Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Neith	In Progress	Potymkin (t)	14 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 hours
Algeria	In Progress	Potymkin (t)	4 days, 19 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 hours
Collatz Conjecture	Closed	45.50.231.56 (t)	3 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Cryonics#Analysis of_Wikipedia_policy_in_context_of_the_.22Scientists_Open_Letter_on_Cryonics.22

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Nome77 on 13:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Cryonics#Analysis of Wikipedia policy in context of the .22Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nome77 (talk · contribs)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs)
• Cryobiologist (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs) aka Guy
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm trying to include the core (premise/point of view) of cryonicists (as a group) in the cryonics article. This point of view is most clearly and reputably represented by the "Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics". Even though the inclusion of this open letter easily meets NPOV and RS guidelines, one editor who is a critic of cryonics is blocking the inclusion of this content. At least two editors agree that the content should be included, especially considering all the critical opinions which are already there. The editor who is blocking the content has provided very little discussion on the topic, while I have pursued discussion extensively and in good faith. The "scientists open letter" in question is referenced multiple places, including on the national Institute of health website, a few printed books, and several news sources. It should be noted that this point of view, and -any- point of view held by cryonicists, is certainly a minority point of view (because they are a minority group). It is easy to make sure that this minority status is represented with the discussed content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to talk with the objecting editor on the talk page. They write very little in response, mostly making claims that none of the provided sources are reputable. (Regardless of their reputability).

How do you think we can help?

Read through the arguments I have made on the talk page. Especially my references and interpretations of Wikipedia policy on these matters. Let any other editors know if you think that my representation of Wikipedia policy on this matter is correct, or incorrect. I believe that comments from an authoritative third-party on whether the discussed policies are accurate, or inaccurate, could help resolve this dispute.

Summary of dispute by David Gerard

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

There is no justification, within Wikipedia rules and ArbCom statements on fringe science and pseudoscience, to mention the letter at all, without severe disclaimers as to the quality of evidence it constitutes.

As detailed by others here and on the talk page:

• the letter is barely of note
• a petition of a few individuals attempting to use the personal authority of the title "scientist" is a standard form of synthesised evidence for a pseudoscientific position (c.f. creationism, as already noted)
• most of the scientists listed have no expertise in neuroscience
• most of the references do not show it as a notable letter in itself and only mention it at all because cryonics advocates use it as publicity material
• it is regularly trotted out by cryonics organisations as sales material to evidence scientific support for the viability of cryonics

Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience summarises why such material in advocacy of severely fringe science or pseudoscience is considered problematic and unencyclopedic.

It would be actively deceptive to the general readership to have it in the article text as it if were indeed strong support of the mainstream scientific position.

I must note also that cryonics advocate editors have in the recent past put the letter forward as evidence that cryonics should be described as scientifically supported; I suggest that this should not be encouraged - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cryobiologist

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

Nome77 (talk · contribs) has proposed adding an entire new section to the Cryonics article solely devoted to discussion of a document called The Scientists' Open Letter on Cryonics. I believe brief mention of this Letter is warranted, but not an entire section devoted to it.

The Cryonics article in question already contains quotes from scientists critical of cryonics sourced from single newspaper stories. Since the existence of the Scientists' Open Letter on Cryonics is mentioned in multiple newspaper articles, books, and journal articles, it is legitimate to mention the existence of the Letter in the article about cryonics. Mention in just one mainstream media source, such as the China Daily newspaper article should give the Letter the same standing as a single-article quote of an individual scientist. The Letter exists (not in dispute), and was deemed worthy of mention in newspapers and books, including books not about cryonics by neutral authors, just as criticisms of cryonics have been deemed newsworthy in various newspaper stories.

JzG (talk · contribs) noted that the organization currently hosting the Open Letter is insignificant and has a vested interest in topic of cryonics, but agrees that the conclusion can be drawn from reliable sources that the Letter does in fact exist. JzG further said that the purported sources citing the letter appear at first glance to be churnalism of a press release. The only source I can see that did this is the Canadian Medical Association Journal, a mainstream medical journal that deemed a press release referencing the Letter worthy of mention, as did an Australian newspaper story.

Rather than an entire section worded as though it was an extension of the Letter website, I proposed adding the following neutral paragraph to the existing Reception section of the article. Nome77 (talk · contribs) deleted this paragraph, and took the proposal for adding a whole section about the Letter to dispute resolution before other editors could comment on the below paragraph.

With the adoption of ice-free preservation methods (vitrification) in cryonics at the beginning of the 21st Century, several dozen scientists began signing an open letter expressing a minority view that there is "a credible possibility" that cryonics performed with contemporary technology under ideal conditions might preseve enough brain information to allow future revival.. The letter disclaims endorsement of any particular cryonics organization or its practices. As of 2016, the letter had 69 signatories. Cryobiologist (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Summary of dispute by JzG

One editor with no other interests wants to include a substantial paragraph, in fact an entire section, on an "open letter" (essentially an online petition) signed by a small number of scientists who support the statement that cryonics is a legitimate field of inquiry. Others have noted some issues with this:

1. The petition is run by a group with a vested interest in promoting cryonics.
2. The group is of no objectively provable significance.
3. The most that can be drawn from reliable independent sources is that it exists, the balance is based on the letter itself and promotion of it on the sponsoring organisation (this group and its website fail WP:RS).
4. When you look into the purported sources, they turn out to be very brief and at first glance appear to be churnalism, based entirely on press release material.

So, the "dispute" is between one newly registered SPA who likely thinks we are "suppressing information" and a group of long-standing editors with very large numbers of edits across multiple subjects.

We would need, I think, a categorical assurance from the OP that they would accept a result that went against them, otherwise any DR process would be a complete waste of time. Long experience suggests to me that this is one of those users who only accepts the answer they want. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants

The issue I see here is one of balancing weight between POVs. On the one hand, we have reliable sources stating one thing. On the other, we have unreliable sources stating something else. On top of that, we have a new user interpreting various sources to support the claims of the unreliable source. This seems pretty clear cut to me. We don't give undue weight to fringe POVs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nome77

I opened the dispute, so my summary is started in the "Dispute overview". Below are my comments on the issues mentioned by other editors. If this is not the correct place for my thoughts on dispute issues, please let me know where they should go rather than reverting my dispute comments. (Looking at you, JzG). This will be my final input in the header of this dispute, unless additions are requested. Thank you.

(Re Cryobiologists summary): I believe the proposal offered by Cryobiologist is an equitable resolution, and I would support that proposal. The only thing I would add to his text is to change "scientists" to "prominent scientists" or "respected scientists". Several secondary sources refer to them as such, and a lookup of any of the signatories names makes their distinction within their fields fairly obvious.

(Re JzG point 1a) The open letter is not a petition, a petition is defined by the dictionary as a "request for action", and no action is requested by the letter. The letter is better described as a consensus statement for the group of 69 signatories, about their point of view on cryonics from their scientific perspective. The open letter is more specifically an attempt to make their voice and opinion heard. (Which is also the goal of this dispute). (Re JzG point 1b) Yes, the open letter is currently hosted by group with an interest in cryonics, but the letter is not "run" by them. The open letter was originally created in 2004, about six years before the domain on which it is currently hosted existed (domain was created in 2010). This can be verified by looking at the signatory dates and looking at history of the "evidencebasedcryonics.org" domain name as reported by archive.org. (Re JzG Point 2) The word "significance" is always subjective, not objective unless the criteria for significance is clearly specified. Each signatory is a prominent name within their listed scientific or medical field, which means that the group is not significant, but the individuals are significant. (Re JzG Point 3) The fact that the hosting site has an interest and cryonics does not make the hosting site fail WP:RS. The WP:RS policy states about biased sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.". As you mentioned, the open letter is also referenced by multiple independent sources, which certainly do not fail WP:RS. The references include the National Institute of Health. Several of the references do discuss some aspects of the letter beyond its existence. Most mention a key point that the letter has been signed by prominent scientists. Several of them also describe the content of the letter. There is little further in-depth discussion of letter in the references, because the letter is mostly used for its intended purpose, which is to present the viewpoint of the signatories as it is written. (Re JzG Point 4) I agree with CryoBiologist that the sources are not churnalism, and neither are all the sources brief. The "St. John's Law Review" article is 33 pages long, with 2 pages dedicated to discussing the feasibility of cryonics. (Re JzG ending points) More than one editor supports the goal of this dispute. See CryoBiologists dispute summary. Yes, I will accept the conclusion of the dispute resolution process, including one that goes against my preferences. However, as Robert McClenon notes, this dispute resolution process may or may not require and include Formal Mediation.

(Re MjolnirPants Summary) While the opinion of leading scientists who are interested in cryonics is certainly a minority opinion (and should be stated as such), it is certainly a common viewpoint -within the population of people who are interested in Cryonics-. Cryonicists (who, as documented, number in the thousands) would certainly not participate in cryonics unless they held some belief that there was a nonzero possibility that cryonics could work.

(Unrelated addition) I should note that every editor who opposes this content, has a long-standing list of edits in the page history that mostly change the article in such a way as to be negative toward cryonics (anti-cryonics). Therefore, while I generally try to assume good intent towards NPOV, I do think it's a possibility that the individual beliefs of the opposing editors is fueling their passion in excluding this viewpoint, in the same way that my own beliefs fuel my desire to include this viewpoint. However, I don't want the article to become one-sided, I only wanted to follow the policies specified in NPOV, specifically regarding including all minority viewpoints, and describing debates rather than participating in them. -- Nome77 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cryonics#Analysis of_Wikipedia_policy_in_context_of_the_.22Scientists_Open_Letter_on_Cryonics.22 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 considerable discussion on the article talk page, in several sections. Most of the editors have been notified of this filing, but one has not. When that one is notified, and if other parties agree, this case can be opened for moderated discussion. If this case is opened for moderated discussion, it may include all of the recent cryonics-related issues on the talk page, not just one issue. I will note that, with this number of parties, DRN is likely to be feasible, but may not be conclusive, in which case it may result in a referral to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked each editor talk page, and it appears that each listed editor has now either been notified of the dispute or has commented on the dispute. (including David Gerard). Thanks. -- Nome77 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. First, comment on content, not contributors. Second, and related, be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Third, do not engage in back-and-forth threaded discussion. In my experience, this goes on and on and accomplishes nothing. Respond only to the moderator, not to each other. Fourth, every editor is expected to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond to all questions. I will check at least every 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Now: Will each editor please again summarize briefly what the issues are? In particular, if it is whether to include the statement by the scientists, please state concisely either why the statement is appropriate or why it would be inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• Any mention of the letter should be short and restricted to what is supported from reliable independent sources, the website should not be linked as it is (a) primary and (b) not a reliable source. I would say it should not be included at all, per WP:UNDUE. There is precedent for this idea of getting a few scientists to sign a letter, the canonical example is one by the Discovery Institute that in turn led to Project Steve. In short, some scientists signed a letter. So what? In science ideas are validated through publications in reliable peer-reviewed journals, not by activists websites asserting legitimacy. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The dispute seems to have trifurcated into (1) Can the cryonics article briefly mention the existence of the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics? (2) If the Open Letter is briefly mentioned, can the list of secondary sources end with a link to the letter hosting page? (3) Can the article feature the statement of the Open Letter itself? I don't believe the text of the letter should be included in the article because that would be a disproportionate consumption of space relative to what the fact of the Letter existing contributes to the article. The informational value of briefly mentioning the Letter is simply to communicate that even though cryonics is a fringe field, that fringe is not entirely bereft of sympathetic scientists. The value of including a link to the Letter among other references is so that readers who are inclined to want to know, can see how specific and qualified the language of the letter actually is. WP:UNDUE draws a distinction between giving undue weight to fringe beliefs in articles about mainstream topics, which is why the Cryobiology article properly contains little mention of cryonics, versus content of articles about fringe beliefs themselves. In an article specifically about a fringe belief (e.g. Homeopathy, AIDS denialism, Moon landing conspiracies, etc.) who the adherents to a fringe belief are is part of the information about the belief. Cryobiologist (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Regarding the letter text:) In consideration of due weight, I don't believe that the full text of the open letter should be included. I support the summarized wording of the text that is proposed (above) by Cryobiologist. (Regarding linking:) If it is decided that the open letter will be mentioned, then linking that text to both the primary and secondary sources seems like common sense to me. Links take up zero extra reading space, but allow the reader to perform any desired research. (The core issue: Why mentioning the letter is appropriate.) Cryonicists wish to be preserved because they believe there is a nonzero probability that future technology will be capable of resuscitating cryopreserved people. This belief (or hypotheses) is fringe. At the same time, this belief is core both to understanding the topic of cryonics, and to understanding the motivational impetus of cryonicists. The individual and collective critics of cryonics are represented throughout the current page. If critical quotes from individuals deserve inclusion, then a supporting quote from several dozen scientists also deserves inclusion. This letter can be mentioned while taking up little space (3 lines), and without overemphasizing the material, to faithfully follow due weight. The only (hypothetical) reason I could imagine for completely excluding the open letter, would be to intentionally give the (false) impression that cryonics is entirely without scientific support. This question frames how I see this issue: Should we exclude an unpopular minority opinion, or should we proportionally include all opinions, and let readers construct their own conclusions? -- Nome77 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• There are a few concerns I have surrounding this letter. The most important however, is simple weight. The letter has been signed by less than a hundred scientists. To put that in context, there are something like 3.5 million scientists working in the US. That's 0.00002% of all scientists. Just for further comparison's sake, judging by the overall odds, there are over 4 times as many scientists who have been struck by lightning. Not counting field meteorologists, of course. Before anyone says that's I've compared a medical science issue to the total number of scientists, note that the letter's signatories include physicists, computer scientists, (graduate level) electrical engineers, psychologists and others. If we were to judge the notability of cryonics by the signatories of this letter, we would have to conclude that it's not even a fringe movement, but something more akin to a bizarre hobby shared by a handful of scientists.

That being said, we have enough RSes to conclude that cryonics is a fringe subject, and even a legitimate one (in that there is not overwhelming evidence that the field is composed primarily of fraud and pseudoscience). So from where I sit, this letter is something like a blip on the radar. Could the article mention it? Of course; it's germane to the topic and would be of interest to anyone trying to learn more about it. Does it warrant any significant attention, a direct link to it, or a summary of its statements? No. From where I sit, this letter warrants no more than a single sentence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Each of us has mentioned how fringe cryonics is, which has guided the decision to give the article a strong critical slant. This made me wonder, "Where is the evidence for this belief? How many scientists actually oppose or support cryonics?". With this question in mind, I searched and compiled a list of scientists, groups of scientists, and scientific organizations, who expressed opposition or support for cryonics in any published work. Here is the resulting list, with citations: List of Scientists Opposing or Supporting Cryonics. I was surprised to find (after almost 7 hours of searching) publications with only 5 scientists opposing cryonics, and 76 scientists supporting cryonics. I would like these lists to be as comprehensive as possible, so feel free to suggest additions or removals. I've been also thinking about what it really means to have a "neutral point of view" about a topic as divided as cryonics. It occurred to me that other large news organizations could provide some inspiration. Cryonics has been getting a lot of major press in the last few years, with dedicated articles coming from the New York Times, National Geographic, BBC future, and New Yorker Magazine. I read each of these articles, and the majority of them are neutral towards cryonics, with no condemning or supporting implications about the future unknowns. Yet each of them is still highly informative. I think that we as editors could learn a lot from these journalists. A list of these articles is here: Recent Nationwide Cryonics Articles. -- Nome77 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

One editor states that the dispute has trifurcated into three parts. First, should the article mention the letter by the 69 scientists? Second, only if so, should there be a link to its secondary sources? Third, should the letter itself be included? I will add that questions one and three can be asked either of the article or the lede of the article. I will also add that the letter itself can be included in a separate article linked from the main article. Are there any other questions about the article, not directly related to the letter? It appears (fortunately) that there is no disagreement as to cryonics being considered a fringe area of research. Is that correct? Are there any other questions to be addressed in this mediation? At this point, it appears that we are still sorting out what the issues are and are making progress in that respect. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• I think your summary is accurate. The issue to decide is whether to include mention of this letter, and if so, to what extent (specifically, should we link it? Should we reproduce its text? Should we list or count the signatories?) To that question, I will repeat what I said earlier: One sentence, linked back to a secondary source covering the letter. If there are other issues, I have no stake in them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the term "Fringe": I think there's an issue in that there seems to be some disagreement on what "Fringe" means. If one checks the Fringe theory article, one can read directly in the lead there there is a fuzzy line between theories held by a minority of experts and theories which are pseudoscientific. I'm not sure if anyone believes cryonics is purely pseudiscientific, but I think it's clear that it is a highly speculative field that stands a very good chance of never producing positive results. I think if we can agree that something being "fringe" isn't always synonymous with being completely worthless as or to science, then we can set this particular question aside. I for one -while I don't believe anything will come of cryonics- have no problems admitting that it's possible I could be wrong. If Nome77 can admit as well that this is a subject which is not a part of mainstream science, or the recipient of major scientific inquiry, then I believe we can focus solely on the issue of this letter and expedite the process. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Answers to moderator questions) "Should the article mention the letter by the 69 scientists?" Yes. "If so, should there be a link to its secondary sources?" Yes, I would add a link to a secondary source. I also believe that the text of the open letter should be "somehow reachable" from the cryonics article. This could be accomplished with a reference, or with a link to the (moderator proposed) Wikipedia article about the open letter on cryonics. "Third, should the letter itself be included?" No, I support the general text proposed by CryoBiologist in his dispute summary. "I will add that questions one and three can be asked either of the article or the lede of the article." I don't believe that any information about the open letter should be in the lede. "I will also add that the letter itself can be included in a separate article linked from the main article." I like this idea. I would support any of the described options, as long as the text of the open letter can be reached (somehow) from the current cryonics article. "Are there any other questions about the article, not directly related to the letter?" Yes, see my following request to add one issue, regarding distinguishing scientific controversy from public opinion in the article. "It appears (fortunately) that there is no disagreement as to cryonics being considered a fringe area of research. Is that correct?" There may or may not be disagreement on some parts of this question. I would like to find out if the other editors agree or disagree with my description of which specific parts of cryonics are controversial, versus which parts are generally accepted, as described in my statement immediately following this paragraph. -- Nome77 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Regarding fringe status) There are some potentially important distinctions involved in this question. Parts of cryonics are generally accepted, and parts are considered fringe or controversial depending on which group of individuals you ask. The act of cryopreservation itself is not fringe, because human beings have been successfully cryopreserved after legal death for about 50 years now, and every patient preserved by the two largest cryonics organizations is still preserved in liquid nitrogen. The theory that cryopreserved people could possibly be resuscitated in the future is completely hypothetical, unproven, and can be controversial. From the search results that I posted in the first statements section, 94% of the 81 scientists who published an opinion on the "likelihood of cryonics resuscitation" support the idea that it is a "credible possibility". The other 6% believe that it is "unlikely or impossible". If you ask a random scientist what they think (or any scientist unfamiliar with cryonics theories), or if you ask a member of the general public, then they are likely to give you a negative opinion (over 90% negative for the general public). I imagine that every editor here would agree with the statements I have written so far in this paragraph. However, the current article does not reflect this information. It lumps the entire topic of cryonics under the label fringe, and it does not specify the distinctions between opinions on cryopreservation versus cryonic resuscitation, or the distinction between known opinions of scientists, and the historic opinion of the general public. I would be willing to update the article to include these distinctions. However, I would fear that without consensus I would probably be blocked or reverted. We may wish to add this issue to this dispute to avoid future arguments. Suggested issue: "Should we include a section that describes the scientific controversy, given that it differs from the public opinion?". My proposal: I would add a section for "Scientific Controversy" below "Public Reception", which would describe the number of supporting and opposing published opinions regarding the possibility of cryonic resuscitation. It would not comment on the validity of the scientific opinions. I would also create a separate, linked Wikipedia page that is a cleaned up version of the current "List of Scientists Opposing or Supporting Cryonics". This separate page would list (with sources) which scientists support the idea of cryonic resuscitation, and which oppose it, in any currently known published work. -- Nome77 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I know that that replies to each other should be avoided, but I've been asked my opinion on two questions by another editor. My answers: "#1 <Is cryonics> a highly speculative field that stands a very good chance of never producing positive results?" Yes. In my experience, even people who "believe in cryonics", say they think it only has anywhere from a 2% to 50% chance of "working". They just think that any positive probability is a big upgrade from the 0% resuscitation odds for burial or cremation. "#2 <Is cryonics> a part of mainstream science, or the recipient of major scientific inquiry?" In my opinion; Yes, but not directly. Google Scholar only shows a couple thousand articles in search results for the word "cryonics". Many scientists know that topic could damage their reputability because cryonics is currently speculative. Still, most existing mainstream medical research builds our collective "toolbox" of knowledge and medical technologies. These new tools, and more, would be required to perform a cryonic resuscitation. Allow me to present an analogy. Before the 1920's, making a computer would have been considered very speculative. You cannot build a computer without all the knowledge and inventions that came beforehand. Electrical generators, the transistor, the integrated circuit, programming languages, LCD screens, etc. Hypothetical cryonic resuscitation would be similar, in requiring many types of present and future medical technology. Examples of applicable current research avenues would be areas like spinal cord injury regeneration, individual organ cryopreservation, manipulation of the organic chemistry of individual cells and tissues, tissue regeneration, laboratory synthesis of human organs, nanotechnology, advanced computation, the functioning of neuron pathways, and the physical basis for human memory. Much of the medical research that is happening today indirectly brings the possibility of cryonic resuscitation a few (small) steps closer, with each passing year. -- Nome77 (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since it appears that Nome77 would now be satisfied with mention of the letter rather than copying text of the letter into the cryonics article, the remaining questions would seem to be whether it's permissible to mention the letter in the article, whether mentioning the number of signatories is permissible, and whether supporting references could include a link to the letter. MjolnirPants has proposed mentioning the letter in a single sentence with a secondary source link, with no link to the letter. I am currently proposing:

Coincident with procedural advances in the early 21st century, a small number of scientists began signing an open letter expressing a minority view that there is "a credible possibility" that cryonics performed with contemporary technology under ideal conditions might preserve enough brain information to allow future revival.(secondary sources) The letter(link to letter) disclaimed endorsement of any particular cryonics organization or its practices. As of 2016, the letter had 69 signatories.

Including a link to the letter should remove any need for the suggested stand-alone Wikipedia article about the letter, which I strongly believe is unwarranted at the present time. The letter has far too little notability in secondary sources. I'm not aware of any newspaper or other articles devoted to the topic of just the letter. The letter is worthy of minor mention in an article about cryonics, but IMHO the letter is not worthy of its own encyclopedia article. Nome77 suggests that the much larger number of scientists on record supporting cryonics than opposing it is relevant to the question of how fringe cryonics is. However when a field is so small that it's regarded mostly as a social curiosity rather than an important public policy issue, few scientists will bother going on record unless they have something iconoclastic to say. Iconoclasts are therefore disproportionately represented. In a similar vein, I believe there are more published papers with positive findings about cold fusion than negative ones. What's really relevant is not comparative numbers, but that there are some highly credentialed iconoclasts who support the theoretical idea of cryonics as defined in the open letter. Several of the signatories are so accomplished in their own field that they have biographies on Wikipedia. Three of them (Drexler, Merkle, West) have testified before U.S. Congressional Committees. One of them is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I'll wager that no signatory of the creationism letter previously mentioned is an NAS member. If nothing else, that such erstwhile clever people can have sympathy for a practice as fringe as cryonics is sociologically interesting. Hence my earlier comment on who "believers" are being relevant to articles about beliefs. This can be communicated while still preserving clarity that cryonics is far outside mainstream views. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

We seem to be nearly in agreement on a lot. I will make a few statements and ask whether there is agreement on them. First, the letter should not be discussed at length in this article, but should either be the subject of its own article with a link to the actual text, or should be mentioned in passing in this article with an external link. Is there agreement? If so, should it have its own article? Second, a list of scientists who are positive about and negative about cryonics has been proposed. Do the editors want such a list, in its own article, with a link from this article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My assessment of the fringe status of cryonics is that the fringe character has to do entirely with the most important aspect of the enterprise, and that is the ability to revive the humans who have been frozen. It is a fact that bodies and heads can be preserved in liquid nitrogen. They cannot, at this time, be revived, brought back to a state of life that resembles life to twenty-first century humans, and many people think that they never will be capable of being revived, and some hope with great enthusiasm that they can be revived. I would like to know whether the editors agree that that is an accurate summary of the fringe nature of cryogenics, not whether freezing is possible but whether unfreezing (typically after diagnosed clinical death) and revival will be feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

• I agree with your assessment of the fringe nature of cryonics. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Answers to moderator questions) "First, the letter should not be discussed at length in this article, but should either be the subject of its own article with a link to the actual text, or should be mentioned in passing in this article with an external link." Yes. "Should <the open letter> have its own article?" I think any of the mentioned options are fine. "Do the editors want <a list of the opinions of scientists>, in its own article, with a link from this article?" Yes, I imagine that this would be useful to some people, not only as a reference for readers, but also as a reference for present and future editors. It is possible that the acceptability of cryonics could change over time. Such a reference list would likely help interested individuals and editors stay up-to-date with current and future trends, in the level of acceptance, emergence, or decline, of cryonics among scientists.

• (Fringe question) The moderators description of cryonics is accurate, but it is (possibly inaccurate) to categorize the supplied description as fringe science. (Incidentally I would replace the word "hope" in the description with "hypothesize" or "educated guess"). If you look up "fringe science" on Google, you get this definition: "Fringe science is any field of scientific inquiry which represents a significant departure from orthodox theories or bodies of work". Let's examine this. What does orthodox science say about the revival of organisms from liquid nitrogen temperatures? Various tissues and organisms have been frozen to liquid nitrogen temperature, and brought back to life in the laboratory by human beings. These successful cryogenic revivals include human embryos, caenorhabditis elegans (with conditioning memories intact), and rabbit kidneys (with long-term transplant survival). In other words, the basic concept of cryogenic revival of living tissues and organisms is commonly known to be possible with some subjects, but it is not yet technologically possible with humans. The central challenge of cryonics is not the theory of cryogenic revival itself, it is repairing tissues at the cellular and system levels which have suffered various types of damage. Repairing or replacing damaged human tissues (as appropriate) is an engineering problem, it is a problem of medical technology. The problems and theories of cryonics do not represent any conflicts with orthodox scientific theory, of which I am currently aware. The simplest statement on this topic is that; The future feasibility of human revival cannot be answered right now. None of us have enough information. We don't know (and cannot know) the limits of future medical technology in repairing damaged tissues. All that any individual can offer on this topic, (even the smartest of scientists), is an educated guess. Possibly not even that, because our contemporary educations could be outdated towards obsolescence in 30, 60, or 90 years. I personally resist a blanket label of "fringe" on cryonics. In the context of Wikipedia, I would be concerned for any effects that the label might have on the "editing policy" of the present and future editors. On a "spectrum of fringe and orthodox", I would place cryonics very far above creationism, and a (noteworthy) conceptual distance above cold fusion, but well below any current medical procedure. Here is my reasoning. The basic concept of revival of living tissues and organisms is well known to be possible with some living subjects, but is not yet technologically possible with humans. In contrast, the fusion of low temperature (and low speed) nuclear fuel has -never- been repeatedly demonstrated with -any- subject. I think the word fringe goes a ways too far in describing cryonics, because that word strongly implies "not respectable" or "not scientific" in both common definitions and Wikipedia definitions. Cryonics is an experiment that will take a (very) long time to show any positive or negative results. If a label for cryonics is needed before those results are in, then may I suggest these (potentially more accurate) words: speculative, unknown, unproven, controversial, currently unpopular in general populations, and "may or may not work". To bluntly categorize cryonics into the same disreputable region as creationism or cold fusion would be both unwarranted by current scientific knowledge, and incidentally unnecessary for our collective purpose of writing an intellectually honest and informative article. -- Nome77 (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the moderator's statement of how the Open Letter should be handled, although my preference would that it be "mentioned in passing in this article with an external link" rather than in a dedicated article for reasons I previously gave. I agree with the moderator's explanation that cryonics is "fringe" in the sense that "many people think that they (cryonics patients) never will be capable of being revived." That is if anything an understatement. I think everyone can agree that irrespective of how good they think the scientific case for cryonics is or isn't, most scientists don't think cryonics as currently practiced will work. Cryonics advocates should be able to acknowledge this fact without feeling defensive, and cryonics skeptics should be able to acknowledge that such a preponderance of opinion does not in itself establish that cryonics is a pseudoscience or impossibility in the sense of homeopathy or perpetual motion. I think that trying to make a list of scientists "positive" or "negative" toward cryonics is a very bad idea. Consider the Open Letter itself, which is a very specific, qualified statement. There are signatories of that letter who have made some harsh public statements against current cryonics practice and cryonics organizations, while still favoring the theoretical possibility of cryonics working under certain conditions with certain technologies. How would such a signatory feel about being classified as "positive" about cryonics, and how that might be misinterpreted? A Wikipedia "list of scientists positive toward cryonics" would be as ill-defined and potentially misleading as a Wikipedia "list of doctors who are pro-abortion." The topic of cryonics is complex enough that scientists should be allowed to speak with their own words, or words they've decided to endorse, rather than being simplistically and unfairly called "positive" or "negative" toward something. Cryobiologist (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Question for another editor collapsed because likely to encourage threaded discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(Question for Cryobiologist) Regarding the statement: "<everyone can agree that> most scientists don't think cryonics as currently practiced will work". I agree that this statement (could quite possibly be) true (honestly I don't know). I've been looking for supporting documents indicating general scientific opinion one way or the other and I can't find any such documents at all. Is this statement based mostly on personal experience? Most of my personal experience on this topic is with the general public. Are you aware of any published documents that give an indication (in either direction) of the opinions of "many" scientists? I'm not trying to prove your statement wrong, I'm just asking if you know of any such resources. I have heard that a couple/few decades ago some cryobiology society tried to publicly disassociate itself from cryonics, but I can't find any original documents on that topic. Also, times change so I have started to wonder if the "general scientific opinion" towards cryonics may be starting to sway from negative towards an attitude of "wait and see". The majority of the recent press on the topic is certainly not negative or condemning, (like the New York Times on Kim Suozzi, or last months National Geographic and such). I also wonder if it might be more or less popular among scientists in different fields. Perhaps less popular among scientists in cryobiology for example (maybe because the field names sound so similar to the layperson), and perhaps more popular with some fields like computer science or physics (from looking at the degree titles of many supporters). -- Nome77 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(apologies, but I cannot refrain from responding) I'm sorry, Nome77, but that's not how things work. Proponents of cryonics have put forth the claim that it is a legitimate field of inquiry taken seriously by scientists. That is the positive claim. The response of "No, it's not" doesn't require evidence unless and until one can establish enough evidence to make the positive claim tenable. As it is, there is no massive field of cryonics, and that absence is enough that we must take the null hypothesis unless and until shown otherwise. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC) (MjolnirPants) This is not what was said or asked. A specific claim was made about what most scientists believe. I inquired as to the speakers basis (whether personal or external), and I made efforts to do so in a nonconfrontational manner. If it turns out that there is no evidence in any direction for 'most scientists' opinions... then that would simply mean there is no evidence in any direction. (Positive or negative.) As you say, "Proponents of cryonics" may have made the claim that cryonics is taken seriously by scientists, but -I personally- never made that claim. (Neither did I make the claim that the field of cryonics is "massive".) So I have no reason to comment for or against your challenges here. Actually, I would personally find the first unqualified claim to be relatively useless, because it does not specify which scientists are being referred to, or how many. -- Nome77 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC) (Robert McClenon) Thank you for collapsing this section. I think it was a good idea. -- Nome77 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• The point which was made by Cryobiologist regarding the proposed list of scientists is well taken. It could be considered ill-defined to specify that a scientist is for or against cryonics based on one document, written at one point in time. Therefore, such a list should not be published in the previously proposed form. I'm considering options for salvaging the general purpose of the idea by instead listing "documents" that comment on cryonics (with authors listed), rather than listing "scientists". A list of "documents commenting on cryonics" could be conceptually better defined, and would be less susceptible to misinterpretations or assumptions. -- Nome77 (talk)

Fourth statement by moderator

First, is there agreement that the letter by the scientists in support of cryogenics can be mentioned in the article, with an external link? If so, we have agreement on that.

Second, are there any other issues that need to be resolved? Do we need to go into further detail about why cryonics is (or is not) considered fringe, or is the article satisfactory as it is?

Third, are there any other questions that need to be raised?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

• (Moderator questions) "First, is there agreement that the letter by the scientists in support of cryogenics can be mentioned in the article, with an external link?" Yes. "Second, are there any other issues that need to be resolved?" I don't think so. If no one strongly objects, I will also create a separate article with the proposed list of documents commenting on cryonics. "Do we need to go into further detail about why cryonics is (or is not) considered fringe, or is the article satisfactory as it is?" I think we have explored this question enough. Perhaps we can all agree that cryonics has elements of science, and elements of speculation. My goal for the future of the article is this: I would personally hope that the scientific side of the article could be expanded by interested editors without any categorical objections, while still making it clear (including in the lede) that the final goal of cryonics is speculative. -- Nome77 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't agree at all, and none of my stated concerns have been addressed in any manner. This discussion is presently headed towards an attempt to reach an agreement to violate Wikipedia content rules, and surely that's not what this board is for - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• I don't agree to linking the letter on the page. It lends more weight than is appropriate to the letter. I'm fine with mentioning it briefly and linking to a secondary source that describes it, but I can't see how an external link directly to it would accomplish anything beyond giving the wrong impression and creating an unnecessary exemption to WP policy. As has been mentioned many times before, it consists of only about 70 signatures, many of which are from scientists who lack any expertise in relevant fields. It's worse evidence than A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and far, far less notable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• The comparison to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism isn't a perfect fit because the future reversibility of present or future cryopreservation methods involves complicated neuroscience and engineering questions, none of which require suspending laws of physics as "Dissent from Darwinism" does. In more colloquial terms, believing memories could be retrieved from, or repairs made to, cryopreserved brain tissue is not as nuts as outright rejection of methodological naturalism. It's more like believing that biological immortality or manned interstellar travel will be achieved within the lifetime of people now living; unlikely, but not barred by physical law. This is why I doubt you'll find a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "one of the highest honors in U.S. science," on the Dissent from Darwinism letter, whereas on the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics, you will. It's not just "a few individuals attempting to use the title 'scientist.'" Nevertheless, to the extent that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is regarded as analogous to the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics, it mitigates in favor of mentioning the Open Letter on Cryonics in the cryonics article because A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on Intelligent Design and Intelligent design movement. To not be misleading, the mentions are not in the lede, but in the Reaction/Reception parts of the articles along with information about overwhelming negative response to ID among scientists. As to whether a link to the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics should be included along with secondary source references, and whether this would violate Wikipedia policy, the Intelligent design movement article has a direct link to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism on the Discovery Institute website (ref 71) in support of a signatory count in the text of the article. In response to the Moderator's question, I don't think we need further discussion of the fringe status of cryonics unless in the context of a specific dispute. Concerning another issue, I think there has been ongoing confusion between the truth of whether cryonicists believe something versus whether what they believe is true, and the reliability of sources for those two distinct questions. For example, despite multiple discussions on the cryonics Talk page, I suspect we may still not have consensus regarding the permissibility of including references to writings of cryonicists to support statements about what cryonicists believe (irrespective of the truth of the beliefs). However that also may not be possible to resolve here absent a specific context. Cryobiologist (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer moderator

It had appeared that we were getting closer to agreement. It appears that we are not. If there is disagreement as to whether to link to the letter, is there agreement that it should be mentioned in passing and that a secondary source should describe it? If not, the most likely way forward is a Request for Comments. Will editors please state what they think that the choices in the RFC should be about the letter, and what other issues there are that should be addressed by an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comparison between cryonics and other fringe areas does not appear to be relevant to this content dispute, so I think that should be left alone (or discussed on the article talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

• Personally, I feel like this dispute has continued long enough, without us continuing to additional types of dispute resolution. The method by which the currently agreed text links to the primary source, (links to the open letter URL) seems like a minor detail to me. It doesn't seem worth continuing this debate for that point. Proposed solution: The moderator is a neutral third-party, and he is familiar with all of our statements. Would the other editors be willing to accept his vote on this particular part of the issue as final? It sounds like all editors who have participated in all steps of the dispute feel reasonably okay with Cryobiologist's proposed text. The question the moderator would be deciding is: "Assuming we use the text supplied by Cryobiologist: Should be open letter be referenced as a text link, referenced as a citation, referenced as a small wikipedia page, or not referenced at all?" I would be willing to accept his decision on this matter as likely to be fair and reasonable. Should we let him decide this part of the issue for us? -- Nome77 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• The moderator thinks punting it to RFC is appropriate, and whether or not that may work I concur it's not going to get resolved here - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If the opinion of David Gerard is counted with equal weight, then I agree that we are not likely to reach a unanimous agreement (in any venue). However, giving his opinion equal weight at this point seems to me like a betrayal of the previously described process. The ground rules stated that "every editor is expected to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond to all questions", and David Gerard clearly failed to do this. He joined this dispute a week later than the rest of us started discussions, and he did not answer three out of the five statement sections. His contribution since that point has mostly been a short statement that "I don't agree at all", and a claim that "His concerns have not been addressed". His personal opinion is now functioning as a blockade to the agreement that the rest of us worked in good faith to build. If David Gerard's late participation is appropriately ignored, then we could still reach an agreement here. -- Nome77 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If it is decided that the opinion of David Gerard should be counted, then we would need to move on to other forms of dispute resolution. If we move to other formats, then perhaps it would be best if any nonunanimous issues are agreed to be decided by a neutral third party who takes the time to understand all claims. (This way one dissenting vote could not block resolution). At this time, I don't imagine that a number of casual participants in a request for comments are likely to take the time required to understand this complex dispute. If that was true, then I would not wish to follow the preponderance of opinion given in a request for comments. Instead of an RFC, I might propose Formal Mediation with Agreement To Be Binding. I would also suggest requesting Robert McClenon to be our neutral third-party (even if in another process). Why repeat all the work that we just did, in explaining these issues to a new person? -- Nome77 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• A discussion can't enforce agreement to violate Wikipedia content rules, which this one was getting close to - particularly as it seems to have turned into a substitute for talk page discussion complete with detailed arguments about the actual disputed content, which is the specific thing this board isn't supposed to be - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reference 71 of the Intelligent design movement article is a direct link to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism letter on the Discovery Institute website. This is permissible by Wikipedia rules because unlike the Evolution article, the Intelligent design movement article is an article describing the fringe belief and its adherents, not the established science of evolution. If the Darwinism letter reference has been allowed to stand, then a direct reference to the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics within the cryonics article should also stand. The cryonics article is an article about a notable peculiar belief, not an article about cryobiology, therefore the truth or "reliability" of beliefs attested to in the Letter is not relevant to inclusion of the letter reference. The letter is notable by virtue of mention in secondary sources, the signatories of the letter are notable by virtue of 25 of them (36%) having their own articles on Wikipedia unrelated to cryonics, and referencing the letter appears permissible by both Wikipedia rules and precedent provided that the cryonics article remains clear that the beliefs of cryonics reside far outside mainstream views. If moderator discretion cannot resolve this dispute in this venue, I would welcome whatever other process may be required to illuminate why reversion of this type of letter mention and reference is justified for the cryonics article, but not elsewhere. Cryobiologist (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

First, as a matter of policy, I don't see a provision having to do with DRN that permits me to act as a decision-maker. If all of the parties, or all of the parties who have responded in a timely manner, want me to be a decision-maker rather than a mediator, I will consider that, but provide no assurances. I will not be giving weight to the unspecified objection by an editor who waited for a week to reply and then didn't say what they objected to, but they have the right to comment (as would a previously uninvolved editor). The two possible ways forward at this point are formal mediation, or a Request for Comments, since it appears that there is no agreement about how to list the letter. Do the parties want to request formal mediation, or do the parties want a Request for Comments? In the latter case, what do they think the choices should be? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

• My votes: Yes to Robert McClenon to act as a decision-maker. If the dispute is not fully resolved here, then also yes to the formal mediation option. -- Nome77 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ooty#Did Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras ever rule Nilgiris?

– New discussion.

Filed by Magentic Manifestations on 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ooty#Did Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras ever rule Nilgiris? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs)
• NitinBhargava2016 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute started with user NitinBhargava2016 making edits to various articles with content related to Kannada language and people. Pls refer to User_talk:NitinBhargava2016#Edits_in_various_articles. In the article Ooty, edits notable with the history of the place were accepted with sources. The user contended the line, Nilgiris was ruled by "Tamil kingdoms" on which discussion happened and sources were provided for the same. User reverting content stating the sources are not acceptable without citing any violation/reason and adds content related to Kannada not notable with history of Ooty. Further information at the talk page: Talk:Ooty#Did Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras ever rule Nilgiris?

With respect to the content in question, the sources have been quoted in the talk page. Re-producing the same here.

• First source, the first source (IBEF) states "not even the dynastic rulers—the Cheras, the Cholas, the Pandiyas, the Rashtrakutas, the Gangas, the Pallavas, the Kadambas and the Hoysalas— can be credited with discovering this jewel in their crown which remained uncelebrated till the British developed and modernised it".
• Second source, the book South Asia and Multilateral Trade Regime: Disorders for Development and Madras District Gazetteers: The Nilgiris states that "The location of the Nilgiris is unique that it was in the tri-junction of ancient Tamil kingdoms of Cholas, Cheras and the Pandyas. Hence, it was under Cheras, Cholas or local chieftains at various...".
• Third source, if you read about these Tamil kingdoms, say for e.g. during reign of Raja Raja Chola and Rajendra Chola, the territory extended all the way up to Ganges from the South which means Nilgiris was part of it and source book Maritime Heritage of India states "At their peak, the Cholas ruled over not just the whole of south India, but also conquered island nations".

While the road to Ooty and further developments were made by British, the territory was a part of kingdoms who ruled over time (wherein all Kannada kingdoms have been mentioned by the user himself) and mentioned sources clearly say that it was under the control of Cheras, Cholas (Tamil kingdoms) or local chieftains at various times.

Regarding the claims of statement by the other user, the "not" at the beginning of the sentence in source 1 does not alter the meaning of the the claim, the point there is that the kingdoms have ruled and whether they discovered it or not is the point here. User always disputed regarding the content of the sources rather than verifiability. User's comments Hilarious! Cholas ruled India's far south plains, and conquered up to Vengi kingdom of Godavari river delta, not all the way till Ganga in Bengal which were invaded but not conquered. Karnataka was ruled by the mighty Kalyani Chalukyas. All of Karnataka's highlands were thickly forested and inaccessible to southern plains of Kerala and Tamil Nadu except through Kolar which was the only known route. Only the natives of highlands knew the passes and secret routes to the plains and also controlled them thoroughly. again raises suspicions as to who has a W:NPOV and the user seems to have a affiliation with the area/people. I have merely stated what sources say and pages for e.g. Chola dynasty state with sources on the rule and expanse of the kingdoms. A mountain/hill would have never been ruled by the emperor directly and only local chieftains would have ruled as stated by the sources, who would report to the emperor. It does not matter that it is not controlled by the kingdom as if it inside the territory ruled by the kingdom and the chief accepts sovereignty, it is under the rule.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My comments pasted above denote facts and in no way indicate a non-W:NPOV. It rather indicates user doesn't have W:NPOV as explained below. User completely twisted the source by deliberately omitting "not" for source 1. NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have merely quoted lines from what you have said and without sources and deviating from the discussion, you talk about some story on secret routes and unknown territories. Also, hope you understand English language and I am repeating for the third time, as "not" in the source is not related to the "ruling" part of the sentence, but to the "discovery" of it. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User is pasting selected portions of my comments to create a wrong picture. The source citation is in no way a concrete proof of Chera/Chola rule over Nilgiris. Author of that source doesn't affirmatively say that Nilgiris was ruled by Cholas/Cheras/Pandyas at such a point of time in history and such inscriptions of theirs was discovered as a proof. On that yardstick, one can even add Kalabhras, Nolambas, Banas, etc., to that list of Nilgiri rulers as they ruled over large tracts of South India (containing Nilgiris) for long periods. But, no. We don't. Why? Reason is that none of the historical/archaeological artefacts pointing to their rule over Nilgiris has been discovered yet, although they might have ruled, they are unlucky in the form of artefact discovery and proofs. Example : If someone says 'Not even the Mauryas, Vakatakas, Satavahanas, Abhiras or Sakas can be credited with discovering gold in Kolar', it in no way means all these dynasties ruled over Kolar, not sensible at all. Important point : Author of that source, Ravi Sagar, writes for tourism update in India Now magazine of IBEF.org. Neither is he an authority on history, nor an archaeologist or professor or research scholar. Author has not cited any references or valid sources. Wikipedia should maintain its international standards and quality by refusing to accept any such disputed content or claims from tourism writers. NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for intervention from third user basis which sources were provided.

How do you think we can help?

Require clarification as to whether sources are reputed and the content that "ruled by Tamil kingdoms" is acceptable as per guidelines. Also, require intervention on whether the content added by the user "A hero stone (Veeragallu) with a Kannada inscription at Vazhaithottam (Bale thota) in the Nilgiri District, dated to 10th century CE has been discovered." is notable and can stay.

Summary of dispute by NitinBhargava2016

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

Dispute did not start with my edits to Kannada language or people. It started with user Magentic Manifestations refusing to delete 'various Tamil kingdoms ruled Nilgiris' which was inserted without any citation at all in the sole reference mentioned in the beginning '' as Nilgiris is presently in Tamil Nadu, user's home state! I immediately identified that this could be a possible act of bias/parochialism/chauvinism. I politely notified the user that the sole reference doesn't say a word about rule of Tamil kingdoms over Nilgiris instead of challenging and removing it right away. User thanked and asked me to search for references instead! 1st source - User twisted citation in source by deliberately omitting the negator 'not' in 'not even the dynastic rulers—the Cheras, the Cholas, the Pandiyas, the Rashtrakutas, the Gangas, the Pallavas, the Kadambas and the Hoysalas—can be credited with discovering this jewel in their crown'.' which confirmed my suspicion. 2nd source - "The location of the Nilgiris is unique that it was in the tri-junction of ancient Tamil kingdoms of Cholas, Cheras and the Pandyas. Hence, it was under Cheras, Cholas or local chieftains at various...". Nilgiris is at the tri-junction of Kerala, Karnataka and TN and not that of Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas. Even if it were to be, the tri-junction could well be on the plains off the heights of Nilgiri plateau which is above 2 km MSL. Is this concrete and credible proof for an international encyclopaedia? No! Couldn't find user's quote in any of the versions of 'Madras District Gazetteers: The Nilgiris'. Also, 'South Asia and Multilateral Trade Regime: Disorders for Development' by C. S. Sundaresan states - 'location of the Nilgiris was in the tri junction of the ancient Tamil kingdoms of Cholas, Cheras and the Pandyas, that it attracted a great political significance from the very early stages of its development'. User has twisted it to his liking and misquotes the source as — 'Hence, it was under Cheras, Cholas or local chieftains at various...' and says 'Nilgiris have been under the rule of Cheras, Cholas or Pandyas for centuries' which the source never says directly! Its clear that the user doesn't have W:NPOV.

I requested JorisvS for mediation where he clearly supported me -'Wikipedia policy requires that claims can be verified: WP:V. Another core content policy is neutral point of view: W:NPOV. Any content that violates these core policies may be summarily removed. Part of verifiability is that claims made in the article must be claims that the sources also make directly. The burden of evidence is on the editor who adds claims, not the one who challenges/removes them'. User mentions authors as S.K. Sahu and Nilamani Senapati as authors for this source 'Gazetteer of India : Nilgiris' who have commented on Nilgiris in Odisha and not Tamil Nadu. Not sure if they mention Nilgiris of TN also. Also the quote user has given is grammatically incorrect which increases the suspicion that it is not from the source. I give preference for facts and not any language in particular. Being a challenger of un-sourced, biased content, why should I have to go through all this explanation and waste my time? 3rd source - Cholas ruled from south India to Ganges, so they must have ruled Nilgiris also. Hilarious! Cholas ruled India's far south plains, and conquered up to Vengi kingdom of Godavari river delta, not all the way till Ganga in Bengal which were invaded but not conquered. Karnataka was ruled by the mighty Kalyani Chalukyas. All of Karnataka's highlands were thickly forested and inaccessible to southern plains of Kerala and Tamil Nadu except through Kolar which was the only known route. Only the natives of highlands knew the passes and secret routes to the plains and also controlled them thoroughly.

Inscriptions of Hoysalas, Gangas, Kadambas, Rashtrakutas, Dannayakas, Vijayanagara emperors, Wodeyars, Mysore Sultans have been discovered which is a concrete proof. But why no such inscription/manuscript/work mentions Chera/Chola/Pandya rule over Nilgiris and the date of their rule? Isn't this sufficient evidence for removing Tamil kingdoms? User asks for the specific wiki policy where in such sources are not acceptable. I request your help for suggesting the same. WP:V, W:NPOV. To conclude, any of the Tamil kingdoms' rule over Nilgiris is only a probability, but definitely not a certainty! If there is any concrete evidence, I will be the happiest person to have the disputed content included right away in the article.

I am moving the line 'A hero stone (Veeragallu) with a Kannada inscription at Vazhaithottam (Bale thota) in the Nilgiri District, dated to 10th century CE has been discovered.' to the article on Nilgiris.

NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, I'm not ready to discuss this issue with user as he wants the disputed content to stay and then debate. I can't endlessly argue, I request your mediation and immediate intervention. I being a challenger of un-sourced, biased and parochial content, request you to decide on this issue. User has withdrawn the request without notifying me. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done for re-initiating this DR request here or if a new one needs to be raised. After I receive the confirmation that my request has been opened, I will notify the other user. NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Talk:Ooty#Did Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras ever rule Nilgiris? 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 just barely adequate discussion at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other party. My recommendation is that the two parties discuss for another 24 hours. If that discussion is inconclusive, one party may notify the other party and the other party may respond. I am leaving this thread open in order to permit more discussion at the talk page and then here if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This is a difficult case. One of the editors has asked me to mediate the case immediately, and seems to want to start mediation without intervening discussion on the talk page. There are two problems with that request. First, discussion here must be preceded by discussion at a talk page. This is just the way this board works. We don't have "pre-emptive mediation", which has been asked for in order to bypass discussion. Second, the request was for me to mediate this dispute. I am already mediating a dispute, and I only mediate one dispute at a time. (Other volunteers may work differently.) It is better to just ask, by filing or replying here, for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Another note - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. Another volunteer may accept this case. The parties will have to follow any ground rules set by the mediator. See the mediation policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, there has been more than adequate discussion at the talk page. I do not see any point in discussing the issue with the other user any further as it doesn't seem to bear any result, is inconclusive and is still at square one from where we had started. Could you please help me to take this case to another volunteer at the earliest as I am unaware of the process? Thanks,—NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Ia_Drang#ARVN_involvement

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 113.190.176.36 on 17:57, 3 April 2016 (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:Battle of Ia Drang#ARVN involvement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tnguyen4321 (talk · contribs) David J Johnson (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We are discussing about whether South Vietnam should be stated in the infobox as a belligerent or not. Have you tried to resolve this previously? talk page How do you think we can help? We should not state South Vietnam as a belligerent. Summary of dispute by Tnguyen4321 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Why Ia Drang (or rather Why Chu Pong)? The NVA was staging an attack of the Pleime camp in the Chu Pong bases. The ARVN intended to destroy the three NVA 32nd, 33rd, and 66th Regiments with B-52 strike at the moment they regroup in assembly areas by December 1965. When the NVA decided for an earlier attack on 19 October with only the two 32nd and 33rd Regiments, the ARVN II Corps Command employed a delay tactic in repulsing the attack regiments back to Chu Pong where they rejoined the 66th Regiment to stage for a second attack of the camp. The ARVN II Corps Command requested the help of the 1st Air Cavalry Division in luring the enemy troops back to Chu Pong where they became suitable targets for B-52 strikes that went into action for 5 consecutive days from 15 to 20 November. The exploitation phase was assumed by the ARVN Airborne Brigade. This joint ARVN-US operation is narrated by BG McChristian, J2/MACV in "Intelligence Aspect of Plei Me/Chu Pong campaign (20 October to 20 November)" http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm. Therefore, the two belligerents in this conflict are the NVA and the ARVN. The US only participated in an assisting role to the ARVN. Summary of dispute by David J Johnson Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nothing further to add. My views are on article Talk page and discussion should continue there. David J Johnson (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Talk:Battle of_Ia_Drang#ARVN_involvement 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:Superdiversity

– New discussion.

Filed by Yonk on 02:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Yonk (talk · contribs)
• Cordless Larry (talk · contribs)
• BrumEduResearch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

New Zealand's "Superdiversity Stocktake: Impact on Business, Government and on New Zealand".

I want to add criticism of the report. Other editors claim

1. the links I provided are "not notable" (not enough secondary coverage) 2."article is about concept not about New Zealand" 3. the article doesn't discuss conclusions of the report (so critique is out).

I have linked to New Zealand's TV One Q&A to add credibility to my source who is blogger and retired Reserve Bank of New Zealand analyst Michael Reddell (Croaking Cassandra). He links to a publication by a Wellington economics consultancy (Tailrisk Economics). This is a minority opinion compared to Chen's : "banks, companies, the Human Rights Commission, and the Ministry of Education"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have suggested adding the claims made in the Superdiversity Stocktake with (brief) criticism.

How do you think we can help?

clarify what constitutes "notable' criticism and the role of secondary coverage (where public interest may be limited)?

Summary of dispute by CordlessLarry

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

Yonk wishes to add criticism of a report issued in New Zealand called the "Superdiversity Stocktake", which is mentioned in the article as an example of the use of the social science concept of superdiversity. My perspective is that we need to see some secondary coverage of this debate, but also that the article is really about the concept of superdiversity and is not the place to go into arguments about the impact of immigration on New Zealand. I'm not sure why this case has been opened, though. Yonk started an RfC on the article's talk page on 29 March, only to remove it today. I suggest reinstating the RfC and letting it run its course. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just to note that I didn't receive a notification about this case being opened. I discovered it after seeing Yonk's edit at Talk:Superdiversity. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BrumEduResearch

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

Talk:Superdiversity discussion

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