Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 172

Archive 165

←

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Conspiracy theory

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Autonova on 09:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without credible evidence" (edit | subject | history | links | "Without_credible_evidence" watch | logs) Users involved Autonova (talk · contribs) MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) JzG (talk · contribs) LuckyLouie (talk · contribs) Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article's first sentence defines a conspiracy theory as "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence". I am disputing the last three words, "without credible evidence", arguing that they should not be included in the definition. I have five reliable sources (four dictionaries and an academic journal) which explicitly give the definition, and none of them include the statement "without credible evidence" or equivalent. As it is, the statement is not supported by any reliable source. The only source being referred to, allegedly in support of it, is in the body, A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun which reads "no matter how much evidence their adherents accumulate, belief in a conspiracy theory ultimately becomes a matter of faith rather than proof." I argue that this does not support the statement that all CTs are, by definition, "without credible evidence". The first part of the source's statement actually supports the opposite. I also have an academic paper by Dr Charles Pigden ([1]), which states, "we are rationally entitled to believe in conspiracy theories, if that is what the evidence suggests." Have you tried to resolve this previously? Dicussed on the talk page. I've also offered to compromise with the phrase "with or without credible evidence", but this was refused and the user I was offering it to said he's done talking to me. How do you think we can help? Providing an outside opinion on the issue. Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Slatersteven The contested line is a paraphrase of the fact that Conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence (indeed the opposite, they are based upon faith, not evidence). However I can see also that the use of the word " credible" is problematic, as it is far to subjective. I have suggested we change it to "without consistent standards of evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC) We can put this on hold until MP can comment, no issue with that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC) I am not sue an RFC will work, but we can give it a go.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JzG The definitional difference between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy, is that a conspiracy theory is not supported by evidence. The current definition has been strenuously opposed by proponents of conspiracy theories for a long time, but is a completely accurate lay summary of the sources. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished delusions. Prior discussion at Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 19. There was solid consensus there for the current version, but conspiracy believers (of which the OP is one) have never liked it. Their long term goal appears to me to be to water down the definition of conspiracy theory in Wikipedia to the point that it does not cause them cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I do not believe there is a need for dispute resolution, since there is a consensus on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without_credible_evidence" discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. MjolnirPants cannot participate until his current block expires. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Ditto Beyond My Ken. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The editors have been notified. If multiple editors want a moderator to facilitate discussion, a moderator will be requested. However, the number of editors may be larger than is practical for moderated discussion. The editors are asked whether a Request for Comments might be more workable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC) I considered RfC but decided on dispute resolution. I think the type of discussion is one which is more nuanced than a support/oppose decision, and there may be room for compromise. Also I have many reliable sources which support my position which aren't currently in the article, which editors have prevented me from adding. I would prefer a moderator to assist. Autonova (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC) I am thinking that an RfC might have been a better course of action before coming here. No opinion at the moment on the issue at hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC) If this is more appropriate then I'm happy to close this request down and set up an RfC. Autonova (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Yes, that's my thinking at the moment. I don't want to short circuit the process now underway with any precipitous action. But my gut says an RfC is the best way to handle this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken above says that a dispute resolution is not necessary because consensus has been reached - this is completely false. My argument and the sources backing it have been completely ignored in this entire discussion. They have simply edited the article without any agreement or compromise. Autonova (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC) It has been agreed that an RfC would be more appropriate for this issue. Autonova (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raiffeisen Zentralbank

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Matthew hk on 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Raiffeisen Zentralbank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Matthew hk (talk · contribs) Josephintechnicolor (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A user introduced controversial and may be defamation material to the article Raiffeisen Zentralbank and content forked to its successor Raiffeisen Bank International, which some of the controversial material is happened in WWII, which Raiffeisen Bank International did not even founded. The so called citation was a bare url without page number and only one citation per claim. Which, per WP:UNDUE (or DUE?), such controversial material should be cited by wide variety (three is borderline "wide") of source to keep NPOV . But the user still reinserted the material without really participating the article talk page or responding to the request of adding more source. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Open a thread in talk page, participated in Wikipedia:Teahouse thread started by Josephintechnicolor. Message the user at User talk:Josephintechnicolor How do you think we can help? Sorting out the policy of wikipedia and current status of the controversial material Summary of dispute by Josephintechnicolor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am addressing Matthew HK points below: 1) Matthew HK: "A user introduced controversial and may be defamation material to the article Raiffeisen Zentralbank" RESPONSE: There is nothing controversial or defamatory about this issue. Controversial means the sources or story are disputed and defamatory means they have no substance grounded in fact and are meant to destroy ones reputation without cause. The holocaust is not controversial or defamatory, they are truths with specific timelines and locations supported by eyewitnesses and testimony. Raiffeisen's participation in events leading up to and during the Holocaust were confirmed by these and many other web links below. https://www.saiten.ch/raiffeisen-der-bankier-der-barmherzigkeit-als-antisemit/ https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1153156.html https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1212&context=bjil https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=BiygDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Holocaust+and+European+Societies:+Social+Processes+and+Social+Dynamics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvjeOz2ILfAhXLvrwKHbP2BJwQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Holocaust%20and%20European%20Societies%3A%20Social%20Processes%20and%20Social%20Dynamics&f=true 2) Matthew HK: "and content forked to its successor Raiffeisen Bank International, which some of the controversial material is happened in WWII, which Raiffeisen Bank International did not even founded." Originally, the Holocaust news events were on the Raiffeisen Zentral bank page and I added them to Raiffeisen Bank International page because Raiffeisen Bank International's parent company is Raiffeisen Zentralbank, it is the same entity. An investor should not be able to hide behind a corporate veil. That is what Raiffeisen is doing and Matthew HK is helping them achieve that goal. Wikipedia needs to pierce that veil and let the truth be known which it has done with so many other wikipedia articles (See below). 3) Matthew HK: "The so called citation was a bare url without page number and only one citation per claim. Which, per WP:UNDUE (or DUE?), such controversial material should be cited by wide variety (three is borderline "wide") of source to keep NPOV . But the user still reinserted the material without really participating the article talk page or responding to the request of adding more source." Why is a URL a "so called URL". It is either a URL or it is not. The tone that Matthew HK is taking is one of defense, not truth, and Wikipedia is about Honesty and Truth. I DID participate many times and I see my participation still in many places BUT one was removed (I could not find it anymore, but I now see it was closed) from the Tea Room and Shay was the one who answered our questions. I gave many reasons for my edits and I supported them all, I even told matthew HK I would revert your removals. Matthew HK you are NOT being honest saying that I did not participate. In closing: I find that Matthew HK is not a neutral party and he seems to be tempered by anger and bias and/or other reasons. Where my participation is merely attaching the sources/fact to the participants of those facts. If Nuremburg did not happen or if not one concentration camp was found or all the other various holocaust events were never proven then my posts would be defamatory and controversial but the holocaust and the events and people / corporations who helped bring it all about are REAL PEOPLE and REAL EVENTS and REAL FACTS proven by many governments and organizations and those facts must be attributed to the culprits. Lastly, this is one example and there are many many more but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer which is technically considered a new company (Post WWII) is still complicit in the holocaust (and states so on their wiki) due to being a subsidiary of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben who made Zyklon B, that killed over one million people in gas chambers during the Holocaust. IG FArben was split into 3 companies below.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoechst_AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer And each one of these 3 wikipedia articles above make reference to their involvement in WW II and the Holocaust via the IG Farben connection. So if Matthew HK wants to remove the WW II and Holocaust events from Raiffeisen International Bank wikipedia article then MANY MORE wikipedias need to be edited for the same situation. So effectively Matthew HK is opening up Pandora's box. If Bayer, BASF and Hoechst and many others can deal with the affiliation to WWII and the Holocaust on their wikipedia pages so can Raiffeisen Bank International, Raiffeisen Zentral bank and all its subsidiaries where Raiffeisen Zentral Bank parent company has affiliation. 02:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk) Raiffeisen Zentralbank discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Although there has been discussion at the article talk page, it has not been extensive. It should continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC) @Robert McClenon:, here is the link of teahouse thread i forgot to add Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 910 (RZB Securities | Raiffeisen Zentralbank | Raiffeisen_Bank_International). The closer in specific kick the ball to WP:DR. Matthew hk (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you Robert McClenon, and I appreciate the teahouse link. Many other wikipedia articles have included news citations by affiliation. Raiffeisen (which includes the Founder, Zentral Bank and its many Subsidiaries) and its link to WWII, Holocaust and Raiffesen Bank International should be one in the same and share the same news that is relevant to them all. If a person cannot change or hide from their previous affiliations neither should a company.02:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020#Prohibited_marketing_claims

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Alweth on 04:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020#Prohibited marketing claims (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bilby (talk · contribs) Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs) Alweth (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) CircularReason (talk · contribs) Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The subject of the article, Young Living, a company that sells essential oils via multi-level marketing, was warned by the FDA for marketing some of their products in a way that would categorize them as drugs by the FDA. One editor, Bilby, wants to include the detail in the section on the controversy that it was some of Young Living's "consultants" (ie. members of their multi-level marketing program) that were identified by the FDA as making some of the relevant claims. Another editor, Rhode Island Red, is rejecting all proposals and reverting all changes to that effect, for a variety of reasons, ultimately arguing that it "diffuses responsibility." I, Alweth think some of Bilby's proposals have enough merit for inclusion, but have not been able to build any consensus. Rhode Island Red accuses Bilby and I of variously being product advocates, sockpuppet accounts, or single topic editors. On the other hand, Rhode Island Red's arguments seem to me have devolved into a need to push a specific agenda even in the face of the relevant sources. In short, both sides seem biased to the other side and assumptions of good faith have been significantly strained. I hope you will take the time to read the whole discussion. For more context, you should also probably look at the New structure subsection of the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? So far, I have only tried talk-page discussion, but there has been a lot of it. A couple other editors piped in briefly, but none have stuck around for the continuing discussion to help establish consensus. How do you think we can help? Because both sides seem biased to the other side, I hope the opinions and arguments of a disinterested party or two could help one or both sides to compromise more. Ideally, the disinterested party would stick around to push for a consensus. Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This dispute began when CircularReason (talk · contribs) (arguably an WP:SPA), appeared on the TPG making sweeping assertions that the article was biased against Young Living. The editor posted what appeared to be a COI disclosure, [2] Upon discussion on the TPG, the suggestion that the article was biased amounted to nothing. Curiously, Alweth (talk · contribs), a WP:SLEEPER, awoke from a 5-year slumber[3] and appeared on the TPG with the purpose of “addressing CircularReason's concerns about negative bias”.[4] Despite extensive discussion, this too amounted to nothing. Suddenly, Bilby (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere on the TPG (neither Alweth, CircularReason, or Bilby had any history editing the article, while 3 other opposing veteran editors -- Zefr (talk · contribs), Grayfell (talk · contribs), and me -- all had a considerable editing history on it) and Bilby proceeded to argue for inclusion of qualifiers (weasel wording) based on his/her reinterpretation about the company’s FDA violations based on a WP:PRIMARY source.[5] The original text in the article about the FDA Warning (cited in full below in the discussion section of this DR) was entirely consistent with what a plethora of secondary sources wrote about the event (see details below in discussion section of this DR). Despite that fact (pointed out repeatedly on TPG), Alweth and Bilby, through WP:EXHAUST continued to argue that the original text was misleading. They argued that the text should be modified so as to state, essentially, that the FDA notification was directed at the company’s distributors rather than the company itself, which is untrue in law and fact, as well as inconsistent with what the sources stated. The original text was accurate, POV balanced, and in no way inconsistent with the sources. It was neutral and unobjectionable. As a side note, the multi-level marketing MLM business model has been widely criticized for precisely the fact that MLM companies (like Young Living) purposely use their vast distributor networks to make illegal//unauthorized marketing claims from which the company can attempt to distance itself by denying direct culpability (which is a clear dodge and a distinction that the FDA does not recognize) Bilby went so far as to argue that the article’s coverage of the FDA notification was “misleading”[6] and “incorrect”[7] because it didn’t sufficiently shift the focus/blame to the actions of the distributors rather than the company’s responsibility. However, these assertions were proven to be off-base, as multiple sources back up the original text (quotes below in the discussion section of this DR): After losing their main argument, the two editors in question retreated to arguing that the company’s response to the FDA warning had to be included. At this point, after backsliding to this much smaller quibble, their relentless arguing was starting to become WP:TE. Their complaints were not ignored but were simply proven invalid. But the explanations fell on deaf ears. In the interest of reaching a fair resolution, I proposed including a line of text indicating that the company had agreed to take the remedial action ordered by the FDA. However, I was lukewarm on the idea given that the company had no real choice but to comply, and saying that they did so seemed rather like a statement that’s not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, Alweth agreed with the proposed inclusion and, essentially, Bilby did as well. Subsequently a line of text along the lines of what I proposed was added by Bilby (since modified slightly for more balanced POV and consistency with sources), which should have put an end to the dispute. Despite all of this, Alweth inexplicably launched this DR, eating up even more resources through WP:EXHAUST. For now, the dispute seems to be non-existent, but concerns about WP:SPA, WP:SLEEPER, WP:TAGTEAM, and WP:COI linger. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bilby The problem we are having is that the FDA letter sent to Young Living made two claims. One was that young Living were mislabeling their products, while the other was that Young Living's consultants (their marketers, or distributors) were advertising their products as being able to cure diseases such as Ebola. Some sources, like the Inquistr and the Wall Street Journal, are clear about this distinction. However, some sources don't make the distinction, and accuse Young living of both. So we ended up with different claims in secondary sources. The FDA letter leads with the statement "This is to advise you that in August 2014 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed websites and social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest) for several Young Living essential oil consultants that your firm refers to as 'Young Living distributors'", and then states, later in the letter, "Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners" [8]. Young Living responded by saying that they would be working with their consultants to fix the issue. The distinction became important for two reasons. First, a second company, doTerra, who received warnings from the FDA at the same time. (doTerra were also warned for not preventing their consultants from marketing their products as cures for Ebola and other diseases). This action by the FDA placed an additional responsibility on the two companies, as it made them responsible for the actions of their (thousands) of distributors, and there have been articles discussing this impact in regard to doTerra, just not as much in regard to Young Living. The second reason is what caught my initial attention, because very rarely do companies of this size make the mistake of claiming that their products can cure disease, as their legal teams prevent errors of that scale. They are well aware of the need to post disclaimers and avoid making specific untested health claims. At the moment, Rhode Island Red wants to use sources that place all the blame on Young Living, while I would like to use the sources that appear to me to be more consistent with the FDA letter. It is possible to produce sources to make either claim. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Aside from JzG In addition to the accurate and succinct statement by Rhode Isalnd Red above, I'd note the content of the FDA letter: You market your Young Living Essential Oil products through paid consultants; your compensation plan for your consultants is explained on your website www.youngliving.com/en_US/opportunity/compensation-plan. Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners. Consumers interested in your Young Living Essential Oil products are then redirected by your consultants to your website, http://www.youngliving.com, to purchase your products and/or register as members (i.e., consultants).[1] The FDA absolutely and explicitly makes the link between the fraudulent claims, and the company. There is relevant case law, for example: Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch. Div. 1972) – Manufacturer, operating a multi-level distribution system, could not avoid liability for misrepresentations made by distributors by arguing that distributors were independent agents. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Equinox Int’l Corp., CV-S-990969JBR(RLH), 1999 WL 1425373 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 1999) – Defendant could not “shield itself from liability merely by arguing that current misrepresentations are made by independent contractors.” Of course we don't rely on our own reading of the facts, we follow the secondary sources, which are as RIR says, but underlying that is the legal position which seems pretty clearly to support the statements the sources are making. We are under no obligation to be deferential to representatives of these pyramid schemes, Guy (Help!) 00:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020#Prohibited_marketing_claims discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Extended discussion Since this discussion, which should have been minimal, is already lengthy, it can continue inside the curtains. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC) As referenced above in my opening statement, These are the original blocks of text in the article that pertain to the FDA notice of violation: (LEAD) “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6][7] and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."[8][9][10]” (BODY) “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6][7] and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."[8][10][9] The letter named specific essential oil products "promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease."[9] The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs by Young Living without FDA approval are violations of the Act.[9][24]“ Relevant quotes from secondary sources establishing the company’s direct culpability are as follows: “The agency has issued warning letters to three separate companies that are marketing Ebola cures, demanding that they cease the sale of their products. The letters were sent to the Natural Solutions Foundation in New Jersey, as well as dōTERRA International LLC and Young Living, both based out of Utah. According to the letters, the companies’ websites all make claims that their products are therapeutic, but none is FDA-approved. That puts the companies in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”[9] “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to three privately held companies marketing treatments that claim to prevent or treat Ebola. The letters were sent to Newton, New Jersey-based Natural Solutions Foundation, Utah-based dōTERRA International LLC and Utah-based Young Living…The FDA said last month that it had become aware of products being sold online that fraudulently claim to prevent or treat Ebola. The warning letters followed a review of the companies’ websites and social media accounts promoting the sale of the products.”[10] “The FDA said both doTERRA and Young Living advertised some of their oils as "cures" for viral infections, including Ebola. The letter also stated the companies advertise oils as treatments for cancer, autism, and Alzheimer’s, among a lengthy list of other diseases.”[11] “Last fall, the FDA sent a warning letter to reprimand these false claims made by Natural Solutions Foundation, Young Living, and dōTERRA International LLC.”[12] “This week the FDA sent warning letters to three companies the government agency says are selling products over the Internet that claim to treat, prevent or even cure the deadly disease.”[13] “Young Living, based in Lehi, and doTERRA, based in Pleasant Grove, each had statements on their websites that many of their essential oil products can cure serious conditions including herpes, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. A post on Young Living’s website states, “Ebola Virus cannot live in the presence of cinnamon bark (this is in Thieves) nor Oregano.” [14] “But the FDA issued the company a bureaucratic fatwa, noting that the health claims for their products “cause(s) them [the essential oils] to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” And that was the real bad news for Young Living, because a drug has to be studied and claims verified…the health claims had to be removed…”[15] "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent letters to three companies this week, warning them against marketing their products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola. The letters, posted online on Wednesday, document multiple claims from the companies or their paid representatives that essential oils and other natural remedies can "help prevent your contracting the Ebola virus".[16] “Young Living’s CEO was reprimanded for more than just consultants’ claims. Young Living’s own website made claims that promoted products in such a way that the federal government would classify the products as drugs, according to the FDA.”[17] This was the addendum I proposed:[18] “A Young Living spokesperson subsequently announced that the company was taking action to correct its marketing practices." Alweth agreed with the proposed inclusion:[19] Bilby essentially agreeing with the proposal:[20] Bilby adding text based on the proposal:[21] My subsequent modification of text added by Bilby:[22] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Just on that final claim, no, I didn't agree with your proposal. I added alternative wording which I felt was safe and would work as a compromise. Anyway, I guess the real issue is the sources. First, the FDA letter is here. In it, they say that they looked at both Young Living's own material and marketing material created by Young Living's consultants/distributors. In regard to the latter, they found: "Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners." The FDA then list the specific violations that they found in the consultants' marketing materials, before discussing the labeling issues which Young Living is directly responsible for. There are two claims: 1. Young Living is mislabeling some of their products and suggesting that they are drugs, and 2. Young living's consultants are also advertising Young Living products as cures for speficic diseases. Currently we make both claims in the article: In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs by Young Living without FDA approval are violations of the Act. In the first, we include part of the relevant quote from the FDA letter, but leave out the part which states that it was their consultants found to be doing this, placing the full responsibility on Young Living. Sources can be broken up into at least four groups (I've added some examples, but this isn't exhaustive): 1. Sources that discuss how the consultants have been incorrectly marketing the products as cures for disease: Boston Globe, Inquisitr, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker. 2. Sources which are ambiguous, and could be read either way: CNN, Washington Post 3. Sources that say the Ebola claims are solely the responsibility of Young Living: Daily Beast, Rueters, Popular Science, Pharmacy Times 4. Sources which seem to make contradictory claims: Daily Herald Part of the problem is that in an MLM like Young Living, most of their marketing is handled by independent distributors, so it is possible (although potentially misleading) to describe the distributor's actions as "Young Living's marketing".Thus some sources do that, while others distinguish between the material produced by Young Living and the material by their distributors. The issue is not about apportioning blame - I'm not trying the remove responsibility from Young living. What I'd like to see is an accurate account, especially given the significance of holding MLM companies responsible for the marketing produced by their distributors, which we know has caused issues for their main rival, doTerra. It is always difficult when different sources make different claims. - Bilby (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Repeating from above for convenience. Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch. Div. 1972) – Manufacturer, operating a multi-level distribution system, could not avoid liability for misrepresentations made by distributors by arguing that distributors were independent agents. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Equinox Int’l Corp., CV-S-990969JBR(RLH), 1999 WL 1425373 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 1999) – Defendant could not “shield itself from liability merely by arguing that current misrepresentations are made by independent contractors.” See also the "harming customers" section of this paper. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Those sources are part of why it is significant that Young Living failed to properly police their distributors. That's why I'd like to make their responsibility in this clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC) To be clear, the change I am proposing is to alter: "In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." To: In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living for failing to prevent their consultants from illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." Sourced to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Boston Globe and the FDA letter as a primary source of the quote. I have no wish to remove blame from Young Living, just to correctly identify what they did wrong. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC) @Bilby: "In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living due to illegally marketing of products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." Supported by 100% of the sources and removes the spurious ambiguity, since it's clearly their job to ensure it doesn't happen, whoever is making the claims. Also avoids the WP:WEASEL issue of casting this as rogue distributors, when multiple sources note that MLMs foster and actively support a culture whereby fraudulent claims are institutionalised. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Multiple sources also note that the problem was a failure to police the distributors, which, as you have pointed out, it was Young Living's responsibility to do. Being clear on this removes any ambiguity about what Young living was failing to do. - Bilby (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party has notified one of the editors, but not all of the editors, and needs to notify the other listed editors. Any further discussion before the case is opened should be carried on inside the curtains. Overly long posts often serve no purpose other than to make the poster feel better. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Not quite true. I filed this request and notified both parties (beside myself) that I listed as being involved. Someone else added two more people who I did not include because they seemed to have dropped out of the discussion. Alweth (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC) But I've gone ahead and notified the other members. Alweth (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC) @DRN volunteers: - A moderator is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read and follow the rules. If you have any questions about the rules, please ask rather than guessing. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better but do not usually clarify. Comment on content, not contributors. Personal comments will be collapsed. Is Young Living a Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) arrangement? Is that agreed on? Was there a cease-and-desist order by the FDA? Is the dispute about what was in the order, or is the dispute about how much weight to give to the order and its content? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe are the issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC) First statements by editors Bilby's statement: There's no issue regarding describing Young Living as an MLM, nor is there a concern about whether or not there was a warning letter sent by the FDA. The dispute concerns the specifics of the letter. Reading the letter, available here, it seems to me that the letter is stating that Young living is guilty of marketing their products as if they were drugs, and that in addition Young Living's consultants (aka distributors or members) were guilty of marketing Young Living's products as cures for specific diseases such as Ebola. Some secondary sources describe it this way; some secondary sources are ambiguous; some just claim that Young Living was the one doing both; and some incorrectly state that the Ebola claims were on Young Living's website. Although Young Living is ultimately responsible, the distinction has become relevant in the case of doTerra who received a similar warning from the FDA at the same time, as it places different requirements on the company depending on whether the problem is from their own marketing or that created by distributors. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Alweth's statement: The disagreement is over whether to include the fact that Young Living was warned against allowing its "consultants" to claim that some of their oils cure Ebola (and other diseases), or simply keep the current version that doesn't make clear who was making the claim. The short version of the arguments against inclusion seem to be that it is a distinction without a difference and that it deflects blame away from Young Living. The short version of the argument for is that it's simply a more accurate presentation of the event. Alweth (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Second statement by moderator We are in agreement that Young Living is a multi-level marketing scheme, and that the FDA issued a cease-and-desist order about the claims. The issue appears to be exactly how to word the description of what the order said, with respect to whether the fraudulent claims were made by Young Living or by their distributors. Is it true that the only matter in dispute is whether the claims were being made by Young Living, or only by their distributors? We have heard from two of the editors. We haven't heard concise responses, since I requested concise responses, from User:Rhode Island Red or User:Greyfell. Is the only real issue that Young Living is claiming that they didn't make the fraudulent claims because their distributors did? Is that the issue? That seems troubling enough. Will each editor also please tell me exactly what paragraph of the article the dispute is about? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Second statements by editors Bilby's Statement You are correct, in that the issue is whether or not Young living made the statements that their products can cure Ebola and other diseases. Currently the wording is: 'In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."' Some of Young Living's consultants/distributors did make these claims, and the FDA provided a number of quotes from distributor's material to support this. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Third statement by moderator Would a compromise be to state that the FDA found that the claim had been made that the products cured Ebola, cancer, etc., and that the FDA forbid making such claims, without stating who had made the claims? That states what the claims were, and that they were forbidden, without actual attribution. Is that a possible compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Third statements by editors Bilby's Statement: Compromise is fine, but my concern is that if we compromise and just reword the first line it would technically be accurate but misleading by omission, as the reader would naturally assume that the advertising was by Young Living - especially when followed by the rest of the paragraph. It would now read something like: In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that some Young Living products were being marketed as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." In a warning letter they named specific essential oil products that were promoted under "conditions that cause them to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease." The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs without FDA approval are violations of the Act. Young Living subsequently agreed to address the violations cited by the FDA. That would technically be correct, but if I was reading it I'd still assume it was Young Living doing the promotion (especially with the last line), not their consultants as the FDA identified. I did try including Young Living's response, "Young Living responded by stating that they had been in contact with the consultants raised in the letter to help them correct their materials", which clarifies at least their view of the situation, but ran into opposition, and without that or at least some mention of consultants we're stuck with a problem. - Bilby (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator Perhaps we need a new moderator, because perhaps I am no longer neutral. However, it seems that the objection to the compromise that I proposed is that it doesn't fully exonerate Young Living of the fraudulent claims, and that it is important to put the blame on the so-called consultants. An argument can be made that some of the blame for those claims should be on Young Living for the conduct of its distributors under the rule of respondeat superior. I thought that I had proposed a compromise. If it is important to the advocates for Young Living to state that Young Living was not responsible for the rogue distributors, then perhaps a Request for Comments is the way to resolve this, or perhaps someone should ask for another moderator. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors Bilby's Statement: I guess I didn't explain correctly. The change I originally proposed was to match that of the FDA letter - specifically, to say either that: In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living about their consultants marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus ... Or the more specific: In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living for failing to ensure that their consultants did not illegally market Young Living products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus ... Either way, the FDA letter places the responsibility on Young Living, but I'd like to be clear about what the fault was, rather than leading the reader to believe that they failed to do something different. In addition, the FDA also noted that Young Living incorrectly labelled their products, so I would leave the rest of the paragraph as is. The problem with a compromise wording is that we really have two choices - mention that Young Living consultants were illegally marketing their products as a cure for diseases, or leave it as suggesting that Young Living were illegally marketing the products in this way. A compromise which makes it slightly more ambiguous but still leads the reader to believe that Young Living were directly making illegal claims about their products, as opposed for failing in their responsibility to ensure that their consultants do not make illegal claims about their products, doesn't really address the issue. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator I am about to close this case with an agreement to provide wording that I personally consider incredible, that is, meaning not worthy of belief by a rational H. sapiens, that Young Living was completely uninvolved in the fraudulent claims made by their distributors, but because only Bilby has responded, that will be the agreement of this noticeboard. Agreement at this noticeboard is not binding on the community and can be overridden by a Request for Comments. However, without any participation by Rhode Island Red or Greyfell, this thread is about to be concluded with a statement to the effect that Young Living did not know of the fraudulent claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors Bilby's Statement: I have no reason to believe that Young Living were ignorant of the actions of their distributors. I certainly would not like to say or imply that they were ignorant of what was happening. - Bilby (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Comment - Either Young Living knew of the statements by the distributors, or they did not know of the statements by their distributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Alweth's Response to Comment: Certainly either Young Living knew or they didn't know. But, as far as I am aware, there are no secondary sources telling us whether they knew, and I don't think it's relevant to determining their responsibility. As Bilby has pointed out, the issue is not whether they are responsible, but how what they are responsible for should be described. They failed to prevent their consultants from claiming that their oils cure Ebola, etc.--that's what seems clear from the primary sources (the FDA letter) and the secondary sources. Rhode Island Red seems to object to language including the fact that it was distributors making the claim, even though the proposed edits remain clear about the fact that this is a failure on Young Living's part. Alweth (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template talk:Largest_urban_centers_of_the_European_Union#Functional_Urban_Areas

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ on 02:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:Largest urban centers of the European Union#Functional Urban Areas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk · contribs) Subtropical-man (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It seems there is a case of article ownership by the user Subtropical-man who created this template (used in the European Union article) in 2012. Immediate reverts followed by threatening language. I've tried to engage in a discussion with him/her on the talk page of the template, but it feels like talking to a wall. All my points are already on the talk page, so I won't repeat them here. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Adult discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Perhaps asking him/her to cool down and allow other people to edit the template which doesn't belong to him/her even though he/she created it? Summary of dispute by Subtropical-man Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. You insult me by writing that I have appropriated the template. Yes, I created this template but I allow others to edit this template. Your changes have been reverted because your changes are disputed and introduce some disadvantages to template. I suggested a discussion and waiting for a consensus but you came here to complain about me?!? I noticed that you think: you can change something on Wikipedia, if someone reverted your changes, you will lead an editing war, you stopped just when you were threatened with a blockade and.... you came here to complain about other user because he did not agree with your point of view. This is completely immature behavior. I understand that you are a user with a small contribution (total 182 edits), you may not know it - not everyone has to agree with your point of view, sorry; your changes will not always be applied in Wikipedia, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Template talk:Largest_urban_centers_of_the_European_Union#Functional_Urban_Areas discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the template talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

University of Pennsylvania - Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Wa3frp on 03:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• University of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wa3frp (talk · contribs)
• Mrfeeny (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

eed assistance here with an editor has previously deleted content in the subject previously entitled "Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University" and now renamed to "Campus Expansion to student housing"

The editor in question is relatively new to Wikipedia and has previously indicated via the University of Pennsylvania Talk page that "commuter school" should not be included in the because "...the term "commuter school" has a negative connotation..." However, the facts and references support this fact. The references that are (were) in Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University use the phrase "commuter school" in more than one era by multiple authors.

I have tried, unsuccessfully, to make my point that negative connotations are allowed especially since this article is not a promotional piece for the University of Pennsylvania. I refuse to be drawn into an edit war and I request the assistance of a more senior editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Unsuccessfully Talking via Talk page

How do you think we can help?

I think that it needs to be made clear that "negative connotations" is not a reason to delete text especially when the references support the term "commuter school" Wikipedia is not a place for puffery or promotional articles.

Summary of dispute by Mrfeeny

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I realize that Wikipedia is not a place for puffery but it also is not a place for slanted views about topics. Before the user in question made changes to the article to substantiate the section in response to my deletion for the lack of substantiation of the claims, it was based solely on opinion columns that take a negative or critical view of the University. He then very hastily threw together a replacement section that I had to edit because it was full of grammatical errors. In compromise, after I made my edits to remove hyperbolic statements and grammatical errors, I left the title the same. Some time after, the user changed the section again, which was an extremely negative take on the topic replete with quotations to substantiate his claims that was in my view too lengthy and out of place on a page that is supposed to be an informational page about a university. In response, I made edits to the section for neutrality and changed the title, while creating a section on the talk page for users to provide input about the section. I also made notes on the talk page justifying the changes I made so people could respond. The user in question is the only person who is invested in keeping the section the way it was, and a separate user had advocated for its deletion previously, as can be seen on the talk page. I'm not opposed to changing the title back, but I'd prefer it to be a community decision rather than the unilateral action of this user. I don't think his experience with Wikipedia entitles him to unilaterally decide what the page will look like when multiple users on what is supposed to be a community site have voiced opposition to it. I tried my best to be diplomatic in making changes to the page and invited comments on the talk page whenever I made changes. Rather than debating my changes there, the user decided that it was not necessary to do so, since the changes were already made, and opened a dispute here rather than resolving things diplomatically on the page. Throughout my dealings with the user, he has been combative and unwilling to compromise and has even made false accusations toward me. This is all visible on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfeeny (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania - Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• UPDATE - the filing editor has notified the other editor as of 22 February 2019 Wa3frp (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• UPDATE - I have added comments to the section I had added to the talk page to discuss this issue that may be of interest. Thanks. Mrfeeny (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I read through the debate on the Talk page. Names and label can be contentious. I suggest first focusing attention to the content of that section of the article and not on the label "commuter school". Aside from the label "commuter school", does the first paragraph reasonably describe the history of the campus prior to World War II? If not, what is missing or incorrect?Coastside (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• UPDATE - This section of the article was never meant to describe the myriad of changes to the campus nor the history of the changes to residential housing. The original article, which was deleted on 4 December 2018 at the start of this dispute, focused not on residential housing but on the transition the University undertook as it evolved, over time, from a commuter school and regional institution. Perhaps, there should be a new section that completely documents how student housing construction proceeded from the 1800s until the present day. However, I have to note with emphasis, that the intent of this paragraph is to inform the reader about the University and a student population transition that did occur over the past one hundred plus years.Wa3frp (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I think you're headed in the right direction. The way to move this dispute forward is to focus on how the article falls short and suggesting positive changes. With controversial edits, it can be helpful to write a paragraph in your personal sandbox and ask other editors to provide feedback before editing the article directly. The idea is to focus on improving the article and being willing to tug in different directions, sometimes making big leaps forward, sometimes little tweaks. And don't get too fond of any one paragraph. I like your suggestion about having a paragraph about student housing. Why don't you write one and have other editors provide feedback? Regarding the transition over the past one hundred years, I take it you mean the fact the students used to live primarily at home in the local area and over time shifted to on-campus residential housing? Personally, it seems to me the first paragraph of this section makes that point, at least to a degree. What is it you think readers are missing here? Do you think it's important readers understand more precisely the percentage of students who lived on campus (or conversely at home) over time? Coastside (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• UPDATE - Currently, there are thirteen college houses on the University of Pennsylvania campus. These are W.E.B DuBois College House, Fisher Hassenfeld College House, Gregory College House, Harnwell College House, Harrison College House, Hill College House, Kings Court English House, New College House, Riepe College House, Rodin College House Stouffer College House and Ware College House. Additionally, there are former University residences, such as Sergeant Hall, that need to be added to that list. It would an excellent project for an editor to develop paragraphs about each of these current and former residential facilities including the location, start of construction, architect, layout, capacity, terms of occupancy, history of occupancy, the history of renovations and any other applicable topics. This however is only a side note to the current dispute.

The point that I am making is that the University of Pennsylvania, through most of its history, has been documented and clearly referenced as being a commuter school and that fact cannot be whitewashed simple because (1) other college and university Wikipedia articles, i.e., Columbia's do not possess a similar paragraph, (2) the term "commuter school" has a negative connotation to one editor User:Mrfeeny. I am disappointed that User:Coastside has not already pointed out that if an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions. WP:ENFORCEMENT WP:DELPRO In this instant case, User:Mrfeeny deleted the paragraph on 4 December 2019. I indicated to User:Mrfeeny (at that time an unregistered user) "...You really have to stop deleting information on Wikipedia! First of all, defending a position based on a negative is never a good approach. The fact that no one has taken the time to write about Columbia's commuter status has little effect on an article about the University of Pennsylvania and its commuter population...."

Subsequent to that action, an unknown and now quiet user "Sbaatz1" made an interesting point on 20 November 2018 that the Medical School does have a different history and was a national, if not global, institution as far back as the 1850s. In my opinion, this information should have been added to the paragraph versus wholesale deleting of information as was clearly done by User:Mrfeeny. Further, User:Mrfeeny on 20 February 2019, and after my attempt to pursue failed, starts a Talk page discussion about changing the title of the paragraph to "Campus expansion and student housing" but only after making that change.

I suggest that User:Mrfeeny undertake starting a new paragraph in the University of Pennsylvania article entitled "Student housing" by writing a number of paragraphs about student housing to include but not be limited by what is covered in the first paragraph of this update. Further, I request that the original title of the paragraph be returned as I read that no other editors have agreed with User:Mrfeeny on this proposal. expired PROD Finally, I request that all edits that have removed "commuter school" from the subject paragraph because the term "commuter school" has a negative connotation to one editor be returned. WP:IMPARTIAL Wa3frp (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: You make some excellent suggestions above. I would think adding content about the residential facilities would improve the article. I think you make another good point about the history of the medical school. I'd like the other participants to comment on these suggestions.

Regarding content that was previously deleted, if there is content that helps improve the article, whether previously deleted or not, it makes sense to discuss adding it, or otherwise editing the article to incorporate that content. Normally, the best way to do that is to be bold and edit the article. It's a back and forth process among multiple editors. Certainly, it can be frustrating. Once edit warring and disputes ensue, being bold no longer works well. In that case it is more constructive to suggest edits on the talk page or make large scale edits in a sandbox and ask other editors to review and comment before introducing these changes into the article. That's what I suggest doing here.

I'm sorry you are disappointed I haven't done more to reprimand other users regarding their behavior. I would like to point out that the DRN board is for content disputes only. This isn't the place to address behavioral issues. Even when editors are very frustrated with one another, it's been my experience that working toward consensus, although frustrating, can be rewarding for all participants when it actually happens. The key is to focus on the content, making positive changes to the article, and not focusing on behavior per se. Most editors are accepting of improvements to the article, and when bias or "unreasonableness" intrudes, other editors will typically help nudge things in the right direction. For this DRN, I would like to ask all the participants to focus on specific changes, large or small, and to discuss. In order for the DRN process to be effective, the discussion must focus on content and not behavior and all participants must actively contribute in a good faith effort to improve the article. Coastside (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - That's not fair Wa3frp. When I made the original deletion the paragraph was completely unsubstantiated and based on two old opinion articles from The Inquirer in the 90s. My deletion and the ensuing debate were the reason why you made improvements in the sources referenced (which I still had to edit because you made the revisions hastily). We don't need to whitewash but I will continue to edit for brevity if the changes again include a ton of superfluous quotations. I'm more than happy to help out with the housing side of things, and I hope we can work together on this in a civil manner. Thanks Coastside for your help. Mrfeeny (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - Let's let the facts speak for themselves. You deleted the following paragraphs "...As recently as the 1950s, the University of Pennsylvania was considered a "commuter school". The Pennsylvania Urban Redevelopment Act of 1954 enabled the university to expand and build facilities better suited to a residential university. Gradually, over the second half of the 20th century, the school raised its profile, became more selective and dramatically increased its endowment. Between 1995 and 2005, the university spent over a billion dollars on campus improvements to attract top students and faculty..." Everything in these four sentences are factual. You have yet to show that any of these sentences contain false or misleading information. You made no attempt to improve the references which were easily located in the University of Pennsylvania archives.

You are also the only editor who has negatively commented on the use of "commuter school". Instead of using Talk, you simply deleted the text that met your disfavor. And then, you partially quoted a statement to make a point. In checking, your partial quote, when revealed as a full sentence, demolished your argument.

It is time to dismiss your dispute and to return the paragraph "Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University" on the following grounds:

(1) you have failed to elicit support for your proposal to change the title of the section in question. (2) Your argument is specious in the first place, i.e., Columbia doesn't have this paragraph in their Wiki page so Penn shouldn't either and "commuter school" has a negative connotation to you alone (based on feedback on the Talk page. (3) There is sufficient use of the term "commuter school" in the references provided thus far. (4) I identify with the term Penn commuter based on the fact that I commuted to Penn for all four Undergraduate years and work on the Commuter Activities Board.Wa3frp (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - I've already admitted to deleting that material almost 3 months ago at this point, and I have already provided my reasoning (opinion articles from the Inquirer were not enough to substantiate the claim). It was this deletion that led to the improvement of the section using sources from Archives, a number of which I dug up myself. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The use of the term is misleading because (a) the school required on campus living by default as early as 1931, which is extremely uncharacteristic of a “commuter “ school. (b) as you admit, students were moving to Philadelphia to attend the medical school throughout its early history (c) the opinion of a trustee of the university is not the be all end all and ultimate authority on the matter. I’m willing to compromise and suggest we add to the new section to briefly discuss the large commuter population through the 1960s in the first paragraph, then continue to discuss expansion during the post war period in the subsequent paragraph/paragraphs. It’s fine to discuss this large commuter population by noting that a trustee and a student thesis gave the school the label of commuter school or to use the term in this discussion in another reasonable manner, but we don’t need a full section with a commuter school title covering it. As User: Coastside has mentioned, the first paragraph already does a good job at discussing the information you want to discuss in the article. You’re missing the point of this dispute and showing your unwillingness to compromise by continuing to fixate on the use of the term and title of the section instead of how we can make improvements to the actual content of the section. We do not need a lengthy section on the matter replete with (opinion) quotations, it’s simply not relevant to a factual article about the university. You keep saying that no one agrees with me about the section but at the same time another user advocated for the deletion of the section before I made any changes. I will make some changes to the first paragraph to better incorporate the material about the commuter population and hopefully we can put an end to this dispute. Mrfeeny (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE -I made some changes to the section that I hope you will find satisfactory. Interestingly, I wasn't able to find statistics about the actual percentage of students who were commuting to campus into the 60s. If you have this information, I'd like to include it. Since I'm in Philadelphia, I can possibly swing by the Archives to see if this information is available. As you can see from my changes, the use of the label "commuter school" is not a factual issue but an issue of opinion, and there are reasons to reject that label even though it is documented in some sources. I did note that some used the label to describe the University and laid out other relevant facts. Mrfeeny (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I appreciate the effort to find compromise, collaborate and move forward in improving the article. As I said at the outset, focusing on a specific label, especially one that is being disputed, is not the best way to start a collaboration. Also, we should recognize that consensus building is not voting (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Even if one person has a different opinion than several other editors, it doesn't mean that opinion is not valid. Remember that one editor's dissenting opinion could correspond to the views of millions of readers. It's important to understand the concern and try to address it if possible. Coastside (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - I think that we have agreement on at least one issue. That issue is the Medical School as it is documented that this school attracted students from a wide geographic area. I feel that this addresses the original concern that prompted the questioning of the section back in November 2018.

I do strongly feel that the title of the section in question must be returned to its original label for the following reasons (1) the paragraphs should not be seen in a negative light. The facts speak for themselves and are documented by many writers. I feel that we have agreement on this point. (2) Times have changed and so has the University and this section of the article speaks to that important transition in the current geographic diversity of the student population. (3) Having a large commuter population does not and should not infer that the commuter students were inferior. To state otherwise indicates bias against the student population within commuting distance of the University (4) The proposed section title of "Campus expansion and student housing" addressed neither campus expansion nor student housing in any meaningful way. It was only a "neutral title"

I will be improving the section later today via a number of edits that will improve the readability and eliminate one key word that smacks of puffery and promotion and is not relevant given a stated neutral point of view. See WP:NPOVWa3frp (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - I'm still having trouble with a large commuter population="commuter school." I've laid out other facts that weigh against this characterization in my updated section. I think the characterization may be fair for non-Medical School Penn until some time after the construction of the Quadrangle, but I'm not sure I would apply the term to 1960s Penn. EDIT: The numbers for 1961 and 1970 appear to show 21% of males and 43% of females living at home in 1961 (for 1971 the percentages are 24% for males and 39% for females). So a non-negligible minority of students were "commuters." I don't see how this warrants the label, but we may have a fundamental disagreement about what makes a school a "commuter school." I agree that we need a more descriptive title but I am pushing back against reversion to the old title because of the factual reasons for rejecting the commuter school characterization even if it was used in reference to the University by some writers, a fact I have already documented in my revised paragraph. "Evolution from Regional Institution to National Residential University" or something along those lines could be a suitable compromise. Mrfeeny —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• UPDATE - For women, we have an unambiguous statement in "Becoming Penn: The Pragmatic American University", page 45 that states "At the time (1948), two-thirds of Penn women students were commuters..." One might infer that this statistic continued into the early 1960s when Hill College Hall was constructed. The co-author of this book is Mark Lloyd. Mark is the Director of the Penn Archives. You might ask him about the men and what data might exist. His telephone number is 215-898-2001. I continue to favor the former title.Wa3frp (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - We have 43% of women and 24% of men in 61 per the 1962 integrated development plan above. Mrfeeny (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - We agree that, in 1948, two-thirds of Penn women were commuters. We know that Hill College House was completed in 1960. Does it surprise you that a year later, in 1961, that fewer women were commuters? How many men were commuters in 1948? Wa3frp (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I have been away for a few days for personal reasons. I have to commend you both for demonstrating such a striking example of collaboration toward improving an article when there is an ongoing dispute. If all editors worked as positively and constructively as you two, there would be much less need for mediation. I do realize there is still a degree disagreement on the term "commuter school" and its connotation, but you have quite admirable shown how two editors can sidestep a dispute to focus on common ground. Kudos to you both. Coastside (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• UPDATE - The only data I was able to find online was the 61 data. I have a copy of Becoming Penn lying around somewhere that may have information. Is there another name we can agree upon? "Campus Expansion and Development as a Residential University"? It appears that we both agree that by the 60s Penn was not really a "commuter school" but a school with a non-negligible number of commuters (especially for men). The statistic for women is not very surprising for a large urban university at the time. Mrfeeny (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE - "Campus Expansion and Development as a Residential University" is a non-starter for the following reasons (1) you would then have to cover the move from Center City Philadelphia to West Philadelphia and all of the expansions since that date. (2) This moves drastically away from the intent of the original section of the article which was the shift from a local student population to a global student populations. Forgetting the section's title for a bit, I've slimmed down the section and corrected the formats and fully articulated the references to read:

In the 1800s, Penn was primarily a regional institution as the great majority of students resided in the Philadelphia area. An exception was the Medical School which attracted a more geographically diverse population of students. By the mid-1850s, over half of the population of the Medical School was from the southern part of the United States. Outside of the Medical School, the majority of the University student population was from the Philadelphia area.

By 1931, Freshmen were required to live in the Quadrangle unless they received official permission to live with their families or other relatives. However, throughout this period and into the early post-World War II period, the school continued to have a large commuting population. Into the late 1940s, two-thirds of Penn women students were commuters. Nonetheless, in addition to a significant student population from the Delaware Valley, the University attracted international students and students from most of the fifty states as early as the 1960s.

After World War II, Penn began a capital spending program in order to overhaul its campus, especially student housing. The large number of students migrating to universities under the GI Bill, and the resultant increase in Penn's student population, highlighted that Penn had outgrown previous expansions, which ended during the Depression era. Referring to the developments of this time period, Penn Trustee Paul Miller stated in 1989, “[t]he bricks-and-mortar Capital Campaign of the Sixties . . . built the facilities that turned Penn from a commuter school to a residential one . . . "Wa3frp (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Deisenbe on 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Deisenbe (talk · contribs) Qwirkle (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is a dispute with Qwirkle. He put an template on the article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson. I have made extensive changes to this article subsequently, increasing sources from 5 to 46 and the size from 3,454 bytes to 16,950 bytes. He has put the Accuracy template back on it and added POV. He has made no reply to my defense of the article's accuracy on the Talk page, just puts these templates on it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have multiplied the size of the article by 5 and the sources by 7. How do you think we can help? Evaluate the content and documentation and advise whether these two templates are appropriate or not. Summary of dispute by Qwirkle Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Before going further, perhaps @Deisenbe: can explain how expanding an article would address a problem of undue POV. If the problem is, as it is here, advocacy, adding more isn’t necessarily going to help that. Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC) Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It seems unlikely that discussion here will result in compromise, especially since the issue is not a matter of the wording of the lede sentence so much as a tagging issue. This is a dispute that might be able to be addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC) I have posted the dispute on that board as recommended (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson). deisenbe (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC) My apologies, the correct link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tagging_as_not_neutral_of_article_Lynching_of_Shedrick_Thompson deisenbe (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Whats new? on 03:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Whats new? (talk · contribs) Netoholic (talk · contribs) Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Whether this redirect page should be classified as being a redirect from a long name, or a redirect from an incorrect name. The article title in question is used in the program's title card, reliable sources and until removed the article it redirects to. The contrary opinion is that a greater number of sources do not use this title, and there is a lack of sources close enough to the program producers using the longer title, and it is therefore used incorrectly elsewhere. User:IJBall attempted to change to the R from long name designation previously, as have I, and have been reverted by Netoholic each time. After stalled discussions, I requested a third opinion, which was given by Wallyfromdilbert who suggested the long name designation was correct, but too was reverted by Netoholic, who continues to oppose the long name redirect classification. Have you tried to resolve this previously? After discussions with Netoholic on the talk page stalled, I requested a third opinion, which was given, however Netoholic continues to disagree with this opinion as well. How do you think we can help? Through determining which redirect classification is most appropriate. Whether this is based either on applying the consensus of three editors who disagree with the opposing editor, or determining that Netoholic's argument is valid on policy grounds, or indeed making a determination by citing other reasons entirely. For such a small issue, one would hope it could be determined fairly simply. Summary of dispute by Netoholic Use of {{R from long name}} is for a title that is a complete, more complete or longer version of the topic's name. This is typically used when an official title is not the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, there is no evidence from the producers or writers of the documentary that any such "long title" was used. The other user is basing his viewpoint on his own interpretation of the main title graphics and on a very small minority of sources which seem to have made the same misinterpretation - whereas the vast majority of secondary sources which fail to use such a "long title". In particular, we have sources very closely connected to the producers/writers (written by them, or interviews with them which cover the specific topic of how the documentary got its title) which likewise do not make any mention of a "long title". This lack of verification of a "long title" is the reason it is not mentioned in the target article, and should be evidence that it is indeed not "complete, more complete", but instead should be considered an {{R from incorrect name}} as an erroneous name – either an incorrect name or a title. -- Netoholic @ 04:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Wallyfromdilbert At least a dozen published newspapers and books can be easily found online using the longer version and explicitly describing it as the title. Most were already provided on the talk page. Not sure where the additional requirement that the sources be "close to the producers" comes from when it's easily verified by reliable secondary sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, and notice to the other editors. If there has already been a Third Opinion and one of the editors has declined to accept it (because both Third Opinion and this noticeboard are voluntary), the question is whether this dispute will be resolved by discussion or whether a Request for Comments is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Detransition

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by A145GI15I95 on 04:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Detransition (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs) Mooeena (talk · contribs) Equivamp (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Users Mooeena and Equivamp are doxxing other users, making false accusations on Talk pages, User pages, and edit logs. Mooeena is openly trans, and I believe they see the Detransition article as a threat to their political identity. I want what's best for detrans folk, but not at the expense of trans folk. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried talking with them. Mooeena just made another false accusation and told me to come here. How do you think we can help? Tell those two to cool it, please. Take some time off. Step away from the keyboard. Stop being disruptive. Stop trying to destroy the article. Stop accusing and doxxing users. Summary of dispute by Mooeena This isn't an accurate representation of the situation at all. I have already communicated with A145GI15I95 that I Am not trans, Did not dox them, Am not making false accusations of any kind. This user is upset with Equivamp for noticing that she was stealth canvassing and upset at me for putting a canvassing warning on their talk page. That's all. Summary of dispute by Equivamp Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Detransition discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Note to participants: All participants have been informed of this dispute resolution request via their talkpage by me. Discussion will start only after all involved editors have given a summary of the dispute. MrClog (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Tartary

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Midnight-Blue766 on 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Tartary (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Midnight-Blue766 (talk · contribs) Mountain157 (talk · contribs) Jingiby (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Mountain157 made a revision of the article on Tartary, citing 17th, 18th and 19th century atlases, dictionaries and encyclopedias to assert that "Tartary" was a single country rather than a region. I reverted the article, believing the information in the new revision to be outdated (though cited, unlike previous revisions). This was re-reverted, and instead of it becoming an edit war, we began discussion on the talk page in earnest. I argued that my understanding of the region was that it was a general term for a geographical region, and that Tartary was never a single country, and that the sources used to argue that Tartary was a country, were if not overuse of primary sources, were obsolete and not reflective of the current understanding of the term, while Mountain157 claimed that the sources chosen were not primary sources, and were otherwise legitimate uses of sources. I also wish to add that Mountain157 perceives my behaviour as constructing vandalism and other forms of misconduct in reverting the article to the previous revision and making arguments for it, while I believe all my edits were in good faith, being made to correct what as reverting what I saw as an improperly-sourced revision. (As per Robert McClenon's comment, I will drop all discussion of conduct here) Summary of dispute by Mountain157 This user mass reverted sourced information and gave an edit summary claiming,"These recent edits seem to be based off early modern rumours that claimed "Tartary" was a country rather than a region"[[23]]. On the talk page I went over things such as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:WINARS with him. I even pointed out a book named Jacob Abbot Cummings' 1815 Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geography which he tried to use and claim that it "shows Tartary as a region".This is not true because the book mentions Tartary as a country among others(such as Turkey, Arabia, Persia, India,Japan,etc).Mountain157 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempts to revert changes, which were re-reverted back, followed by discussion on the talk page. Although the discussion has been relatively brief so far, I opened this discussion due to Mountain157 making a number of statements in the above process that I construe as being inflammatory and unproductive to civil discussion almost immediately after the dispute began, which I believe made it extremely difficult for civil resolution to be possible without outside, (quasi-)formal arbitration. How do you think we can help? By determining whether the sources cited in the article legitimises the description of Tartary as a unified country as opposed to a geographical region as indicated in previous (albeit uncited) revisions, and whether my actions count as misconduct or not. Talk:Tartary discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. There has been proper notice. This noticeboard is for article content disputes only, not for conduct disputes. If there is too much talk about conduct, this dispute may have to be closed and referred to WP:ANI, but that doesn't help anyone, so focus on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Although I would normally refrain from adding discussions before the dispute was formally opened, Mountain157 has alleged that "Tartar history was to be re-written --let us be frank, was to be falsified==[sic] in order to eliminate references to Great Russian aggressions and to hide the facts of the real course of Tatar-Russian relation". This clearly passes his thesis into the territory of fringe theory, and passing them off as fact are prohibited. As such, I believe the dispute this article to have ceased surrounding article content and is a matter of user conduct, and I request that this dispute be closed. I am open to neutral discussion of the Tartary conspiracy theory. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a place for fringe and/or conspirative theories like the fictional story on the great Tartarian Empire. The prevailing Academic consensus among historians is that Tartary was a historical region with uncertain boundaries and not a separate state.It is Better to discuss the issue on talk till reaching consensus, despite edit-warring and pushing POV-like statements into the article's content. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Tihomir Orešković#Ordinal_numbering,_yes_or_no?

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by CroGamer 1 on 22:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Tihomir Orešković#Ordinal numbering, yes or no? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved CroGamer 1 (talk · contribs) Mewulwe (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A dispute regarding the ordinal numbering of former PM Tihomir Orešković. I and another editor, Mewulwe, only agree that this information should be posted on the article but can't reach an agreement on where should it be located on the wiki page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have filed a request for WP:3 but the stalemate remains in effect. There has also been extensive talk on Mewulwe's talk page but negligible progress has been made. How do you think we can help? I would request a mediator so that the article expansion can continue. Extra sources of CroGamer 1 Summary of dispute by Mewulwe Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This concerns the wider issue of numbering of officeholders in infoboxes. CroGamer 1 does not seem to want to follow the policy that has stood since 2017, in which case he should propose an alternative policy. Mewulwe (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Talk:Tihomir Orešković#Ordinal_numbering,_yes_or_no? discussion  Note to participants: This resolution request is currently being discussed at the requester's talk page. MrClog (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: I hereby open this discussion. I feel like it would be best to give my view on this issue and continue from there on. The Manual of Style on infoboxes states: "Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used." The documentation on the infobox template states: "This should only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources." Note that 'sources' is plural, and therefore implies that there must be a well established use of ordinal numbering in multiple reliable sources. @CroGamer 1: Based on this information, I would say that you should be able to proof its established usage by linking to more than the one source I was able to find of you. If you have them, please link them under the new subheading I created. Additionally, both you and @Mewulwe: can use this discussion area to further discuss the topic (and/or my comment). --MrClog (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC) I agree with Mewulwe's stance that the numbering isn't common in Croatia. I seem to have failed to notice the policy because Mewulwe mentioned the link only once. After reading our conversation again I noticed that I interpreted his words differently. Personally speaking, I believe that this policy needs changing which I intend to initiate here after completing this reply. Official documents should also count as a source on Wikipedia but I'm fully aware that this noticeboard isn't meant for this type of discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused. CroGamer 1 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Alright, I'll close this dispute. @Mewulwe: (ping) FYI, see the above. MrClog (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 5.21.227.218 on 00:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 5.21.227.218 (talk · contribs) Mountain157 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is ongoing dispute on allies of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province page. There is user Mountain157 who keeps on adding Pakistan under the ally section of ISIS K. The sources he/she uses to supports his/her edits, are mere 'allegations' made by one country (Afghanistan) and that country has not provided any information to back their claims. Isn't this against Wikipedia NPOV rules? The user is clearly taking sides here. He is giving claims made by Afghanistan more importance then claims made by Pakistan. It is not just me, there are many others editors who have also told him that allegations from country (especially the one which is currently at conflict with accused country) can't be used as credible source. Pakistan has declared ISIS-K as its enemy. Before the user Mountain157 came, there was a general consensus on the matter of allies. Previous editors labelled Pakistan as enemy of ISIS-K. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started the discussion on the talk page regarding the issue but the user paid not attention to it and proceeded with reverting my edit. How do you think we can help? I would like someone to look into this matter and provide their opinion regarding it. Summary of dispute by Mountain157 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Curcumin#Curcumin page_edits

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by DNA0089 on 19:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Curcumin#Curcumin page edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DNA0089 (talk · contribs) Alexbrn (talk · contribs) Zefr (talk · contribs) Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs) Dispute overview (also, please note the history of this page, which starts with my proposed Dec 22 edits). I would like to make edits to the current Curcumin page on Wikipedia, which I believe contains inaccuracies and misstatements. This is my first ever time trying to edit Wilki, so I am no doubt making mistakes but am genuinely doing my best to be detailed, accurate, and compromising in my arguments - and in avoiding continual direct edits to the page. After a half dozen or so postings in response to editor concerns, however, I seem no closer to resolution than before. I feel that I am (1) getting criticized even after visiting the hyperlinked sections referred to me by other authors and trying to respond to the issues raised, and (2) that those criticizing seem to be ignoring or perhaps not even reading my posts as I still see the same criticisms without even referencing or acknowledging what I just posted. Please note that I am deliberate in writing these posts, taking at least an hour to carefully word each one. My general concern and recommended edit, as stated several times, is “that a cautious tone regarding curcumin human benefit is preferential and more accurate that the dismissive one now present.” My specific objections are to the statements that (1) curcumin “has no medical uses” (and along the same line, the misleading "Curcumin has no confirmed medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research."), and that (2) “curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial”. Examples of issues I feel I have addressed or that are being ignored include (1) criticism that I have not met the criteria for literature citations, (2) one editor criticizing my focus, which I don’t see, and so asked for specific examples but never heard back from this person, (3) criticism for citing in vitro and rodent studies. Here I agreed with this general policy but carefully explained why I feel it’s different in my case, again with no response. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No other steps other than moving the discussion to the Talk:Curcumin page How do you think we can help? 1.Acknowledgement by these editors that I have addressed issues where appropriate as listed above (e.g., my edited reference list) or where they agree with my argument (e.g., if agree on in vitro study inclusion or my paragraph that includes "dismissing curcumin benefits is critical of the decisions of a very large number of scientists...") would help and seem to represent tangible steps forward, and (2) short of this, resolution of our disagreements; I don't know how Wiki usually addresses this Summary of dispute by Alexbrn Decline resolution. Case has no merit. Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Zefr Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Curcumin#Curcumin page_edits discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Dogsbite.org

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by PearlSt82 on 18:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Dogsbite.org (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PearlSt82 (talk · contribs)
• Nomopbs (talk · contribs)
• Dwanyewest (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In these four diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885898944&oldid=885895843
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885895843&oldid=885891398
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885891398&oldid=885582225
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885237747&oldid=885236153

I am contesting the following changes:

1. Removal of the link to Fatal dog attacks in the United States in the article body, substituting it for a link in "Related topics". This page can directly be tied to the article's prose, and should be linked there
2. Removal of statement saying the organization advocates for Breed-specific legislation. This is a clear part of their activities, justified by inclusion by the site's own words, as well as the two sources discussing the MD Tracey v Solesky case, where dogsbite.org was heavily involved, and the now-removed austintx.gov, where dogsbite.org was involved in a local public hearing
3. Removal of aforementioned austintx.gov source, of which several documents to and from DBO are listed on their website, this speaks to DBO's lobbying activities for breed-specific ordinance changes, here addressing no-kill shelters. This source needs to be reinstated
4. Unrelated information about the Chapple attack needs to be removed per WP:SYNTH. This is an article about dogsbite.org, and all sources and statements need to address dogsbite.org directly.
5. Propose "After being injured in a pit bull attack while jogging on June 17th, 2007,(avma source) Colleen Lynn anonymously founded DogsBite.org in October 2007. Shortly after, her identity was disclosed and she began receiving harassing emails, and was threatened by a lawsuit. Numerous anti-breed specific legislation advocates set up blogs and websites posting theories attempting to cast doubt on Lynn.(buzzfeed source)". as text for "History" section

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion, largely futile

How do you think we can help?

Provide commentary and consensus on above issues so article creation and expansion can go forward

Summary of dispute by Nomopbs

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The short story (in 100 words): Dwanyewest and PearlSt82 created an attack page about DogsBite.org to push their own POVs. Months later, I discovered it and started to try to move the article closer to NPOV. Everything I did was reverted or edited to death (including 6 reverts by PearlSt82 on Feb 26, WP:3RR).[24][25][26][27][28][29] I tried using the Talk page to explain in detail the reasons for each of my edits. Didn't make a difference. Dwanyewest is waiting on the sidelines for some 'wiki admin on high' to grant him permission to continue. 1#Taken_it_to_Administration_noticeboard PearlSt82 has been bucking me at every turn (WP:EW) and writes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH sentences in his criticism without appropriate citations.

Four years ago, in 2015, PearlSt82 had a lengthy argument with another wiki editor on the subject of DogsBite.org. Basically, PearlSt82 refused to allow someone to use a Huffington Post citation solely because HuffPost mentioned DogsBite.org within it. It was pretty heated. I summarized it and provided links to the argument on Talk:Dogsbite.org at this subheading [30]. I mention this to point out that (a) DogsBite.org has been on PearlSt82's shit list for a long, long time, and (b) discussions between PearlSt82 and other wiki editors didn't bring resolution back then, as it didn't bring resolution in this last month on Talk:Dogsbite.org.

Nomopbs' responses to PearlSt82's (P's) 5 points above:

1. I really don't care about fighting on this. I don't understand why P thinks a "See also" section is not appropriate "just because there's a link to it above". One cannot expect all readers to read a complete article and click on every link. A link to Fatal dog attacks in the United States is absolutely relevant to any discussion about DogsBite.org since the Wikipedia list is a summary of the same information (though different sources) as is covered by the website dogsbite.org.

2. I agree with P that someone could infer DogsBite.org is "advocating for BSL" in the sense that the DogsBite.org founder promotes the idea, however, there is no citation that says it that way and wiki editors are forbidden to write their inferences (WP:NOR). There's other language used in citations about DogsBite.org and BSL such as "Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders" (AVMA), and "The organization's website includes ... and an overview of breed-specific legislation throughout the country" (AVMA), and "Lynn supports laws that specifically regulate pit bulls" (DallasNews), but none of these support what P writes, and leads only to an allegation of SYNTH and/or NOR.

2B. Also, P keeps trying to lump together in the same sentence "advocating for victims" and "advocating for BSL" which are two entirely different kinds of activity. P's lump-together comes out like "DogsBite.org advocates for victims of dog bites and breed specific legislation". Putting them together in one sentence is improper editorial synthesis. See the sample synth-and-no-synth examples in section of the article WP:SYNTH. It describes how two concepts pushed together into one sentence can be SYNTH, but left as two sentences is NOT SYNTH. Specifically, the verb "advocate" in this instance has two different meanings. If you mean "promotes" as relates to BSL, then P's composite sentence sounds like DogsBite.org is "promoting dog bite victims". No, DogsBite.org spends time and effort to HELP dog bite victims and reduce attacks by dogs. So, you see, P's composite sentence does NOT convey what he wants to say. It should be re-worded instead. I tried to pull it out into a separate sentence, but P reverted it and squished them back together.

2C. The Solesky citation currently in the DogsBite.org article is not about DogsBite.org but only uses footnotes referencing it in places. It does not mention anywhere that DogsBite writings were pro-BSL. The problem is that P is pulling from information he knows, or think he knows, from elsewhere that's not in citations, then writing his conclusions as WP:NOR in the DogsBite.org article and tacking on a citation that does NOT support what P is writing. It is that method of SYNTH that I object to.

2D. The austintexas.gov citation is irrelevant to the topic of BSL. It's a response to a request for information by DogsBite.org to Austin Animal Services, and was about a discussion as to whether their No-Kill policies were what led to increased dog bites in the Austin TX area. It's not about Breed Specific Legislation at all, which is why/where P keeps trying to add it. It does NOT support any discussion for inclusion (or exclusion) of BSL language. It's a response to a letter, not something to do with a hearing. I don't know where P get those ideas about that citation/document, because they are NOT in the citation. One must assume any Wikipedia reader knows nothing about the topic. And citations must support what one writes, and not lead to more confusion in the reader.

2E. One should find a real citation that says it, or P should re-word concepts to match what one CAN find citations to support.

3. See 2D above.

4. I really don't know what Wikipedia editor guideline P is using to say that every citation in an article must directly reference the title/name of the article and cannot be a citation to support something said in the article. As an example of how ridiculously strict that would be: In an article on Joe Schmoe, an editor writes "Joe Schmoe says that tractor trailers are dangerous on the roads." P's viewpoint on citations would preclude adding a citation to the end of that sentence that is an article on "tractor trailers are dangerous on the road" but which doesn't mention "Joe Schmoe" in the citation. See WP:WHYCITE.

4B. The 'unrelated' information to which P refers are the three citations I added to explain/refute P's Radio-Canada criticism sentence and citation. If P wants to include the criticisms, then he should include "who said what" in the criticism (which I did for him), and not just write his own SYNTH/NOR on the topic (which I removed). And P cannot object to another editor coming along and adding the other side of the story in an attempt at NPOV (which I did). If P would rather I pick apart the Radio-Canada citation and take it to the "reliable sources noticeboard", I can go that route, too. Instead, I had left P's citation there as a compromise.

5. P's recommended language exposes his true WP:G10 purpose here: to discredit and attack DogsBite.org and its Founder (a living person), NOT to write an article about DogsBite.org, and NOT to adhere to Wikipedia editor guidelines on NPOV. Here, the specific day of the pit bull attack is irrelevant — P insists on the specific date (not just the year) all the while omitting the time interval of four months before the founder started the website dogsbite.org. The way P constructs his sentence implies she did it as a revenge tactic, when in fact P's own added citations clearly mention that while she was laid up from her injuries from the pit bull attack, that she started to research the topic of dangerous dogs and pit bulls, and THEN four months later started the website. I've removed the month and day; P et al have added it back in. P's proposed language includes "and was threatened by a lawsuit," while glaringly removing my addition (from P's own citation, I might add) "which didn't materialize". So much for NPOV. Since the founder is a living person, see also WP:NOCITE, WP:BLP, WP:G10.

One last salvo showing that the article was intended as a G10 attack from the beginning.

The original article was created by Dwanyewest, and at the end of his edits that day the article contained three sentences and thirteen citations, all criticisms, in the worst case of citation overkill I've seen: “The website has being accused of using unreliable methods to collect dog bite data.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]”. [31]

Later, there were two hidden edits that were made.

1. In this pro-pitbull article, someone added a vicious easter egg: [32]

[[Dogsbite.org|Anti pitbull advocates]] accused Bronwen Dickey of...

2. Then added an invisible template to the DogsBite.org article: [33]

{{short description|Anti-Pitbull website}}

I found, and removed, both. Both were done by an IP editor. Both IPv6 addresses resolve geographically to “Manchester, England, UK” which coincidentally Dwanyewest says on his User page that he lives in England. (The topic at issue is USA-related.) He’s also the creator and main editor of both the article on which the easter egg was placed, a book review, [34] and the article for the book's author.[35]

Coincidence? Or evidence?

—Nomopbs (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dogsbite.org discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel I should disclose I am the creator of the article. On a personal note after a resolution is completed if I can add certain sources to the Dogsbite.org for example this one [36] by the The Dodo (website) and [37] by the American Dog Breeders Association to Dogsbite.org. If the editors say no I will accept their final decision. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I correct that this filing will close soon? If this is not the right venue for this dispute, would a volunteer be able to recommend a more appropriate one? PearlSt82 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Joey Allaham#BLP_violations

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by BhasSpeak on 17:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on the article talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Joey Allaham#BLP violations (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BhasSpeak (talk · contribs) Shannya Sabru (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Shannya Sabru has been disruptively adding contentious material to a BLP (Joey Allaham) without providing appropriate sources to back the claim. At the same time, the user has also been removing well-sourced information without any justification. I will discuss these two issues briefly below: The user has been adding the statement "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits" to the lead of the article without providing a source that verfies this. As I have pointed out on the article talk page already, one of the sources says "critics claim... has been involved in numerous lawsuits". Note that it is just a claim made by unknown "critics" and does not become a fact. The other sources he provided simply point to the same lawsuit filed three times by Elliott Broidy in which Allaham was one of multiple people named. Note that the lawsuit has been dismissed twice already and the third attempt is still in court. The sources simply state that Allaham was involved in this lawsuit and do not back the claim of "multiple lawsuits". The user has been combining the information from these sources and drawing a presumption (WP:SYNTH). I have already mentioned this point on the talk page but the user continues to ignore policy-based argument and keeps re-adding the sentence. The user has been removing two well-sourced paragraphs without any reasoning. A few hours ago, his removal of these two paragraphs was reverted by an administrator (User:Oshwah) as no proper justification was given. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried engaging the user on the talk page by making policy-based argument but the user keeps disruptively reverting the edits without any valid argument. I sense CIR issues. How do you think we can help? I need you to take a look at the recent page history and the latest thread on the article talk page and provide a solution to this deadlock. Summary of dispute by Shannya Sabru This is what USER:BhasSpeak is fighting to have removed from the article: "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits." Because I've added this to the article, BhasSpeak has accused me of making violations and being a meatpuppet. WP:ASPERSIONS? References Talk:Joey Allaham#BLP_violations discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - As filed, this appears to be a conduct dispute, alleging violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. Also, there does not appear to have been an actual attempt by either party to discuss their issues, as opposed to just restating their positions, so that there doe snot appear to be discussion of article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:British Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Diablo del Oeste on 19:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:British Empire#Suez crisis and its aftermath (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Diablo del Oeste (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Hzh (talk · contribs) Snowded (talk · contribs) Wee_Curry_Monster (talk · contribs) Wiki-Ed (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A topic-relevant, sourced, brief addition to the article's lede talking about the Suez crisis and its importance in the decline of the British Empire, was objected by a sock (AlbionJack). The content-dispute went to the Talk section, where a long debate ensued. After some days the sock was banned. However, the dispute carried on with 3 supporting the inclusion of the content (Diablo del Oeste, Slatersteven, Hzh), and 3 objecting (Snowded, Wee_Curry_Monster, Wiki-Ed). Even though I always presented references to back up my affirmations, the objecting party never gave one and based its arguments on unsourced, original research. One by one the arguments thrown by the objecting party were nullified, some of them had glaring contradictions, for example: first they objected because the addition was unsourced, after I gathered the references they said ledes don't need citations, which comes at odds with the widely employed practice in Wikipedia of putting citations in the ledes. Although the supporting party showed will to follow the course of Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolution, the objecting party in numerous occasions voiced explicitly their lack of interest in following those policies, with comments like "No one is interesting" (sic) and repeatedly focusing on contributors instead of content, with aggressive comments like "someone with a bee in their bonnet" and "you who is deliberately trying to discourage discussion". The supporting party continued showing its will to debate, and we could have continued discussing in the Talk section for more time, after all Wikipedia's policies allude to turning the other cheek in the face of personal attacks. However, the objecting party started trying to use force to eliminate dissent, calling a sockuppet investigation, and that's the moment the debate in the Talk section was ended. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Like I said above, I was always willing to follow the normal protocol of discussing in the Talk section for as long is necessary, but the use of aggressive measures by the objection party made me bring the case here. How do you think we can help? I request a mediator, after a long discussion in the Talk section it is the involvement of an uninvolved third party what is needed to reach consensus over this content dispute. Summary of dispute by Slatersteven I supported a brief (one sentence) statement. Since then the debate has continued and I have got a bit bored with it to be honest. It is clear from much of what I have read that Suez was seen as a a watershed that signaled Britain's decline as a world power [[38]], I could find a lot more. But at the same time it was not a cause, but rather a symptom. Since my agreement the discussion has rambled on (and NO ONE USER IS TO BLAME), with (frankly) a degree of tendentiousness from both sides. I still support a one one mention, I would just like ONE to vote on.08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hzh I'm not really an active participant in the discussion, I will note however that there are really two different issues here - one is the inclusion of a summary in the lead, the other is the wording. I think a short summary in the lead is acceptable given that Suez is the content of a section. As for the use of word "superpower", I take no position on that. It is unfortunate that the discussion has descended into accusations including sock-puppetry, which appears to be unfounded - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. Hzh (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Snowded Opening statement is misleading. The disputant did get a brief agreement to a one sentence insertion but since the wording was challenged those editors have not provided any further support. This is a tendentious editor as a brief review of the talk page will show, in effect in a minority of one. Currently subject to an SPI report so I don't see any current need for dispute resolution -----Snowded TALK 20:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Wee_Curry_Monster As noted by Snowded & Wiki-Ed the dispute overview is very misleading, there is some support for a brief sentence but not the convoluted sentence this editor wants. This editor is also fixated on introducing a problematic term to describe the British Empire - Superpower. It's a term that has been used by an author but is problematic as it is never had academic consensus or widespread use. [39] As can be seen from a cursory search of the archives, the use of the word "superpower" has never gained consensus. This is really one tendentious editor with a bee in their bonnet. I think they see mediation as the next step in getting their way in a content dispute. What we are seeing is a problem of editor conduct, one editor who refuses to acknowledge previous dicussions, simply repeats the same comment and is personalising the content dispute in a manner which is raising tensions. His final comment in the current talk page discussion is most telling [40] If you didn't object to my contribution in the first place, everything would had run smooth. They're approaching this with a battlefield mentality and anyone whose comments disagree with them is treated like an enemy. WCMemail 08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Wiki-Ed The dispute summary is unhelpful. In short: the editor wants to insert the word "superpower" in a new sentence in the introduction to the article on the British Empire. The rest of us do not. So how did we get here? The user proposed new wording for inclusion in the introduction, increasing the word count by almost 10%. While not factually wrong, it was awkwardly phrased and placed undue emphasis on a single episode in a 500-year historical account. Comments from others persuaded the editor to shorten this, although his updated version introduced new errors. I counter-proposed an even shorter version which reflected the consensus established in earlier talk page discussions, including an RfC in Jan 2016. Since then the editor has been fixated on the use of the term "superpower". There are some sources which use this, but most historians avoid it. Given that the majority of reliable sources do not employ this terminology, doing so in WP places undue weight on the term and is misleading to readers. I would observe that if the editor had settled for the earlier compromise this entire dispute would be unnecessary, but he seems to be more concerned with wikilawyering. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Talk:British Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will see whether acting as a moderator can resolve this. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the dispute is about? Be civil and concise. Overly long posts make the poster feel better but do not persuade. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective here is to improve the article. I expect every editor to reply to my posts at least every 48 hours. Do not reply to each other. Address your comments to the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC) First statements by editors Per current consensus, as shown by talk page history, [41] the use of the term "superpower" is problematic and should be avoided. Small concise sentence may be appropriate, equally zero coverage in the lead may be appropriate per WP:WEIGHT compared with other significant events in the lead. 10% of the lead dedicated to this incident is WP:UNDUE coverage. WCMemail 13:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC) The proposed addition is about a relevant topic, sources can be provided per WP:V, also the proposed addition has been already synthesized to a single sentence.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Second statement by moderator I said to be concise, and I thank the editors for being concise. However, the statements were too concise to clarify what the scope of the issue is. Does the issue have to do with the use of the word "superpower"? Will each editor please state in one paragraph, but more than one sentence, what they think is the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Second statements by editors The original sentence that I put was longer, it said: "The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's limitations to assert its dominance in the post-war scenario, and it was seen by the international community as a huge blow to British aspirations of restoring its empire to pre-World War II status; it was clear by then that it would be the United States and the Soviet Union that would emerge as the only two superpowers with the leading roles in the world concert". After much discussion in the article's Talk, I came to synthesize the sentence to just: "The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's decline in the post-World War II scene with USA and USSR now as the only two superpowers". It is worth noting that my addition wasn't something that was unsourced or an original creation, as it was copied textually from a sentence from the article's section British_Empire#Suez_and_its_aftermath, which in turn had plenty of references. And about the "superpower" topic, it has been already established by authors for more than 70 years that the term "superpower" is perfectly applied to USA and USSR.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC) This dispute is partly about the use of "superpower" and partly about the relative weighting of any sentence on this subject in the introduction. Contrary to what has been said above, User:Diablo del Oeste did not copy text from the article; he has seemingly cobbled something together - also known as synthesis - and asserted it is verifiable. The closest line to the one proposed is "The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage and its end as a superpower." This is currently supported by three sources. However, two of them definitely do not corroborate the line in the existing text (or, by extension, the wording he has proposed). The third appears to be a book, but it is not properly cited so it is not clear who wrote it or whether it is reliable for the purposes of this article. It is unfortunate we haven't spotted this previously - that line needs to be updated as it is contentious and not supported by RS. We can look at that when this discussion has concluded. In the meantime, seeing that his proposal was original research which placed undue weight on a particular event, I proposed an alternative formulation: "The Suez Crisis confirmed Britain's decline as a global power". This is much simpler and supported by existing sources. Also, it doesn't introduce contentious words like "superpower" which have only been used by a few commentators/historians in relation to the British Empire. User:Diablo del Oeste has not felt able to comment on the merits of the compromise and has resorted, ironically, to accusing other editors of original research. And that's why we are where we are. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [42] Yes it's partly about the use of "superpower". As noted above [[43]] it has been considered regularly on the talk page. Each time it's come up, the consensus has been not to use it, some historians do use it but it is not a view that has significant weight in the literature. Per Wiki-Ed it is also a matter of weight [44] since the text gives an over prominence to this event; for example the Falklands War which is supposed to have had a significant opposite effect to that of Suez isn't even mentioned. I could also comment on the WP:OR and WP:SYN in the text but Wiki-Ed covered that just fine for me. I would be happy to support the compromise suggested by Wiki-Ed. WCMemail 11:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Third statement by moderator First, Wiki-ed has proposed a compromise sentence, 'The Suez Crisis confirmed Britain's decline as a global power'. Are the editors willing to agree on that? Second, will each editor, regardless of whether they accept or do not accept the compromise, propose a wording for the sentence in question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Third statements by editors I am happy with what Wiki-Ed has proposed as a compromise sentence. My personal view is that it does not need to be in the lead of the article, I would propose to stick with the status quo. WCMemail 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Of course I agree with the inclusion of a compromise sentence. If we can also add the context whereby USA and USSR became the sole superpowers, better, but this is good enough. After all, Wikipedia is not written in stone and there's not such a thing as status quo, Wikipedia encourages its contributors to be bold and enrich the site with their additions.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator If no statements to the contrary are made within 36 hours, this thread will be closed as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (if any) I am not so sure it is resolved, he is still insisting on an expanded sentence not the compromise offered. WCMemail 12:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC) I reaffirm that I agree with the compromise sentence.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Colonial history_of_the_United_States

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Jonathan f1 on 03:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Colonial history of the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RJensen and  Rmhermen (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are two other editors on this page that are attempting to exclude an entire ethnic group (Irish) based on religious identity. I reminded them that Wikipedia is not a platform for ethnic and religious tribalism, and I cited two sources which support the claim that, yes, the Irish were in America prior to the 19th Century, and there is no reason to exclude them from this page overtly, or do so by applying ridiculous monikers like 'Scotch-Irish' in an attempt to strip their ethnicity away from them. I would prefer a third party to weigh in. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Resolving this on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Apply encyclopedic standards to editing, not ethnic/religious tribalism. Summary of dispute by RJensen and Rmhermen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Colonial history_of_the_United_States discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Answers in_Genesis#And_(thus)_rejects_vs_(thus)_rejecting

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Oldstone James on 02:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Answers in Genesis#And (thus) rejects vs (thus) rejecting (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Oldstone James (talk · contribs) 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) Nick Thorne (talk · contribs) Guy Macon (talk · contribs) Doug Weller (talk · contribs) Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue is that the second sentence of the lead section of the article Answers in Genesis states that Answers in Genesis reject those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, but it isn't stated clearly why they do so. My proposal is to make the basis for rejection of the scienctific consensus clearer. Edit added by Oldstone James→ Here is my take on where the discussion is at in the way of consensus: there are currently 2 'support' !votes (me and user:1990'sguy) and 3 'oppose' !votes. However, all three 'oppose' voters have either not stated any issue with my proposal, instead arguing that it is not an improvement over the current version (like user:Doug Weller and user:Nick Thorne) or have explicitly stated that they are 'OK' with the proposed version (like user:Guy Macon). As per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which says that "consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change", that should imply that there is a consensus to implement the proposal. The only objection (meaning issue with my proposal) made against the proposal is by user:Rhododendrites, but these issues appear to me to be easily fixable ([45]), and the user hasn't explicitly stated that they oppose the general proposal. Either way, even if we count their comment as an 'oppose' !vote, we still have a 2 against 1 in favour of the proposal. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have proposed and tried to implement at least several compromises, which took into account issues proposed by opponents of the initial proposal. I have started two other discussions, but they did not lead to a consensus. How do you think we can help? You can either help propose a new compromise or, more likely, establish whether there is a consensus on the current discussion, which I believe there is. Summary of dispute by 1990'sguy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Nick Thorne Yet another forum where James is attempting to get their way despitea lack of consensus on the talk page of the article concerned. They've tried bludgeoning the talk page, tthen the EW noticeboard, AN/I and now here. Classic Forum shopping. James's proposals have simply not gained consensus, they seem unable to grasp that fact They need to drop the stick, I'm over it. - Nick Thorne talk Clarify where James has addded text to his summary. - Nick Thorne talk 10:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Guy Macon (Full disclosure: I was an active DRN volunteer until health issues made it clear to me that at times I would not always be able to finish a case.) In my opinion, this case should be closed and Oldstone James should be instructed to stop making changes to the article that any reasonable person would know will be opposed, and instead should post his proposed changes on the article talk page and try to reach a consensus there. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Doug Weller Exhausting is a good description. I've got nothing to add that Guy, Rhododendrites and Nick haven't already said. I'm tired of being pinged by him, and now this. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC) I'd also support a topic ban. Note that User:Black Kite has just blocked him for a week. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Rhododendrites This is getting exhausting. The problem, to me, is that James has not sufficiently made a case for the very premise of this dispute: that the lead doesn't say why AiG rejects science when it doesn't conform to its belief system. Others, including myself, disagree. Where it gets more complicated is that -- I'll just speak for myself -- I don't see how James's various proposals make it any clearer, without creating other problems. They seem like a step backwards for overall clarity/accuracy. I don't intend to devote much more text to this, as it's frankly hard to keep talking about the problems with the various proposals when it's not at all clear that the problem they purport to solve exists -- or that they solve it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ජපස Suggest topic banning User:Oldstone James for tendentious POV pushing. jps (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Talk:Answers in_Genesis#And_(thus)_rejects_vs_(thus)_rejecting discussion The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Sampling (music)

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

Filed by Popcornduff on 11:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sampling (music) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Popcornduff (talk · contribs)
• Liftarn (talk · contribs)
• Sergecross73 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I and another editor, Liftarn, disagree over whether to include a paragraph in the article Sampling (music) in the section " Legal and ethical issues". The paragraph summarises a case of plagiarism in a particular song by Timbaland.

We seem to agree that the section should not merely list every case of plagiarism in sampling history. Instead, cases should only be included if they've had a notable impact on legal and ethical issues in sampling. We disagree about whether the sources demonstrate this.

Sergecross73 responded to a request for comment and felt the paragraph should not be included. The discussion has lasted over a month, with no consensus in sight.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Placed a request for further opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums 11 days ago. So far, only Sergecross73 has responded.

How do you think we can help?

We need some more experienced editors to review the sources and help reach a consensus about whether they justify the content.

Summary of dispute by Liftarn

The Timbaland plagiarism controversy gives a description of the case in question. It is an interesting example since Timbaland refereed to what he did as "sampling" when what he did was mute the bassline, add some drums and song on top of an existing track and passed it off as his own work. This new and novel definition of what sampling is should be enough for the case to be included, but it has also have a lasting impact on what is called "collective forensic musicology" and it is used in books about music education. // Liftarn (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Here’s my take on it, as the only person who looked into the dispute from the WikiProject notification. “Sampling” is a widely used technique in modern music. As is frequently an issue on Wikipedia, is “example bloat” - everyone always wants to add their preferred example to illustrate an idea. Because there are just thousands upon thousands of examples of sampling in music, Popcornduff requested that he prove his specific example regarding Timbaland was particularly noteworthy. He’s provided a couple relatively weak sources noting Timbalands sample usage, but no particular commentary on its importance or impact. He wants to make grand claims of importance, but popcornduff and I have pointed out that none of his sources back that claim. He insists they do. We’ve asked him to outline the exact content he’d add, and the exact content from the source he felt backed the assertions. He has so far refused to do so, stating he feels he has already proven his point (even though he’s 0 for 2 on convincing anyone.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

List of sources from Liftarn

Wow... There is a lot of them...

That Timbaland plagiarised Sunni's track:

• Zeilinger, Martin J. (2013). "Chiptuning Intellectual Property: Digital Culture Between Creative Commons and Moral Economy". Journal of the International Association for the study of Popular Music. 3 (1).
• Cuepoint: Was Timbaland’s Skillful Sampling a Cultural Crime?
• "Chris Abbott: Doin' it for themselves: what's going on in Timbaland?". C64audio.com. 2007-01-18. Archived from the original on 2009-08-15. Retrieved 2010-02-28.

That he refereed to it as sampling:

• "Elliot in the Morning - Timbaland interviewed transcript". Retrieved 2010-02-28.

That is had a lasting impact:

• Tobias, Evan (1 September 2014). Promising Practices in 21st Century Music Teacher Education. Oxford University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780199384754.

Talk:Sampling (music) discussion

•  Note to participants: All participants have been informed of this dispute resolution request via their talkpage by me. Discussion will start only after all involved editors have given a summary of the dispute. MrClog (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I hereby open this dispute resolution. Please note that this resolution is meant to find a compromise that you all can agree on, and that this resolution is non-binding (but it is very much requested that users do follow the agreed-to decision). @Liftarn: It seems like a good first step to me that you list all sources that support your side of the story under "List of sources from Liftarn". MrClog (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Liftarn: If possible, could you share the specific quote in which Evan Tobias says that it had a lasting impact, that would be great. Note that unless Tobias explicitly states that Timbaland plagiarising and calling it sampling had this lasting impact, it could be considered WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you’ve pretty much experienced one full cycle of the looping argument we’ve had going on with Liftarn now. He’ll list off a few sources, but refuse to explain what in the source specifically verifies the claim. And while of course off-line sources are generally acceptable, his refusal to supply or understand the issue here - that we need a source that explains impact specifically - makes me rather wary to be persuaded by a source I can’t verify the contents of personally. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)*{{

•  Volunteer note: @Sergecross73: @Liftarn: @Popcornduff: I have managed to find an online version of the book Liftarn uses as source, and the closest to the "lasting impact" claim I could find was this:

  The phenomenon surfaced throughout the Internet and eventually in mainstream media sources across the world, forcing Timbaland to address the issue in interviews. Even after the case was officially closed in 2007 (according to a statement by the original composer of “Acidjazzed Evening”), the discourse continued through text-based comments and video responses posted on YouTube or related sites, a process that continues years later. Note: This is part of a copyrighted work of Evan Tobias, shared under the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law.

  From my perspective, this doesn't prove that there was this lasting impact, therefore making it WP:SYNTH. Thoughts (especially from Liftarn)? Also, saying that the fact that it is used as an example in the book proves it had this impact is also SYNTH. --MrClog (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you citing SYNTH runs parallel with our claims of “not being supported by source” - I think we’re all arguing the same thing against Liftarn here. It’s been days here, and had been going for days at the talk page prior, and there’s still no actually excerpts from reliable sources. I’m getting the vibe Liftarn doesn’t have anything specific prose in a source to verify his claim, or he would have presented it by now... Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how WP:SYNTH is applicable here as there is no synthesis. FYI, there is en entire section of the book with the title "Timbaland steals music? A case of collective forensic musicology". // Liftarn (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Let's use the ABC structure: Timbaland said his plagariasm was sampling ("A") and this is used in a book as example ("B"). You argued that it therefore had a lasting impact ("therefore C"), but this violates WP:SYNTH, which states:

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

I have read the part on Timbaland in the book and nowhere does it seem to say and/or explain that the example had a lasting impact. MrClog (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect. A and B are not connected, thus it's no synthesis. The lasting impact is implied with the phrase "continues years later". // Liftarn (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Timbaland justified plagariasm with sampling ("A"), this has been discussed for years ("B"), therefore it had a lasting impact ("therefore C"). The source doesn't argue that C is true. THe fact that the case has been discussed for many years doesn't neceessarily prove it had a lasting impact. You should bring WP:RS that say that it had a "lasting impact", and saying that the fact it has been discussed for many years proofs this impact is WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it has been discussed for years, thus is had a lasting impact. "A" does not enter into it. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Certain murder cases have been discussed for years, yet they had no lasting impact on the legal/ethical aspect of murder. "Discussed for years" doesn't necessarily mean "lasting impact". MrClog (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That is finally a valid argument instead of the straw man. It certainly changed the interpretation of the Berne convention and US law. See International Copyright Law: U.S. and E.U. Perspectives: Text and Cases (p. 198-204). Also see Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property: Creative Production in Legal and Cultural Perspective (chapter 13). // Liftarn (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can’t find a source that directly states it, then it’s not a valid addition according to Wikipedia policy. It’s original research to equate “lots of mentions” to “lasting impact”. If you can’t pull an excerpt from a source that directly verified your addition, it’s either WP:SYNTH or a source verification error. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, like "The decision is notable for its sweeping conclusion as to what constitutes a U.S. work under § 411."[46] // Liftarn (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good source that supports your claim to me. @Sergecross73: @Popcornduff: What do you think? MrClog (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The source, if I'm reading it correctly, states that in this case the court decided the work in question could be considered a US work. The source then gives an example of another, later case, when a different court reached the opposite conclusion. I think the "sweeping conclusion" here means that the court's conclusion about which works fall under US copyright was "sweeping" (ie included a lot of different works), not that it had a sweeping effect. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your claim seems to be unsupported by the source as it says "Given the ramifications of the ruling in Kernel, the case may well go up on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.". Another article says "As a result of this decision, foreign authors face increased uncertainty as to whether the provisions of the Berne Convention will serve to exempt them from the copyright registration requirements applicable to owners of U.S. works."[47] and "the court’s decision adds yet another reason to the long list of reasons why foreign authors should consider timely registration of their works with the U.S. Copyright Office, despite the exemptions provided by the Berne Convention."[48] // Liftarn (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That 1) is all speculative, with no examples of how it has changed anything and 2) describes US copyright law generally, n:ot sampling specifically. This really isn't a great or necessary example of an ethical and legal issue in sampling. Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Liftarn, what do you think about Popcornduff's comment? MrClog (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

He is entitled to his opinion, but I think the facts speak for themselves. // Liftarn (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Uhhhh it really feels like Popcornduff’s statement would require a bit more of a rebuttal from you here if you’re deciding to stick to your guns on this. Usually when someone says “there’s no evidence”, you...counter it with evidence...? Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross, what do you think of Lifturn's newest sources? Popcornduff (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

He didn't say there isn't an evidence (as there is). He just don't like it. Facts should matter, not personal taste. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley have indeed (as the sources say) had a major impact on how internationally copyright law is interpreted in the US. While the impact is on anything published online it stems from a case of sampling. // Liftarn (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

But time and time again, you cant (or aren’t) explaining how. You say “no you’re wrong” and “look at the source” but you never really explain your understanding of what the source says other than a basic “the source says so”. It’s clear you’re adamantly arguing something...but it continually feels like you yourself don’t even understand the crux of your own argument. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler way. Don't hesitate to ask if something is unclear. Timbaland found a track by Glenn Rune Gallefoss. He muted the bassline, added drums and song. He then published it as his own work (for simplicities sake we can leave out the ethical aspects of that). This he (and several media articles) refereed to as sampling. OK, so this is a case of sampling according to himself and several sources. You with me? It later went to court as Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley. So we have a court case about sampling. In the case it was ruled that if you published something on a diskette in Australia it was a US work. This reversed the precedence from Moberg v. 33T LLC. Possibly as a revenge for Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick. Anyway, as the sources say this new way to interpret the jurisdiction of works published digitally is a major game changer. // Liftarn (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's the final part we're questioning: "a major game changer". I don't see how the sources you have provided demonstrates how the game has changed, for the reasons I gave above. Can you address those concerns?Popcornduff (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this some more, because I'm trying to figure out how we'd incorporate what you're saying here into the article, if we were to do it. I actually have no idea, based on your summary above, what the outcome for Timbaland was. I tried reading the Timbaland plagiarism controversy article, but it's not clear there either, and it's not an easy article to read generally. I tried rereading the source mentioning the "sweeping changes" we discussed before, but it seems to have been moved behind a paywall - perhaps something has changed on my end?

As best as I can manage right now, the relevant parts of what you're arguing should actually amount to something like this (very different from what you've added to the Sampling (music) article so far):

In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after sampling a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published every country with internet service, including the US. The work therefore satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission.

Does that look reasonable to you?

But please note that I would not advocate to include this in the article, as it lacks the critical element: what makes this different from any of the thousands of other plagiarism and sampling disputes, why is this more important, what lasting impact has this had? I can't find anything in the sources we can use to add to the text I wrote above. Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

In short the case caused a fundamental shift in how online publication and international copyrights work. Basically the court threw out the Berne convention. That is no small thing. // Liftarn (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

And yet the same source also says that in another, later case, a different court reached the opposite conclusion, indicating that it might have had no lasting impact. The sources you're relying on now also phrase everything in terms of general copyright law, rather than giving specific indication about how this affects sampling.

We're getting lost in the swamp here. Stand back and look at the big picture. This section should summarise major legal and ethical arguments in sampling, ones that really changed things and are important to sampling. Like Sergecross said a thousand years ago, we can't throw in every case. We have to figure out which ones are a big deal and which ones aren't. This one isn't a big deal. Popcornduff (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Moberg v. 33T LLC that was in 2009 and before Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley (2011).[49] "On October 6, the United States Court for the District of Delaware ruled in a case of first impression that a photograph posted to the Internet from a foreign server is not a “United States work” within the meaning of section 411 of the Copyright Act, and thus need not be registered in the U.S. in order to bring suit for infringement.". The case Moberg v. 33T LLC did not change anything as it just preserved the status quo. However Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley reversed that and it's a big deal. // Liftarn (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC

You're right, I misread the source. The case you're talking about did indeed come after the other, not before. Sorry about that.

... But in my view it still doesn't provide any evidence of any lasting impact. And that's what I've been asking for since day one. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This has dragged on for almost two months, now, so here are (hopefully) my final thoughts on this matter:

Like Sergecross said, there are countless examples of court cases and disputes over sampling we include in this section. But this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of such events. It's supposed to be a concise summary of major events that have shaped the use of sampling in music.

We have a few weak sources that describe the Timbaland incident, but nothing to show it has had any serious impact on anything. The source Liftarn is pushing now focuses mainly on the implications for copyright in general, with little discussion of what it means for sampling, and with no examples of anything having changed.

As you can probably guess, I would still prefer to exclude the Timbaland incident in this article. But in the interest of reaching some conclusion, if other editors would like to review these sources again, and feel they demonstrate reason to be included in this article despite my objections, then I'll live with that. Sergecross73? MrClog? Any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m pretty much in the same spot as you. As I’ve said since the beginning, I could probably be swayed if Liftarn proposed specific prose, a specific source, and the specific excerpt of the source that backed it. But I still don’t think he’s managed to do that. (If I missed this in the massive wall of text above, feel free to re-add it down here, with the 3 parts I’m requesting. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've made the edit[50] there is some very specific text right there, but the main points I'm trying to get across is 1) Timbaland expanded the definition of sampling to also include taking someone else's work and pass it off as your own with just some minor changes. (This is the ethical aspect) The resulting court case reinterpreted US copyright law contra the Berne convention (this is the legal aspect). // Liftarn (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The text you added doesn't make clear what relevance, if any, the case has. The quote from Timbaland is baffling, and the supposedly important part (the outcome of the lawsuit) isn't mentioned at all. I notice you haven't responded to my proposed text, above. Popcornduff (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That would work with some tweaks. The text "after sampling a composition" is incorrect. Something more in line with reality would be "passing off somebody else's work as his own. Something he called sampling". Or "Apart from the lyrics the song was nearly identical to used a piece from 2000 for the Commodore 64." // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Due to holidays, I'll not be able to further be engaged with this dispute resolution. I'll change the case status to reflect this and to request other volunteers to take over. --MrClog (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sholom Dovber_Schneersohn#Treatment_in_Vienna

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mk17b on 02:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Sholom Dovber Schneersohn#Treatment in Vienna (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mk17b (talk · contribs) AddMore-III (talk · contribs) Zsero (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is regarding a rabbi from the early 20th century. It was posited in recent book that he was molested at young age by a sibling. This is brought as fact with little regard for the recentness of the theory, the veracity of the sources etc. I've tried to initiate discussion on talk page with little success. Only outcome has simply been editor reinserting the data if ever removed or edited. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried discussing on talk page. How do you think we can help? Help facilitate discussion on talk page, resolve if deserving of due weight, if should be presented as one researchers theory and/or if should be presented at all. Summary of dispute by AddMore-III Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Zsero Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Sholom Dovber_Schneersohn#Treatment_in_Vienna discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests&action=edit&section=9

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ondin Dinescu on 08:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Radu Ana Maria (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I noticed with my friends that in Google search results as first shown image comes from your website. The picture does NOT show Comarnic City but a street old sign and the blue sky ONLY without any nice streets, buildings, people, trees....city life in few words. Could you please be more accurate in showing a good looking town picture of Comarnic CITY, my lovely town? By showing default odd images under our city name on Google search, you do not make us a favor but breach on a huge scale the reputation of our people and places. Please promote my town this time. Thank you. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote a message to the publisher here on Wikipedia TALK section. How do you think we can help? I would like to have a non super complex way of uploading a nice Comarnic City picture that will represent the city and not an ex cement factory ruin street sign as it is now. Thank you. Ondin Dinescu Summary of dispute by Radu Ana Maria Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests&action=edit&section=9 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right Left_Wrong

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NotsARobot on 19:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Right Left Wrong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ss112 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The user in question keeps reverting changes anyone makes on this page for the band Three Days Grace on their single 'Right Left Wrong'. The band charted number 1 on the mainstream rock charts for this song and like 14 other number 1 hits of theirs, their singles pages dedicated to each track they released on radio should show all charted areas. However, this user won't let any charts other than the two he has listed be there which is absurd. A page dedicated to a single is supposed to give all the information for that song yet they only want to list some of the facts. Every Three Days Grace single page lists their mainstream rock performance yet Ss112 refuses to listen to reasoning. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've explained why his edits make no sense for the band in question, a single page can have a list of all charted areas and Ss112 refuses to leave mainstream up on their single page. The band carries the record for most mainstream rock hits yet refuses to leave that chart up despite every other single page for the band showing mainstream chart listings. I and another user have added the charts back in but keep linking to a page which has no rules against mainstream rock tracks being there How do you think we can help? I would like for others besides this user to add charts to this page which is adding onto the chart history for this song rather than having said user remove it because he thinks because on page lists some charts it means that mainstream rock can't be on it. When if this was breaking the rules all the other songs wouldn't have mainstream listed. Summary of dispute by Ss112 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Right Left_Wrong discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ayanda Patosi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Shervin27 on 14:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ayanda Patosi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Shervin27 (talk · contribs) GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have added new details on Ayanda Patosi however they were deleted by a user for non-sense reasons. The user was claiming that the details were not significant, however, according to their own words on the article talk page, what I have added is actually significant. I have reverted their edits and the user claimed that I have entered in an edit war with them while they were the one who reverted my edits for nonsense reasons. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have explained my reasons on both the user's talk page and article talk page. How do you think we can help? Judge who is right. Summary of dispute by GiantSnowman Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Ayanda Patosi discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.