Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 3 April 2014

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Sydney / Music Top‑importance Sydney Opera House is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Opera This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Misplaced Pages articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Music venues Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. World Heritage Sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 20, 2004, October 20, 2005, October 20, 2006, October 20, 2007, October 20, 2008, October 20, 2009, October 20, 2010, and October 20, 2013.

Recent revert - 3 December 2012

Good faith and useful additions by a new user are being removed for a variety of reasons, at least some of which are spurious. such edits should be reworded to include their new material, not simply reverted. This is Misplaced Pages policy, as should be familiar to more experienced editors. I intend to restore the edit, and I invite those more familiar with the subject to do just that, remembering that they, too, were once new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated to you on my talk page, the section to which these edits were made deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. That's why the section is titled "Reconciliation with Utzon", not "Failed attempts at reconciliation with Utzon" - the reconciliation with Utzon was a major milestone in the life and redesign of the interior spaces of the building. If you do restore the edits, hopefully without breaking the article again, they would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you've restored the edits and left the article in a broken state. Most irresponsible of you, expecting somebody else to fix your errors. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I will say that I don't have a great problem with the edits, as long as they are added to the correct section, are properly referenced and don't leave the article in a broken state. I don't think that's too much to ask. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's very disappointing that you've chosen to disregard my comments above, asking "those more familiar with the subject to... include new material" and are seemingly refusing to assist a new editor to make the changes - changes which are both of value to Misplaced Pages, and cited - they wanted to make, as I requested both here and on your talk page, in order to preserve your preferred vision of how the article should appear, to which you have again reverted. This is a dreadful way to treat a new editor, whose further editing is now unlikely. I'm done here, but will ask uninvolved editors to look by. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits were removed by those familiar with the subject but you chose to restore them, and broke the article in doing so. YOU are not a new editor and you know exactly how the article was broken, but expect others to fix the problems that you have re-introduced. You've been around long enough to know that's not the way to edit so please, get off your high horse, accept some responsibility and stop blaming others while absolving yourself of all responsibility. You know better. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion of an uninvolved editor

Guys. Relax. I think what happened here is:

1. HubbleConstant, a newbie, made some good-faith edits that nonetheless made a bit of a mess of the article.
2. AussieLegend reverted the edits and warned the editor about adding unsourced material.
3. Andy/Pigsonthewing saw this as unhelpful and reverted the edits and told the newbie not to worry about the warning.

I can see what both of you is getting at but I think this is a situation where a bit of extra consideration can save a lot of time in the long run.

Here are some recommendations for you, AussieLegend,

1. Start a thread here, on the talk page of the article, explaining
   • What the section that HubbleConstant added text to is supposed to be about
   • Why the new text doesn't fit
   • Where in the article it would be more appropriate to mention the things HubbleConstant mentions.
2. Have a think about the sourcing of the new text. Much of it may just be an issue with the style of how the sources are presented. Improve the situation by editing the new text or discuss the issue on the article talk page.
3. Leave a message on HubbleConstant's talk page saying that you're sorry you got off on the wrong foot and asking if he/she would like to respond to your comments on the article talk page.

Keeping discussions of the article's contents on the article talk page helps to keep all editors included in the discussions. It helps to keep the discussion about the content of the article, rather than the behaviour of a particular user. It is also more welcoming for the new user because you are inviting them in to a discussion about how to improve the article, rather than just pointing out where they went wrong.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. There is already an explanation above as to where and why the problems occurred. HubbleConstant's only edits were made before I warned him about adding unsourced content and he hasn't returned since his edits were reverted by two other editors. In all likelihood, nothing more would have eventuated if Pigsonthewing hadn't chosen to restore the flawed edits. This really is a storm in a teacup that doesn't warrant any more action until (and if) HubbleConstant returns. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing. We want HubbleConstant to return. To the encyclopedia if not to this article. That is what Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers is all about. We don't want new users to get the impression that their contributions are not welcome. We want them to continue to contribute and to learn as they go. If you follow the recommendations above we have a much better chance of retaining new editors, which is what we need to do, to survive and grow.

I recognise that you have already explained the problems you have identified as part of your conversation with Andy/Pigsonthewing. However, I think it would be easier for the newcomer to understand if you laid it out clearly in a new section. This means that the new user can be directed to this section and jump into the conversation, without having to understand the conversation between you and Andy.

Also, your text above does not include anything about where in the article it would be better to put the new text. Including that is essential because it shows that you do value the new user's contribution.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who spends an awful lot of time fixing the screwed up edits of new editors who pop in, edit and then disappear never to be seen again, trying to reduce the damage cause by new editors who are here only to vandalise, or just doing janitorial work that nobody else wants to do, I don't have the time to spend chasing after somebody who may not even return after their initial edits, which happens all too frequently. If HubbleConstant returns, we can sort it out then, but doing anything more at this point is a wasted effort based on my experience. As for where to put HubbleConstant's edits, perhaps you missed the bit where I said "If you do restore the edits, hopefully without breaking the article again, they would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s."

Sorry. Yes. You did say the new content would be better in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. Perhaps the fact that I missed that illustrates the point that it easy to miss things when they are part of two editors arguing, as opposed to a laying out of what would be best for the article.

I do a bit of article patroling using WP:STiki and so have also come across many edits by editors who never return. I know this can be annoying but it isn't always the case. As experienced editors, we are supposed to try to encourage others to take part in the project.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued....

I really don't see the point of the most recent edits made by Pigsonthewing. He hasn't seen fit to explain the edits here, although the second edit summary alludes to his problem. The thing is though, it's completely wrong. Nobody has disputed the accuracy of the edits, only their placement in the article, and the fact that the edits broke the article, as I've explained to him above, and on my talk page. There is no dispute about the accuracy of this revision of the article, so a tag is completely unnecessary.

I've explained on my talk page, and above, that the section titled "Reconciliation with Utzon" deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. That's why the section is titled "Reconciliation with Utzon", not "Failed attempts at reconciliation with Utzon" - the reconciliation with Utzon was a major milestone in the life and redesign of the interior spaces of the building, which is why it has its own section. I've indicated above that the edits by HubbleConstant would be better placed in the section titled "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" but, in the 24 days since this started nobody, including Pigsonthewing and HubbleConstant (the latter hasn't even edited Misplaced Pages in that time), has seen fit to do so. I'm therefore at a loss as to understand why Pigsonthewing thinks the problem is unresolved.

For the benefit of any new editors here, something stated by Yaris678 needs addressing: "AussieLegend reverted the edits and warned the editor about adding unsourced material.' - Nope, that's not what happened. Initially, HubbleConstant completely removed the "Reconciliation with Utzon" section, without explanation. This was quite correctly reverted by Tbhotch. HubbleConstant then made edits to the section, without including any actual citations, breaking the section in the process. The break, as explained to Pigsonthewing, was caused when text was added into the section, resulting in this change. removing "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" from "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work." The change was reverted by Ian Rose because it did not contain citations, which was true. (Comments in the prose are not citations) HubbleConstant then changed "Beginning in the late 1990s" to "Beginning in the late 1978", which was both gramatically incorrect and incorrect given the context of the section. The edit also added "# Numbered list item" above the section. This edit was reverted by Ian Rose. It was only after these events that I discovered the history and gave HubbleConstant a warning for the unsourced edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"without including any actual citations" That's still not true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There were no inline citations in the content that was added. The diffs don't lie, but that's not the real point here. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The diffs may not lie, but the claim that the edit concerned was made "without including any actual citations" is most certainly and demonstrably a falsehood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. There are most definitely no inline citations in the content that was added. However, as i said, this is not the point. The pont here is that you've twice added a tag without any explanation as to why this tag was added. What is the dispute over the factual accuracy of the section? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That there were no inline citations is not in dispute; you said there were "no actual citations"; that is false. The facts evidenced by those citations have been excluded by you, in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s, which is shown by them not to be valid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but when most people refer to citations, they refer to inline citations. That's why they were referred to as "actual" citations. The content was NOT excluded "in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s" at all. It was excluded, as explained to you quite clearly that the section titled "Reconciliation with Utzon" deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. Nobody disputes that there were failed attempts at reconciliation many years before, they are just irrelevant to that section. As also explained very clearly, in my first post in the thread, those edits would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your apparent claim that only "inline citations are "actual citations" is also bogus. The reconciliation cited in the removed edits were not failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

They did indeed fail. Utzon had nothing to do with the Opera House until the 1990s reconciliation. He wanted to design a new building for Sydney, but wanted nothing public to do with the Opera House. Much of what was in the removed edits is uncited and not supported by the alleged sources, including the final claim, "It has been incorrectly claimed that it was not until 1992 that he first gave an interview to an Australian publication, the Fairfax Good Weekend. But this is not the case.... he gave m". And, of course, the edits are still not relevant to the 1990s reconciliation. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"An interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh.... Yes, that's very nice but it doesn't hide the fact that the attempts at reconciliation did fail, that much of the content is not supported by the alleged sources and appears to be OR and that very little is actually verifiable. You're concentrating on the sources, instead of the real problem; that the edits are irrelevant to the section, which is not factually incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your view; I dispute it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Then please explain how attempts at reconciliation in the 70s and 80s are relevant to the reconciliation in the lead-up to the re-works in this millenium. There's simply nothing that's factually wrong about the section and you haven't demonstrated how it is. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is and I have; and your question is nonsensical in that context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well I've just stumbled across this. I've read through the edit war and all of the above comments. I really can't buy into a lot of the arguments made above - for example, to me, I don't see an issue either way with respect to where to put comments about "failed reconciliations". I don't have a problem with them appearing in the "Reconciliation with Utzon" section as a chronological sequence. It doesn't matter if they failed, they provide historical context and can be seen as the first chapters in the reconciliation saga. Likewise, I don't see a drama if the failed attempts are put in the earlier sections. If it were me, I'd put the failed attempts with the successful attempt in the one section, but I just don't see it worth the argument - it works either way. The prose-style citations could easily have been converted to in-line format and, if necessary, tagged, to give someone an opportunity to check them out in hard copy. The Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary is held by the State Library of NSW and the other references are held either there or may be in online databases. They can be checked.

This said, I see two big problems here. The first is that in general the content needs a heck of a lot of clean up work and a lot of that is impossible without the sources. It says, for example, that in the interview Utzon explained why he didn't want to come back for the fifth aniversary. That doesn't really fit in the article. What this addition should do is actually say the reason that Utzon gave, then cite the article as the reference for the statement. I don't think unfulfilled wishes to design another building on Sydney Harbour are relevant here (unless someone can show how they are). It's not relevant to say he gave numerous witty interviews, that he gave a major interview in such-and-such a place, that a book exists, that a photograph exists in that book, nor that Utzon is handsome in that photograph. Utzon's AO belongs to his own article more than this one. The letters to Ava Hubble (who is who exactly?) in themselves are not relevant and I can't see the relevance of the content examples given. It just seems to be attempting to make a very laboured case that he was in contact with at least one Australian and didn't hate all Australians, but I don't think this is disputed nor do I believe the article currently claims otherwise.

This all leads into my second concern, which is that there appears to be a possible WP:COI issue with the edits, as they primarily appear to put forward the views and work of Ava Hubble, as also expressed elsewhere such as . It's worth noting that these views are disputed by others . I think WP:AGF is important and if there is an issue here, this editor would likely to nevertheless be in a position to make valuable contributions to the article and it's a pity this wasn't something that could have been managed more carefully at the time this issue first came up last December.

At this point, if a third party was to view the June 1978 Opera House Monthly Diary it might yield a potentially interesting viewpoint worthy of inclusion about why Utzon didn't want to come back for the fith anniversary. I'm not convinced the visit by his daughter is necessarily worth a mention and I don't see anything else that's worth including. The crux of it is the article probably needs at most a paragraph to briefly cover off the strained relationship prior to the late 90's reconciliation, but currently there's no solid sources to provide the necessary cited input. At the moment, I can't see anything I can really use to add to the article, just some ideas of threads that could be pulled to head in that direction. Having made that consideration, I am going to remove the disputed tag as nothing has happened for 10 months and nothing has been discussed for 9 months. In any case, it's not the correct tag. The article might be missing some potential content, but what's there is not inaccurate. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the tag - that no progress has been made does not mean the accuracy of the current content is no longer disputed. It's also not clear, who you think has the CoI you allege. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You asked that "those more familiar with the subject" attend to the article and they did. You haven't explained how the article is factually inaccurate - the lack of the additional content doesn't make it so. In fact the article as it stands is accurate; as explained to you previously the content that was removed deals with earlier failed attempts at reconciliation, which is why I suggested that it be more appropriately added to the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. {{Disputed section}} is not the correct template to use. What you really need is {{Expand}}. {{Missing information}} isn't really appropriate as the content isn't really missing. As Rob.au indicated "The article might be missing some potential content, but what's there is not inaccurate". Generally I agree with Rob.au except on where the content should be added and that "the prose-style citations could easily have been converted to in-line format and, if necessary, tagged". It would be irresponsible to restore the content added by HubbleConstant without actually verifying the content first. As for the COI issue, that should be obvious. As Rob.au indicated, the content that was added by HubbleConstant are the views of Ava Hubble. (emphasis added). There seems to be a link between the two. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me like that. What I in fact said was "such edits should be reworded to include their new material, not simply reverted. This is Misplaced Pages policy... and I invite those more familiar with the subject to do just that". I repeat that I dispute the accuracy of the section tagged; since material which contradicts it has been removed. And I have indeed already explained how the article is factually inaccurate, above, when I wrote: "The facts evidenced by those citations have been excluded by you, in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s, which is shown by them not to be valid.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The content that you claim was removed was only added to the article 10 hours before you first restored it after it had been removed because it was added to the wrong section, was unsourced, improperly sourced and/or contained original research. It didn't contradict what was already in the article at all. These reasons have been explained to you at length. The "citations" did not evidence anything because they were not appropriate citations and were not verifiable. An example is "a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983", which is extremely vague and not at all what we expect of citations. It is so vague as to not even identify which edition of The Weekend Australian contained the interview. There are up to 6 within the period that the interview could have been given as there's no guarantee that the alleged interview was printed in December 1983, just that the interview was given that month. The actual interview could very well have appeared in the 1 or 8 January issues. However, that was not the reason that I removed the content. As was very clearly explained to you on my talk page, as well as being mentioned in the edit summary, the content was removed because the edits broke the article by randomly removing a large section of valid content, something you persisted with even after being told that your edits were breaking the article. The content was certainly not excluded "in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s". It has never been claimed that attempts at reconciliation didn't begin until the late 1990s. Attempts began a long time before that but they failed, and there were long periods where there was no communication. It was the ultimately successful attempts at reconciliation that didn't start until the 1990s. As was explained to you, the "Reconciliation with Utzon" deals with the successful attempts of the 1990s, not the long past failed attempts, which was why adding content dating back to 1978 was inappropriate. Those attempts are more correctly dealt with in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section since the failed attempts happened in the immediately following years, before the gap. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That the content was removed (note: not moved), by you, is not a claim, it's a demonstrable fact. You continue to falsely refer to it as unsourced: it was not. The contradiction that I highlight is clear for anyone to see. While you have indeed posted at length, your so-called explanations have done nothing to refute my points or justify the exclusion, by you, of the new, and significant information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Removed" gives the impression that the life of HubbleConstant's edits to the article was greater than the 31 minutes that they spent in the article before you restored them. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability requires that content be reliably sourced and that content that is challenged or likely be challenged be supported by inline citations. The edits that you restored had clearly been challenged and yet contained not a single inline citation. Any editor had the right to remove them. However, sourcing is not the reason I removed them. They were removed because they broke the article and were not relevant to the section to which they were added. Your points about sources are irrelevant to this, as has been explained previously, yet you want to concentrate only on the sourcing issue. The tag is invalid because the section is not factually inaccurate, again as has been explained. As for "You continue to falsely refer to it as unsourced: it was not.", well that's false itself. I suggest you review WP:UNSOURCED. Better still, don't - Sourcing isn't the issue here. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the point of retaining the tag at this stage - it seems to be demanded by one editor, who is demanding other unnamed editors find a way to add the content to the article. I tried and failed to find anything worthwhile of inclusion that could be sourced. I'm not sure how another "white knight" is going to come in at this point and do it. Also, the probable WP:COI was abundantly obvious, as AussieLegend has since pointed out. Pigsonthewing - you talk of new and significant information. Given I went through the addition quite carefully and couldn't find anything I could work with, can you identify exactly what information from the addition you define as significant? I'm just not following what you are expecting to happen at this point. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Somehow my relevant edit summary disappeared, but I have got rid of the tag not only because it is outdated but also because there isn't much controversial content left. Surely the section can continue to be developed by normal editing. Bjenks (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the tag; the issue is not one of controversial content being in the article, so much as it being misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events. Nothing has been done to address this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen in this cited edit, there were approaches in 1978 and 1984. Communication did not "begin" in "the late 1990s", and it seems that reconciliation of some sort had already occurred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained numerous times, the section is not "misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events". The content that was added to the section was not relevant to the section, which is why its addition was reverted. Multiple editors have now reviewed this section and agree the tag is not needed. It's time you drop the stick. Fifteen months is far too long. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have addressed all but one of the points in your latest comment previously, I refer you to my earlier responses, which you appear to have overlooked, forgotten or ignored. As to your new point, "fifteen months", WP:NODEADLINE applies, and there is no time limit in the use of a dispute tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed the comments because you are not reading what has been written. The section has nothing to do about the earlier attempts at reconciliation. It's about the 1990s efforts in the lead-up to the building refurbishment. Yes, there is no deadline but there is no excuse for continuing to disrupt an article simply because you refuse to get a point. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The WP:IDHT appears to be all yours; I have read what you and others have written, and refuted it where necessary. If you're particularly concerned about the tag being in an individual section (one which you have selectively retitled), feel free to move it to the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not refuted it at all. You just keep pushing to include edits that broke the article and which have nothing to do with that particular section. At least three editors now disagree that the tag is required. You're the only one who sees a need for it. I'm not going to move the tag because I don't see a need for it at all. The section was retitled to reflect the content in the section, again has been explained to you, since you simply don't get the point. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Factual dispute tag

@Andy Mabbett: You have now placed the onus on yourself to clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed. Alternatively, the flag must be removed. You are simply out of order to use this disruptive device as a tactic to reinstate historically removed content. Bjenks (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am dong no such thing; and have already replied to a similar question from you, above. Quite why you and other editors refuse to address the actual issue at hand is inexplicable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reply was irrelevant as the section in question is not about the reconciliation efforts in 1978 and 1984, as has previously been explained at length. Nobody has refused to "address the actual issue at hand" because you haven't explained what your issue actually is. If you can't explain now what facts are disputed, then there is no reason to keep the tag and it should therefore be removed, as multiple editors have said. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that I said above, recently, "the issue is not one of controversial content being in the article, so much as it being misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events. Nothing has been done to address this." and "there were approaches in 1978 and 1984. Communication did not 'begin' in 'the late 1990s'.", I can only conclude that you're deliberately ignoring what I've said. As I also said, "the WP:IDHT appears to be all yours". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And I replied "the section is not 'misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events'". An editor added unverifiable content that was not relevant to the section which broke the article and it was appropriately removed. You restored it, expecting anyone but you to fix the errors. You are still quite clearly missing that point after 15 months of back and forth. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have amended the correct point that communication was resumed (not begun) in the 90s. Now, what else, please? Bjenks (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Details of the currently (and deliberately, for no apparent good reason) prior communications. As discussed at length above (from "edits... reworded to include their new material" to "cited information about earlier events"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this section is about events from the late 1990s onward. Please specify the facts in it that are "factually inaccurate" so that I can put them right and remove the flag. If you wish to introduce earlier events, please add them yourself to an appropriate earlier section. If they are really relevant to the context, and reliably sourced, there is a good chance that they will be allowed to stand. Bjenks (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually suggested this in my first post in this discussion, back in 2012. The edits that broke the article are far more relevant to the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

They were introduced (see first diff, at the very top of this section) and were removed by other editors. Besides, the section currently tagged appears to be about "Reconciliation with Utzon", despite attempts by some to avoid the issue by retitling it. Nonetheless, if you're not happy that the tag is in a certain section, feel free to move it to the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

They were removed because:

1. They were in the wrong section - As has been clearly explained to you 100 times, the section is about the attempts at reconciliation in the leadup to the 2000s building refurbishment. Everything in that section is about that. There is nothing about anything prior to the late 1990s. Even the image is about the refurbished spaces. Clearly, you are ignoring this;
2. They lacked inline sources and the alleged sources in the section are unverifiable; and
3. They broke the article.

If you wish to reintroduce the edits in the appropriate section, properly referenced and without breaking the article then please do so. If you are unwilling to do so, you should not expect anyone else to do so. This is a collaborative effort, we're not here to do your bidding. The only place to move the tag, if you're unwilling to demonstrate which facts are in dispute, then the only place to move the tag is out of the article. Moving it to the top of, or anywhere in, the article serves no purpose if you can't identify the facts that you dispute. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It has now been a week since the last post was made in this discussion, in which I suggested, as I did in my first post in 2012, that Pigsonthewing should add properly cited edits to the appropriate section of the article. It is 9 days since Bjenks asked Pigsonthewing to "clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed". Pigsonthewing has done neither, only replying in the vaguest manner. Since the tag was first added in 2012, several editors have reviewed the section containing the tags and commented here. Other editors have simply removed the tag. Only Pigsonthewing seems to see any issue with the article as it stands and only he supports its inclusion. Since he does not seem to wish to "fix" the problems himsef and will not explain specifically what his problems are so that they can be addressed, it is time to remove the tag once and for all, so I intend doing that. Given the total lack of support for Pigsonthewing's position and his failure to specify the problems, restoration of the tag must be viewed as disruptive and appropriate administrative action will be necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My replies are above, for all to see. I did not respond to your last post, because you've resorted to simply repeating earlier statements and already-answered questions. Until you accept that i) there is (as others have noted) an issue needing to be addressed, ii) that the disputed text includes valid citations and iii) propose or accept a way forward that does not deny these facts, it seems that the dispute cannot be resolved. Accordingly, and ignoring your empty threats, I have restored the tag, which you should not have removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote in that post was repeated because it was a suggestion made by another editor, that I had already made when you first added the tag, as I pointed out in that post. What others have noted there is "an issue needing to be addressed"? Who, other than you, agreed that the claims made by the original editor include valid citations? As for the "propose or accept a way forward that does not deny these facts", the way forward has been proposed several times, most recently in the post that you chose not to respond to. The dispute is easily resolved, as I suggested in that post, fix it yourself. Unfortunately, it seems that you do not wish the problem to be resolved. If you did, you would have edited the article back in 2012. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Omission of the role of Peter Rice of Ove Arup

Peter Rice was THE engineer on site at the Opera House for most of the trouble-shooting period. He has his own well documented .

It is strange that he gets absolutely no mention on this page.

I have refrained from inserting any such edit given the level of dispute that is evident...but it still seems unfair/incomplete.

Artied (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While he may have an article, his involvement with the Sydney Opera House is limited to one, completely unreferenced paragraph. None of that can be used unless references can be provided. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It

The intro is written in the style of a 12-year old. It has eleven sentences and seven start with "it." It seems like a list of unrelated facts. It is unaided by a sentence structure that could actually like facts together. It could use help. :) 842U (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just restructured the lead para, including moving some of the information into the Performance Venues section heading. Feel free to revert if its not an improvement I hate thinking of names (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference

Guardian Utzon Comment Any good? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not just a comment—as stated at the end, "this is an edited extract from the book Utzon and the Sydney Opera House by Daryl Dellora, published by Penguin Specials." As an eyewitness and newspaper worker of the day in Sydney, I can confirm that this account is spot-on. It was common knowledge that the ABC (Moses) kyboshed the opera theatre to serve the interests of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and its subscription concerts. The massive and intricate revolving stage was thus mindlessly scrapped, dooming the building to become at best a third-order purveyor of grand operatic productions. The state politics and corruption of those days was a minefield for anyone with any sort of principles. It was a woeful tragedy for Utzon, as well as for grand opera and for the people of New South Wales. Bjenks (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Sydney articles
• Top-importance Sydney articles
• WikiProject Sydney articles
• B-Class Australian music articles
• High-importance Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class Opera articles
• WikiProject Opera articles
• B-Class Architecture articles
• Top-importance Architecture articles
• B-Class World Heritage Sites articles
• Mid-importance World Heritage Sites articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2013)