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
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	15 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 hours
Norse Deity pages	In Progress	Dots321 (t)	8 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Chino-Catane (t)	21 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	7 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	New	Banedon (t)	7 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	6 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 4 hours
Kylie Minogue	New	PHShanghai (t)	4 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 5 hours	PHShanghai (t)	1 days, 21 hours
African diaspora	New	Kyogul (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 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 00:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 209.179.22.107 on 00:55, 13 February 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:Erwin Rommel#About the revert of my 1 Feb 2016 correction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rklawton (talk · contribs)
• Gorthian (talk · contribs)
• 209.179.86.123 (talk · contribs)
• 209.179.22.107 (talk · contribs)
• Camino 2-1-2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 1 Feb 2015 I made a good faith edit to the Erwin Rommel article where I corrected four factual errors and included one footnote. Since the article is semi-protected and my contribution was from my IP address instead of a named account, my edit was pended and had to be approved before it went live. Later on 1 Feb, user Rklawton reverted it, with the rather condescending comment of, "Let's not provide readers with bad translations - especially when the German is both clear and linked." In fact my translations were correct, the German was NOT clear (hence my corrections), and the link is irrelevant, which Rklawton apparently doesn't know. On 2 Feb I politely asked RKLawton on the article Talk page why he reverted my edit. His answer was non responsive, referring me to his vague edit comment. Since I had made several corrections, i didn't know which one(s) he meant, which made it impossible for me to understand his point (especially since I had no errors). Since he was essentially unresponsive, I tried the edit again on 5 Feb. At this point another editor (not RKlevin) reverted it. Oddly, when Gorthian reverted it, he cited WP:BRD, even though his own action ran counter to that guideline. After that, RKLawton sent me a message to my Talk page (209.179.86.123) threatening to block me, again without showing any sign of willingness to discuss my edit. On 7 Feb I made another request to him to discuss it but as of this writing he has refused to do so.

I should add here that this isn't one of those abstract philosophical disputes involving shades of gray or it-depends-on-your-paradigm kind of problem. This is a rather simple factual dispute that should be resolved fairly easily if both parties can discuss it, the way Wikipedia's policies require editors to do.

Please note that that my edit was done as IP 209.179.86.123, and my IP address was subsequently changed to 209.179.22.107. To avoid any more possible confusion, I am using my account name of Camino 2-1-2 for the rest of this DRN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Since Rklawton has refused to engage in a meaningful discussion there hasn't really been anything i could do.

How do you think we can help?

Get RKLawton to discuss the matter. Since this is a fairly basic question it shouldn't be that hard to reach a consensus, if he is willing to listen to the other side.

Summary of dispute by Rklawton

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

As noted in my edit summary, the IP provided several bad translations and I reverted them. The IP then demanded an explanation regardless of the fact that his/her edits and my edit summary made the problem self evident. I then left town for a week (and noted so accordingly) for a family funeral. The IP continues to make demands and behave belligerently rather than collegially. Rklawton (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gorthian

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

Erwin Rommel happened to be listed on Articles with edits awaiting review, which I monitor infrequently; the latest edit had been "pending" for several hours, so I checked it out. From the edit summaries, it was clear there was a dispute between two editors. 209.179.86.123 had added material, Rklawton reverted it, then 209.179.86.123 had reverted it back. I saw it this way: 209.179.86.123 had been bold and added material, then had been reverted, so the next step was to discuss. I reverted 209.179.86.123, citing WP:BRD, and said "take it to the talk page".

I know almost nothing about the article or its subject, and I have no opinion on the material added. I don't think I'll be any use in a content dispute. But there's my bit of involvement.— Gorthian (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction discussion

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

• Volunteer note - The filing party (an unregistered editor) has not listed themselves as a party to the case, and has not notified the other two editors. There has been discussion on the talk page. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors (and also to list themselves). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 To DRN volunteers: I encouraged the filing party to create an account, so they could follow the case easier.--In veritas (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Does anyone know if we can bring in a third opinion about the above mentioned German translations? In veritas (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Filing IP has talked to me about creating an account soon, once that happens I will open this case. In veritas (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Moderation may start. The filing IP is now registered account Camino 2-1-2. Let's keep this civil and focused on the content. Since this seems to boil down to a difference in translation opinions, would each editor explain to me and each other, hopefully word by word, why they disagree with the other's translation? In veritas (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

First Statement by Camino 2-1-2 (formerly IP 209.179.86.123)

First off, I can't help but point out that in my request I wrote, "Hello, Rklawton, could you please explain...," and if that is to be considered demanding and belligerent, then I apologize. I had no idea anyone could consider it as such but I guess you learn something new every day. Since RKLawton even now refuses to explain what his objections are I guess I'll have to go through every one, starting at the bottom of my original edit and working my way up. (I assume that since he said nothing about the footnote I included he has no objections to that, but if he does, I hope he'll say something.)

I changed "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; German High Command)," to, "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; Army High Command)," as I thought including "German" was rather redundant, since no one would assume it was the French High Command (although, considering how ineptly the French conducted themselves, it does look like the German were directing the French forces.). But the High Command of what? The Navy? The Luftwaffe? Oh yes, it does include, "des Heeres," so I feel perfectly confident in translating that as "Army High Command". (Do you see how it's done RKLawton? You state exactly what you think is wrong and then explain why and how it should be changed.) If he challenges the veracity of that I hope he'll explain why.

Next we come to "Generalleutnant Heinz Guderian," which I changed to, "General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian". I hope RKLawton doesn't think this was a translation as I was simply correcting a factual mistake. Guderian was promoted to the higher rank in 1938 (October, I believe), which is in fact before the war even started.

My next change involved Erich von Manstein but that is now irrelevant. A subsequent rewrite of that paragraph sent Manstein to the cornfield and any issue with that one is now moot. This brings me to the last, and certainly not the least of these translation issues. Here I changed, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor on..." to, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor (Brigadier General) on..." In order to explain this one I would like to ask RKLaton to fill in the chart below, which will be instrumental in determining in what way we disagree on this point. All he need to do is copy the wikitable text (the part from "{| class=wikitable" and "|}", inclusive) to his answer space and fill in the empty boxes. I think doing that will be instrumental in resolving this remaining translation question.

US / German Officer Comparison Chart

Off. Desig	U.S.Rank	German Rank	Notes
O-6
O-7
O-8
O-9
O-10
O-11

Please let me know if there are any problems. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Rommel's article is not the place for pedantics or lessons in German military rank. The correct and only translation for Generalmajor is Major General. The equivalent rank may be interesting for some readers and they can follow the link to the Generalmajor article if they want more information. Oddly enough, the Generalmajor article states that the US Army equivalent is also Major General. Rklawton (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Start of Second Round

•  Volunteer note: Discussion has made progress. Camino 2-1-2 does the above comment satisfy your questions? Rklawton are you feeling that this discussion is proceeding in a good direction for you? In veritas (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Pinging them to remind them of the case @Camino 2-1-2 and Rklawton: In veritas (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Camino 2-1-2 Comment

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to keep everyone waiting. I need to make some points about translating.

The first thing is to not literally parse the term instead of translating it as a concept-to-concept, which is the real trick of translating. Since RKLawton never actually explained what he was thinking, I can only presume that his thought process ran something like this: Generalmajor = General major = Major General. "Translating" it this way is wrong since you are not translating one concept to another. This reminds of the first attempts to use crude computers as translation machines decades ago. They would translate a common English expression into a foreign language and then translate the result back into English. One failed example was the the expression, "Out of sight, out of mind," which when translated into Chinese and then back into English came out as, "Invisible idiot." That's an example of something literally parsed instead of translating a concept.

That is why I suggested the chart as a way to help make the point easier to understand. He didn't fill it out (he may not have known the correct answers) so I'll do it to help make my point.

US / German Officer Comparison Chart

Off. Desig	U.S.Rank	German Rank	Notes
O-6	Colonel	Oberst
O-7	Brigadier General	Generalmajor
O-8	Major General	Generalleutnant
O-9	Lieutenant General	General der Waffengattung (Service Arm)	An honorific title depending on service arm, thus General der Infantrie, General der Artillerie, etc.
O-10	General	Generaloberst
O-11	General of the Army	Generalfeldmarschall

From this chart we can see why it's incorrect to translate Generalmajor to Major General. When you translate the ranks you go from position to position (left to right), not name to name. After all, the U.S. Army and Navy both have a rank called Captain - would anyone claim that the two are the same position and hold the same amount of authority? Of course not; even though they're both Captains, that doesn't make them the same thing.

Look at it this way. Suppose the article had the following factually correct sentence: "On 23 Aug 1939, Rommel was promoted from Oberst to Generalmajor." Now if that statement were written entirely in English as RKLawton would have it, it would read like this: "On 23 Aug 1939 Rommel was promoted from Colonel to Major General." For the average English speaking reader this would make it look like he was promoted from Colonel to the two star General rank with him completely bypassing the one star General rank. (Refer to the chart above if necessary.) Would that be acceptable? Is it the purpose of Wikipedia to mislead readers or confuse them? I should hope not. Why not put factually accurate information in the article? I'm pretty sure Wikipedia policy expects editors to do that.

But to recap, let me address RKLawton's response point by point. He wrote:

• "Rommel's article is not the place for pedantic or lessons in German military rank." I agree wholeheartedly. However, it is the place to put factually accurate information that does not unnecessarily mislead the reader.
• "The correct and only translation for Generalmajor is Major General." That is absolutely incorrect as I have shown above.
• "The equivalent rank may be interesting for some readers and they can follow the link to the Generalmajor article if they want more information." Wikipedia policy is to not unnecessarily require readers to follow links if the correct information can be given on the spot. For example, when the word "Blitzkrieg" is used it is often followed by "(lightning warfare)". While it's certainly appropriate to make it a wikilink so that readers can go to the related article for more information, it is also appropriate to give a quick translation so that the reader is not FORCED to go to another page just to find out what it means.
• "Oddly enough, the Generalmajor article states that the US Army equivalent is also Major General." Well, a proper reading of that article would show that it doesn't apply to Rommel. That article applies to the modern West German Army which was reformed after 1955 when it joined NATO and adopted the NATO command structure, which is almost identical to the traditional U.S. Army command structure. So sending the reader to that article actually misleads the reader, as RKLawton as already experienced.

Hopefully I haven' made this too confusing. I simply had no way of knowing how much detail I needed to go into to explain my position. Thanks again. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Rklawton Comment

•  Volunteer note: @Rklawton: Rklawton, it has been two days since Camino 2-1-2 has responded, and the DRN board likes to keep responses every 2 days. Regards, In veritas (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Rklawton: Please respond, this case was archived, and I had to save it. In veritas (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Awaiting Camino 2-1-2's response. No rush. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Translating the link as Camino did would be both confusing and misleading. Providing a lesson in German ranks on Rommel's page would also be inappropriate as the article is about Rommel. Lastly, comparing Rommel's German rank to U.S. military rank would make the article America-centric, and that is most definitely not appropriate. It would be more appropriate to use Rommels' actual rank and let readers click on the link if they want more information about it. Rklawton (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Start of Third Round

•  Volunteer note: With responses in from the last round, we can now move into the third round of moderated discussion.
•  Volunteer note: Pinging @Camino 2-1-2: to tell him or her that we are ready for his or hers response to Rklawton's response.
•  Volunteer note: It seems like we are nearing a stalemate, hopefully a solution will be appearing soon.

In veritas (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Camino 2-1-2 Comment

I'm not sure what he meant when he wrote, "Translating the link as Camino did would be both confusing and misleading," I don't understand what he meant by "link." What link? I don't remember doing anything of the sort. If he really meant "rank" instead of link, then no, I have already shown this isn't right.

I could take RKLawton's own argument and and show why he's wrong by his own actions. If we leave it his way then it "would be both confusing and misleading," (his words) because readers would incorrectly assume (as he did) that a Generalmajor is the same thing as a Major General. That's what makes this whole thing so bizarre: RKLawton is the living embodiment of the necessity of what I tried to do. He is proof that readers get confused by NOT translating it on the spot! And yet he insists on continuing the confusion. Why?

"Providing a lesson in German ranks on Rommel's page would also be inappropriate as the article is about Rommel." I honestly have no idea of what he's talking about. No one is trying to teach anything of the sort. This is like saying that if someone writes, "Blitzkrieg (lightning warfare)" they are guilty of trying to teach readers German vocabulary. Complete and utter nonsense.

As for the American-centric rank, I guess I'm guilty of assuming too much. Since RKLawton and I are both veterans of the U.S. Army, I used U.S. as a simple frame of reference. I had assumed that RKLawton knew that NATO and her allies around the globe use the same system. I'm dead certain that any English reader in the UK, Canada, Jamaica, Australia, and all parts in between would not scratch their head in bewilderment trying to figure out what the heck a Brigadier General is. As far as I can see, any question about being American-centric is just utter nonsense.

Last, and certainly least, we come to his last point about clicking on the link to get more information. I have already explained about that up above where I noted that Wikipedia's policy is to not force readers to unnecessarily chase links when it can be provided on the spot. Oh, and I also pointed out that the linked article does not apply. Let me repeat that: the linked article does not apply. Do you understand that??? __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Rklawton Comment

If you'd like to teach a lesson on Nazi era military ranks, do it in an article dedicated to the subject. If it's linking to the "wrong" article, then fix it. However, it is entirely inappropriate to use Rommel's article to try to explain how Nazi era military ranks equated to modern U.S. military ranks. And there's an important distinction that Camino keeps conflating - translation v. equivalency. For the purposes of this article, we need neither (though a link is a good idea). However, if we're going to provide a translation at all, it should be literal. If we don't we're going to have readers saying "WTF?" and trying to change it. Our articles need to be clear and concise. Providing an equivalence is not clear. Explaining the equivalency in the article violates coatrack and is trivial to the article's subject. The only suitable solution is to skip the translation entirely and provide a link. All things considered, I'd recommend Camino to write the appropriate article if one doesn't exist. Rklawton (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Start of Fourth Round

•  Volunteer note: It seems like we are nearing a solution, and that most of the dispute revolves around what needs to appear on Rommel's page. For a third opinion, most articles describe a non-English person's rank in their language, with a link to what that rank would be equivalent to. In veritas (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the solution I've proposed. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Camino 2-1-2: Comment

Sorry about the delay - I'll put in a fuller statement a little later, I just wanted to keep the bot from automatically closing this. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an old expression that goes something like, "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you." I have consistently refuted everything RKLawton has said by showing either its factual or logical errors. So far as I can see he has not done anything remotely close to that, preferring instead to simply issue pronouncements and not supporting them with facts or logic. In all honesty I have never been so perplexed by anyone like this. It's like trying to convince someone a square actually has four sides and not five.

I have trouble writing a response to RKLawton because the points he brings up are just so laughably ridiculous I find it difficult to make a response. No, I am not advocating teaching "Nazi era military ranks," anymore than writing "blitzkrieg (lightning warfare)," is an attempt to teach German vocabulary.

As for confusing 'translation v. equivalency," no, RKLawton has got it wrong again. Remember the example I gave above, of how the English proverb got mistranslated as "Invisible idiot"? Incredibly, RKLawton would have have agreed with this and said it was the proper translation! Unbelievable. That is why a literal translation would in fact mislead the reader, and be anything but clear and concise. Maybe he wants Wikipedia's article to include factually incorrect info but I don't. And I don't think any one else does either.

And once again I'll point out (maybe the third time will be charm) that forcing readers to chase links instead of providing information on the spot is against Wikipedia policy. As for, "Explaining the equivalency in the article," I never suggested that. And as for, "The only suitable solution is to skip the translation entirely and provide a link," there are a million Wikipedia editors who know that doesn't make sense either. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of mocking me, why not focus on the fact that your proposal simply isn't how it's done. See above. Rklawton (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not not trying to mock you. I was simply trying to point out that your arguments had no merit, a point anyone reading this "discussion" would agree with. The simple fact of the matter is that a Generalmajor is the same thing as a Brigadier General. That is not an opinion, it is an absolutely uncontroverted fact, something I proved above. Back when this all started I was 99.99% sure that you had made a simple, common mistake, (something we all (including myself) have done from time to time) and that once I explained the error to you, you would realize the mistake and we would be done. But instead of this, you continued with it and for what reason I cannot fathom. I challenge any intelligent person to read the above and see if they agree with you. The other problem with your responses is that you never support any of your assertions with facts or logic - you simply made statements and expect everyone to just agree with you. Your complete unwillingness to construct a logical argument makes it impossible to take your position seriously. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?

– New discussion.

Filed by Vatasura on 05:48, 10 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:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vatasura (talk · contribs)
• 117.192.218.39 (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Copperchloride (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Vatasura claim Tamils as a nation and as whole a stateless nation, but 117.192.218.39 claim Tamils in India are not stateless nation and Tamils in Sri Lanka are stateless nation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

So far only discussed, no other steps made.

How do you think we can help?

Volunteers with experience in nationalism, ethnic or history can certainly enlighten us.

Summary of dispute by 117.192.218.39

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

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

I am not confident that this is issue is ripe for DRN. I have been mostly a bystander in that dispute, asking for reliable sources for the claim that Tamils in general form a stateless nation. I haven't yet seen one. It is possible that what constitutes a reliable source for the claim is itself disputed. If so, this dispute might just focus on pinning down what is required of a reliable source. For example, does the presence of a section on "Tamils" in the [Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations] imply that Tamils as a whole form a stateless nation? Personally, I think it would come as a rude shock to most Tamils in India if Wikipedia were to declare that they now form a stateless nation. This seems to me to be WP:OR of the highest order. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Copperchloride

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

Talk:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils? 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 adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the unregistered editor at any of the IP addresses that they have used. The filing party has the responsibility to notify the other editor. This case can be opened after proper notice has been given. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Two other registered editors have been discussing at the article talk page and should be invited as parties to this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

All involved users are listed here and informed on their talk page. IP user was informed on 117.192.218.39. Vatasura (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am opening this case. Here are the usual ground rules. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. Discussion should be here rather than on the article talk page. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution, and overly long posts do not clarify issues. Everyone must check the status of this page at least every 48 hours. (There are no exceptions to the 48-hour rule.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I expect every editor to provide a brief restatement of their case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My question has to do with the statement that Sri Lankan Tamils are a stateless nation, but Indian Tamils are not. How can that be? Are Sir Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils two different nationalities? If not, is there a question about the existence of Tamil-majority Indian states, which are not sovereign states because they are federated states? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Regarding the question, why are only Sri Lankan Tamils a stateless nation, why not Indian Tamils?, modern scholarship doesn't treat "nationhood" as being defined in textbooks. Rather it is defined on the ground, under the pushes and pulls of political and ideological pressures. India is a large multi-ethnic country with 20+ large ethnic groups, and myriads of smaller ones. It has been so for millennia. So the idea of ethnic nationalism simply doesn't work for India. Rather it is territorial nationalism, way back from 300 BC if we are to judge by Megasthenes's descriptions, that shapes India. Sri Lanka could have gone the same way. But it didn't. It has two major ethnic groups. The Tamils, who are a minority most of whom were recent arrivals, were "disenfranchised," according to this source. This gave rise to Tamil nationalism within Sri Lanka. So the comparison between Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils is like comparing apples and oranges. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Historik75 on 22:37, 10 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:Amway#FTC in lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Historik75 (talk · contribs)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)
• Plantium (talk · contribs)
• Icerat (talk · contribs)
• Grayfell (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A reference to FTC case in the lead of the article has been deleted by Arthur Rubin on Jan 20, 2016. However, the edit was based on a false claim (see the Talk page) that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in some other countries (which were not specified). Nevertheless, it was agreed by two users (Rhode Island Red and Arthur Rubin) that the reference to the FTC case which proved the opposite would be removed and it was designated as not meeting the NPOV requirement. The problem is that the claim that some other states proved Amway to be a pyramid scheme was not backed up with any source. It couldn't be because it does not exist. The result is that the current version creates the impression that Amway is in fact a pyramid scheme, because it only says that "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme." The relevant argument, i.e. that Amway was found not to be a pyramid scheme got deleted and is kept secret. Moreover, two of the links provided by an editor RIR do not work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. I tried to add the FTC case back to the text - it got reverted. 2. I tried to explain it on the Talk page and asked for explanation why it was removed. The answer was it was not NPOV. 3. I asked why the statement about FTC ruling doesn't meet NPOV requirement. I got no answer. 3. I repeatedly asked editor what is his source for claim about Amway being a pyramid scheme. I got no answer.

How do you think we can help?

1. Add the following text at the end of the paragraph: "The Federal Trade Commission found that Amway does not qualify as a pyramid scheme.[2]", or 2. Delete the information about the investigations from the lead where it is not necessary because the same information is already contained in Pyramid scheme accusations section, or 3. Revert to the following version (before Arthur Rubin made his claim): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway&diff=700746152&oldid=700297897

Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red

This is a simple case of a WP:SPA[1] trying to POV push an unbalanced non-NPOV edit, which is getting reverted by 3 veteran editors because it violates WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, and WP:CONSENSUS. The veteran editors (myself, Arthur Rubin, and Grayfell) have made every reasonable attempt to engage on the Talk page and have explained the underlying rationale in excruciating detail, repeatedly, but it has fallen on deaf ears and not prevented driveby tagging and edit warring on the part of the disputant(s). One of the editors (Platinum) listed in the complaint is a 2-edit WP:SPA and appears to be a sock puppet who suspiciously registered and popped into the Talk page discussion just in time to back up Historik (apparent vote stacking).[2] Another (Icerat) is a WP:SLEEPER with an apparent WP:COI[3][4] who also popped up just in time to try to sway consensus. There is some seriously contentious conduct involved here and jumping to DR was premature on the part of the disputant, given that the Talk page had not been properly utilized to gain consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arthur Rubin

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

Summary of dispute by Plantium

The three editors (Arthur Rubin, Rhode Island Red and Grayfell) appear to be interested in POV pushing their negative opinion about Amway. As the two other editors pointed out in the discussion, the trio tries to pick up cons and keep the pros secret to create the bad impression about Amway. The text as it is now is unbalanced and POV of the three editors. Adding the FTC case can not harm NPOV, it can only help it. On the other hand, the current version can mislead the readers as it can be interpreted that Amway is a pyramid scheme and it can't be considered NPOV. I would suggest either including the FTC case or delete the sentence about accusations and leave it in the appropriate section.

Summary of dispute by Icerat

Several authors wish to maintain the text "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme" in the Lede. The text I believe was originally added by an author who claimed Amway had been found to be a pyramid scheme in other (ie non-US) jurisdictions. This is false, Amway has never been found to be a pyramid scheme. Now, Amway has indeed been investigated as a pyramid scheme. This is a fact that is not in dispute and discussed in the body of the article. Mentioning this fact in the Lede and then failing to mention that every time an investigation has led to an official outcome (eg a court case), Amway has been cleared is clearly an unbalanced presentation of the facts and implies Amway is a pyramid scheme. Editor Historik75 added an NPOV tag to the article while the dispute was discussed in Talk. Users Greyfell and Rhode Island Red objected to the tag and removed it multiple times. In attempt to provide a balanced representation of the facts, reflecting the current body of the article, I changed the lede, with multiple reliable sources, to read -

Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges.

This edit was deleted and I was accused of edit-warring. Pyramid Schemes are illegal operations in virtually every country of the world and is a serious charge. Multiple jursidictions have explictly investigated and cleared Amway of this charge. Implying through ommission is clearly not a Neutral Point of View.--Icerat (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

The dispute is over how to characterize investigations into Amway being a pyramid scheme in the lede. "Pyramid scheme" sometimes has legal connotations, but is not an exclusively legal term, and has been used to describe both legal and non-legal businesses. A 1979 FTC investigation into Amway is notable enough to have its own article, In re Amway Corp., but there have been many other accusations, arrests, lawsuits, and investigations of this issues in almost every country Away operates, which is supportable by an avalanche of sources. The newer batch of editors would like to emphasize in the lede that the FTC found that Amway was not a pyramid scheme in 1979 (and in the U.K. in 2008). This downplays the many other accusations, lawsuits, arrests, etc., also that the ruling(s) required Amway to change its practices, and also that the ruling and its precedent remains extremely controversial to this day. This is far too much for the lede, so emphasizing the positive sides of this case appears to be promotional. For these reasons, I and other editors would prefer to leave it simple, saying that Amway has been investigated as a pyramid scheme. The details belong in the body of the article. There are potential changes that could be made, but the antagonistic and overly promotional suggestions made so far impede discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead 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 adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, and has not included one editor, User:Grayfell, who took part in the discussion. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already done this on a Talk page - FTC in lead. Then I have noticed that the discussion is taking place below, under the NPOV dispute section and a new user is commenting there. I will notify them again in the second section. What should I do to add the user to the dispute resolution process? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for pointing out that the notification must take place on the users' talk pages. I have corrected it - the users were notified on their talk pages. But I still don't know how to add Grayfell into the dispute resolution process.--Historik75 (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the new editor into the dispute by editing the source code of the dispute resolution process. I hope I have done it correctly.--Historik75 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note The other editors have now been properly notified. At this point the case is waiting for statements by the other editors, since dispute resolution is voluntary but encouraged. The case may be opened when at least one of the other editors agrees to take part in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify anything. Threaded discussion, that is, responses to posts by other editors, is not permitted. Respond to the moderator and to everyone, not to each other. I expect every party to review this discussion at least every 48 hours and to respond to any questions. I will review this discussion at least every 24 hours. First, I see that there are questions about whether "pyramid" claims should be mentioned in the lede paragraph. Are there any other issues, such as about the body of the article, or is the only question about what is appropriate in the lede? Would each of the editors state why "pyramid" issues should or should not be mentioned in the lede, and exactly what they think should be mentioned in the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not indent your posts below those of the previous editor. Indentation looks like threaded discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First statements by parties

Thank you for your time Robert. I have significant concerns about the WP:BALANCE of the article as a whole, with the amount of text dedicated to criticism and sometimes obscure and tangential legal cases (eg Dr Phil) far exceeding the proportion of coverage these matters have received in reliable sources covering the article topic over it's 56+ year history. However, dealing with that would likely distract from the more immmediate issue that led to this request for assistance, and certainly would likely take longer to resolve than the time I'm willing to put in to it! Regarding "pyramid issues", this is a well known and significant challenge the company has had, so it deserves some kind of commentary in the lede, but the fact official investigations have, without exception, cleared the company of the allegations is obviously an extremely important fact - indeed more important than the allegations themselves. --Icerat (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking part in this discussion. My suggestion is that the pyramid scheme accusation should either be present along with the most important decision, i.e. the landmark FTC case (as it was in the original version before Arthur Rubin made the change) or deleted from the lead and left in the Pyramid scheme accusations section. However, if other editors find it necessary to include all the details about cases in India, etc. in the lead, it would become very long because in order to provide NPOV and balanced text we should also mention all the details such as (among others) that:

1) commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."[5]

2) the charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.[6][7]

3) the state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.[8]

4) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.[9][10][11]

Moreover, this long text would be duplicate with the content of the Pyramid scheme accusations section, and I can't see one reason to have two duplicate long texts on the same page. Please also note that the argument which [an editor] used to justify his edit, i.e. "the statement that the FTC ruled that Amway is not a pyramid scheme is true, but other countries have ruled that it IS a pyramid scheme. Doesn't belong in the lead." was not backed up with any source. In fact, no other editor presented one single evidence for this claim, i.e. that other countries have ruled Amway is a pyramid scheme.--Historik75 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding the rest of the article, I would suggest several changes but as we only discussed the content of the lead, I would suggest to focus on this topic only as the other topics were not discussed, so there is no dispute running.--Historik75 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for accepting this case. As it is apparent from my previous summary, I basically agree with [two editors]. Mentioning the FTC case (or the fact official investigations have, without exception, cleared the company of the allegations) or deleting the sentence about accusations and leaving it in the appropriate section seem to be the best options in order to be consistent with the encyclopedic style of Wikipedia. Anyone interested in the particular investigation can go deeper in the article and learn more about it by simply clicking on Pyramid scheme accusations link in the Contents. The reasons for the changes are WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. We should present all the facts, not the selection of negative sources. If we cannot satisfy this due to the length of the resulting text and keep the encyclopedic style, then we should definitely delete incomplete and misleading information from the lede and leave the details in the appropriate section for those who care.--Plantium (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The guidance in WP:LEAD couldn't be any clearer -- "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First let me ask if anybody can confirm validity of Arthur Rubin's claim upon which he based his edit, i.e. that "the FTC ruled that Amway is not a pyramid scheme is true, but other countries have ruled that it IS a pyramid scheme". According to my knowledge and the sources available, no country have ruled that Amway is a pyramid scheme - in fact, it is exactly the opposite: every single time the company had been accused of running a pyramid scheme, the court said either "no" or it said that the law upon which the complaint was based did not prima facie apply.[12][13][14] Yes, there were charges that Amway was a pyramid scheme but they have been proven to be baseless every time the court has decided. Moreover, there is a statement by an Indian official - Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot - who said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality (i.e. the arrest of Amway CEO) came about." and "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law." It couldn't be any clearer. So in order to have a NPOV in the lead, my proposal is to change the current version to Icerat's revision as of 21:30, 10 March 2016:

"Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States[15], the United Kingdom[16], and two states in India.[17][18][19] Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[20] cleared the company of the charges."

This proposal is as short as it could be, it is accurate, it doesn't hide any prominent controversy (like Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme) and it provides NPOV by explaining what the results were. Any objections?--Historik75 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, obviously there are objections, laid out clearly on the article Talk page, which is why we are now here. And the text you proposed most certainly does hide prominent controversies, again as outlined on the Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

I will restate my instruction not to respond directly to other editors. It results in going around and around. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Does any editor say that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in any country? If not, it would seem that the real question is whether to state that in the lede paragraph that there have been such allegations that have been ruled against. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What issues are there about the article body? If there are significant issues about the article body, it may be necessary to request formal mediation. If the only issue at this point is about the lede, since the editors appear divided, the question is how to state the issue so that it can be published as a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Thank you, Robert. As I stated previously, according to my knowledge Amway has not been found to be a pyramid scheme in any country. I, of course, will welcome any evidence that would prove the opposite which is what I repeatedly said on the talk page. Regarding whether to mention the accusations in the lead - again, as I stated previously, I have no problem with deleting the information about accusations from the lead and leave it in the main body of the article. I also have no problem mentioning it along with all the cases that ruled against the accusations. But I do have a problem with mentioning only the accusations and not the court decisions as I consider this not to be NPOV. Regarding the main body of the article, I would first have to analyze every statement made there. At this point my suggestion is to continue with the lead only.--Historik75 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway has been around for a long time, and has been active in a lot of countries, so I'm not sure. Amway began in China around 1995, and in 1998 China banned all MLMs, at least in part due to pyramid scheme concerns. Regulations have shifted, and Amway has found ways around that, but it was clearly a concern at the time. Setting it up as a strictly government-level issue is overlooking the larger context, though. As I said before, the term "pyramid scheme" is often, buy not always, about illegal pyramid schemes, so setting it up this way is misleading and is giving too much credence to one aspect of a complex issue. Amway has frequently been used as shorthand for "legal pyramid schemes",[21] which is made explicit in the body of the article with the reference to Skeptic's Dictionary entry.[22] Amway makes an effort to distance themselves from pyramid schemes precisely because it's so ubiquitous that it's a punchline.[23] There are many, many legitimate criticisms of Amway that do not claim that it's illegal, but which still characterize it as a pyramid scheme, or euphemistically for having a "pyramid structure" or such.([24], etc.) While Amway has been found not to be a pyramid scheme in some instances, it has also settled multiple multi-million dollar civil suits about this, which suggests that it's not a black-and-white issue, even in the courts. Amway is one of the most iconic MLM companies, and as that article and Pyramid scheme both make clear, the connections are extremely well documented. Simply saying that they were found not to be a pyramid scheme would be downplaying all of that. Leaving it out completely would be even worse, and would undermine the neutrality of the WP:LEAD. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So let's summarize: we are now talking about 3 different terms:

1) "less an Amway-style legal pyramid scheme" used by short sellers to describe Herbalife business, backed up with one source (note that the title of the article is: "The 7 Craziest Quotes from the Fight between Billionaires Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman" (emphasis added) - I doubt that this source would be worth quoting in the context of pyramid schemes we are/were talking about).

2) "A pyramid structure" (found in the sentence "The FTC ultimately found that although Amway used a pyramid structure, it was a legal multilevel-marketing business." used by AlJazeera)

3) "A pyramid scheme" used by FTC and numerous secondary sources to define illegal operations

All of these sources stress that Amway was found to be legal which is the information that is missing in the current version of the lead. Moreover, the AlJazeera explicitely says Amway is a multilevel marketing (not a pyramid scheme) and so does FTC. Saying "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme" has a great potential to mislead the readers due to the connotation to legal term (point three) than to the term "Amway-like legal pyramid scheme" which was used by a handful of critics for the purpose of short selling. So far we do not have one single reference to a case where Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. So the question remains: does any other editor know of any decision in any country, which says Amway is a pyramid scheme?--Historik75 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to continue in this vein, you should've stuck to the article's talk page, where we've already gone over all of this over and over. It's clear that you don't like sources which aren't flattering, but they are all reliable sources, and they all stress that Amway is closely connected to the term pyramid scheme. You are deliberately misinterpreting my words while ignoring their underlying substance. Between that and the high level of aggression displayed means that I'm reluctant to continue this, as it's not dispute resolution, it's an attempt to legitimize WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Am I wrong? Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert, being relatively new here, I do not know how exactly the dispute resolution works (for example how many inputs I can have per one round of statements, etc.). I would be glad if you could tell me when I step aside or break the rules. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Re China - China banned all direct selling and then proceeded to licence companies they considered legitimate. Amway was one of the first to be licenced. While there were some changes to the model, the heart of the it where you can earn income through retail sales and through introducing and training others remains. Re "legal pyramid schemes", this is an oxymoron. Pyramid schemes are explicitly illegal and with good reason. Robert Carroll's Skeptic's dictionary is generally considered an RS for Wikipedia however he has no expertise in business, marketing, or law and refuses to take correspondence on MLM related articles, making it somewhat difficult to correct his (many) errors on this topic. Given the fact that Amway has been explicitly cleared of the "pyramid" charge in several countries, including the US, a class action settlement covering a wide range of issues clearly doesn't cloud that issue at all. The FTC Administrative Court cleared Amway in no uncertain terms ("It is not a pyramid sales plan","The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan, not being a 'pyramid' plan, has not led to any significant difficulty in recruiting new distributors","This is not, however, a pyramid plan", " Amway is not in business to sell distributorships and is not a pyramid distribution scheme", "since Amway is not such a pyramid, the concept is immaterial here", "Unlike the pyramid companies, Amway and its distributors do not make money unless products are sold to consumers.","The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not a pyramid plan","Specifically, we have determined that the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not an illegal 'pyramid scheme'","Amway plan is significantly different from the pyramid plans condemned in Koscot, Ger­Ro­Mar, and Holiday Magic"[25]. Unfortunately some 40 years on misinformation is still prevalent, particularly on the internet, however the vast vast vast majority of WP:RS sources are extremely clear on this. It's unfortunate that some people don't wish to accept it. In my experience it's often because they simply don't understand how the model works, and believe it operates the same way as pyramid schemes, and then attribute the very real flaws of pyramid schemes to legitimate MLM companies like Amway. It's that misunderstanding that has led to the "close connection" Grayfell talks about. Wikipedia should be helping to dispel misinformation and enhance clarity, not the opposite. Nobody is suggesting allegations of Amway being a pyramid scheme should be ignored in the article, but if the article is going to reflect reality, and the vast majority of RS it needs to clearly point out that Amway is not a pyramid scheme. --Icerat (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Just to add, Robert. The two "opposing" users here are reverting virtually every edit I do, no matter how well sourced or "balanced". I replaced a section that was using a Sri Lanken newspaper opinion column with one using a published trade magazine and a John Wiley book, and it was all reverted. I think we have to go to formal mediation. This constant battling to make any contribution done with tag team reversions (clearly to avoid 3RR) by users who don't like the edits is why I quit editing Wikipedia for nearly 2 years. --Icerat (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

First, as noted above, please do not indent your posts. That appears to be threaded discussion. If you want to set off your statement, you may precede with Statement by Editor A or whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor asks how many inputs I am allowing per round of statements. That is one with possible expansion. However, you are not permitted to respond to statements by other editors in a given round, because that will result in back-and-forth, which doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there is not likely to be any compromise, so this will probably have to be resolved by RFC. I invite each editor to provide their own draft of how to word the lede paragraph. In the fourth round, each editor may comment on which of the other editors' drafts would and would not be acceptable. Then we will narrow the number of versions of the lede down to three or four and then publish the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is one more rule that I forgot to state. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. Also, do not discuss on the article talk page, because this is the centralized place for discussion of questions about the article. Since there is edit-warring on the article, I will make it easier for you to avoid the need to edit the article by requesting full page protect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, DO NOT refer in edit summaries or elsewhere to edits with which you disagree as "vandalism". This is a good-faith content dispute with strong feelings. No one is engaging in vandalism, and the use of the word "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack and may even result in sanctions. Do not label good-faith edits that you disagree with strongly as "vandalism". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC) .

Third statements by editors

Statement by Icerat

With regard the immediate issue of the Lede, I've seen no reason not to continue to support my original edit - "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges." --Icerat (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC) A quick addendum - Robert, can we add the related article Network TwentyOne to this too please? I've been trying to correct an error there and it keeps getting reverted and the editor is refusing to explain his objection and simple accuses me of WP:DE The same issue exists on both articles and is arguably WP:BLP related--Icerat (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhode Island Red

Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because you are being disruptive. In the last hour alone you've been firing off like a loose cannon, making ridiculously indefensible edits and then edit warring over them -- i.e., (1) over the term "distributors",[26] despite the fact that a dozen or so sources use the exact same term[27] (2) repeatedly deleting a perfectly valid verifiable WP:RS[28][29] and then ultimately admitting that you were in the wrong.[30] All of this is a colossal waste of resources and cannot be allowed to continue. You are crashing around like a loose cannon and running afoul of numerous WP policies including WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:COI, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, etc. A block or ban is in order. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhode Island Red

Comment on content, not on contributors. This is a content dispute forum, not a forum in which to discuss claims of sockpuppetry, which is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm OK with RfC if it's absolutely necessary but the problems with a certain editor and apparent SPA/socks on the page appear to go a lot deeper than that. I already proposed a more fleshed out version for the lead on the Talk page. It led to a lot of griping from the SPA/socks but nothing remotely resembling consensus building or a coherent counter-proposal for text in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Historik75

After the discussion with other editors and considering the relevancy of arguments of all parties involved I am suggesting the following modified version for the lead:

Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[31], the United Kingdom[32], and two states in India.[33][34][35]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[36] cleared the company of the charges.

An alternative version could be like this:

Amway has been examined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[37] the High Court in United Kingdom,[38] and governments of two states in India[39][40][41] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[42] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[43] cleared the company of charges.

Still don't know whether to include India or not. If so it should be explained that the court said the Act did not prima facie apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historik75 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

However, after checking up the arguments of another editor I took a quick look at the body of the article and revealed another misleading (and unsourced) statement that had originally been put in the Pyramid scheme accusation section by an anonymous user (IP: 118.92.38.244 13 November 2013, 10:37). It has since been edited by another anonymous user (IP: 66.215.89.177, 28 November 2013, 23:00).

Unfortunately, the current version of this unsourced statement got spread all over the Internet (apparently copied from Wikipedia and now undermining the credibility of Wikipedia articles). It goes like this:

Amway utilizes a tiered distribution and remuneration model (the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan) that promises to reward participants who grow Amway's market share through a combination of sales and recruitment. This tiered distribution model relies on Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme.

Though the original statement was different and had a different meaning, neither this one was backed up with any reliable source. Moreover, it contained inaccurate parts (such as "reward participants who grow Amway's market share" or "Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme"). Does anybody know where this statement came from? If not, I suggest we either remove it or go into formal mediation as some sections of the article seem to be everything but NPOV. Any objections against removing this unsourced statement?--Historik75 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhode Island Red

WP:LEAD states: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should… summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies…As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate…includes mention of significant criticism or controversies… According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.”

The current version of the lead to Amway is only one paragraph in length and despite the fact that the body text of the article contains a significant amount of material covering controversies and criticism, the lead reflects none of it. The simple fact is that Amway is a highly controversial company and has been now for several decades; this is not a personal opinion but rather an inarguable fact established overwhelmingly in coverage by the news media. Such criticism and controversies represent a significant proportion of the media coverage that the company has received over the years and are thus reflected in the body text of the article as per WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV.

To make the lead conform to WP policy, it should be amended to include a summary of the key criticisms and controversies covered in the body text, which are by no means limited to just the pyramid scheme issue. Given the amount of criticism and controversy covered in the article, which reflects coverage of these issues in the press, the lead should contain an entire paragraph summarizing these details. The amendments being proposed by the WP:SPAs are clearly inadequate in that regard.

I previously proposed the following text to summarize some of the controversies and criticism covered in the body text:[44]

Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.[45][46][47][48] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme.[49][50] Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[51] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[52][53]

Other controversies/criticisms prominently covered in the press and included in the body text of the article, and which therefore should probably be summarized in the lead, include political campaign contributions,[54] religious/cult-like overtones,[55][56] the Canadian tax fraud case,[57] and low distributor earnings.[58][59][60]

As for details like the 1979 FTC case and UK case, where Amway scored partial victories, coverage in the lead should provide a balanced account of the outcomes. For example, in the 1979 FTC case, Amway was cleared of the pyramid scheme charges but the FTC found Amway "guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims" and ordered the company to end various deceptive sales practices (an order which Amway later violated and was fined $100K as a result).[61] In the UK case, the government’s charges against Amway were dismissed but only after Amway had, in the year subsequent to the charges and prior to the ruling, instituted various changes to their marketing system to address the deceptive practices outlined in the charges. And ultimately the judge concluded that Amway had in fact “allowed misrepresentations of its business by independent sellers in years past and failed to act decisively against the misrepresentations”.[62] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Historik75

An alternative version added (different wording but same meaning).--Historik75 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer moderator

Will each editor please comment on the above proposed versions of the lede? Please comment on content (the proposed versions) and not on contributors. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement 4.5 by volunteer moderator

It appears that editors either think that version 4 is the best version and that version 1, 2, and 3 are biased, or that versions 3, 2, and 1, in declining order, are good, and that version 4 is biased. I will be formulating an RFC with versions 2, 3, and 4 as the choices to consider, but will be redesignating them with letters. Please continue the discussion until I provide statement 5. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

Statement by Historik75

Let's first summarize - there are now four proposals:

Proposal #1: "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges."

Proposal #2: Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[63], the United Kingdom[64], and two states in India.[65][66][67]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[68] cleared the company of the charges.

Proposal #3: Amway has been examined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[69] the High Court in United Kingdom,[70] and governments of two states in India[71][72][73] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[74] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[75] cleared the company of charges.

Proposal #4: Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.[76][77][78][79] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme.[80][81] Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[82] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[83][84]

I find any of the first three versions (Proposal #1-3) acceptable in the following order: Proposal #3 > Proposal #2 > Proposal #1. They sum up the most important controversy, i.e. pyramid scheme accusation, and provide the results of investigations that took place regarding this issue.

I regret to say it, but I find the fourth version (Proposal #4) highly inaccurate, biased and therefore unacceptable. Following are the reasons pointing out the basic flaws in this version:

1) In fact, none of the sources cited ever said that "Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act." or "Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway."

Instead, they said: "Pinckney and the two other directors were arrested in connection with a case filed by a certain Visalakshi of Kozhikode" and "he was arrested by Andhra Police in connection with criminal cases against the firm in the state".

"Being arrested for violating PCMCS Act" is an offense as it implies that he actually did it which was not confirmed by the court. Moreover, there is many important information missing from the Proposal #4, which put a whole different light on what this case was really all about, such as:

a) Commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."[85][86][87][88]

b) The charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.[89][90]

c) The state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.[91]

d) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.[92][93][94]

In short, according to the sources above (and others [95][96][97][98]), including the Indian official,[99][100][101] the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists."[102] So all of these events appear to be one person's activity.

In the light of these facts this incident could hardly be called "a controversy" (unless we want to call the outdated Act controversial) and thus it is not worth mentioning in the lead. But I am willing to make a compromise and mention that there was some investigation in India, based on the fact that it got some coverage in the newspapers, if the much more important, relevant and landmark FTC case is also mentioned.

2) As per the settlement case, I doubt it's worth mentioning in connection to pyramid scheme accusation because of the "no admission of guilt" and considering that Amway was found not to be a pyramid scheme in the US. Moreover, Amway did not pay $150M. Amway agreed to pay $56M - $34 million in cash out of which up to $20 million went to plaintiffs' attorneys and $22 million in products).

3) As per the statement "A 1979 FTC case concluded that... the company was guilty of selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors," this is completely false misinformation which cannot be found in any of the cited sources and allowing this kind of misinterpretation would result in a biased lead.

In fact, the Commission found the opposite - that the products are apparently competitively priced when it said:

"On a cost per use basis, in 1967, SA8 was less than 3 cents and Tide was about 7 cents. At this time, SA8 use direction was 5/32 cup per washload and Tide was 1.75 cup. The cost per use drew close in 1968 when the use direction was changed: SA8 1/4 cup and Tide 1.25 cup. In 1972, Tide again changed its use direction to 1 cup per washload, in response to 'phosphate down the drain' legislation. (CX 561­ Z­11­12) Since then SA8 has cost about 1 cents to 2 cents per use more than Tide and the other leading laundry detergents. Sold in the large size (100 1bs.), however, SA8 has a lower per use cost than any laundry detergent. (CX 561­Z­14) In 1973, Amway introduced SA8 Plus, selling at retail for about the same as SA8, but apparently superior in cleaning power to either SA8 or Tide. (CX 561­Z, Z­3 to Z­4) And, unlike detergent purchased at the grocery store, Amway's products are delivered to the consumer's home. (Max, Tr. 6045)"[103]

Not included in this Proposal, but suggested before by the same editor, the statement "the government’s charges against Amway were dismissed but only after Amway had, in the year subsequent to the charges and prior to the ruling, instituted various changes to their marketing system to address the deceptive practices outlined in the charges" is completely unsubstantiated. The fact is, that none of the sources cited ever said that Amway would be considered a pyramid scheme if no changes would took place. Saying the government charges were dismissed only after Amway changed something is clearly a WP:OR as it is not backed up by any RS.

If we look beyond these basic flaws in interpretation of what the sources said and the ommission of important facts in Proposal #4, after reading the article more carefully, I have to stress one significant problem - and that is that it has apparently been under the constant negative POV pushing for several years. Many pros or neutral issues are missing (60 minutes show, UNEP award, successes in Asian countries, sponsorships...) while the cons are being exaggerated and in some cases (e.g. Dateline show) not WP:NPOV and so it appears that there is majority of controversies. In fact, the significant controversy is only one issue: a pyramid scheme accusation - and it is an issue that Amway has won in every state it was raised. It is, of course, not surprising, that this one is mentioned almost every time the name Amway is spelled due to the impact it had on the whole direct selling industry. Therefore, it certainly should be a part of the lead. Compared to this one and the many published materials in WP:RS about other (neutral or pros) issues with respect to the 57 years of history of the company, the rest of the controversies is not worth mentioning in the lead.

I believe this is why the lead for e.g. Microsoft, Merck or P&G does not contain any information about controversy, although for example P&G was fined €200M+ by EC for price fixing and Vioxx case which cost Merck $830M [104] was published across almost every newspaper even in a small country that I live in. But given the vast majority of many other neutral and positive issues that surround these companies, these controversies are simply considered minor. Of course, they should be (and are) published in the body where there is enough room to present them according to WP:BALANCE along with all the details, but they hardly are worth mentioning in the lead. I find it unreasonable to treat the Amway article differently.

Given that no editor was able to back up the original accusation, i.e. "Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme in other countries", with any WP:RS and as it was the sole argument upon which the original edit was made, there was a question in the beginning of this discussion if it's even worth mentioning in the lead (when we know that Amway was cleared of charges).

It should be stressed that the argument (with which the other editor immediately and apparently without any verification agreed and therefore reached "consensus") was proven to be false and therefore the edit was unjustified and should be treated as that - i.e. reverted or changed to a more accurate version.

As far as the moderator's question is concerned, i.e. whether the pyramid accusations are worth mentioning in the lead, as I stated before, I am okay both with deleting the whole sentence about pyramid scheme accusations from the lead as well as with the first three proposals which I consider to be accurate and balanced.

I apologize for the length of my comment and appreciate, if you've read all of my arguments.

P.S.: A question to the moderator: Given there was no objection, I assume I can delete the unsourced paragraph mentioned in my previous (Third) statement. May I consider it a consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historik75 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhode Island Red

Proposals 1-3 above fail to meet the requirements outlined in WP:LEAD because they fail to adequately summarize "significant criticism or controversies" from the body text of the article. I therefore suggest focusing on version #4 as a starting point. I also suggest keeping comments concise and focused on specific text proposals rather than long meandering esoteric tangents. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding comment 3 above: "3) As per the statement "A 1979 FTC case concluded that... the company was guilty of selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors," this is completely false misinformation which cannot be found in any of the cited sources and allowing this kind of misinterpretation would result in a biased lead." This text should be amended to read: "guilty of price fixing and making exaggerated income claims", as supported by these two sources.[105][106] A very simple fix. It was in fact the subsequent class action lawsuit that accused the company of "selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors",[107] so this detail should be included in that context instead. Also a simple fix. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this query: "A question to the moderator: Given there was no objection, I assume I can delete the unsourced paragraph mentioned in my previous (Third) statement. May I consider it a consensus?" To which paragraph are you referring? Don't rush to assume consensus. Just because a statement is unsourced doesn't mean it should be immediately deleted; rather an effort should be made to find whether there are sources that support the text in question. In all likelihood, sources exist that back up the statement, or something close to it anyway. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Proposals 1-3 are clearly deceptive. Charges were settled (dropped when the company promised to change some practices) in the US and UK. (It's possible that Amway was cleared of being an illegal pyramid scheme, but other matters under investigation were settled.) Neither the FTC nor the UK investigation was limited to it being a "pyramid scheme". (The fact that Amway failed to obey their promises may be too much detail for the lead.) I was going to say that proposal 4 had too much detail, but controversies about Amway should have more space in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Plantium

I am in the other part of the world right now and have a limited access to the Internet, so I will be brief: I suggest to continue with the first three versions. They summarize the most important points regarding the prominent controversy that should be in WP:LEAD. Unfortunatelly, the 4th version is definitely biased and non-NPOV and I cannot recommend it.--Plantium (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhode Island Red (re: Amway India)

The following comment was made about the proposed text concerning Amway India:[108] “In fact, none of the sources cited ever said that ‘Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act’ or ‘Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway’."

The basis for the objection to the text above was unspecified. The text appears to be well supported by multiple media reports, as follows:

• "Amway India Chairman and Chief Executive William S Pinckney has been arrested by Andhra Pradesh Police in connection with a criminal case registered against the direct-selling company. The CEO has been booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, besides charges of cheating as well as extortion under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This is the second time that the Amway India CEO has been taken into custody. Kerala police had arrested Pinckney as well as two Amway directors last year for alleged financial irregularities. The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978…However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme" Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Amway, the AP police statement said."[109]
• “Pinckney was arrested on May 26 from Amway India’s headquarters at Gurgaon… He was subsequently arrested in other criminal cases registered against him in the state on allegations of financial irregularities by Amway.”[110]
• “William S Pinckney, the chief executive officer of Amway India, was arrested yesterday by the crime branch of Kerala Police along with two other directors of the company… The company is said to have been violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”[111]
• “Kerala Police on Monday arrested William Scott Pinckney, managing director and chief executive of direct selling consumer products company Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, for allegedly duping members of its direct sales network in Wayanad district. The police also arrested two of his Indian colleagues, Sanjay Malhotra and Anshu Budhiraja, vice-president and director, and chief financial officer, respectively, at Amway India. The accused face similar charges of overpricing products and fraudulent practices in nearby Kozhikode district, too, police said… Also, they were involved in money chain, which is prohibited under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978.”[112]
• "This is not the first time that Amway India has come under scrutiny. In 2006, Amway offices in Andhra Pradesh were shut on allegations that the company was running a pyramid scheme. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also observed that company's business model was identical to money circulation schemes and termed its operation as illegal."[113]
• “Last year, Kerala Police had arrested Pinckney and two company directors on charges of cheating. Although Pinckney was released the next day, the other executives were booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”[114]
• “William S Pinckney, Amway's India CEO was arrested on Monday on charges of cheating and other financial fraud and jailed in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh where he has been remanded to custody till June 7. Charges were framed against him under section 420 of IPC (cheating) and sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. This is not the first time Amway has courted controversy in India. It has been in news intermittently since 2006 when its offices in Andhra Pradesh were shuttered on allegations that Amway was running a pyramid scheme. A chargesheet was also filed. In 2013 as well, Pinckney and two India directors were arrested by the Kerala police after a case was filed against Amway for alleged unethical practices of money circulation.”[115]
• “The legal pursuit of Amway in India goes at least back to September 2006. After a public complaint from the Reserve Bank of India, the company’s business practices came into question. Police in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh raided the offices of various Amway distributors. Officials said Amway had violated the "Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act of 1979," which outlaws pyramid schemes and similar money circulation scams. Distributor offices were shut down and the company’s Indian headquarters were forced to cease operations.”[116]
• “The police said charges had been filed against Pinckney under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. This was the second time Pinckney has been arrested in this country. The Kerala police arrested him last year on similar charges.”[117]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Historik75

Question to the moderator: Are we supposed to react to each other now? Or, were we supposed to react to the proposed versions only? If we are supposed to react to each other, I will be glad to show the editor where he can find the basis for my objection to his text regarding India. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

I've posted the RFC. At this point, discussion should be in the Survey and Threaded Discussion sections of the RFC. Any procedural comments may be made here for the next 24 hours until I close this thread. The RFC will run for 30 days. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fifth round for editors

statement by Icerat

Was that 48hrs for the 4th round? :) I'd already half written my response, so I'll post it here. Statement #4 is not only not remotely balanced nor reflective of the proportionality of RS coverage, it is factually incorrect, as Historik75 has pointed out. The significant issue from the FTC case was the pyramiding allegations, and these were categorically rejected by the Administrative law judge. This finding has been cited in every MLM/Pyramid related case since and is clearly of high notability, in fact it has it's own Wikipedia article - In re Amway Corp.. In reality, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of some other editors, the fact Amway was categorically cleared of the charges is significantly more important than the fact they were charged in the first place. Putting only the investigations/allegations in the lede would be akin to having "Amanda Knox was charged with murdering Meredith Kercher" in the lead of the article on her and not mentioning her acquittal! Regarding the other findings, The Direct Selling Revolution, by Prof Dominique Xardel, a 1993 book describing the author's (a business academic) multi-year research in to Amway, devotes 2.5 pages to the FTC case and doesn't even mention the price fixing and income disclosure issues. Smith's book Multi-Level Marketing similiarly devotes 2 pages to the Amway case, doesn't mention them. Neither does Clothier's 1990 book Multi-level Marketing. The most recent independently published book on Amway, Amway Forever by Kathryn Jones (2011) , devotes 11 pages to the FTC investigation - of which 2 sentences refer to the price fixing and income disclosure issues. Clearly that's patently absurd. The claim the company was found guilty of selling over-priced products is 100% contrary to what the court actually found, and the claim about business support materials has apparently been generated out of thin air as it's not mentioned in the case at all. The fine for advertising was for failing to put in a clear disclosure and is a relatively minor issue. A minor mention in the article is appropriate.

Regarding the Californian class action, the information in proposal #4 is somewhat misleading and unbalanced - particularly given that virtually the same case was pursued in Canada and Amway elected not to settle there - and won the case with costs awarded to them. I added a note about this, however it was deleted challenging the sources. There is a case on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard covering this - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Law_firm_publications. Historik75 has well covered the flaws in the commentary of the Indian case, but I'd again emphasise it's a relatively minor issue. It's two states in one country of something like 100 countries and territories in which Amway operates, none of the accusations have ever gone to a full hearing, and the police and others involved in the case have been criticised by government officials and others. Discuss it in the article, sure, but over the 56 yr history of this company, it's not a "prominent controversy". It's interesting to note that virtually exactly the same thing happened in Korea not long after Amway launched there and this has zero coverage in the body of the article (let alone the lede!). South Korea is now one of Amway's biggest and most successful markets. --Icerat (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Chappell#Use of Scaruffi web site

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by NewYorkActuary on 20:03, 14 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:Jim Chappell#Use of Scaruffi web site (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NewYorkActuary (talk · contribs)
• Woovee (talk · contribs)
• Chubbles (talk · contribs)
• Sergecross73 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a slow-motion edit war, the topic of dispute being an external link used in the article's "Further Reading" section. The section (and link) was added by the filing party, but has been persistently removed by the non-filing party. In doing so, the non-filing party cites a one-day discussion on the talk page of a project which is not a "sponsor" of the instant article (i.e., the article does not lie within the scope of that project). Furthermore, the purported consensus reached during that one-day discussion was seriously flawed, for reasons both procedural and factual. The filing party asserts that the only operative requirements for the instant article are those found in WP:EL, and that the particular link in question meets those requirements.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third-opinion request led to the fashioning of a compromise, which was rejected by the non-filing party. The filing party also offered to engage in mediation, but this offer was not accepted.

How do you think we can help?

A moderated discussion will provide a necessary basis for clarifying and resolving the issues in dispute.

Summary of dispute by Woovee

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

Summary of dispute by Chubbles

The debate concerns the inclusion of referencing material written by Piero Scaruffi, whose status as a reliable source was rejected by a consensus of Wikipedians a few years ago because he was self-published in the area of music. NewYorkActuary wished to include, on the Jim Chappell page, a link to Scaruffi's website where Chappell's work was discussed. This was reverted by Woovee, who pointed to the consensus that Scaruffi was not a reliable source. NewYorkActuary was able to demonstrate that the consensus had overlooked a crucial piece of evidence: Scaruffi had, indeed, been published in music, by a major Italian publishing house, Arcana Editrice. According to the link on Scaruffi's site, the material NewYorkActuary wished to include was published (with slight revisions) in one of those Arcana publications. Woovee maintained that the inclusion of any link to Scaruffi's website violated the consensus, even if it were just a convenience link to the content that had been published elsewhere by a peer-reviewed print publisher.

I ordered the Scaruffi book from an interlibrary loan service, to confirm that it was editorially reviewed and that the Chappell article was in the book; it was, but there were slight differences in wording between the published version and the online mirror on Scaruffi's website. NewYorkActuary wishes to include the convenience link for the use of readers who want to verify the content of the book reference; Woovee has allowed for the print publication to be included on the article, but reverts all inclusion of the convenience link. For me, the debate hinges on whether the additions on Scaruffi's website are de minimis or not; I see no good reason to exclude a convenience link if the text is exactly the same as in a reliable print publication, but there are some minor differences between what's in the print version and the version on Scaruffi's website, which do not appreciably affect the content of what the sourcing was meant to cover. Lastly, this new evidence indicates that the consensus that Scaruffi is an unreliable author on music needs reexamination. Since he has been published, more than once, by a major music publisher, I'd argue that this may make his website "fair game" for sourcing once again, as a recognized authority in the field. Chubbles (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73

After a series of disputes regarding the use of Piero Scaruffi work as a source in in music articles, I facilitated a discussion at WP:ALBUMS, which unanimously decided that he was not an authority on music unless his work was published by a third party publisher. Over 10 editors participated at this discussion held at the WikiProject level, many of them long-term and experienced editors. The current consensus is to only use his published work on Wikipedia, a consensus no one has attempted to change in these discussions, so its rather bizarre they didn't go there before coming to DRN.

Regardless, linking to PS's personal blog as an external link not only violates the consensus, and WP:SPS in general, but conceptually adds very little to the article anyways, as its written entirely in Italian, something not readable by a vast majority of English readers anyways. Its inclusion creates virtually no benefit to the reader. Its truly baffling how he's still arguing over such a minor thing, or that he even refuses the compromise I proposed, which was adding a book that published PS's work about the subject in a "Further Reading" section, which at least wouldn't violate the active consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Chappell#Use of Scaruffi web site discussion

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

DRN coordinator's note: I've added a couple of parties who have been involved in the recent discussion and will notify them. Let me note that there's been plenty of discussion and the other editor, Woovee, has already been notified. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement by volunteer

My name is thehistorian10, and I am the volunteer who will be mediating this case. I see that the parties have attempted to discuss this matter, and have not yet resolved their dispute through previous efforts.

Let me just begin by setting out the ground rules. Please do not edit the article in dispute during this process - it means we are all working with the same material. Second, please respect that some of us come from differing time zones, and may not be able to respond immeidately, so please give it a day or two after your posting, if you are expecting a response. Thirdly, this is meant to be an informal mediation. It is not designed to be another forum for your self-described "slow edit war". Therefore, I will not tolerate any attacks of any kind against me, or another participant. See my comments about civility below. This is because I am trying to help everyone here - and there are multiple parties to this case - reach a solution that they can agree on. I should say that if there is any uncivil behaviour (which, based on the talk page, there hasn't been so far), I might have to collapse the uncivil spats into an archive box, so they can be out of the way. I also expect a degree of cooperation from parties, because solutions to these debates can only come around through compromise and cooperation. If there is no obvious cooperation or discussion, I may close this as a failed case.

As I understand the debate, this centres around the validity of a certain proposed source, authored by someone who has apparently been discredited by the Wikipedia community. I'm not going to question that decision, but I would like to know what information the filing party seeks to get from the source? The Historian (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs

– New discussion.

Filed by SheriffIsInTown on 14:12, 15 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:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)
• TalhaZubairButt (talk · contribs)
• MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Ghatus (talk · contribs)
• TripWire (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It started with a lot of content but now the dispute is reduced to one point which is whether to include General Sam Manekshaw's statement recognizing difficulties Pakistan Army faced during the war and what led to their surrender which includes his positive comments about Pakistan Army. General Sam Manekshaw was head of Indian Army during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We just talked it out at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs but dispute is still outstanding.

How do you think we can help?

It would be very helpful If a volunteer or an unrelated editor can look at that discussion and guide the editors involved towards a resolution and decide based on Wikipedia policies whether that information warrants inclusion or not.

Summary of dispute by TalhaZubairButt

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

Summary of dispute by MBlaze Lightning

Oppose The users who are insisted to add it have failed to provide any reliable source, let alone WP:BESTSOURCES. This edit is based on a WP:PRIMARY source and as Kautilya3 said, if we go by policy, which says that we should not interpret WP:PRIMARY sources. And all interviews are PRIMARY sources. Picking a statement out of an interview, itself is a form of interpretation, indeed. Beside, this, if added will give undue weight, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and will indeed violate WP:NPOV. So, In accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:RS, I am against the inclusion of an cropped part of an interview taken from an random YouTube link. However, i have no objection with Kautilya3 version: Manekshaw had the highest respect for the fighting prowess of the Pakistan Army and refused to accept the theory that they did not fight the Bangladesh war vigorously enough. It seems quite neutral and balanced to me, Beside it is back by a secondary source. The extended quote based on an primary source is unnecessary and undue. Beside, i failed to see any biasness and one-sidedness in the article as one of the user claimed. I think he is not familiar with the result/How it started/Who was the aggressor/and who attacked the other country first, etc of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 -MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Capitals00

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

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

It should be possible to find multiple reliable sources that document the difficulties that the Pakistan army faced. It should not be necessary to rely exclusively on one statement by Sam Manekshaw, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. I think the `yay' side hasn't done enough home work. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

Summary of dispute by Ghatus

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

Summary of dispute by TripWire

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

Apart from the fact that Mblazelightening has missed just a few wiki policies that he claims will be broken if Gen Maneksahw's statement is included in the article, I would like ask him what exactly is wrong in adding General's words as a quote in the article? Just for consumption, wiki do allow inculsion of WP:PRIMARY sources provided the added info mentions it as such as the policy says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Especially when there is nothing to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize from General Manekshaw's (direct) quote/statement.

As regards the suggestion that there are other sources saying what Gen Manekshaw had said, well in the General's case, it is the context, credibility and authenticity his words provide to the statement. Or else there are various secondary and tertiary sources that praises Pakistan Army in 1971 war context but have been previously rebuffed by Indian editors on one pretext or the other, so let's not run in circles. Sure, if additional info is to be added to General's remarks about Pakistan Army's performance, it should be done in the interest of WP:BALANCE as the article in its current version is heavily biased and one-sided. I wonder why did MBL missed this out?

In short having a direct quote from the Indian COAS at the time of 1971 war or alternatively paraphrasing the info while attributing the same to him will only make the article neutral.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs 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 extended discussion on the article talk page. Proper notice has been given by the filing party to the other editors. In view of the large number of parties to the case, formal mediation might be more likely to be constructive than informal mediation here. This case can be opened by a volunteer moderator at any time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• If a volunteer editor does not accept this case with three days, I may close it as probably inappropriate for here and recommend that it be filed at requests for formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Non-aggression principle#The_NAP_is_absolutely_not_the_defining_principle_of_libertarianism.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JasonW1415 on 20:56, 16 March 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:Non-aggression principle#The NAP is absolutely not the defining principle of libertarianism. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JasonW1415 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Jeff Smith claims that the non-aggression principle is the defining characteristic of libertarianism. The page states that "the NAP is the defining principle of libertarianism," and cites the Libertarian Party Platform, along with an opinion article. The LP Platform does not mention the NAP at any time. The overwhelming majority of libertarians are deontological, and Wikipedia itself has several well sourced articles about libertarian topics that directly or indirectly discuss various ethical justifications for libertarianism other than the NAP. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I discussed it on the talk page, and offline with Jeff. How do you think we can help? The line should read "some people consider the NAP to be a defining principle of libertarianism," and the citation to the LP Platform should be removed. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Non-aggression principle#The_NAP_is_absolutely_not_the_defining_principle_of_libertarianism. discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There is only one editor listed, the filing party. Other editors have discussed, but there has not been an adequate exchange, just multiple statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2016 (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:Karait

– New discussion.

Filed by YuHuw on 17:39, 17 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:Karait (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• YuHuw (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• User:Неполканов (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Fundamentally 2 users User:Toddy1 and User:Неполканов are very "sensitive" about any sub-topics which relate to the word Karaites the current content of which is the result of months of consensus building facilitated by nothing more than simply the presence of contributions from Admins like User:Midas02, User:Niceguyedc, and User:Dbachmann (although Nepolkanov did initially accuse Dbachmann of being a sockpuppet).

The dispute began at Talk:Karait and has been dragged out over virtually all the pages of the sub-topics on the Karaites page (e.g. Talk:Keraites, Talk:Karaims etc.) but the vast majority of the times the discussions are taking place in the edit summaries and my requests for participation on talk pages are ignored. Rather than discussing content and discussing sources the users post adhominem attacks in the edit summaries and discuss ways on user talk pages to trick editors who challenge their POV into WP policy violations as pointed out by User:Bbb23 here [118].

For my part I do confess I have lost patience on more than one occasion too mainly because Toddy1 interrupts and answers questions I have posed to Nepolkanov as if Nepolkanov can not answer for himself or as if he himself were Nepolkanov in fact. Toddy1 has demonstrated very little knowledge or understanding of the subjects and really only stepped in because Nepolkanov asked him to.

Nepolkanov's understanding of the subjects is better but sadly his English skills are very clearly lacking.

Apparently (if I have understood the outcomes correctly) according to ANI results there seems to be no real behavioral issues to action (see next section).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have always tried to include any points I have managed to understand from Nepolkanov. [119] and there are many instances where I have tried to extend an olive-branch to Nepolkanov only to have it th

Taken the matter 4 times to ANI. ANI admin User:KrakatoaKatie recommended Dispute resolution [120].

How do you think we can help?

We need a good long facilitated discussion on the sources without anyone calling anyone else names or puppets, nor any other kind of ad-hominem. It is no problem to talk about how the sources have been used. It is no problem to talk about why a source might be RS or not. But in the end the only thing wee need to do is talk about the sources and find a way to ensure that accurate report of what the sources say is presented on the pages in question.

Summary of dispute by Toddy1

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

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat, which YuHuw has opened today. I imagine that the reason for opening this SPI was that Vadcat reverted an edit by User:Budo in 2012. Budo was blocked for being a sock of User:Kaz.

The policy for dispute resolution noticeboard is that "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." Given that the dispute features in two sockpuppet investigation reports, this item should be rejected.- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock-puppet investigations are not dispute resolution forums. You are still being belligerent. You need to calm down. How did you know about the Vadcat investigation by the way? Are you WP:HOUNDING me? YuHuw (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by User:Неполканов

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

Talk:Karait discussion

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

• Volunteer note - Some of the problems here may result from the fact that the subject page was moved and a disambiguation page was created, and now a subject talk page is attached to a disambiguation page. Some experienced editor (I will try) needs to reconnect the articles and their talk page. Also, the filing party has not yet notified the other editors. There has been discussion on article talk pages, but, possibly due to the complexities of the disambiguation, it is hard to follow.

I agree it is very hard to follow for people who have not been involved. It is possible to look through my edit activity [121][122][123] to help get an idea of how the disputes migrated. The disputes started on the 9th of January when I signed up top defend an editor whose work I admire who had been accused of being a puppet by Nepolkanov[124]. The result was that I became the new focus of Nepolkanov's attention almost immediately after that. YuHuw (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It does not help that the only thing Toddy1 ever does is joke [125] and call me a sockpuppet [126] rather than try to engage in discussion of the subjects on any kind of intellectual level. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the entire dispute relates to sub-topics of the Karaites page. My suggestion is that a dispute resolution discussion commence there (Talk:Karaite) and we agree to hold off on edits to the related talk pages until the dispute is resolved. YuHuw (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)