention in my view as encyclopedic and having enough notability to mention but how it is mentioned needs to be reliably sourced and neutrally worded.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't follow that Krugman's views on the coin belong in the article simply because some reliable sources are talking about the coin. That's an argument in support of the existence of the Trillion dollar coin. It doesn't follow that every Tom, Dick and Harry who shares a thought about the issue should have it mentioned in the article about Tom, Dick or Harry. If someone wants to add Krugman's thoughts to that article, go for it. The subject under discussion is whether his views about the coin belong in the article about Krugman.--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick: If you are make an assertion that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion dollar coin does not rise to a level of signifigance sufficent to merit inclusion in Paul Krugman then why are you not saying that in the 'Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant' thread just above? This thread addresses "Article-level POV problem". Deicas (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Krugman's column is a WP:PRIMARY source: This dispute was started over the proposed addition to the article "U.S. economic policies" section the following content:
Krugman endorsed, in his New York Times column, the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin, by the US Treasury via a "legal loophole", as a means to "sidestep" the US debt ceiling.
Using Krugman's own statements from his own column is the use of a WP:PRIMARY source. The Wikipedia policy on the use primary sources is:
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself
The placement of this quote in the article in the "U.S. economic policies" and especially the proposed interpretive summary of the column content ("Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin...") is clearly disallowed by Wikipedia policy. The very fact that this DRN discussion exists is proof that the real meaning and intent of the primary source is too unclear on its face for it to be used this way. The solution is to instead use reliable secondary sources that interpret the meaning of the primary source. Note: I am not convinced either way that the mention of this subject in the BLP article is WP:UNDUE and I'm not commenting on that here, but it would be up to those arguing for its inclusion to come up with some way of assessing due weight, and that is usually done by examining the amount of coverage of this topic found in the reliable sources that cover the subject in general, and secondary or tertiary sources are usually used for this. Zad6817:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
WP-PRIMARY#1: To what degree, above, is the assertion of WP-PRIMARY, a claim that Krugman's NY Times columns, and other writings, can't be cited in Paul Krugman. Is, indeed, User:Zad68, making this claim? Please expand.
WP-PRIMARY#2: To what degree, above, is User:Zad68 making the claim that the text of the edit in dispute "Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin..." does not clearly and correctly follow from the plain text of the cited Krugman columns? True?
WP-PRIMARY#3:To what degree, above is User:Zad68 making the claim that the text of the edit in dispute, "Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin...", is include-able only if a secondary source(s) confirming this interpretation?Deicas (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe all three of these questions were addressed in my original comment. It is now time for us to hear the outside opinions from others at the DRN. Zad6821:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This issue is generating a good deal of coverage as can be seen by a simple search. I think the important aspect to note is that Krugman is the most notable economist to support such a measure. If anything, this issue is growing, and to say that it is undue weight or excessively minor to be included is somewhat hard to accept. It would appear that the major reasons for not including is the view that this is a stupid stunt or perhaps that it makes Krugman look like a wacko if he really believes it is a good idea. Regardless, it is something that Krugman is supporting (even if it is in response to something else he thinks is stupid). To not include a notible issue which, unlike most of Krugman's political rants over the past four years, is actually an economic issue for which he is supposed to be an expert about. To summarize the main reason against appears to be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Arzel: as your comment, just above addresses "Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant" -- would you please move or add the comment to that section? Deicas (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the correct location. There really is no difference between the two. Krugman is the main notable pushing the TDC (joke or not). It should be mentioned in his article along with a link to the TDC article. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
In case that distinction isn't understood, look at the Krugman article itself. It contains an observation by Martin Wolf about Krugman. Someone obviously decided that such commentary was worthy of inclusion in the Krugman article. Yet it is not mentioned in the Martin Wolf article. There is a comment by Krugman about Wolf, but the Wolf comment was deemed to be relevant to the biography of Krugman, but not relevant to the biography of Wolf. In the same way, Krugman's comments about the coin are relevant to that article, but not to his biography. It isn't(yet) that big a deal. It would not be hard to list a dozen observation by Krugman that are more important to his bio, yet not mentioned. I've mentioned one, I'm sure there are more.--SPhilbrick(Talk)18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's another example. Michael Tomasky is quoted in the Krugman article, offering an opinion about Krugman. Yet that comment isn't in the Michael Tomasky biography. This is correct. It is a relevant observation about Krugman, and helps provide an understanding of the punditry's view of Krugman, but it isn't an important aspect of Tomasky's life.--SPhilbrick(Talk)18:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I am sure there is a bunch of other crap that is not in there either, what does any of that have to do with this? I am sure you have read up on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What, exactly, is your problem with including this information, which Krugman seems to have no problem talking about at length, and which has been a pretty big economic story. Seems that the one actual interesting economic policy that Krugman wishes to discuss over the past few years is to be ignored. Why is that? Arzel (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am very familiar with OTHERCRAP... but that isn't my point, so I'll assume I didn't make my point clearly. I gave two examples where I think the handling was correct, not examples of mishandling. To say it more generically. Suppose we have an article on notable PersonX and notable SubjectY. If PersonX comments on SubjectY, we don't in general, conclude that the commentary belongs in both articles. In some cases we will have it in both, but in many cases, the comment by PersonX may be a relevant addition to the article about the subject, while not rising to the level that it is an important aspect of the life of PersonX. That is the most common case, and the case that, IMO, applies here.--SPhilbrick(Talk)22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deicas. You have been making a number of requests to editors that make them (and me) feel you are attempting to direct the discussion. First, this is not a good way to get your point across. Second, this is not an RFC, this is a DR/N filing. Anyone may help resolve the dispute but we ask that we limit the mediation and administration of the filing to one of the listed volunteers. You can help by collaborating with the editors to find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Scope of discussion
The scope of the discussion is limited to the issues related to the dispute and all normal policies and guidelines, with an emphasis on BLP policy. Right now we have a locked article: Paul Krugman and will remain locked until, either the disputes are settled or the time runs out of the clock. But its a long lock. January 20, 2013.
The issues are collaboration, communication and acceptance. To collaborate, the involved editors have to go in to this knowing that everyone may have to accept some amount of the other participants ideas to find some common ground and move forward. If content is the main issue, we should use communication in a way that is brief and informative. Don't talk past each other or at each other.
The main issue is whether or not to include information about the coin. First, lets remember a few unquestionable fact. This is a concept, not an actual coin. It would be a huge coin if it was. This is polictical, economic theory, that simply states the President of the United States could fund the government around the approval of congress using this particular "loophole". This has notability to be in the Krugman article and is neutral information in regards to the figure. The context to Krugman is firm and it can be verified that he made comments on the concept. I believe an issue is editors being able to live with that and how does it get added in prose. But the overall issue is NPOV and discussion problems with centering too much on each other and picking apart each argument back and forth. Stop discussing eacj other. Discuss the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
There have been a number of NPOV/POV claims, bearing on an article-level Paul Krugman issue, asserted above and on [Talk:Krugman]. These NPOV/POV claims effect not just inclusion/removal of the the Trillion Dollar Coin edit but also the inclusion/removal of other items (e.g. the Enron section, the Gary Becker quote, statements by Barro and Prescott, and the comments of the President of Estonia[5]).
If the violation of POV claim is sustained, then most of the issues, above, go away. If the violation of POV claim is rejected, then disposition of individual edit issues can be resolved quicker, quieter, faster, with less dispute.
Resolving the NPOV/POV claims, and the correct treatment of same, is a prerequisite to arriving at a specific disposition of the Trillion Dollar Coin edit and a number of other active disputes. These are disputes that should/must be resolved prior to the scheduled un-protecting of Paul Krugman on 20 January.
I remind all participants, in this discussion, per WP:NPOV, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". Deicas (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Should I have recommended, just above, that the current RfC be put in a hold state and a new RfC - "Resolve claims that Paul Krugman has a POV/NPOV problem" be created, and resolved, prior to continuing with the current RfC? Deicas (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You should be brief in you comments. Brevity is more important in disputes than at any other time. What can you live with Deicas? The information itself and its inclusion is a matter a simple straw poll consensus can decide. What do editors think? Is basic information about Paul Krugman commenting on the Trillion Dollar Coin notable enough for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
If NPOV/POV disputes aren't within the scope of this RfC, then would someone (who) please make an authoritative statement to that effect? Deicas (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am unclear as to User:Amadscientist's meaning just above. Are POV claims *within*, or *not within*, the scope of this RfC? Is a claim of POV a "[c]onduct disputes" issue? Would he please make clear declarative sentences resolving these questions, eg. "POV claims are not within scope of this RfC.", "POV claims are conduct disputes can be submitted to AN/I". Deicas (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Please direct all questions regarding RFC policy to the RFC talkpage or Dispute Resolution talkpage. If you have questions about the DR/N process they can be asked on our talkpage. Please keep this discussion to the dispute at hand. If you continue to disrupt this DR/N case you will be asked to refrain from further comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The information itself and its inclusion is a matter a simple straw poll consensus can decide. What do editors think? Is basic information about Paul Krugman commenting on the Trillion Dollar Coin notable enough for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. It's surprising that although the heart of this dispute seems to be WP:UNDUE nobody has brought forward any numbers to argue it, so I did my own Google Scholar searching and did not find the numbers support the mention of it in this biography, 530 mentions out of 40,700. At Trillion dollar coin, there does seem enough support for a listing of Krugman's name as one of those who has commented on the idea (and it's already in the article). It's possible that the coin idea, which appears to me to be nothing more than a thought experiment, could catch on, and then we'd have to revisit this decision at that time. Zad6805:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Support inclusion of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin in Paul Krugman. It's *so* prominent Google News search produces >1,300 hits including, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and a report from ABC[6]: "Paul Krugman Scolds Jon Stewart for Platinum Trillion Dollar Coin Coverage". Support inclusion of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin in Trillion Dollar Coin. What difference that support makes I'm not sure, Krugman's endorsement of the trillion dollar coin is *already in* Trillion Dollar CoinDeicas (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Support inclusion in both. This odd whitewash of information is quite strange since Krugman himself has made quite the big deal of it as of late. I am still not sure I understand the objection. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're describing the questioning of the inclusion of this on WP:UNDUE grounds as "whitewashing" because it is in no way negative material about Krugman. You yourself have almost repeated the concerns the "oppose" !voters have been raising when you say "has made quite the big deal of it as of late" (emphasis mine)--remember that this article Paul Krugman is a very general and broad biography spanning his whole life and career. Krugman has said lots of things about lots of different economic concepts over his career and there's nothing here to make us think his recent thoughts about the trillion-dollar coin idea are any more notable relative to anything else he's said or written. Zad6815:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly why I am very curious to the strong attempt to keep it out of the article. From an economic theory policy, this is a very interesting aspect of thought. Much has already been written about it. Why is it unsuitable for his article? How is it undue to mention something that is probably one of the things that should be mentioned about Krugmas views on economic policy? The only conclusion I can determine is that some think it is a stupid joke and therefore unworthy of the Krugman, thus the whitewash. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You're still not demonstrating a perspective that is in line with arguing for inclusion in Paul Krugman and instead are arguing for inclusion at Trillion dollar coin (where it already is). See WP:UNDUE for guidance on how to determine whether something like this should be included, and keep in mind that this article is a general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas. Zad6815:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Zad68, just above, asserts that Paul Krugman is a "... general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas".
1) The notion that Paul Krugman isn't about and, by implication, shouldn't include "Krugman's economic ideas" is risible. And silly.
1a) Absent his economic idea, Paul Krugman probably wouldn't meet the WP:NOTE criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
2) If "Krugman's economic ideas" aren't proper to include in Paul Krugman then is User:Zad68 suggesting that we remove mention of "Krugman's economic ideas" from the article? E.g. are sections "New trade theory", "New economic geography", "International finance", "Macroeconomics and fiscal policy", "Free trade") to be removed?
3) I'm not aware that anyone has suggested, as implied above, that an extensive discussion of the trillion dollar coin should be added to Paul Krugman. Could someone please point to this suggestion, if it exists?
4) The proposed addition is: mention of Krugman's endorsement of the idea and; a brief description of his reason for same. Deicas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Good grief, Zad68 never said "Krugman's economic ideas" aren't proper to include in Paul Krugman. Of course they are. Please read more carefully, so you can contribute to the signal, not the noise.--SPhilbrick(Talk)22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick : I take strong exception to your admonition to "Please read more carefully": User:Zad68 wrote: "... this article is a general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas". How does a *careful* reading correctly interpret this statement? Do tell? Deicas (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
In ordinary use of English, "it is not about just X" is a statement supporting material in addition to X, but in no way connotes exclusion of X. Your response inferred that the editor was arguing for exclusion of X. Not at all. Perhaps you missed the word "just". --SPhilbrick(Talk)13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Would [[User:Sphilbrick be so kind as to re-write or parse, User:Zad68's statement from above, that is under dispute: "You're still not demonstrating a perspective that is in line with arguing for inclusion in Paul Krugman and instead are arguing for inclusion at Trillion dollar coin (where it already is). See WP:UNDUE for guidance on how to determine whether something like this should be included, and keep in mind that this article is a general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas." in a manner acceptable to to User:Zad68?
I'm not about to tell you what Zad68 meant, but I will tell you that I thought the statement made sense, and I'll go on to give more detail on how I read it. The article on Krugman is a general biography, so will or can cover his upbringing, and aspects of his professional life. That professional life includes an academic career, which has both teaching aspects and research. In addition, he has served in many capacities on many notable organizations. More recently, he is best know for being a New York Times columnist, writing on political issues, sometime with economic aspects.
The article is not narrowly an article on the economic theories of Krugman. The distinction is that we would expect more depth and breadth of economic issues in the second article. A more general article would hit the high points, but might not go into any detail, or as much detail on some issues.
To use an analogy, if I am contributing to Connecticut Huskies women's basketball and add details about the recent game against Georgetown, it is likely to be removed, even though extensively discussed in sources, because in the context of the entire team history, it wasn't much of an event. In contrast, if I am contributing to 2012–13_Connecticut_Huskies_women's_basketball_team, the game result is very relevant. The exact same game, the exact same extensive references, yet appropriate in one article, but not the other.
An additional complication, which I anticipate will not be universally accepted, is whether the TDC is even an economic issue. The broader issue is economic; issues such as whether the US ought to go further into debt, by how much, and when. But that's not the central issue of the TDC, which is a political ploy to avoid congressional restraint on debt creation. One can have responsible positions on both sides of this issue, but it is a political issue. The creation of additional debt is an economic issue, but whether it is accomplished via congressional agreement or the TDC route is a political choice. I mention this last point, because too many participants are acting as if it is an economic issue. I'll note that calling it a political issue is not an argument that it doesn't belong in Krugman (although it might be an argument for exclusion of an article on the economic theories of Krugman.) The general biography of Krugman properly contains his political views. The question again, is whether this political view is of sufficient import to be recorded in his life's history, or if wp:recentism gives it more importance now than it ultimately deserves. I'll lay odds, and back it up with money if anyone cares, that if the TDC is not carried out, that ten years form now, this issue will not make the top ten of Krugman's ideas. --SPhilbrick(Talk)15:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It might help if you had a good analogy. This is nothing like an individual sporting event. This is a relatively new conceptual and theoretical economic idea being discussed by an economist. If you are going to compare apples to apples it is best to use apples, not oranges. Arzel (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to expand on point (2), where is Wikipedia most likely to have a puffed up, slanted bio? Answer: for someone who has a large fan club. How does the subject's popularity penetrate into the article? By polling the general editing population, in which Krugman enthusiasts are even more overrepresented than the general population by virtue of the number of liberal yuppies around here. Anytime someone cannot come up with a substantive reason for excluding something, there's the reach for Wikipedia:UNDUE weight. That policy says that views should be identified "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" but that of course allows for all sorts of stalling by either changing the scope of what constitutes "published, reliable sources" to whatever serves one's purposes or, even more commonly, combining it with the burden of proof on the party supporting inclusion argument to create a near impossible evidentiary burden for inclusion, since one can't just point to the reliable sources but has to chronicle the entire inventory of reliably sourced material about the subject on all topics and then sort all of that by topic so that one gets comparative weights. If we apply this tactic to the attention the article currently places on Krugman's opinion about the GOP and the "Southern Strategy" (something that has nothing to do with economics, Krugman's area of expertise) would we have Republicans and race relations discussed not just once but twice, with the second time getting its own section? Allowing this sort of relative weighting within the article argument to support the inclusion of something ought to be worth something since the idealized relative weighting within all the external sources standard is extremely impractical in the context of a dispute. Abuse of the "burden of proof for inclusion" principle could be minimized by requiring the party claiming "two wrongs don't make a right" to correct one of the two wrongs before making an issue out of the second.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Support inclusion in Paul Krugman. Besides the fact that Google Scholar is going to be light on 2013 topics since it takes time for work to go from writing to publication in the sources caught by Google Scholar, we'd be deleting the bios for most of the Congressmen if Google Scholar is the standard since few politicians are references for "scholars." The appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources more generally, and on that point this has not just come up in the tabloids. While I have no particular objection to including a mention of Krugman's views in Trillion dollar coin, the topic of that article is not Krugman's views but the legal, political, and economic consequences of minting that coin. Minting the coin would be very similar to quantitative easing which rightly or wrongly is supported by a great many credentialed economists, not just Krugman. SPhilbrick's claim that the coin is "populist claptrap" is simply false, and it's a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia that this falsehood should make its way into this encyclopedia because popular opinion votes it in. The people who have been dismissing the coin as so much claptrap have almost entirely been journalists and bloggers talking about the politics and optics of the coin as opposed anyone who has come up with a serious argument about the economic consequences. You don't have to read very far between the lines of SPhilbrick's claims to see that SPhilbrick wants Krugman's endorsement of the coin excluded from his bio because it makes him look less than "serious." In fact Krugman would look less serious if he failed to endorse the coin on economic grounds since it would amount to flip flopping on a lot of the policy prescriptions he's advocated previously. Editor Marek went and deleted the discussion of the economics of the coin I wrote at Trillion_dollar_coin#Inflation_Risks instead of contributing to that discussion so I have since rewritten it in as indisputable fashion that I can. I challenge Marek, SPhilbrick, and the rest claiming the coin is just a "joke" to identify what's wrong with that paragraph in Trillion Dollar Coin because that paragraph is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that the coin is a gimmick not to be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is adding more than a trillion to its balance sheet in 2013 ANYWAY. It could substitute those plans with the coin and realize the objective of stimulating spending in the economy even more directly than through its current plan which relies on the indirect mechanism of incentivizing lending.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point, but it would have been nice if you had made your argument by only referring to Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, and without assuming bad faith of your fellow editors, making personal attacks, and engaging in original research. Zad6821:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As a start, please read more carefully. You said, in part SPhilbrick, and the rest claiming the coin is just a "joke" . I have not said it is a joke. I have said more than once that debating that point is a distraction.
As for ... to see that SPhilbrick wants Krugman's endorsement of the coin excluded from his bio because... I urge you to avoid assigning motives. Please address issues, not motivations. Especially as you aren't very good at it. (My personal hope is that it is included, but I think that would be bad policy.)
This: SPhilbrick's claim that the coin is "populist claptrap" is simply false, and it's a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia is way off-topic. If you want to have a debate about what's wrong with Wikipedia, I'm there, but not here.
You said The appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources. In a word, no. Reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient.
That doesn't leave much of a policy reason for inclusion. Can you reiterate, using policy, why we should cover it twice? Are you seriously arguing this minor incident is one of the more important aspects of Krugman's career? That would be sad if true, but it isn't true.--SPhilbrick(Talk)21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
What I said was the "appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources more generally." This is not just splitting semantic hairs because truncating your quote of me turns my relative, contrasting statement into an absolute, isolated one. An entirely different thing. Neither did I say that you've claimed "it is a joke" but I did lump you together with those who did because "joke" versus "partisan rant" really is just the same point, which if it's germane must be that Krugman on the coin is not "serious". If that's not the point then just what is the point? What else are we to make of your use of "serious" if not to draw a contrast? The "motive" for claiming undue weight is, in fact, the very issue at hand, because nobody who believes it isn't undue is going to be convinced it is undue just because someone else keeps restating that it's undue. The argument will just go around in circles until the motivation is spelled out. There isn't "much of a policy reason for inclusion" of "Krugman reports that he is a distant relative of conservative journalist David Frum" in the article yet you aren't disputing that, you are disputing this. Why are you not demanding that Krugman's "distant" relation to Frum be deleted on the grounds that it does not constitute "one of the more important aspects of Krugman's career?" The answer to that goes to the heart of this issue, which is whether to mention the coin (once, not "twice"). Last I checked, Krugman's relationship to Frum was not headline news. Meanwhile, ABC News finds noteworthy not just Krugman's position on the coin, but that he criticized Jon Stewart for not taking it seriously: ""Obviously neither he nor his staff did even five minutes of looking at the financial blogs. Lots of people think it’s a bad idea. Lots of people think it’s a good idea. But it’s not just, ‘Oh, those idiots.’"--Brian Dell (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Brian, regarding your statement, "The 'motive' for claiming undue weight is, in fact, the very issue..." No. Or at least, not here at DRN. Look at the top of this page, it says DRN is for content disputes, and here we are to discuss content and not speculate about other editors' motivations. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please make your best case for what you feel is the content change that will best improve the article along Wikipedia policy and guideline, and that's it. If you really feel that there are long-term behavior problems with a particular editor, start a WP:RFCU on that editor. Zad6802:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"Motive" here refers to the rationale for claiming WP:UNDUE here, not to what gets somebody out of bed any given morning. I rejected the WP:UNDUE claim by rejecting the justification behind it and instead of being told, "that's not, in fact, my reason, this is my reason" the "motive" language was introduced in a warning to not speculate about motives. In other words, one side here is advancing an argument and the other side is complaining that the argument is being advanced instead of pointing out what's wrong with it.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
For as much as someone *might* want to agree with User:Bdell555's comments, above, regarding "motive", the constrains of WP:GOODFAITH would constrain any right-thinking Wikipedia editor from *ever* expressing such a thought.
The root of all DRN are actually editor disputes or arguments regarding editor motivations. Content issues in general are covered by exisitng WP policies. Since policy in this case clearly shows that this is something that can be sufficiently added to this article the real dispute is if it should be added. As already stated, there is much in the article that would fail WP:Undue long before this particular issue. With no clearly stated reason for exclusion regarding policy there is little left to wonder. Arzel (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree that so far the argument has been around whether it should be added. (I've pointed out WP:PRIMARY problems with the actual proposed content but we haven't gotten that far yet.) And yes I agree there is clearly WP:OTHERCRAP in the article already, and honestly because of the current poor state of the article, adding more suboptimal content isn't going to make it noticeably worse. However, I'd prefer to see this BLP not have yet another problem added to it, and one possible good result of this DRN could be that it will be used as some sort of standard for content inclusion that gets applied to the article and so the article will get improved. I'm puzzled by "With no clearly stated reason for exclusion regarding policy..." because clearly you've seen arguments based on WP:UNDUE which is indeed policy. Zad6804:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if, just above, Zad68 is claiming WP:UNDUE or he referencing other claims of same, but certainly, above, there have been plenty of claims of WP:UNDUE.
With a view toward efficiently addressing WP:UNDUE claim(s): I propose that a new section be added to the RfC in which we can make and dispute WP:UNDUEonly.
At the moment we're in a section that started for "Scope of discussion",then became a place for voting, and then became a place for argumentation. This vast block of text is getting confusing. Deicas (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
DR/N is an organic process and allows for discussion by editors, even in a straw poll. The poll does not limit discussion but attempts to help move it. It has successfully achieved its goal of determining if there is a consensus for inclusion of the material. There is not. Per Wikipedia:Consensus - No consensus(Bolding by this editor):
No consensus
Some discussions result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:
In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist - January 14, 2013
I note the No Consensus text block above, added by, [User:Amadscientist]], and his comment "... successfully achieved its goal of determining if there is a consensus for inclusion of the material. There is not. Per Wikipedia:Consensus".
Does this mean that this RfC is done/finished/completed with a big stamp of "No Consensus"? I note that at [7] this RfC shows a status of "Open".
Or does the No Consensus text block mean that, if we disputants can't come to an agreement, *then* the RfC gets the big stamp of "No Consensus"?
I apologize for my confusion, this is the first DRN RfC I've been a part of. 09:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs)
I am going to try one last time to explain this Deicas. This is not an RFC. An RFC is a "Request for comment". There is a specific process to create an RFC and close it. They are not done on the DR/N venue. They are seperate venues and cannot be done simultaneously. A straw poll is simply a manner to see the consensus of a certain issues within the dispute. It does not mean the dispute is over or closed. When the dispute has run its course and the volunteer believes all available routes have been exhuausted they may then close the filing if they wish. I ahve not closed the DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist, that was me who refactored the "No consensus" quote, not Deicas. I'm really sorry, honestly, you found it disruptive. The original formatting ended up breaking the threaded flow of the conversation and left the top part of your message looking like it was unsigned, and it took me a minute to figure out who had posted what and in reply to what, and I thought I was helping by "improving the clarity and readability of a page." If it had the opposite effect, again, I apologize and will simply ask next time. Zad6821:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
If the final outcome of a consensus discussion is "No consensus" (as it apears the above is showing} then the material stays. If this holds, we must then determine how the material is to be presented in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
Whoa, wait a minute... This is a discussion of a proposal to add new content to the article. Right now the proposed content is not in the article, and this DRN discussion is regarding whether (and, if so, how) to include the proposed content "Krugman endorsed, in his New York Times column, the potential issuance..." sourced as described above. My reading of the straw poll is that there is no clear consensus to include, and per WP:CONSENSUS the proposed content won't be added to the article. Zad6813:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not a continuation of the talk page discussion of the proposal. The content was added then reverted and discussion began and edit warring insued. BRD has been exceeded. This is a deletion dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I fear that *whatever* the abigously stated conclusion is, above, about the disposition (ie. include or exclude) of the *specific* edit in dispute, the constant disputes about the editing of the Krugman article will not be *resolvable* without of first resolving the POV/NPOV issues/claims.
As Paul Krugman is scheduled to be un-writelocked on 20 January, I admit bafflement on how all the items in dispute can be resolved by that time. Can someone more familiar with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process cast some light on this matter? Deicas (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no specific DR path one MUST take. In fact, you could have used the NPOV/N before you came here or made an ACTUAL RFC on the article talkpage. I am afraid this article is on a path to article probation.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
What we are supposed to do is, after the article is unlocked, we do not add the content, and instead we continue to discuss it like adults until there is clear consensus to include, or it is obvious that there is no consensus to include. We then either add the content or we don't, and then we go work on other things. Zad6816:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Zad68. The boilerplate isn't exactly a model of clarity, but the phrase:retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit sounds clear. This isn't long-standing material that was boldly removed, in which case a No Consensus might imply restoration, this is recent material, with a proposal to add it. There is no way the boilerplate can be construed to mean material should be added. Note that the boilerplate offers no advice on how to determine which wording should be added. It doesn't need to. If the material was long-standing, and removed, a No Consensus determination and restoration doesn't need to identify the wording, it has been there for along time. --SPhilbrick(Talk)16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The prior version was inclusion. The DRN is because you don't have a policy reason for non-inclusion, which is why it was brought here. More simply, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is locked and one can clearly see that it was locked due to edit warring. The last edit removed the content[8]. THAT was the bold edit. The proposal was already made on the article talkpage. This dispute is over the edit warring of the content in and out. Wikipedia:Consensus is clear. The strawpoll simply determined whether or not there is a consensus for its inclusion or its exclusion. --Amadscientist (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the pre-dispute version was not inclusion as stated above. The perspective that this is a deletion discussion does not seem to be in agreement with the actual article history. The mention of the trillion dollar coin was never in the article until it was first added 23:14, 9 January 2013 by Deicas here, and then it was immediately removed, put back, removed, and then the whole article was rolled back to "25 Dec before all this started" by the full-protecting admin while an argument about the coin content was ongoing on the Talk page. The initial adding of the content on 23:14, 9 January 2013 was the "bold edit" which never had consensus and was reverted and discussed, so the previous status quo was with the proposed content excluded. That is why this should be a DRN discussion about adding the proposed new content. Zad6800:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me try to make you understand. This filing was made AFTER the content became disputed with edit warring. Again, BRD has been exceeded and you now have a deletion Dispute. IF this filing had been made when the proposal was still being discussed before edit warring, THEN you would have had a discussion about the proposal. It is far too late for that now. There is no consensus for the deletion that was made when this case was filed. If editors refuse to accept that much of what has been discussed I am inclined to close this dispute as "failed" and recommend formal mediation, however the fact is, the BLP article is sufferring greatly from editor behavior and edit warring so, if this DR/N fails I will also be recommending Arbitration for conduct issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist, if this is indeed how DRN works even for BLP content disputes, this is very surprising to me, so I hope you'll forgive me for not getting it before. In this case, the process as you're describing it appears to go directly against this part of WP:CONSENSUS#No_consensus that unfortunately wasn't highlighted earlier: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Zad6805:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This is how DR/N works. I open the discussion and introduce myself. I then make a suggstion to engage the editors to begin discussion. If the editors begin discussion, I step back and let the participants engage each other with civil discussion. If nothing moves forward I step in, give my opinion on the issue and attempt to move the discussion towards a resolution to the filed case, regardless of how serious other problems are, while attempting to adress other similar issues that may be a part of the dispute. We can't move past the filed case, so we can't resolve, or attempt to resolve any other issue. I know this has the potential to be a bad situation. If this can't be resolved here I recommend the next step. My recomendations are as informal as the noticeboard, but after seeing a number of disputes like this bounce back and forth amung AN/I, AN, RS/N, NPOV/N and back, sometimes it is best to simply tell the editors that this may be more than everyone can achieve at this venue and that a more formal approach may be needed. Doesn't mean anyone will listen, but that is our job. This is the central access to the DR process. If everything were falling apart and the discussion was out of hand and the article was opened and edit warring was continuing I would start a Community Santions discussion on AN/I, list the issues on the article, the edit warring and the editors involved etc. But it isn't that serious, so if I close I will recommend that the content dispute continue to the next appropriate venue which, in this case, seems to be formal mediation to make whatever decision is decided on stick, and suggest arbitration is the next route for conduct disputes. I would then also recommend Article probation, all written in my closing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate what Zad said above "Whoa". The text above clearly states: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. The bold edit was the addition of the info on the coin. Hence, if there's no consensus then the result defaults to the no-coin version (prior to the bold edit, or prior to the proposal). I have no idea how you're getting exactly the opposite conclusion Amadscientist. I seriously doubt that "this is how DR/N" works, since it clearly contradicts the text above.Volunteer Marek19:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And the contention that this is a "deletion" discussion is ... silly. Note that the word "deletion" above links to Wikipedia:Deletion policy which deals with how pages are deleted (The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. ). It does not link to or discuss how a tid bit of text is "deleted". In fact that's not a "deletion", it's a simple removal. And the text above clearly includes that: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles". The idea that this has become a deletion discussion is a bizarre one.Volunteer Marek20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Since you feel the DR/N decision is silly you may state this to the next mediator. You edit warred and want the goal post moved to allow the outcome you want. Closing this filing as "failed".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Moving forward
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
If all editors are in agreement that, at the very least, we have no consensus and can include the material in some manner, we can discuss how to present it in a neutral manner. After that we can move on to other issues. However, if editors are still in disagreement as to what this dispute entails, what it is that we are discussing or whether or not the content can be included, then we are stuck.
If there are no further posts, comments or replies, specific to the dispute itself I will close this filing as "failed" in 24 hrs with the recommendations I have covered. I will also be advising Administration that the article should be edited by experianced admin during the remaining lock period to bring it in line with BLP policy and suggest article probation.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the section just above I'm having a hard time resolving the "no consensus" outcome of restoring the content with the bit of WP:CONSENSUS policy I discussed. But, I agree with the idea of keeping the article locked and having a BLP-savvy admin watch the Talk page. I went through the article history and this trillion dollar coin dispute isn't the only one or even the one most edit-warred over. I count 16 add or revert edits plus two Talk page discussions for the "Becker" quote alone, plus further edit-warring over a "relentless partisanship" quote and a {{criticism}} template, and I only looked back over four days worth of the article's history. Zad6805:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article has major issues. I doubt it was locked over just this dispute. This is a Biography of a Living Person. We have bightline rules on these issues (whether they say "brightline" or not) and WMF has even come forward with direction on how to treat these articles.
I want to mention the outcome of "no consensus" here. The argument that this was a proposal, and therefore the outcome should be to leave it out is not accurate. It means any attempt to, "add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Time is standing still because the article is locked and it is easy to see that the last bold edit was to remove the trillion dollar content. We do not see this as an extension of the original proposal discussion. This is no longer about "Do we agree with this proposal". It simply went the way of reverting. While editors seemed to be smart enough not to have crossed the 3RR brightline rule, the administrator felt that these edits were not in the spirit of our policy on edit warring, which can be as little as a single edit.
Using BRD as an example, Deicas makes a bold edit that added the content. That was reverted by Volunteer Marek. A discussion insued resulting in no consensus. What followed were further bold edits and reverts of the same content. No consensus was formed but the content was still edit warred back in. As I said, had you come to DR/N at that time it would have been a "proposal dispute" and the last bold edit would have been the "warring" edit that put the content back against consensus. But Volunteer Marek made an edit that reverted the re-addition of the content. Both were edit warring and wrong, but the last "Bold edit" was Volunteer Marek. Since this was an edit war over content (albeit short- since the article was locked) this is no longer a discussion looking for consensus of the original proposed content. Now it is simply a deletion dispute with two editors warring. In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept (this is regardless of the last edit). There's a reason its called BRD. Its a repeating cycle, designed to go in a circle. Once both parties have deviated from the normal cycle and reverted each other they are engaging in an edit war over content, and that is a deletion dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand and accept this explanation, and don't doubt at all that you with your experience here WP:DRN know how this process works far better than I do. I think this is the first BLP WP:DRN discussion I've ever been involved in that actually got going. All I'm saying is that based on my reading of WP:CONSENSUS, I find this process very surprising, and can think of some pretty troublesome unintended consequences for contentious material at BLPs because of it. I know, I know, 'so go fix it but not now, not here...' Zad6814:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I won't ask you to revisit the no consensus conclusion, but I think your suggestion that it should be closed as failed, with a recommendation for mediation makes sense.
The concept that a no consensus decision should result in a reversion to the pre-dispute version (with appropriate caveats for BLP) is a sound one. I grant that determining when a dispute started can be a tricky issue on occasion, however, the clear intent is that material implicitly accepted, by being in an article for some time, shouldn't get removed if a DRN can't reach a consensus on inclusion.
The dispute was precipitated by the addition of new material, not the removal of long-standing material.
If I am reading your conlcusion correctly, and I may not be, your position is that the addition of the material wasn't the bold edit, but the removal. That stands BRD on its head. Deicas was perfectly within convention to add the material, Marek was perfectly within convention to remove it, and if Deicas still wants to include it,t hen we go to the discussion phase.
The addition by Deicas is clearly the Bold addition, the removal by Marek is clearly the Revert, then ideally Discussion occurs, although it was sidetracked by a bit of warring.
This position is reinforced by admin KTC, who protected the page, and restored to the pre-dispute version. (Because Deicas was also trying to add some contentious material about Becker, the reversion goes tot he version before the first contentious addition)
(I actually wrote most of this before seeing you agree that the first addition by Deicas was the bold addition, so I am not following how you then go on to conclude the the removal by Marek is the key Bold edit.)
I'll also note that five opposed inclusion while only three supported. I fully understand that we don't simply do this by the numbers. It is my belief that the supports had better arguments, but of course, I may be biased on that point. However, I'll draw your attention to this plea. Deicas is new, and unaware that we don't encourage this sort of thing, but I wonder if your conclusion would have been No Consensus had it been 5 to 2, with the original editor joined by only a single other editor?--SPhilbrick(Talk)16:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Emotional Freedom Techniques
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Insufficient talk page discussion. The listing editor has made an initial case on the article talk page, but there has been virtually no response and certainly no substantial response as required by this noticeboard. Feel free to refile if discussion occurs, but comes to an impasse after substantial discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The current article does not allow for the supportive evidence to be included, and instead issues a derogatory, blanket condemnation. My issue is with the article as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques
If you look across articles like this, you will see a similar pattern, of ideologues of a persuasion against this content banding together and censoring information they don't like. I believe that pseudoskepticism has hijacked this, and related pages.
Opposition as been made that one of the people who wrote one of the reviews, which are published in the American Psychological Association's journals, is an "advocate", as if that is supposed to dismiss his publications. In the wikipedia policy covering "righting great wrongs", it is noted that one articles have been published in mainstream journals advancing a controversial position, those articles warrant inclusion. Two reviews showing efficacy have been published in mainstream journals. I discussed this here, and received no response, aside from a blanket dismissal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques#regarding_review_of_trials_-_PMID_22402094
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have attempted to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, how my sources, all high quality reviews, supersede in quality the derogatory articles in Skeptic magazine and Skeptical Inquirer that attempt to dismiss them. My opponents prefer to censor what they don't like, and jus make reverts at their whim.
How do you think we can help?
My sources are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant, and supersede the dismissive articles that are not in peer-reviewed journals - these articles being from Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine, in quality. Additionally, high quality reviews, like Cochrane reviews, demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture, which the treatment is based on. To me, the failure to include them is unwarranted, and this is just another example of a group of ideologues getting together using bully tactics.
Opening comments by Yobol
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 Bobrayner
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 MastCell
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.
Emotional Freedom Techniques 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Burzynski Clinic
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Procedural close. It is the requesting editor's obligation to include in the request all editors who have been substantially involved in the discussion and the number of omitted editors in this case would make it onerous to add and notify them manually and to create properly-formatted opening comments sections for each of them. Please feel free to relist, again using the automated listing form, but if so this time include all editors who have participated in the discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
On "Suggested addition of "Burzynski Clinic" Section, edit/removal of non-referenced/sourced material" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&action=edit§ion=3 I requested that WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS be applied to this Article/Section & believe it is not being applied by Volunteer Editor(s). Issues can be reviewed on Talk page starting from bottom of Section of page (1/16/2013) & working back to 1/13/2013.
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 Didymus Judas Thomas
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.
Burzynski Clinic 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New South Wales
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Insufficient substantial discussion on a talk page as required by the guidelines of this noticeboard. The amount of discussion so far might qualify for a Third Opinion, but it's not enough for DRN. However, my real suggestion is to copy the discussion so far over to the article talk page, where it's supposed to be, then continue the discussion there so that other editors can have a chance to weigh in. If the discussion stalls or doesn't draw any more editors, then try a 3O, or come back here after there's been a real attempt to work out your differences. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is over the demonym for residents of the Australian state of New South Wales. Two terms in common use exist, "New South Welsh" and New South Welshman". The infobox for the article on New South Wales previously only had "New South Welshman", as well as including a hidden note in the box stating that "New South Welshman" is the only proper term regardless of gender, and warning editors to not add "New South Welsh". Back in December 2010 I ignored the hidden note however, having watched a video with the State Premier using the term "New South Welsh". This was subsequently undone by AussieLegend with an edit summary claiming that only natural born-and-raised Australians are credible sources. I reverted that edit once myself pointing out the ignorance of such a suggestion considering the position of the source, and that was again reverted by AussieLegend. I walked away and haven't touched the article until recently, hoping that users with such unhelpful outlooks on sources had "moved on". Early this morning I came back to the article, and re-added "New South Welsh" alongside "New South Welshman", then went to bed. About an hour after that edit, I was again reverted by AussieLegend with anotehr unhelpful edit summary. I have attempted to provide various sources on AussieLegend's talk page, including a newspaper article dating back to 1860 showing long historical use of the term "New South Welsh". He has chosen to overlook my sources.
Because A: I have provided numerous sources for "New South Welsh", B: AussieLegend has been unable in 2 years to provide any source on the exclusivity of "New South Welshman", and C: "I never heard it so-and-so" is not considered a factual basis for making decisions on Wikipedia, I now seek dispute resolution.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have discussed the issue on the user's talk page.
How do you think we can help?
By reviewing the sources on my part, the lack of sources on the opposing user's part, and enforcing the placement of "New South Welsh" and "New South Welshman" together in the demonym section of the infobox.
Opening comments by AussieLegend
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.
New South Wales 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Peter Proctor
Latest comment: 11 years ago102 comments13 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a physician here that also has an article about his work, Peter Proctor. He also sells hair loss products online at drproctor.com. Over the past several weeks, I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston. I asked for information on the article talk page, to which a user "Nucleophilic" responded. He has had a large role in writing the Peter Proctor article, but denies being the physician. He provided references that showed papers published by Proctor that had the addresses of the institutions on them. They did not list his faculty status. I referenced the alumni directory, the largest database of Baylor faculty in existence, and his name was not listed. I am extremely careful with my edits, so I also called the chair of the Department of Ophthalmology, which was one of the departments where Nucleophilic claimed Proctor was on faculty. Dr. Jones was unavailable when I called, but his senior secretary also did not recognize the name. Nucleophilic has re-entered the faculty information multiple times on the article, despite my removing it, and despite not addressing my concerns on the talk page. I feel like this is a case of Russell's teapot. The central issue is whether Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications qualifies him to be listed as faculty at the two institutions on his Wikipedia page. Because an individual can be listed on a paper for an address during medical school, residency, or fellowship, or even if volunteering in the lab for free, they do not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Especially for the page of a doctor selling online medications and practicing telemedicine, for which a website as large and influential as Wikipedia represents a major conflict of interest.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried the Wikipedia dispute resolution pyramid, but have been receiving veiled ad hominem attacks from Nucleophilic on the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Provide an outside opinion. I am extremely careful with my edits. Also, personally I have not had experience disputing someone that may or may not be the subject of the article I am revising.
I just want to make sure I am not missing something or breaking proper etiquette.
Opening comments by Nucleophilic
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.
Wow. Actually, I had walked away from this issue, pretty much figuring it was not worth contending, one way or another. Basically, I was just going on what the subject's published papers report. According to WP:reliable sources, these are the highest level of authority on wikipedia. This aside, intuitively contemporary papers seem the most reliable source for decades-old information.
Can't say how reliable the much later sources cited by the complainaint are, since I have not seen them, nor did he provide a link, etc.. Or even (IIRC) a formal citation. In contrast, I provided links to material directly listing the subject's professional address as such. Similarly, claiming to have talked to this or that person is prima faciaWP:original research and not allowed.
That said, I wonder where this editor gets the "veiled threat", etc. Editor seems a little sensitive over minor legitimate differences of opinion. Things like this usually get resolved on the talk pages, not immediately brought here. Unfortunately, everybody seems to be taking a wikibreak for the holidays. As for complaintant's editing of management of baldness-- I do not understand his claims. Unfortunately, his manner of editing was hundreds of edits over a few days with few to no edit summaries or comments to the talk page. As well as throughly confusing me, this seems to be generating some concerns over there. Anyway, I suggest this matter be taken back to the talk page where it belongs. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There have been significant discussions on the Talk page, going back to at least 16 Dec 2012, and the issue is not yet resolved; so it is appropriate to solicit more input here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh, there was one communication on Dec 16. But the real discussion did not start until Dec. 29, right over the holidays, when many editors take a break. This was followed almost immediately by chantoke transferring it here. Also, to descalate, I suggest "faculty" be changed to "faculty/staff" to reflect any uncertainty. As I noted, I was walking away from this matter until chantoke escalated it. Nucleophilic (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No, incorrect. The discussion requesting his proper academic credentials has been at least since May of 2012, as in this request by editor Smokefoot. Chantoke (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Peter Proctor discussion
Hello All, I am a volunteer for the Dispte Resolution project. I am placing a COI (Conflict of interest) investigation template on this page as that needs be sorted. Looks like the article has other issues such as a promotional tone and overall notability of the subject. A lot of careful work has to be done here -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
With due respect, you bear all the earmarks of a sock or meat puppet. You and chantoke have a similar edit history of editing pages of only local Indian interest, when there had been no such on the relevant page before or anything even close to it. What are the chances of this happening at random? Likewise, no prior edits on a subject, then suddenly show up in the middle of a dispute to "mediate". Perhaps you thought nobody would notice. Also see: wp:concensus. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As an editor of Peter Proctor, I concur with nucleophilic. It is not clear that Chantoke knows how wikipedia bio pages differ from regular articles. This article was also brought into mediation without giving any other editors a chance to provide input. Also, as nuclephilic notes on the article talk page, it mentions "hair loss" only once, and that in passing without mentioning the subject of the bio. If he is using this page to promote a business (or whatever), he is doing a very poor job of it. For now, I will pass over the issue of Wikishingaki as an unnecessary complication. Bandn (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The page is important because he sells medicine online. Reporting faculty positions at two prestigious institutions is something that would help sell product because it would enhance his reputation. Chantoke (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikishagnik: I too am a volunteer here at DRN. I notice you just added your name to the list of DRN volunteers [9] two days ago. Assuming good faith, we can conclude that you acting with the best interests of WP here. On the other hand, since your impartiality has been called into question, it may be best for the integrity of the DRN process if you stepped aside participate simply as a normal editor, and let one of the other 40+ volunteers serve as the primary mediator for this case. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - From the topmost opening statement, I take it that the primary issue is what sources are available to justify including the person in the Category:University of Texas Medical Branch faculty. Is that the only issue? or are there additional concerns about WP:PUFFERY and sourcing? Focusing on the faculty category: all inclusions in categories must be supported by sources, per WP:Verifiability. For facts in the body of the article, footnotes are often used to provide the sources; but even for categories (which may not be mentioned in the article body) sources must also be provided if requested. I take it that the only source provided so far is an email address at the university ... which doesn't quite demonstrate that the person is a member of the faculty. Nucleophilic: are you aware of any source that says "proctor is a member of the UTMB faculty"? --Noleander (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Response to comment by Noleander: The sentence that is being discussed is at (Link 1). It reads as follows:
"He has been on the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch. He is engaged in drug research and development."
The three citations provided in support of this sentence by Nucleophilic at Talk:Peter Proctor are first, 1 second, 2 and third 3.
The references have several issues.
With regard to the first, it lists his address as being at the Department of Opthalmology, but does not list his specific affiliation with the institution. According to his self-published resume at Doximity (https://www.doximity.com/pub/peter-proctor-md) he was a "Research Instructor" at Baylor at that time.
I do not see where on the paper his specific affiliation is is indicated.
For example, you may have your address listed in a lab if you work there as an independent researcher, or volunteer, which is also very possible considering Dr. Proctor has been reported in the article as an independent researcher.
In the second link provided, he is not primary or last author, but third, which means he was not the primary researcher. Again, the address could have referred to him being a volunteer or independent researcher working with the lab.
The references are limited as they were published by Dr. Proctor himself.
Someone has stated that I do not seem to understand the concept of WP:BLP. It is true that I am a relative novitiate to biography articles so I will quote from the source to avoid my own potential misinterpretation. From Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources:
"Exercise caution in using primary sources."
"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."
While those articles certainly qualify as reliable sources in reflecting the content of his research, they do not specifically list a faculty appointment. Doximity is a self-entry website, and also does not qualify.
I also looked in the Baylor Alumni Directory which can be found online for current faculty at Alumni directory or of which a physical copy can be ordered at Alumni website, or by e-mailing Barbara Walker or Nyree Chanaba at [email protected].
Although the directory is very comprehensive, as an older clinical instructor, I acknowledge he could have been missed, although I do not believe this would be the norm as Baylor likely very actively seeks alumni donations.
Nucleophilic, looking at the article history, you appear to be its major author, so I would respectfully request you to supply something more reliable. I do not want to deny the good doctor his faculty history as he certainly is a figure in the history of redox research, and this should be fairly acknowledged if accurate. At the same time, the conflict of interest issues have been discussed above and on the talk page.
My opinion ultimately cannot be entirely objective, because there is not enough good evidence in one direction or the other. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
In this situation, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim in the setting of an encyclopedia article, particularly with regards to WP:BLP. I would not include the sentences about him being on faculty until references are provided that directly reflect this, and are not authored by the subject. I would not close the door on it, but I think it would be unwise to include something like a faculty appointment out there for a physician practicing telemedicine, without more explicit confirmation. Chantoke (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (Ramwithaxe; changed to avoid confusion in this discussion)
Comment For any concern about me being a sock puppet please refer me immediately to the Adminitrators Noticeboard. They will handle me accordingly. Coming back to the article, did you know that the explanation of the puzzling repeated failure in human trials of neuroprotective agents and antioxidants effective in animals by noting the uniquely high endogenous levels of the antioxidant neuroprotectant uric acid in humans is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself? It is also interesting to note that him being a part of a group that is credited with the fantastic supposition regarding diabetes, inflammation, and fibrosisan underlying common etiology involving electronically activated processes in such symptomology and is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself - seven times to be exact. Did you know that according to the good doctor he has reported the conditional pro-oxidant properties of uric acid and further proposed that oxidative stress figures in the pathogenesis of hyperuricemic syndromes in general? And the list goes on. My point being that apart from Dr. Proctor no-one knows about these fantastic contributions to humanity (and Nucleophilic of course). And Nucleophilic, BTW for being close to the subject you dont have to be a blood relative. In fact by virtue of our discussion so far, we are close. If I was to compose a Wikipedia article about you before today, an article would have said Nucleophilic is a scolarly contributor to Wikipedia, but now I will be tempted to add ... who jumps to conclusions about editors being sock puppets based on the ethnicity of subject of the articles they contribute to. As if such editors cannot understand basic concepts like MOS and templates that apply to all Wikipedia articles. You see how NPOV can be compromied even with very little interaction? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Response to Wikishagnik comment: I concur. I am not a sockpuppet or meat puppet, which I believe refers to a duplicate account. I would be happy to submit my IP address or whatever other information you need to verify this. Chantoke (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
For the moment, I'm going to continue to assume good faith. This matter has gone entirely too far for the issue involved. As I noted, I was walking away from it, when Chantoke filed this request for mediation, far too soon in the process, IMHO. Contrary to assurances, there was no real attempt to resolve the matter on the talk pages. Just a couple of exchanges and pow, here we are. Also, if he has any support for his accusations concerning me, let him present it. And no, I do not expect his and Wikishagnik's IP numbers will prove the same.
Likewise, no other editors were given the chance to give their input (it was over the holidays). Been here for six years and I have never seen anything like this. Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous escalation. My suggestion is to take this back to the talk pages and let the process work it's way thru there. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Please supply references, or concede that you do not have any. The issue has been on the talk page for several weeks. "Just a couple of exhanges and pow, here we are." and "Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous [sic] escalation." Here is my first edit 1. Here is your edit removing my citation needed tags 2. This is me changing it back 3. This is you undoing my edit 4. This is me finally switching it back to how it appears currently 5. Literally we have gone back and forth 5 times, and we have been discussing this since December 16th.
There are no "accusations", please stop making this personal. I am only asking for quality references. If you can't provide any, and none are forthcoming, then by definition the process has already worked itself out and we can move on. Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Since you bring up the subject. It is not Wikipedia:Canvassing to notify past editors of a page who might have special knowledge. Rather than canvassing, I contacted one editor who might be able to clarify some of the issues. Unfortunately, he has yet to respond.
However, it is Wikipedia:Canvassing to bring in a new editor to support your point, as seems to be the case with Wikishagnik, who had no connection with the article at all or anything remotely related to it and whose record of edits resembles your own. Seen editors banned for no worse. As I noted, what are the chances that two editors with a history of editing wikipedia pages of only local Indian interest would show up on a page at exactly the same time? The mind boggles.
Finally, note my suggestion to replace "faculty" with "faculty/staff" just to resolve any ambiguities and to conclude this matter. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: though you claim to have notified "all of the remaining past editors of the page", this is not on their talk pages. Pehaps you can clarify this statement. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No, incorrect again. You contacted one editor, Djem3, after the debate had started, because he had agreed with you in a past talk page discussion. You diid not contact any of the other editors that had contributed to the talk page. Those are the editors that I contacted, not everyone who had ever edited the article. Neither is mandatory, but you were selectively canvassing. Where did you get the idea, other than your circumstantial evidence, leading to false accusation, that I was related to Wikishagnik? Not all Indians are related, and not all people interested in India know each other. You are walking on very thin ice there. Chantoke (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Straw. I tried unsucessfully to contact drjem3 because he knows about the subject than I do and might be able to answer some of the questions. Did this right out in the open too. As for your sock or meat puppetry-- don't insult our intelligence. What are the chances that two editors with the same rather specific posting interests (obscure local indian subjects) should show up on the same completely-unrelated article at the same time, particularly when one of them has never posted to anything similar before. Likely the probability is in the millions, if not billions, to one. So this is either collusion, or a Guiness book of records coincidence. Which one seems more likely? Nice try though. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This dispute has gone on too long and I am losing sleep and developing a stomach ulcer from it. I would like to withdraw personally from dispute and defer to the opinion of the remaining DRN discussion participants regarding past faculty affiliations. Best, Chantoke (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Agree this has gone on too long. I concur with Nucleophilic's compromise proposal that "faculty" be replaced by "faculty or staff" or words to this effect. I have also removed the COI tag since it is not in contention here. Bandn (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Now that we have established good faith all around and agreed upon socket puppetry actions required, if any, can we focus on the content of this article (WP:FOC)? Can we get rid of the entirely self referenced content and wait for the Doctor to achieve more in life for which he gets duly recognized, which in turn can be quoted here from independent and neutral third party sources? -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Smokefoot experience I have repeatedly expressed grave concerns about the articles on Peter Proctor, his thesis advisor John McGinness (whose notability was also disputed and this article got off to a rocky start except for the efforts of Proctor), and many articles that cite their work. All of my efforts were thwarted by coordinated efforts of user:Nucleophilic, User:Drjem3, and Proctor himself. My concerns about the Peter Proctor article were expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Proctor&oldid=495533611 under "#What is his current position and what are his awards" My view is that Proctor, Nucleophilic, and Drjem3 were propping up a reputation for Proctor, which lacks external support. He has no accolades, awards, editorships, lectures, appointments that in any way indicate even a modest level of external recognition. The article seemed problematic from the WP:COI perspective. In the end, I concluded that the article Peter Proctor was "lame" but lame biographies are an occassional artifact of Wikipedia. My greater concern was that these same editors have implicated Proctor and John McGinness as being some sort of scientific pioneers and innovators. Wikipedia articles related to polyacetylene (Nobel Prize stuff a few years back) and molecular electronics, cite the work of McGinness and Proctor. These articles are guarded and groomed by these threesome. I have taught these topics in a university and have never heard of these people. They are not mentioned in any textbooks. At the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners. I have edited a lot in Wikipedia - but my experience with Proctor and Nucleophilic and User:Drjem3 remains the absolute low point of otherwise satisfying work. I eventually removed everything related to Peter Proctor from my watchlist because the articles were obviously the personal domains of this threesome. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Response to Wikishagnik comment: I agree, viewing the dispute resolution guidelines discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution (pyramid), it is centrally important to not focus on the editors but the article. I agree with the recommendations given by Wikishagnik above. Chantoke (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Observation - In trying to summarize various discussions taking place above I note that a large part of the discussion centered on which discovery should be credited to whom and who was the first to find it etc. There was also a large discussion that centered on who deserved the Nobel Prize etc. All participants to this discussion are reminded about (WP:NOT#FORUM) and that specifically citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. Editors should have further stressed the need for NPOV by focusing on (WP:YESPOV) wich specifically states that in an article Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.. By ignoring Wikipedia Policy and engaging a debate on this topic editors turned this discussion into a debate and allowed it to spiral out of scope for article talk pages. Please remember that talk pages are meant to discuss the content of an article and not views of editors about the subject. Can we get some comments from Noleander at this point? -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sources? - @Nucleophilic: you suggested using the term "faculty/staff" for the article. I didn't see the source which supported that ... could you again provide the source and a quote from the source which says "faculty/staff" or something similar? PS: To all: the DRN forum is limited to discussions of content only. Any discussions of behavior (e.g. canvassing, sockpuppetry, etc) are not permitted here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Reply:The sources are the addresses provided in the subject's published papers. E.g, this publication and this list his address as "Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine". Similarly, this lists his address as UTMB Gslveston, Department of Pharmacology. BTW, according to pubmed, the subjects first papers were in 1970. e.g, this one [10], which also contains an address not listed in the bio. I posted this material on the relevant talk page in reply to an inquiry for sources. Exactly how they were to be incorporated was left for later. I also posted these links to the papers so they can be read directly. Doubtless, I can find more. In wp:reliable sources peer-reviewed published papers like these are at the top of the list.
True, as is custom in the sciences, these do not list the subject's exact position. BTW, "research instructor" is a faculty position at most institutions. Often, the first rung on the academic ladder. IIRC Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons allows the use of material like this. In any case, I suggest "faculty or staff" to get around any ambiguity. I was preparing to back off on this issue (which seems trivial) subject to input of other editors when Chantoke brought it over here, compelling me to respond. A reading of the interchange will show that I was trying to reply to Chantoke's questions as well I could. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Nucleophilic: I don't see anywhere in those sources that Proctor was faculty or staff. I think it would be a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for the article to even imply that Proctor was on the faculty, which is a very significant position. Proctor has been working, according to the article, for decades in areas of high-profile research. If you cannot find one single source which says "Proctor is on the faculty/staff....", in plain words, that absence is very telling, and the info should be removed from the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh, In academia, if somebody is not "faculty", they are "staff". Least that has always been my experience. Do you assert that he was not working at these institutions in the face of what the papers say? If he was, he was one or the other. You-all do what you want, pending other information. Which was what was happening when this "dispute" was brought here. Sheesh. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but in WP we do not use "my experience" as a source. From your failure to supply sources, I take it there is no source which says "Proctor was on the faculty (or staff) of ...". Since there is no source that says that, the material cannot be in the article. If Proctor is notable enough for a WP article, there should be some sources discussing his career. The lack of sources is significant. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Promotional? - Users Ben and Smokefoot (and others) above have suggested that a couple of editors have been engaging in improper promotion of Peter Proctor, which would be a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION policy. If the promotional efforts are disruptive, the best forum for addressing those is at WP:AN, or if a single editor is the culprit, at WP:RFCU. The DRN process focuses only on content issues (specific facts stated within articles) so this DRN case could be used to analyze individual sentences within an article. The WP:Notability guideline applies to entire articles, not specific sentences within articles; so if we assume that Peter Proctor meets WP notability guidelines, then the article can/should exist and the next step is simply to assess the accuracy of material within the article. If the article is overly detailed, then specific sentences/sections should be proposed for deletion (even if sourced) if they are non-encyclopedic. Of particular concern is the assertion by user Smokefoot: "at the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners" ... adding puffery into Peter Proctor is one thing, but removing or distorting information in other articles is unacceptable. If anything like that has happened, talk page discussions, RfCs, and DRN cases can be used to remedy the situation. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as an editor that works in the area of chemistry, I have also come across the Peter Proctor-related edits. My perception agrees with those of Smokefoot and Benjah-bmm27: there appears to be a determined effort to promote Peter Proctor here on Wikipedia to a degree that far outweighs his actual contributions to science, presenting a misleading narrative to the reader. ChemNerd (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your input. If there are any specific changes to Peter Proctor article you think should be made, please describe them here (with a rationale). As for the bigger issue about violations of WP:NOTPROMOTION, I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if they want to lodge complaints at WP:AN or WP:RFCU (again, WP:DRN is not the appropriate forum for promotional issues, because that is considered a behavior/conduct problem, and DRN is limited to content issues). --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Nucleophilic, you can check the contribs by going to Contributions under toolbox on the left. I guess you are confusing namespace change with sock puppetry and the former is allowed and does not change the stats of a user. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I know the difference. It is just that User:Chantoke, now dubbed User talk:Lenny Kaufman, keeps doing things that make it difficult to track his posts. Deliberate? Beats me. Examples include hundreds of posts to single sites that fill up his edit list and using different names in his user links. It is true that the contribution list changes in accord with the name change, but other stuff stays with the old name. For an example or three, see this page. Now, he does a total namespace change. After a while, ya just lose track. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You do know that this is not the venue for conduct disputes right? Please stop making accusations about your perceptions in regard to what you think they are doing. Please address only the content dispute moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Response: This dispute is ridiculous and has gone on too long. I would like to withdraw it and close the discussion. Please let me know if this is alright. Thanks. Lenny Kaufmantalk19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, you can withdraw at any time - participating in DRN is entirely voluntary. I think it would be best to leave the discussion open for a few more days to see if other uninvolved editors can provide additional insight (such as when User:Benjah-bmm27 and user Smokefoot provided input). Even after the DRN case is closed, relevant issues can still be discussed at the article talk page and other dispute resolution forums, such as WP:RFC. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Request -Before this discussion closes with a note for possible WP:AN action recommendations and as nucleophilic has already been advised about WP:SOCKS and investigations can we get back to the discussion about what needs to be done about this article? Can Benjah-bmm27, Smokefoot, Amadscientist, Lenny_Kaufman and other editors please advise if we should
I would suggest option 1, which may lead to the deletion of the article if no notable material remains. However, I anticipate it will be a time-consuming and painful process as there is likely to be strong disagreement between pro- and anti-Proctor editors. Some sort of arbitration might help. I am reluctant to get involved again because I find the pro-Proctor crowd aggressive in their editing tactics. --Ben (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Argument against Peter Proctor unrelated to the article or this DRN
This linked evidence perhaps could be considered as material evidence for consideration to be included in the decision making process here or for immediate inclusion in the public domain article as it stands now. This is an alleged "comprehensive 3 year clinical study" advertised with his picture from "Proctor Clinic" for a product he sells and/or sold allegedly called Proxidil. What proof is there that this study ever occurred as advertised? If such claim is true, it is relevant to his biographical information here if he conducted such a 3 year clinical study, don't you think? Please scroll down to near bottom to page 191 advertisement lower right at this link http://books.google.ca/books?id=4ykEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhouse expert (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC) — Inhouse expert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above and below entries are included here since Dr. Proctor has been most notable in the area of treating Androgenetic Alopecia with Novel ingredients in his practice and through worldwide sales of his products since at least 1987 or earlier, I offer the below for consideration of the editors for both reason to include or not to include such in his Wikipedia page or to consider not offering a Wikipedia page. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Request Dr. Peter Proctor or anyone with an understanding of chemistry to address the actual products the Dr. sells and if the known ingredients have any safety testing in humans and particular if there is any established efficacy or rationale for inclusion in treating Androgenetic Alopecia a medical condition of miniaturizing hair follicles.
These are just some of the alleged ingredients on the bottle of Proxiphen and/or by the Dr. &/or associates claimed of the Dr. in public postings. The product line consists of a prescription product called Proxiphen and a non prescription version called Proxiphen-n. Both are alleged to contain the following ingredients. There is also a further shampoo based product called NANO, which includes NANO as listed below. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There is also a prescription strength version that includes to my understanding Phenytoin which I inquire what is the rationale and demonstrated safety and efficacy in any research for this topically in relation to Androgenetic Alopecia. If none, what is the individual rationale for it's inclusion please on your part Dr. Proctor. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
1."The most important one Dr. says is "Nicotic acid n-oxide (NANO for short form")--this one I am curious about because Bryan said it is in all his products & shampoo." ref.(1) basis for this and many others or lack there of covered here by PhD Chemistry & M.D. student http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/textthread.cfm?catid=10&threadid=97451
2. Carboxypyridine-N-Oxide -(CAS No. 2758-22-7) "This one has me puzzled. I checked the structure on the Belstein chemical database, but could not find anything other than that it's an agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Drugs that act as nicotinic agonists have been used to treat nicotine addiction, Alzheimer's disease, and glaucoma. I don't know it's purpose is in this formula.Ref(2)"
3. PBN as well as its active hydrolysis products NtBHA/MNP *
4. CU/ZN binding peptides
5. Superoxide dimutases
6. Ascorbates - antioxidant (Vitamin C)
7. Ascorbyl Palmitate -antioxidant (fat soluble Vitamin C ester)
8. Arginine- "one of the 20 common amino acids; precursor in the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO), a blood vessel dilator; hypothetically has activity similar to that of minoxidil due to K-channel opening.Ref.(3)"
9. BHT - synthetic antioxidant
10. TEMPOL and TEMPO
11. EDTA - "generally used as a scavenger of metal cations, particularly for toxic metals like mercury; I'm not entirely sure what it's doing in this formula; perhaps to sequester inorganic impurities Ref(4)"
First no where has this been categorized by me or insinuated as exclusively an argument for or against Dr. Proctor. In fact what has been presented for consideration is specifically 3 questions above and none of them are for or against Dr. Proctor personally so that isn't even one of the questions under consideration.
This is simply unbiased evidence in and of itself, these are just facts. No where is it offered to support exclusively as an argument against Dr. Peter H.Proctor of Houston/surrounding area of Texas anymore then it is offered to support exclusively as an argument for Dr. Proctor's article continuing to exist.
Characterizing it as exclusively an argument one way or the other would require a formal basis for such to be established.
" Where in the article does it say that Peter Proctor sells any such products? Are you hinting that Peter Proctor of this article and Peter Proctor you are talking about are the same?" Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)"
the portion of your concern if they are the same person is easily resolved by visiting this website that also comes up just above this wiki article when you google "Dr. Peter H. Proctor" http://www.drproctor.com/ the credential and information is one in the same on the site, and I can provide more verification as needed.
It states he sells Androgenetic Alopecia(Hair loss) by the placement of such ads as stated in the opening here of this discussion. The ad included in the link clearly outlines the same individual in the same city with the same alleged qualifications as is under discussion. No one else is disputing it is the same person, least of which Dr. Proctor is not disputing such.
quote from the opening to this discussion above by Chanote "I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston."
-Even so, it does not matter. This DRN is about the content of the article. We are not interested in the conduct of Mr. Peter unlrelated to this article -Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)-
"As regards the "article" it provides credibility for the sales of his products that is perhaps why the investment in editing by pro-Proctor and time investment here for financial return" as per what editor "Smokefoot" described in a publicly available conversation, for the sales of such snake oil products from the website I paraphrase that comes up with Wiki under google and links to his site that have been placed I think if correct were placed in references at Wiki according to Chanote's logs.
This content is related to the conduct of Mr. Peter H. Proctor as it pertains to the article, because just as in a court of law "priors" matter, and what is good enough for a court of law is certainly good enough criteria for a dispute resolution process as far as admissibility. If determined that such Clinical Trial he alleges to have conducted never took place, this material would consist of priors to the actions of misleading the general public on Wikipedia through a concerted effort in regards to his academic faculty appointments, if so determined.
Furthermore the article is a piece that has bestowed upon Mr. Peter Proctor and has added to his credibility to conduct such investigations as alleged in his online advertising and to be trusted as a source of medical knowledge to concoct such a formula for the general public with expertise. It relates as it perhaps may demonstrate a pattern of behavior of misleading the public.Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore I make a motion for this & all evidence I have submitted to not be arbitrarily truncated under a banner & hidden from the viewing public eyes without consultation as you have done
Including the information on ingredients used that relate to his patents as listed in article and presented under the above near heading DRN (show) for Chemistry review.
If such claim is true, it is relevant to any article about Mr. Proctor and his biographical information here if he conducted such a 3 year clinical study, don't you think? This linked evidence perhaps could be considered as material evidence for consideration to be included in the decision making process here or for immediate inclusion in the public domain article as it stands now. This is an alleged "comprehensive 3 year clinical study" advertised with his picture from "Proctor Clinic" for a product he sells and/or sold allegedly called Proxidil. What proof is there that this study ever occurred as advertised? If such claim is true, it is relevant to his biographical information here if he conducted such a 3 year clinical study, don't you think? Please scroll down to near bottom to page 191 advertisement lower right at this linkThis relates to the "article" as it could pertain to his using Medical Faculty position on his resume for such a Clinical Trialhttp://books.google.ca/books?id=4ykEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false —
Do the alleged chemical ingredients place the general public in harms way or are not allowed to be prescribed or sold at some point in time or are even in his products in any quantity as the labeling lists no amounts or did not produce the tremendous hair growth in this picture of his advertised page 342 http://books.google.ca/books?id=5isEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA342&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I can give a technical answer to this query with appropriate Wiki Policies, what the above (unsigned) editor is trying to show is that there is deffinitely something fishy about Dr. Proctor per se. The ad says he is trying to sell something while the Wikipedia article does not say so, and both Dr. Proctors have worked in related fields. Yes, they are both from approximately the same area too. But, all we can do in this DRN is make changes to the article, we cannot initiate an RfD, now can we ask for Admin action against anybody and we have to assume good faith all around for all edits. So unknown editor what do you advise? Do we remove self referenced materials or just the references? Please understand that the first priority for all of us editors is in the editing of articles. We can only change content here, not the personalities -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Inhouse expert please understand we are discussing how to edit an article. We are not discussing about the subject. Its you who tried bringing in his past as an evidence of something. Do you advise removing your contribution so that we can get back to the original discussion (and for legal propreitary)? . And BTW, everything on Wikipedia is shared by commons license so anyone anywhere can investigate anything. -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing an argument about the hair care products being sold by the Doctor because (a) it unsigned (b) its unreferenced (c) the article does not say anything about the Doctor selling anything and (d) is repetitive
The above and below entries are included here since Dr. Proctor has been most notable in the area of treating Androgenetic Alopecia with Novel ingredients in his practice and through worldwide sales of his products since at least 1987 or earlier, I offer the below for consideration of the editors for both reason to include or not to include such in his Wikipedia page or to consider not offering a Wikipedia page. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Request Dr. Peter Proctor or anyone with an understanding of chemistry to address the actual products the Dr. sells and if the known ingredients have any safety testing in humans and particular if there is any established efficacy or rationale for inclusion in treating Androgenetic Alopecia a medical condition of miniaturizing hair follicles.
These are just some of the alleged ingredients on the bottle of Proxiphen and/or by the Dr. &/or associates claimed of the Dr. in public postings. The product line consists of a prescription product called Proxiphen and a non prescription version called Proxiphen-n. Both are alleged to contain the following ingredients. There is also a further shampoo based product called NANO, which includes NANO as listed below. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There is also a prescription strength version that includes to my understanding Phenytoin which I inquire what is the rationale and demonstrated safety and efficacy in any research for this topically in relation to Androgenetic Alopecia. If none, what is the individual rationale for it's inclusion please on your part Dr. Proctor.
1.The most important one Dr. says is "Nicotic acid n-oxide (NANO for short form)--this one I am curious about because Bryan said it is in all his products & shampoo." ref.(1)
2. Carboxypyridine-N-Oxide -(CAS No. 2758-22-7) "This one has me puzzled. I checked the structure on the Belstein chemical database, but could not find anything other than that it's an agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Drugs that act as nicotinic agonists have been used to treat nicotine addiction, Alzheimer's disease, and glaucoma. I don't know it's purpose is in this formula.Ref(2)"
7. Ascorbyl Palmitate -antioxidant (fat soluble Vitamin C ester)
8. Arginine- "one of the 20 common amino acids; precursor in the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO), a blood vessel dilator; hypothetically has activity similar to that of minoxidil due to K-channel opening.Ref.(3)"
11. EDTA - "generally used as a scavenger of metal cations, particularly for toxic metals like mercury; I'm not entirely sure what it's doing in this formula; perhaps to sequester inorganic impurities Ref(4)"
as far as direction, certainly no self-references should be allowed with out substantial proof, beyond perhaps even a diploma, considering the orchestrated effort that has taken place prior to mislead. In regards to leaving it up, if Dr. Proctor can prove by third party assurances that he has done something notable, even if it is in area of hair loss by a certificate of analysis of his ingredients and clinical studies etc.. perhaps over the coming week we should await to see what input their is from him & editors to satisfy such.
Using the subject as a self-published source
From wp:biographies of living persons
"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources."
Minimally, this supports use of routine education and work history material like this on Doximity [11] or this on Linkedin[12]. Such material is hardly "unduly self-serving". Nucleophilic (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Excellent point, and even the article on Albert Einstein has Self referenced material but that article meets all criteria you have listed including the fifth point. The article on Peter Proctor relies heavily on such references (about 80% of the references are self published). What we need in this article are valid secondary and independent sources who can support the claims of the references. Only then can we honestly say that the article meets the requirements of WP:VERIFY -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The above hidden information is now fully addressed so as not to be hidden from public viewing?
"1. First Wikipedia allows material to be unsigned, so by definition that is not an argument to hide material from public view.
If I am required to sign it I will, just let me know.
There are large sums of money riding on this Wikipedia article on Dr. Proctor for credibility for worldwide sales of his hair loss products and hair loss forumla patents to be presented here and as a Scientist of sorts, I do not want to be one of the victims that get in the way of that financial pursuit for business profit.
3. Related directly to the article since Dr. Peter H. Proctor has been most notably presented as an expert in Androgenetic Alopecia being placed as an expert on such on hairlosshelp.com as well as covered by the LifeExtension Foundation in decades past. This does not mean he is an expert, just proclaimed as such. The entire basis of the article is to offer qualifications that give the Dr. Medical credibility by being allegedly faculty within a medical dept of a College. In addition the patents presented in the article are present on the bottle of the hair loss product the Dr. sells, so this aspect is relevant as that is what the patents are used for. http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=103317&STARTPAGE=4&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear " <real life picture of his bottles
I know some parties may not want the validity of the products up for discussion as this is related to how the Dr. Proctor makes his bread and butter for the last few decades, however this is a public open source encyclopedia and the attached are all referenced by posts by posts by "pproctor" that he is listed as an expert on said site here with picture matching his ads earlier listed http://www.hairlosshelp.com/qna/Index.cfm said website has listed IP address available for consideration as that of Dr. Proctor's & contact information for contract with him & perhaps emails. Not to mention the bottle picture and label should be enough, I ask you to refute that this is the product of the gentleman in the article, as to this point you have not refuted it is not the same Dr. Proctor and the patents in the article are not one in the same with those on the bottle for Hair Loss product you offer.Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Peter H. Proctor is proclaimed as the "Worlds Foremost Authority on Balding" here at The Life Extension Foundation in ads placed by businesses he has an interest in. http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/drprocadforf.html
"Dr. Peter Proctor, M.D., Ph.D. the world's foremost authority on hair loss and baldness, is the only hair treatment practitioner in the world who has developed unique, patented multi-ingredient hair formulas that address all the known factors in the balding process.
He is the author of over 30 scientific articles and book chapters, and holds several broad patents for hair loss treatment.
Dr. Proctor has a dermatology practice in Houston, Texas, where he specializes in the treatment of premature balding and age-related hair loss. Over the past 12 years, Dr. Proctor has successfully treated more than 3,500 people of all ages for hair loss and baldness."
Why Dr. Proctor Is Number One?
Dr. Proctor has already patented for his hair formulas "copperbinding peptides" that are virtually identical to the compounds in both Tricomin from Procyte and Pileil from Life Medical Sciences. Industry insiders have been buzzing about "miraculous" upcoming "baldness cures" from these companies over the past year and, as a result, the stock of both companies has risen considerably.
In Dr. Proctor's formulas, however, copperbinding peptides are only one component. His multi-modal approach has enabled him to achieve better hair growth results than anyone else.
In fact, Dr. Proctor is so far ahead in hair growth research that both the Upjohn Corporation and Unilever have had major European hair loss patents rejected because Dr. Proctor made the discoveries first.
How can a single physician be so far ahead of multi-billion dollar corporations?
One reason is that - in contrast to drug companies - private physicians can use any approved agent for any medically indicated purpose. As a result, they can easily explore, develop, and quickly refine new therapies. Many new therapies are developed by private physicians, scientists and laboratories, but usually they are sold to major pharmaceutical companies.
Another reason that Dr. Proctor has been able to single handedly develop effective hair regrowth products is that in addition to being a physician, he is also a pharmacologist who has been active in skin drug research for more than 25 years.
to not address that his patents in the "article" are for the purpose of balding is a mistake and to not include in an article on him about balding treatment that he is alleged to be the worlds foremost authority allegedly makes no sense whatsoever.Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The above and below entries are included here since Dr. Proctor has been most notable in the area of treating Androgenetic Alopecia with Novel ingredients in his practice and through worldwide sales of his products since at least 1987 or earlier, I offer the below for consideration of the editors for both reason to include or not to include such in his Wikipedia page or to consider not offering a Wikipedia page.
Request Dr. Peter Proctor or anyone with an understanding of chemistry to address the actual products the Dr. sells and if the known ingredients have any safety testing in humans and particular if there is any established efficacy or rationale for inclusion in treating Androgenetic Alopecia a medical condition of miniaturizing hair follicles.
These are just some of the alleged ingredients on the bottle of Proxiphen and/or by the Dr. &/or associates claimed of the Dr. in public postings. The product line consists of a prescription product called Proxiphen and a non prescription version called Proxiphen-n. Both are alleged to contain the following ingredients. There is also a further shampoo based product called NANO, which includes NANO as listed below. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There is also a prescription strength version that includes to my understanding Phenytoin which I inquire what is the rationale and demonstrated safety and efficacy in any research for this topically in relation to Androgenetic Alopecia. If none, what is the individual rationale for it's inclusion please on your part Dr. Proctor.
2. Carboxypyridine-N-Oxide -(CAS No. 2758-22-7) "This one has me puzzled. I checked the structure on the Belstein chemical database, but could not find anything other than that it's an agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Drugs that act as nicotinic agonists have been used to treat nicotine addiction, Alzheimer's disease, and glaucoma. I don't know it's purpose is in this formula.Ref(2)" Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
7. Ascorbyl Palmitate -antioxidant (fat soluble Vitamin C ester)
8. Arginine- "one of the 20 common amino acids; precursor in the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO), a blood vessel dilator; hypothetically has activity similar to that of minoxidil due to K-channel opening.Ref.(3)"
11. EDTA - "generally used as a scavenger of metal cations, particularly for toxic metals like mercury; I'm not entirely sure what it's doing in this formula; perhaps to sequester inorganic impurities Ref(4)"Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
"Request -Before this discussion closes with a note for possible WP:AN action recommendations and as nucleophilic has already been advised about WP:SOCKS and investigations can we get back to the discussion about what needs to be done about this article? Can Benjah-bmm27, Smokefoot, Amadscientist, Lenny_Kaufman and other editors please advise if we should
Remove all content from the article which falls under WP:SELFPUB and WP:PROMOTIONAL, or
Keep the content but remove the references for now, OR
Keep the article as it is right now and allow it to mature?
Lets discuss this before we close this discussion. - Wikishagnik (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)"
I would move that, unless something "so" notable can be found as to warrant a page devoted to Mr. Proctor, that such page be removed
from Wikipedia promptly. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Definitely as earlier stated, option of allowing self reference due to the misleading prior behavior of Dr. Proctor or supporting Dr. Proctor group, should not be allowed and all references to claims including educational degrees should be fully supported by more then the common standard on Wikipedia or just a diploma any one could of had printed up back in the 70's before things were as computerized. This would be so all items are above and beyond reproach based on perhaps earlier misleading appointments on Faculty at not 1 but 2 Colleges.
As it stands the educational qualifications of a Phd, pharmacology, biophysics, bio psychiatrist neuroscience and M.D. and world renowned accomplishments to boot for Dr. Proctor, seem like much for any one man, particularly one that has chosen to go into selling hair loss products with all of that training, so I suggest further verification on those as well beyond just a coherent flow of possible dates & assumptions.Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia and also the purpose of this article. let me remind you of the following
(WP:FANSITE) - Wikipedia is not meant to promote a persons opinion about the subject. Regarding the links you provided please read points 5. of the policy - Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services are not allowed. You have mentioned There are large sums of money riding on this Wikipedia article on Dr. Proctor for credibility for worldwide sales of his hair loss products and hair loss forumla patents to be presented here and as a Scientist of sorts, I do not want to be one of the victims that get in the way of that financial pursuit for business profit, so you need to understand that Wikipipedia is not a Soapbox and cannot be used for advertising products (WP:NOTADVERTISING), specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Further All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources - which you specifically refuse to address after repeated reminders. The references that you do provide are addressed at the beginning of this discussion
You also mention Dr. Peter H. Proctor has been most notably presented as an expert in Androgenetic Alopecia being placed as an expert on such on hairlosshelp.com as well as covered by the LifeExtension Foundation in decades past. This does not mean he is an expert, just proclaimed as such. You fail to understand (WP:GRAPEVINE) which clearly states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (I am getting to this at the end of the para); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.. Both you and Nuclephilic are missing the point about self published sources in BLP articles (WP:BLPSPS) specifically point 5. which states the article is not based primarily on such sources, both yours and content mentioned by Nucleophilic rely entirely on self published sources. The poicy (WP:SELFPUBLISH) clearly states that Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
The above two points cover the meat of your arguments. If you care to carefully read through all the policies that I have listed you will understand that all claims mentioned by you cannot be included in the article at all, unless they are qualified by neutral and independent sources. I suggest you read the section Writing style of BLP to understand all points about articles for Living People. -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Closing comments - There are two main disputes about this article
There is a lot of poorly referenced and self referenced material. A lot of this material is controversial - Suggestion- Remove the contentious and controversial material along with citation which is poorly / self referenced.
The subject might be under investigation by federal agencies - suggestion - under no circumstance add any kind of investigation in the article of any living person unless the citations meet extremely high standards of verifiability and notability (and in most cases this might get removed anyway unless their is confirmed conviction).
BLP subjects have to stand up to much higher standards of notability and verifiability to balance the requirements of Wikipedia not being a soapbox (WP:SOAPBOX) and not getting sued by the subject. I would request Noleander to close this discussion as I am only a contributing editor -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
I'm the DRN thread reaper. I get called in when threads just refuse to die. Let's set some ground rules.
Keep further responses to no more than 100 words. There's already been plenty of words over and over again.
Aspertions about conduct are not germane here.
Ok, what I've been able to piece together the primary dispute is Does the subject qualify to be listed as "on staff/faculty" of multiple medical institutions?. I'd like to make sure I understand the issue before I start trying to negotiate a solution. Hasteur (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh, In academia, if somebody is not "faculty", they are "staff". Least that has always been my experience. Do you assert that he was not working at these institutions in the face of what the papers say? If he was, he was one or the other. You-all do what you want, pending other information. Which was what was happening when this "dispute" was brought here. Sheesh. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but in WP we do not use "my experience" as a source. From your failure to supply sources, I take it there is no source which says "Proctor was on the faculty (or staff) of ...". Since there is no source that says that, the material cannot be in the article. If Proctor is notable enough for a WP article, there should be some sources discussing his career. The lack of sources is significant. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Sufficient proof has not been provided that Mr. Proctor, is trained as it says on the front page in dermatology and on talk page it says he is a dermatologist. He is a family physician to my understanding, and the burden of proof is on him to provide 3rd party ref. to support such, which have not been. This is applicable since he is involved in the sale, marketing and prescribing of hair loss products that fall under the specialty of Dermatology.Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
"Institutions University of Texas
University Of Texas Medical Branch
Baylor College of Medicine
Dermatology, Bellaire Texas" no specific degree granting institution is given or degree in such. Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Smokefoot experience I have repeatedly expressed grave concerns about the articles on Peter Proctor, his thesis advisor John McGinness (whose notability was also disputed and this article got off to a rocky start except for the efforts of Proctor), and many articles that cite their work. All of my efforts were thwarted by coordinated efforts of user:Nucleophilic, User:Drjem3, and Proctor himself. My concerns about the Peter Proctor article were expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Proctor&oldid=495533611 under "#What is his current position and what are his awards" My view is that Proctor, Nucleophilic, and Drjem3 were propping up a reputation for Proctor, which lacks external support. He has no accolades, awards, editorships, lectures, appointments that in any way indicate even a modest level of external recognition. The article seemed problematic from the WP:COI perspective. In the end, I concluded that the article Peter Proctor was "lame" but lame biographies are an occassional artifact of Wikipedia. My greater concern was that these same editors have implicated Proctor and John McGinness as being some sort of scientific pioneers and innovators. Wikipedia articles related to polyacetylene (Nobel Prize stuff a few years back) and molecular electronics, cite the work of McGinness and Proctor. These articles are guarded and groomed by these threesome. I have taught these topics in a university and have never heard of these people. They are not mentioned in any textbooks. At the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners. I have edited a lot in Wikipedia - but my experience with Proctor and Nucleophilic and User:Drjem3 remains the absolute low point of otherwise satisfying work. I eventually removed everything related to Peter Proctor from my watchlist because the articles were obviously the personal domains of this threesome. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Inhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
First Warning:That is more than 100 words (416 to be exact). As I said above, consciseness is paramount. You've now pointed at users again instead of talking about content. Collapse your content and summarize in 100 words or less to get to the point. Using diffs to point at specific issues is awesome for helping distill the issue without having to read the same content over and over. Hasteur (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Issue is decades-old employment. Per wp:blp noncontroversial and not overly self-serving material by the subject can be used. If this does not include boilerplate like degrees, employers, published papers, etc. (see talk page for links) then what does it include? Have edited several bios and this seems standard. Also, employment can be verified from addresses given on published papers, at the top of the WP:verifiability list. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Issue Educational, was he granted a degree in Dermatology and from what Degree granting institution was the Specialization granted from? On main page of article, you list Dermatology, Bellaire Texas. There is no Dermatology degree granting institution in Bellaire Texas, in fact Belaire is where Mr.Proctors business is located, if you are using Mr.Proctor as a reference for himself both in education and employment that is absurd as it is completely self-referenced.
Ref. given is a Dr. referral website that could be paid for or Dr. could of provided them the information http://fromyourdoctor.com/drproctor/health/about-page2.doInhouse expert (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is going in circles. Nucleophilic, Noleaneder long ago raised questions about Sources which raised WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations and you could not provide any reliable secondary sources to support the claim of the subject being faculty / staff. I found one source which says he is a dermatologist[3], one source that refers to his work on melanins[4] and one source which says he is a Doctor in texas [5]. Unfortunately that's it on Google Books. None of these sources say he is a faculty. Can anyone verify if all three are the same people? I very honestly agree these are not very reliable sources unless they are cited with qualifiers like the doctor has been nominally quoted for his works. Can we agree on such a compromise like this unless we can find a reliable, verifiable secondary source that says he is a faculty?-Wikishagnik (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I agree with user:nucleophylic that wp:blp allows the use of noncontroversial stuff such as degrees and employment history. If not that, then what? There are also several tertiary sources on the page, review articles, an editorial in Nature etc. which specifically note the importance of the subject and his research. Perhaps some editors do not understand what they say. Common here and a source of great frustration to technically-trained editors. Drjem3 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
My $.02 worth:Revise my original input and concur with drjem3, for the reasons given. Why the fuss ? Clearly the bio page allows this type of information and is arguably written with it in mind. Bandn (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur with prior editors requesting "article" Removal.
No EvidencePresented directly from Baylor and UTMB Galveston Human Resources Dept. verifying employment & improperly referenced claims.
Contrary Evidence
Alumni database & a Chair indicates no employment.
No Education degree/licensing as Dermatologist, Neuroscience & Bio psychiatryNo Evidence at Texas Medical Board possibly contrary information http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/OnLineVerif/Phys_ReportVerif.asp?ID_NUM=100876&Type=LP&LicensePermit=G3056.
Report of Medical Board perhaps is partly a self-report from Dr. Proctor. Given accusations of misleading evidence alleged, requesting Wikipedia removal of Nucleophilic & Dr. Proctor as per editor Smokefoote's evidence of denigrating Nobel Prize winners pages & collusion to usurp editorship with DrJem3Inhouse expert (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a mediation request for this discussion. I am not opening anything on WP:AN as I get the impression that single article issues are not suitable for AN. I have tried to include all editors, but if I have missed anyone please enter your details there. Volunteers, I think we may close this discussion here as the discussion has been escalated. -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Posted under Smokefoot name is he/she is away for a few weeks(posted prior to mediation notice) so I move that you request an extension to the time period that the notice deadline can be responded to so all relevant parties and editors can have input, move to a 60 day window to be safe as this is not specific on dates of return. "Inactive for a while
Smokefoot will be inactive for a few weeks. Best wishes to all, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)"
For the record I have had no direct contact to my knowledge with volunteer editor Wikishagnik ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhouse expert (talk • contribs) 12:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
These are the 2 Prestigious Universities/Colleges to Contact and their Human Resource Dept to give input on if Mr. Proctor was on Faculty or Staff at such
http://www.bcm.edu/hr/contact not sure which Baylor, as 5 in state, but assume it was med one in Houston, not Dallas.
http://hr.utmb.edu/ - Note, since Mr. Proctor is also claimed to have received him M.D. and completed Residency and perhaps received a degree as a Specialist in Pathology, they could also be contacted for verification of such, directly here on this site.
Both Institutions can be contacted and linked to DRN & Mediation to view, give comment & evidence directly to both the DRN and Mediation and should be allowed to do such as it perhaps would be most concerning to them if a man is saying or has been claiming to be on Faculty at their institution or not here and/or elsewhere. Inhouse expert (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
^Emmis Communications (January 1989). Texas Monthly. Emmis Communications. p. 152. ISSN0148-7736. Retrieved 16 January 2013.
{{----
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
