Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 189
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 185 | ← | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | → | Archive 195 |
Anjana Om Kashyap
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Editors have agreed to place the statements in the miscellaneous section of the article with specific wording about according to fact-checking organizations. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Tayi Arajakate on 12:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The dispute began when an editor decided to mass revert all contributions from a banned account including older ones. In the process, they removed reliably cited additions. I did find the addition to be aggressive in its style which I attempted to tone down but the other disputee wants it outright removed. The dispute is regarding the inclusion of misreporting by the subject of the article. The subject is a journalist. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Anjana Om Kashyap#Reception How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It would be helpful to have additional perspective on the dispute considering its just between two people. Summary of dispute by Aman.kumar.goelPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The negative content was added by a sock[1][2] which I reverted. Tayi Arajakte made his first edit to the article by restoring the sock without an edit summary, and after discussion on talk page Tayi Arajakte ultimately wants to restore this section. Discussion has so far observed the points that the text in question: 1) is from 2 years ago with no recent coverage per WP:NOTNEWS. 2) lacks any relevance to the biography of the person by being completely one-off incident per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 3) Unless the journalist is generally treated as a fake news peddler, this type of content does not belong here per WP:NPOV. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Tayi ArajakateJust to clarify, this section isn't the one I intend to restore but rather a modified version of the same. The sock made a fair few constructive edits alongside BLP violations, the particular disputed edit in question was made earlier and in exclusion of their problematic edits. The content is relevant to her reception as a journalist in the same vein as the incident in Anjana Om Kashyap#Miscellaneous is. The inclusion in its extent itself is minor and a bare summary and as such does not violate WP:NOTNEWS neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. For WP:NPOV, I have repeatedly asked if there is positive reception of her, I personally could not find such reception. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Moderator Notes
Anjana Om Kashyap discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to moderate this dispute. Read and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Be civil. That is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Be concise. Overly long statements do not help communicate, even if they make the author of the long statement feel better. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve an article, not to talk about editors. Now: Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issues are? I do not have knowledge of the subject area. I expect you to provide me with the knowledge. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors
Second statement by moderatorHello! So the first thing I have noticed is the article does not follow the correct format per WP:MOS so if someone can get it corrected, that would be appreciated. However, read my statement and responses below, please. As far as the dispute at hand, per this section in WP:BLP secondary sources must be of high-quality. With this section in WP:BLP a person should not be notable for only one event in order to have their own page and should be merged with a major article in Wikipedia. So with that being said, I wanted to get some clarification from both of you please. In each of your statements in the section below, please state clearly the following answers for me and use your own words without referencing any WP policies:
Second statements by editors
Third statement by moderator
As these are RfC's it will take at least 7 days for the consensus to see if these media can be reliable or not. For now, I am placing this on hold and once I get the feedback, I will ping the editors. No further discussion at this time. @Robert McClenon: & @Nightenbelle: - If you have any comments or knowledge of these sources, I would appreciate the input. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer
Fourth statement by moderator
Editors, in your appropriate spaces in the fourth statement by editors, please state the following:
Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer Fourth statements by editors
Fifth comment by moderatorEditors @Tayi Arajakate: & @Aman.kumar.goel: - I have to say this is a rather complicated one. My job above all else is WP:BLP. I am not convinced that this journalist meets the requirements as the sources are very few and of the ones listed throughout this discussion most are all part of the same ownership and therefore only count as one source. Most of the sources also only seem to add a POV or talk briefly about the falsifications she makes on her newscasts. I do not see any compromise coming out of this based on all the discussions above. I am leaving this open for 24 hours to seek any comments from moderators @Nightenbelle: & @Robert McClenon: to add any comments that may help. After that time period I will put this discussion over to AfD with an option of merging to the news channel in which she reports for. No more comments from editors at this time please. Fifth comment by editors@Galendalia: - I see that you are not requesting any more comments but I've to say that I'm quite perturbed by this response especially on how you come to the conclusion that most of the sources used are part of the same ownership considering I explicitly mentioned their ownership and showed how they are independent of each other. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Possible resolution proposed by moderatorSo I’m going through the entire discussion again. Even though she does not meet nobility guidelines as dictated by BLP, I think that maybe adding the information in a general format such as “..... has been reported to have....” and citing the articles. However, there should not be the same issue listed twice in the article. Of the citations in the article the first two are written as opinion pieces based on the way they are written (one mentions how she was thinking, which no one knows what or how someone is thinking). I would say it would be ok to list them in the Miscellaneous section with the proper attributes including if they took the article from another source. What are your thoughts on this? Possible resolution discussionTayi: In that regard, I'd agree to a sentence stating something like "According to fact checking organisations such as AltNews, Anjana Om Kashyap has misreported news on certain occasions." in Miscellaneous section. Also if you are referring to article of the Caravan where it says she was "worried about the state of television news" in the first paragraph, that's based on a conversation with her at the specific moment, illustrated with quotations from her in the same paragraph. Most of the rest of the article is about her history and reporting which constitute objective information. This form of writing is literary journalism which is what the magazine is known for. An opinion piece on the other hand is solely the personal opinion of a writer on a subject. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Aman: I am fine with "According to fact checking sources such as AltNews, Anjana Om Kashyap has misreported news on certain occasions.[ref][ref]" Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Resolution ReachedThank you both for being civil and working through this process. The resolution reached is that it will be placed in the miscellaneous section and including the "according to fact-checking organizations such as......." I am very proud of the work and civility you both portrayed in this discussion and even better is a resolution that was reached without escalation. Thank you. Keep on editing! I will now close this case as resolved.
|
Event of Ghair Khumm
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Moot. No response by responding editor after notice, so nothing for us to do. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is voluntary. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Public Service_(EP)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | There has been no previous discussion, among other reasons O-dog222 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Industrial and organizational psychology
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Iss246 (talk · contribs)
- Sportstir (talk · contribs)
- WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
- Psyc12 (talk · contribs)
- Ohpres (talk · contribs)
- Patriciamoorehead (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I am a long-time contributor to WP with more than 12,000 edits. I regret that I approached the Noticeboad previously but did not follow through. I was hoping to work out a compromise. I wrote in the industrial and organizational (i/o) psychology entry that occupational health psychology (OHP) is partly descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine. The idea that one discipline contributes to the emergence of another discipline is found in many places in WP (e.g., health psychology's relation to clinical psychology). I used the appropriate citation to support what I wrote. User:sportstir almost daily reversed my edits until WP editor WhatamIdoing indicated that what I wrote was appropriate. Sportstir, then instead of eliminating my edits, modified my edits to make it seem as if OHP is wholly descended from i/o psychology and eliminated any reference to health psychology and occupational medicine. Such an edit gives a distorted picture.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Industrial_and_organizational_psychology, Talk:Occupational_stress
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Another neutral editor or other neutral editors could review the dispute and arrive at a decision we can abide by. I would like a decision regarding the dispute Sportstir and I have regarding occupational stress as well.
Summary of dispute by Sportstir
A bunch of editors all worked to appease Iss246's many demands that only his wording is acceptable. We all decided on the wording and developed consensus but Iss246 kept overturning the consensus and put his version back in against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've also noticed Iss246 plays tricks as well as creating new accounts like brand new editor Ophres that then suspiciously comes into the discussion to support Iss246. They have also lied about me following them. I have only encountered Iss246 at these couple of articles. My problem with Iss246 is not so much what he is adding, although there seems top be an agenda, but the way they bully other editors and demand only their wording be used and no one else can change it or add to it.
- I would really like to hear from other editors like Psyc12. It is Psyc12's wording in both articles, not mine that Iss246 has an issue with. I repeat. I did not write the edits that Iss246 keeps reverting. They were written to appease Iss246' demands and to resolve the conflict and I just put their suggestions into the article. I admit this guy Iss246 has pissed me off and I'm really not invested in these topics but I saw him bully other editors to get his own way and play games to get anyone blocked who objects to any edits they make. I should have walked awy earlier and thought these issues had been resolved but 6 weeks later Iss246 came back to the article to go against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Sportstir is now accusing me of playing a trick by creating a sockpuppet named Ophres. Not true. What goes around comes around. I think Sportstir is acting like the now-barred Mrm7171 (who went by other names too), another WP editor who also followed me around, undoing my edits. I think the more important matter is to get closure on the i/o psychology edits and the occupational stress edits. Iss246 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing
I have two thoughts:
- There seems to be some "territorial" behavior going on (not just on Wikipedia). Some people seem to feel like these related fields are in competition with each other, so some people from one field feel like they should downplay or avoid mentioning the competition. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to WP:Build the web between related articles (even between subjects much less closely related than this). If you are accustomed to "silo" thinking, then our methods of contextualizing and linking broadly probably do not come naturally.
- It would probably be appropriate at this point for Sportstir to carefully think back and let us know if there might have been any previous accounts at the English Wikipedia, and especially whether any of them are blocked/banned. This whole discussion, and this whole effort, sounds very, very, very similar to the one that ended a couple of years ago with a series of CheckUser blocks. There is a process in such cases for getting permission to edit again, but creating another account and pushing the same problematic viewpoint isn't it.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
OHP is not in a rivalry with i/o psychology. I wanted to point out that OHP is descended from i/o psychology and two other fields. That is not a rivalry. I have a source for that fact.
Regarding the issue of a banned WP editor. Sportstir reminds me of the banned Mrm7171, who also shadowed me very closely. Iss246 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing did you notice editor Ohpres who only joined Wikipedia with a brand new account and username to boost Iss246's version and then made identical edits and opinions to Iss246. Is that allowed? To create a new account in the middle of discussion and pretend it's a new editor? Is that allowed WhatamIdoing? Sportstir (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Psyc12
I am confused. I suggested a compromise that I hoped would resolve the conflict about the I-O Psychology article between ISS246 and Sportstir, and I thought we all agreed. PatriciaMoorhead actually made the edit. Today I see that the edit has been reverted and the article is back to the disputed way it was originally. I agreed with ISS246 that the article should link to the occupational health psychology (OHP) article with a brief mention, and I agreed with Sportstir that this is a tangential issue, and it is not worth going into detail about which disciplines led to OHP--that can be covered in the OHP article.
I suggested replacing
- With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]
With
User:Sportstir, I propose another compromise. It is in two parts. One part is in the i/o psychology entry and the other part is in the occupational stress entry.
1. In the i/o psychology entry, I propose to modify this sentence: "With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"
I would rewrite that sentence as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"
2. You wanted to place "particularly" in before "industrial and organizational psychology" in the following sentence: "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology."
I wanted to avoid naming one discipline above all the others, which the word "particularly" would imply. Because I do not want readers to think that i/o psychology was the one preeminent field in research on job stress, I would leave the sentence without the word "particularly."
And then I turn to the opening sentence of the occupational stress entry: "Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job."
As you know, I tried to change the expression "psychological stress" to "psychological distress." I would not make the change.
The compromise allows both of us to get some of what we want. Iss246 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Iss246 this was the edit that Psyc12 made on 15 February as a compromise to appease you and we could all resolve this.[[4]] Psyc12 wrote "Restated to better reflect what sources said, while acknowledging prominence of IWO psychology" Please stop now falsely saying I was the one who made the edit and the wording "particularly" I just agreed. Psyc12 has again reiterated that position. Sportstir (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Sportstir, it does not matter who made the edit. Singling out i/o as preeminently more important than OHP, ergonomics, human factors is not sourced. I am offering a compromise. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Iss246 the only editors who have commented here on actual content and us resolving this is you, me and Psyc12. I have gone with Psyc12's suggestions to appease you. However your compromise is virtually the same wording that you demanded of us before and you keep putting back in the article against consensus. This applies to both the articles we are discussing. What do you want to do here as you are the only editor who is supportive of your wording and I'm confused why it matters so much to you to be frank? I thought the wording Psyc12 suggested was perfectly good in both articles and well sourced too. Can I suggest letting this go? Sportstir (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Sportstir, WhatamIdoing commented here too. Why don't you reach out to Psyc12. Ask Psyc12 to respond in more detail. I will reach out again to Ohpres and PatriciaMoorehead. We need more input. Iss246 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ohpres
I conduct research on occupational stress. I find iss246's edits to be balanced. I'm not sure I understand Sportstir's obstinacy. It is not controversial that Occupational Health Psychology emerged out of several disciplines/areas of research, including occupational medicine. What is so problematic with this observation in Sportstir's eyes? We should be able to find a solution rapidly.
Summary of dispute by Patriciamoorehead
Industrial and organizational psychology discussion
- User:WhatamIdoing - Are you a principal in this dispute, or are you trying to resolve the dispute? If you are trying to mediate or moderate the dispute, you can be added to the list of volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Robert, I only know about this dispute because Iss246 requested a third opinion from me. I do wonder whether it would be more pointful to have a chat with the CUs at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing and user:Robert McClenon, I would appreciate if you and some other WP editors intercede and help resolve the disagreement between Sportstir and me. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:WhatamIdoing - This is not SPI. If you think a CheckUser is needed, please file a sockpuppet investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Psyc)
I am willing to try to moderate this dispute if the principal parties agree that they will accept me as the moderator. Please read the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the author feel better, but do not make the other parties any better informed. Comment on content, not contributors. That means talk about what you agree or disagree about rather than who you disagree with. Respond to my questions in the section for statements by the editors. Do not respond to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion when answering my questions. If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it in the box I have provided. I am not an expert on the subject matter, and do not intend to do research on the subject matter. It is up to you to provide me with any answers. Now: Each editor should state, in one paragraph, what they want either changed or left the same in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Sportstir and anyone else - Tell me what you do want, not what you don't want. Enter it in the section for your comments, not for my statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, I apologize if I said this already, I accept you as a moderator of the dispute outlined here on the Noticeboard. Iss246 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Psyc)
User:Robert McClenon, I would like a much shortened, last sentence in the section occupational health and well-being in the i/o psychology entry to read as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[1]" I would also like the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry to read: "A number of disciplines are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology." Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is not just myself who disagrees with Iss246's wording as at least three independent editors have commented on the talk pages. We have all made concessions and changes to make this editor Iss246 happy yet they still only demand their wording and ignore the reasoning editors have provided. At what point does an editor step away and accept consensus Robert McClenon? Sportstir (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Psyc)
User:Iss246 has proposed a rewrite of the last paragraph of the Historical Overview. Is it correct then that the difference of opinion is that the other editors want the Historical Overview left as is? Is that the difference of opinion? If so, please explain, in one paragraph, why it should be changed as proposed, or why the change should not be made. If you disagree about something else, state what. Please be clear and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, the other editors are not of one mind. WhatamIdoing and Ohpres agree with me. Psyc12 agrees with Sportstir. I only want two things. One is that the i/o entry notes that OHP is descended from i/o along with health psychology and occupational medicine, which I sourced. Sportstir wants to leave out health psychology and occupational medicine making it seem that OHP is wholly descended from i/o, which is wrong and would mislead readers.
- Second (this was part of a compromise I offered Sportstir regarding the i/o edit), I would also like to strike the word "particularly," which Sportstir had modified the words "industrial and organizational psychology" in the the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry because the word "particularly," in the context in which Sportstir inserted it, made it seem as if i/o psychology plays the dominant role in research on occupational stress. The three papers Sportstir cited to justify using the word "particularly" do not give i/o psychology the dominant role. The dominant theories in occupational stress, the demand-control model (Karasek's theory) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist's theory) were developed by sociologists. A third, and almost as prominent theory of occupational stress, is conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll's), which was developed by a clinical psychologist. I am for small edits that are more consistent with our best estimate of what the truth is. I would like to add sociology as one of the disciplines concerned with occupational stress but I hesitate to do that while in the midst of a dispute with Sportstir. Iss246 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing did not agree with your wording Iss246 only that we could consider adding a comment about your area of work. The only editor who agreed was this brand new editor Ophres that started a new account in the middle of our discussions and then edited exactly the same way as Iss246. So there are at least 3 other editors who disagree with Iss246. Psyc12 also put the word "particularly" in the occupational stress article not me yet you try to make it seem as if I did. The current wording in the industrial organizational psychology article that the majority of editors apart from Iss246 was also written by Psyc12 but Iss246 tries to state it was mine.
- This is Psyc12's edit and I agreed with it as a compromise to Iss246. IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology.[2] The article is very long as it is. Weighing it down further with irrelevant material is not helpful. Sportstir (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Psyc)
Third statement by moderator (Psyc)
Do not tell me what you think other editors think. Each editor should provide their own proposal, in Third Statements by Editors, of what you think the last sentence of the Historical Background should say. Do not reply in the section for the moderator. Reply in the Third Statements by Editors, but only for and about yourself. One proposed statement per editor. After we get the historical summaries, we can talk about why we want them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Psyc)
I propose two things.
1. The i/o entry should not, as Sportstir proposes, make the claim that occupational health psychology (OHP) derives from i/o psychology because such a claim would mislead readers. The genealogy of OHP is this. OHP is descended from i/o and health psychology and occupational medicine. I have sourced that information. Sportstir wants to leave out health psychology and occupational medicine making it seem that OHP is wholly descended from i/o, which is wrong and misleading.
2. My attempt to compromise with Sportstir on the above matter involves the occupational stress entry. The second paragraph of the lead includes a list of fields in which researchers have studied occupational stress. The list includes clinical psychology, OHP, human factors and ergonomics, and i/o psychology. Sportstir insists on (a) deleting human factors and ergonomics and (b) placing the word "particularly" in front of i/o psychology. I would like to retain human factors and ergonomics because human factors researchers do much to enhance workplace safety and reduce stress. I would also delete Sportstir's word "particularly" because that modifier makes it seem as if i/o psychology plays the dominant role in research on occupational stress. He cited three book chapters regarding i/o but none of them indicate that i/o plays a dominant role in research on occupational stress. All disciplines mentioned play a role. I am reluctant to indicate that one is dominant.
To underline my point. The most prominent theories in occupational stress research are the demand-control model (Karasek's theory) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist's theory). Both theories were developed by sociologists. A third, and almost as prominent theory of occupational stress, is conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll's), which was developed by a clinical psychologist. In view of the above, I would like to add sociology as one of the disciplines concerned with occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
| Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Fourth statement by moderator (Psyc)
Comment on content, not contributors. Do not discuss who has said what. Do not say who you disagree with or what you disagree with. The objective is to get the right text for an article in Standard Written English that will be read by readers, and will not be signed. It is only the wording of the article that we are discussing.
Now: Each editor is requested to provide their own wording for the last sentence or last paragraph of the Historical Summary. Just that, nothing else. Put it in the space labeled Fourth Statements by Editors. Sign your proposed statement, but it is a statement about a branch of psychology, not about the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Psyc)
| Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The last sentence of the Occupational health and well-being section of the Industrial and organizational psychology entry should read as follows:
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[3][4]
The last sentence of the lead in the Occupational stress entry should read as follows:
A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology. Iss246 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Would us leaving out the section on occupations in the lede of the occupational stress article altogether be an option here I wonder, as it seems to be causing a lot of unnecessary conflict. That would eliminate Iss246's insistence the word "particularly" is taken out. We could discuss occupations in the body of the article itself if need be. Sportstir (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- In the industrial organizational psych article I propose Psyc12's wording IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology.[5] This would then redirect to the occupational health psychology article. I agree with other editors like Psyc12 in that if we include this sentence surely the mention of other specialist fields like occupational medicine and health psychology are not relevant and should not be included. Sportstir (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
- ^ Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ
- ^ Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
- ^ Schonfeld, I.S., & Chang, C.-H. (2017). Occupational health psychology: Work, stress, and health. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
- ^ Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ
The occupational stress entry is relevant. It is part of the compromise I proposed to Sportstir. Adding the word "particularly" in the occupational stress entry inflates industrial and organizational psychology, which is a discipline within psychology that does not need inflating. As the i/o entry already shows, i/o encompasses a great deal. I should know because I made more than 100 edits in cleaning up the i/o entry before Sportstir arrived on the scene. Unfortunately, almost all Sportstir's activity on WP is to criticize me (e.g., claim that I am a sockpuppet) and try to reverse a small fraction of the edits I made on WP. He hardly does anything else on WP. Iss246 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop focusing on me and criticizing me and tell me why we need this sentence in the lede at all as I suggested removing it so no occupation seems better than another. Can you outline the reason you believe it is so important Iss246? Can the moderator also please ask Iss246 to focus not on me but on my question so we can resolve this? Sportstir (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Sportstir, I am not focusing on you personally, only editorially. We need the sentence in the lead to identify for readers the disciplines that are concerned with occupational stress. I would be okay with moving the sentence to a location elsewhere in the article as long as we don't indicate that one discipline is more ("particularly") concerned with occupational stress than another discipline. I would also delete the references, which are all book chapters that don't bear on which discipline is most concerned with occupational stress. Internal links around the disciplines are sufficient to make the point that each discipline is relevant to occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Psyc)
Comment on content, not contributors. Each of you has your own space now. Put your proposal in there. You may sign another user's statement to agree with it, but you may not disagree with it. You may state why you support your statement. Do not disagree with another statement. The disagreeing is getting in the way of establishing what we are arguing about. Just state your statements.
By the way, if anyone refers to another editor in their statement, I will consider requesting a one-way interaction ban. So don't say who you disagree with, and don't say what you disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Psyc)
Proposal by Sportstir
Would this work? IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology.[1] Sportstir (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ
Sportstir, what is your current view regarding deleting the word "particularly" from the last sentence in the lead of the occupational stress entry? Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This is my current view. Also the references other editors put in seem good. Sportstir (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Proposal by Iss246
In the the i/o psychology entry I mentioned the connection of i/o to occupational health psychology (OHP). The genealogy of OHP is that it is descended from i/o, health psychology, and occupational medicine. I have sourced this. It is not unusual for a WP entry on a discipline to indicate that the discipline has roots in another discipline or helped give rise to another discipline. What I want to do in the i/o entry is to indicate the OHP has roots in i/o psychology but not exclusively in i/o psychology. Two other disciplines, health psychology and occupational medicine, have also contributed to the emergence of OHP. Cognitive stress has an impact on mood and contributes to the development of a mood disorder.
Sportstir edited a sentence I wrote for the lead in the occupational stress entry such that he added the word "particularly." With his addition, that sentence reads, "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and particularly industrial and organizational psychology." The problem with the addition of "particularly" is that the sentence suggests that i/o psychology is the leading discipline within psychology concerned with occupational stress when there is no evidence that it is. He cited three book chapters but none of them indicate that i/o is the leading psychology discipline studying occupational stress. I think it is better to list the disciplines and not play favorites. Iss246 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe we could talk about clinical psych being involved only with individual therapy once a worker has developed a psychiatric injury. Also I cannot see anywhere in the article that ergonomics is involved with work stress? Sportstir (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Sportstir, thank you for your quick response. While ergonomics is more generally concerned with the impact of work-related physical stress, which is indeed a dimension of occupational stress that has been underplayed in the occupational stress entry, ergonomics is also concerned with work-related cognitive stress. In addition, ergonomically-oriented research on long work hours and shift work reveals a link between those conditions and depressive symptoms.
- You are right that clinical psychology has dealt with occupational stress in the context of treating individuals who have been seriously harmed by occupational stress. By the same token, clinical psychologists also have played a role in research on occupational stress. For example, the researcher who developed conservation of resources theory is a clinical psychologist. I add that the developers of the demand-control and effort-reward imbalance models, influential theories of occupational stress, are sociologists. I recommend that we mention the disciplines involved with occupational stress research without singling any one of them out as a discipline that dominates the others. Iss246 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Proposal by Psyc12
Proposal by Ohpres
Sixth statement by moderator
Can the word 'particularly' be deleted, as proposed by User:Iss246?
User:Sportstir - Do you have proposed wording about clinical psychology and stress and ergonomics?
User:Iss246 - What do you think of the proposal by User:Sportstir?
If you want to discuss with each other rather than with me, use the large space. Just be sure to be civil, but you knew that.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors
Back-and-forth discussion
User:Sportstir, as per the suggestion of user:Robert McClenon, I want to be civil and make a proposal. Regarding the sentence with "particularly" in the occupational stress entry, I would agree to delete not just the word "particularly" but the entire sentence then add perhaps two sentences to the section on occupations. In that section I would mention that the investigators in the disciplines human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, sociology, and occupational safety and health conduct research on job stress. I would not need to add citations of which there are many. Instead, I would rely on internal links.
Given that I would remove the abovementioned sentence from the lead, I would like you to agree to my including the sentence on the genealogy of OHP, mentioning that it is descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine.Iss246 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) .
.
- I would be interested in Iss246's reaction to my proposal and questions. I also thought we were talking about 'occupations' in the section being discussed in the occupational stress article not research and theories? I cannot see why there is a need to be focusing on specific occupations involved in occupational stress at all, but if we do attempt to include it we should only be talking about occupations. I have also proposed specific wording for both articles and am not sure if there has been a reply. Sportstir (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC).
- User:Sportstir, my replies are below. I provided a much briefer rewrite of the section on occupations and explain my proposal. I began formulating the rewrite on May 20 and wrote it on May 21. Iss246 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be informative for readers to know what professions are concerned with occupational stress. If we were writing about clinical psychology
readers would know that there are clinical psychologists. If we write about occupational stress, there are no profession with a cognate title. It would be helpful and informative for readers to learn what kinds of professionals are involved in research and practice vis-à-vis occupational stress. I add that we would not be "focusing." We would spend perhaps at most one or two sentences identifying those professions. Iss246 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I am a job stress researcher. I support the edits iss246 wants to make.
- The occupations section of the occupational stress entry should describe professions that deal with occupational stress in research and/or practice. It already does some of that. That section would be an apt place for readers to find out about those professions. We should keep the section brief by supplying internal links to the articles about the relevant disciplines. We can rename the section, something like "Disciplines concerned with research and practice involving occupational stress." Iss246 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
With regard to the occupational stress encyclopedia entry, I recommend discarding the section entitled “occupations” because it could be misinterpreted by readers to refer to stressful occupations when the purpose of the section is to cover professionals whose goal is to reduce job stress. The replacement section does not select one group of professionals as being more focused on occupational stress than another group of professionals. I propose to replace the current section with the following briefer section. Note that the replacement title of the section is more apt. Iss246 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense. If we cannot use the wording other editors like Psyc12 wrote I think we need to leave this section out completely. Proposed wording seems like synthesis of material. For instance saying sociologists help organisations alleviate occupational stress is simply untrue. If we cannot provide 'weighting' to each occupation, which it seems we cannot, then leave discussion of occupations out completely in the occupational stress article. Sportstir (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon and user:Sportstir, can we resolve the disagreement at hand? The disagreement revolves around the occupational stress entry and the industrial and organizational psychology entry. (A) I would like your assent for the brief, neutrally worded description I wrote regarding the professions involved in research and practice vis-à-vis occupational stress. The brief description would replace the current section on occupations. I placed the description above. I would also remove mention of the professions in the lead of the article. (B) This pertains to the i/o entry. In view of the fact that other encyclopedia articles mention that some disciplines give rise to other disciplines (e.g., clinical psychology --> health psychology), I would like your assent regarding my briefly mentioning that occupational health psychology is descended from i/o psychology along with health psychology and occupational medicine. Iss246 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- It should be noted that a number of concessions have already been made at those two articles and I am against the changes for the reasons I've outlined. I've proposed we use another editor's exact wording which I've copied into this discussion previously. It seems to have made the most sense and is backed by the sources. I think some acknowledgement of these facts is needed here. Sportstir (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- My wording is backed by sources, both from scholarly publications and sources in other Wikipedia articles. (A) Occupational stress has been researched and treated by professionals who identify with these disciplines: occupational health psychology (see the sources in the WP article), industrial and organizational psychology (see the sources in the WP article), sociology (Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2011). Work and mental health in social context. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0625-9), human factors and ergonomics (Feuerstein, M. Nicholas, R.A., Huang, G.D., Dimberg, L., Ali, D., & Rogers, H. (2004). Job stress management and ergonomic intervention for work-related upper extremity symptoms. Applied Ergonomics, 35, 565-574. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.05.003), clinical psychology (Firth‐Cozens, J., & Hardy, G.E., (1992). Occupational stress, clinical treatment and changes in job perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 81-88. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00486.x), and occupational safety and health (Murphy, L. R. (2002). Job stress research at NIOSH: 1972–2002. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, Vol. 2, Historical and current perspectives on stress and health. (pp. 1-55). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.). (B) Occupational health psychology is descended from i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational medicine (Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5, (pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.).
- So let us stop this dickering and allow me to go ahead with the edits, which I carefully justify. I have additional sources but I don't want to overload this page. I appeal to User:Robert McClenon and other interested parties. I would like to proceed. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I am a job stress researcher. I support the edits iss246 wants to make. Ohpres
Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice
Professionals from several fields conduct research on the causes of occupational stress and interventions that prevent or treat occupational stress. Other professionals are practitioners who consult with organizations regarding how to make the work environment less stressful or to treat individual casualties of job stress. These professionals come from a number of fields including occupational health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, and occupational safety and health. Iss246 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
2020 United States House of Representatives elections
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed per request of participants Nightenbelle (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Marvel Anime
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Procedural close, one side of the dispute ignored this listing and is presumably not interested in participating. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
List of Perry Mason episodes
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. It does not appear that the editors are ready to engage in moderated dispute resolution. If both editors agree that they want moderated dispute resolution, they can come back. In the meantime, be civil, and do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
AerisWeather
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. The only discussion and editing and reverting seems to have been a few years ago. Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Christopher Langan
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. This noticeboard does not consider disputes that are also pending at another noticeboard including WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Rachel Reeves
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- NYKTNE (talk · contribs)
- Alex B4 (talk · contribs)
- LeedsOwlNew (talk · contribs)
- PinkPanda272 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Reeves is a member of the UK shadow cabinet, which is appointed by the Labour party leader. Her title is called Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; but since the minister she is shadowing is Michael Gove (Chancellor of the Duchy and Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office), multiple secondary sources called her Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office while the Labour Party's website only described her as Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office was held by another MP (Helen Hayes).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Rachel Reeves#Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think we need a third opinion on using the primary source or the secondary source when it comes to the title of a person in an organisation.
Summary of dispute by Alex B4
Summary of dispute by LeedsOwlNew
I believe this evidence proves Reeves is the Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office (SMftCO). The post is a member of the Shadow Cabinet (SC) and the UK Opposition's equivalent to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Helen Hayes is a junior Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office (CO):
- Reeves' official UK Parliament profile confirms her as SMftCO. Informed by individual MP's offices, it is published by the UK Parliament, who also use it for Hansard, the parliamentary record. Hayes' profile describes her as "Shadow Minister (Cabinet Office)", like her current junior colleagues and predecessors (Blomfield [7] and Cat Smith [8]; and Matheson [9], Laura Smith [10] and Platt [11] respectively).
- Reeves has been referred to specifically as the SMftCO in the media. Examples include the biography for Reeves for the 9 April edition of BBC Question Time, being introduced and referred to as the "SMftCO" in separate live Channel 4 News interviews on 19 April and 7 May, a 28 April article in the Financial Times, and an 11 May interview for the Evening Standard.
- Junior Shadow CO Ministers can be colloquially referred to as a "SMftCO" in addition to the official SMftCO. The previous SMftCO, Jon Trickett, led a team of junior Shadow CO Ministers referred to as "SMftCO" in separate party website articles: they referenced Matheson and Laura Smith in February 2018, Platt in July 2018, Matheson in September 2018 and Platt in June 2019, etc. Similarly, senior and junior government and opposition shadow ministers with a CO portfolio can be all colloquially referred to as "Cabinet Office Ministers" or "Shadow Cabinet Office Ministers" for quick reference due to the length of their titles.
- The Labour Party website does not provide complete information as a primary source. The Shadow Cabinet page lists Hayes as "SMftCO" but this does not determine she is the official SMftCO. It is not exclusvely a list of SC members. Instead, it includes Hayes and all junior members of the Opposition frontbench. A 9 April party press release also supports this, listing Hayes as a junior Shadow CO Minister. Like both of their omissions of Reeves as SMftCO, both the SC list and press release are summaries and do not include other SC Ministers' full titles, including for Rayner, Lammy and Cat Smith, for example.
Thank you, LeedsOwlNew (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by PinkPanda272
There has been a dispute running for around a month on talk about Reeves' position in the Shadow Cabinet. Myself and LeedsOwlNew favour adding the position of Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office to the infobox. Various Reliable Sources including Channel 4 News [12] [13] and BBC Question Time [14] state that she holds this role, as does her official profile on the UK Parliament website. NYKTNE (and to a lesser extent Alex B4) are against this, citing the Labour Party's list of Shadow Cabinet members, which states that Reeves only holds the position of Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the other position is held by Helen Hayes. This is inaccurate for two reasons, firstly that the website omits several positions (for example, David Lammy is Shadow Lord Chancellor in addition to Shadow Justice Secretary); and secondly that according to Hayes' parliamentary profile, she holds the position of 'Shadow Minister (Cabinet Office)' - not 'Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office' -, denoting that she is a junior minister shadowing the Cabinet Office, and does not hold a seat in the Shadow Cabinet.
I feel this is conclusive evidence to prove that Reeves does hold both positions. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Rachel Reeves discussion
Moderator's Note 1
Hi, my name is Nightenbelle and I am volunteering to mediate this dispute. First, I would like to ask that the filing editor please place a notice on each involved editor's page informing them of this DRN per the instructions at the top of this page. Second, I want to congratulate everyone involved for the most civil passionate discussion on a talk page that I have read. You all are to be commended for your decorum. I think I understand the issue, if not what a shadow Cabinet is exactly, I'm sorry- I'm American and this is not a concept we have here, but I will be researching it more today to become better informed. Are there any other, past or present, members of the shadow cabinet whose titles on the parliament website and other sources did/do not match and how were those handled? That could provide some type of precedent for this situation. If not, would either side consider adding the word "(assumed)" or something like that after the contested title to indicate that she has assumed the role in the press even if it has not been officially awarded her? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Note to participants:: I have added the necessary box on the users' talk space and on the article. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer
- DRN Volunteer note to moderator: @Nightenbelle: There was a comment placed on my talk page regarding this dispute if you would like to copy it over. Thanks Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 04:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)DRN Volunteer
Participant Response 1
For the benefit of Nightenbelle, here is a bit of background on how the system works: The largest party in the House of Commons (currently the Conservative Party) forms the government, whose leader is the Prime Minister. The PM and senior ministers form the Cabinet. Each senior minister has a brief or portfolio relating to a government department (like Education, Health or Foreign Affairs). The second largest party (currently the Labour Party) forms a 'shadow' or 'alternative' government, with the party leader elected Leader of the Opposition. They form the 'Shadow Cabinet', where each member normally shadows a member of the Government (similar to an understudy in a theatre production). In the USA it would be equivalent to majority and minority leaders in Congress, except that the majority leader (the Prime Minister) is also the head of the Executive.
Sometimes the government minister's and the shadow minister's titles don't quite match, a good example is Andy McDonald, who is Shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, despite there not being an equivalent position in the Government. In the case of Rachel Reeves, there was also the additional problem that Reeves' position didn't exist in the last Shadow Cabinet under Jeremy Corbyn. So when Keir Starmer became Leader of the Opposition in April, he decided to remove some of the positions, and replace them with others. I'm sure it made perfect sense at the time, but it causes a lot of bother for Wikipedia editors like ourselves! The last Shadow Cabinet member to do what Reeves does now was Jon Trickett, who held the joint positions of Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office and Shadow Lord President of the Council. In Starmer's reshuffle, nobody was named Shadow Lord President, but Reeves was named Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (a brief that does have a Government equivalent, Michael Gove, but hasn't been used to describe an opposition role since 2010). This leaves the Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office position stuck in limbo, as we can't decide whether to trust the (although incomplete) Primary Source, or the various Secondary Sources that say something different.
The only similar situation I can think of relates to Gove, who was appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (i.e. the position that Reeves is shadowing now) in July of last year. Speculation was that Gove would take the Cabinet Office post as well, but in the end it went to Oliver Dowden. The problem with comparing our situation to this is, that the ambiguity was sorted pretty much within hours (despite a minor edit war) as the official list of appointments, as well as various other reliable sources were then published, which all agreed with each other.
I am happy with qualifying the position with '(assumed)' or '(de facto)' if a clearer comparison can not be found. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for not leaving a message notice of every involved editor's talk page and I really want to thank Galendalia for doing so. It was my first time filing a DRN request and I was not aware of that instruction. To make things simpler and less repetitive, I just want to say that I would find the de facto idea acceptable. NYKTNE (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment from another volunteer's User page
I'm copying a comment over here that was left on another DRN mediator's talk page
- Hi, I've never interacted with the Dispute Resolution system on Wikipedia before, but I think I may be able to provide some useful information as I have worked in the office of a former member of the Shadow Cabinet. My WP:COI deceleration is available on my userpage.
- Rachel Reeves was appointed as Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to shadow Michael Gove who is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Second Johnson ministry. Gove also holds the role of Minister for the Cabinet Office - this is not disputed.
- Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a new shadow cabinet position created this year by the new Labour Party leader Keir Starmer. However, the duties of this role were performed by Jon Trickett as Shadow Lord President of the Council. Trickett also held the position of Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office - again, looking at the talk page for Reeves, this seems not to be disputed.
- As the functions of the role Trickett held are almost identical to that of Reeves, it seems to me that his page can be used as precedent to also include Reeves' position of Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office in the infobox.
- Hope this helps. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Moderator Statement #2
Would any of the other participants like to comment or express an opinion on adding "de facto" or another suggestion? Alex_B4 (talk · contribs) or LeedsOwlNew (talk · contribs) ? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Participants Statements #2
I would like to provide an extra piece of information from the UK Government. In this correspondence, the Cabinet Secretary did not recognise Reeve's portfolio as Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office. -- NYKTNE (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- NYKTNE - I don't think that a header on a letter proves much, generally only the most important or widely used title will be used, hence why Sedwill doesn't describe himself as Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Home Civil Service and National Security Advisor at the top. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @PinkPanda272: I know that only the main title of a person is used in most circumstances, but Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office are roles of the same rank level, meaning that they are used together as we can see on Gove's letter. -- NYKTNE (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- NYKTNE - I don't think that a header on a letter proves much, generally only the most important or widely used title will be used, hence why Sedwill doesn't describe himself as Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Home Civil Service and National Security Advisor at the top. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's Statement #3
Okay, No one has responded to the proposal of adding the words "de facto" to the controversial title. Is this an acceptable compramise or should we be looking for another? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Participants Statements #3
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this as I'm not formally involved, however I just wanted to make a comment. Helen Hayes is currently displayed as the incumbent Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office under Keir Starmer.PoliceSheep99 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
National People's Congress Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- National People's Congress Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- PhysiqueUL09 (talk · contribs)
- CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I find the discussion cannot go further if other editors are not involved. There has been evidence of using opinions as fact by some users.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
There are only two editors in this discussion and it is a rapidly evolving subject. I think more editors need to add their point of view.
Summary of dispute by CaradhrasAiguo
National People's Congress Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation discussion
- Can someone remove me from the parties list? I hold no personal opinion in this dispute, I merely enforced WP:BLPTALK in relation to accusations one person made on the talk page (and recommended that the other editor come here to get impartial eyes to resolve this, as they're new here). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Done Galendalia (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer
@CaradhrasAiguo: I would add that it would not be surprising if someone would think these activists belong to WP:FRINGE, as China has been accused of actively waging a disinformation war against Hong Kong protesters [16]. Your argument doesn't stand. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: Can you come here and include your reasoning so that we can move on? Do you think you want to add as to why you thought that Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Marco Rubio were (Redacted) and (Redacted) and that they should be relegated to WP:FRINGE? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I am not really sure how DRNs work but I hope this is the right place to insert this remark. I unfortunately edited the mention of the article in question without noticing that it was subject to this procedure; in it, I mentioned, in the abstract, the opposition and pro-Beijing camps as a whole; I hope neither party will object. Since I have accidentally edited it, I suppose I should add my position. I do not see how WP:FRINGE relates to this case. Wong is being quoted not because he may or may not be right—that's a controversial normative question of the sort encyclopædias probably oughtn't to attempt to resolve—but because lots of people do agree with him and will act on what he says; we should cover him just as we cover the views of other political entities. Even if we were all to reject what Wong does, even if we were to see him as a Nazi or something, it is still worth noting that there's a long page on Nazi racial theory (to be clear, I don't think that of Wong.) Valid grounds to remove Wong's views might be e.g. that he is unimportant and not covered in reliable sources—of course, such an impression would be manifestly incorrect. Docentation (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Docentation, you are totally allowed to talk here, although in the future it would be best practice to put your statement under a header like mine below. I am preety sure that neither party will object to your additions as they do not appear to be related to this case. O-dog222 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @O-dog222: I see; thank you. I have added a remark below.
First statment by moderator
Hi, my name is O-dog222 and I am volunteering to mediate this dispute. CaradhrasAiguo, would you like to discuss here? Also, could one of you please provide a short discription of the content dispute? O-dog222 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @O-dog222: Hi, I will provide you with the details of the dispute. I wanted to add a HKFP reference[17] to the page which contained multiple reactions on the law. But CaradhrasAiguo dismissed the whole article and removed it from the top saying in his commit message: " Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Marco Rubio should not be cited in the lede and especially not without WP:ATTRIBUTION". In a later talk post he added: "Those three figures are all (Redacted), and, in the case of at least Wong, have (Redacted). WP:FRINGE mandates that Wong's opinions be relegated there, to the fringe.". Where the redacted words where inappropriate. He later changed his phrasing to remove Marco Rubio's relegation to WP:FRINGE but insisted that "Law and Wong, as "pro-democracy" activists, have been noted in their refusal to condemn violence. WP:FRINGE mandates that Wong's opinions be relegated there, to the fringe". I disagreed with his statements because 1. In my opinion the article contains many reactions that are very relevant and 2. Activists often refuse to explicitely condemn violence in demonstations, I can find one specific case but I will assume that it is pretty widespread knowledge for now.(personal opinion) It is a tactic that is often used by media and politicians to discredit activists. I myself participated in the 2012 Quebec student protests and this kind of rethoric was widely used by the government in place at the time : "Charest admonished the students and said the social disruption is unacceptable. (...) I find it unacceptable that one student association refuses to condemn violence".[18]. All of what I wrote is my basic argument as to why Law and Wong statements should not be relegated to WP:FRINGE, which I actually find kind of offensive. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you PhysiqueUL09!
- Its been a while now... CaradhrasAiguo did not answer. Can we move forward @O-dog222:? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Inclusion of reference to pan-dem camp as a whole, and analogy
I thought my edits might be dispute because, as far as I can tell, the dispute is as follows: the article needs to mention criticism, but the question is which critics it should explicitly identify and which it shouldn't—in particular, whether Joshua Wong should be identified. Presumably if one is of the view that Wong should not be included because he does not repudiate violence, the pan-democratic camp could be accused of this too. If one interprets WP:FRINGE as precluding inclusion of people who do not repudiate violence, one would also object to my edits. That is why I explained that I do not think WP:FRINGE applies in this way. In particular, Wikipedia does not have normative beliefs on political disputes, and therefore has no metric to determine how ‘fringe’ a political movement is based on its beliefs. Instead, the question is whether Wong is sufficiently prominent to appear in reliable sources. Evidently he is, and so his views should be covered. I think that there's a confusion here, e.g., between an article about medicine and an article about a political dispute. In the article about medicine, we are trying to describe some ‘truth’ about the medicine, whether it works, etc. as well as what people think about it. In an article about politics, the truth we are trying to describe at Wikipedia not what the ‘correct’ way of resolving the political dispute would be, but rather a good understanding of how exactly that political dispute develops, what each side thinks, their tactics, etc.—a historical (true) narrative, rather than some truth about whether a policy was a good one or not. Docentation (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Moderator Comments
- Note from DRN volunteer: I have added Coffee as the editor was involved in this discussion as well. Galendalia (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer
- Note from DRN volunteer: Per request of editor Coffee I am removing them as a party to the discussion. Galendalia (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer
Quentin Crisp
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as fizzled out. The editors do not appear to be ready to discuss the issue, which is how to refer to the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Brightest Blue
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as fizzled out. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion in four days. At this point any discussions can again take place at Talk:Brightest Blue, the article talk page. The parties can refile here if discussion at the talk page is futile. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Big Machine Records
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Not a dispute between editors, so not within purview of this noticeboard. Please put an edit request on the article talk page. If someone thinks it's important enough and sufficiently documented with reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, they'll make the changes. Don't be surprised if the answer is "no" or ignored. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
PodShare
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Involved editors don't want to pursue this case + Not enough talk about the issue before filing. Feynstein (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
FLAT EARTH
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Not enough talk + no involvement from editors. Feynstein (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
List of lynching victims in the United States
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Discussion will continue on the talk page |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Jason Altmire
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. Discussion on the article talk page did not materialize. The dispute is assumed to have been resolved somehow or somewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|