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
Maratha Confederacy	Closed	Mohammad Umar Ali (t)	8 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 23 hours
Elissa Slotkin	Closed	Andrew.robbins (t)	8 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours
Naseem Hamed	New	Mac Dreamstate (t)	5 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	GoodDay (t)	3 hours
Killing of Laken Riley	Closed	Gottagotospace (t)	5 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours
Primerica	Closed	TermLifeOG (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 9 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 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:List of_cults_of_personality#Can_someone_get_rid_of_the_United_States_section.3F

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Mercy11 on 04:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of cults of personality#Can someone get rid of the United States section.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mercy11 (talk · contribs)
• Fierysunset (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I expanded a section in an article and another editor (Fierysunset) removed my edits. After I reinstated my edits with an explanation and Talk Page discussion, the editor undid my edits again. His explanation is that the sources of my edits (Newsweek, Huffington Post, The American Interest, and The Hill) are biased. The editor is unwilling to accept WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIASED and similar policies, and defines his own criteria for what I can include. It has become increasingly more difficult to discuss the content because he is being motivated by strong political views.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Staying away from edit warring. Invited editor to add cites of his own with the opposite views. Being neutral in my wording of the section prose. Because 2 other editors initially started the Talk Page section about the article's section in question (but have since not participated again), the dispute did not seem to be a candidate for WP:3O.

How do you think we can help?

Someone needs to help get across to FIREYSUNSET that so long as edits are relevant, backed by reliable sources, and not undue weight, it is OK for the information to be added to the article. The editor seems to be having difficulty working with me because he appears to be perceiving me as his adversary. The editor gets very excited (belligerent) when I respond to his Talk Page comments.

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

• Reply to Moderator--Like you, I agree with part of what NRP says. Terms like fascist and COP have been tossed around indiscriminately. Others such terms nowadays are thug, terrorist, dictator, and the like.

I researched widely acceptable bibliographic sources to see if there was a basis to consider "Donald Trump's Cult of Personality" an outright Fringe, and found that a search for "Donald Trump"+"cult of personality" in Google Books yielded 1,100 hits. A similar search in Google Scholar returned 168 hits. Likewise in Google News, many were listed. These are more than a handful scholarly sources. BTW, this Trump-focus in no way exempts Obama, Clinton, Lincoln, Washington and perhaps others from the list, which I believe should be researched further to improve the article.

I have no objection to applying WP:Fringe, so long as it is done alongside with WP:5P. I also like the ideal, which he expressed elsewhere, of improving the base Cult of personality article, which I think is a disaster and leads to problems. When applying WP:FRINGE we need to make sure it is a fringe theory because others -i.e., RSs- say so, and not because in our own editorial wisdom we say so. (The claim that Israel was behind 9/11, for example, is fringe, *and* we can find WP:RSs that have debunked it as fringe.) We can't just claim "fringe" and walk away. That said, what sources have debunked Trumps' COP so far? If available, let's add them to the section. When a believe is widely held (e.g., "Hitler had a COP") you will -not- find a single RS source trying to debunk it. Mercy11 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to Moderator -- You commented "Many books and scholarly sources--you pointed to fail the reliability test.Many are at best tangentially related to the topic.Can you specifically point to about 4/5 of them in both the categories?", and I am trying to understand how your question relates to this dispute.

1st, can you provide a link to the WP:Reliability test you are alluding to? And, if you meant WP:RS, can you state unambiguously the specific section of WP:RS that is violated?

2, what basis are you using to categorize the sources as "tangentially related to the topic"? That is, can you define, in as quantitative terms as possible, what you consider a source not tangentially related to the topic?

3, if you have already judged "many" of the sources listed by Google Books and Google Scholar, etc., as tangentially related to the topic, why do you want 4/5 of them, i.e., what purpose would that serve?

Last, what do you mean by "both categories". And, if you meant "Donald Trump" and "Cult of Personality", please note this are not 2 categories, but 2 filters to indicate the search is only for published works containing both of those terms in each and every publication.

From my concerns, hopefully you will be able to gather that I am trying to understand how your questions --and comments-- above bear significance to the dispute under discussion, namely, the admissibility of the 5 reference entries used as citations in the USA section of the article. As a matter of summary, here are the 5 cites that explain why we are in this DRN:

Click "[SHOW]" on the right to see inside ->

I added 5 cites (4 of them unique) to the 1 cite from The Chicago Tribune another editor had there already. After my addition, there were a total of 6 cites, 5 of them unique. The other editor (fierysunset) reduced them to 2. Per WP's WP:RS all 6 cites satisfy WP:RS. For reference, here are the 5 RS sourced entries (4 unique) I added and which are the root of this dispute: A Newsweek article compared the political tactics employed by Donald Trumps to those of Adolf Hitler. Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service professor Joseph Sassoon explains that "when Trump says he’s his own best adviser and has no speechwriters, 'this is really a prototype of Saddam or Qaddafi or Nasser...the wanting to control the language of their speeches.'" In his piece, Adam Garfinkle states that due to the short amount of time that Donald Trump has been president, what bears watching is not only the President himself but his movement, referring to the followers that brought him to power. In Donald Trump’s Cult of Personality, Ruth Ben-Ghiat compares Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi in their personal brand, financial clout, charisma and media strategy. Jordan Dicciccio argues that a personal jet with his own name on it, claiming “he is the only one who can fix everything”, erecting monuments (Trump World Tower, Trump Taj Majal, Trump Building) that invoke confidence in the leader depicted, imposing strict control on media and the way journalists speak about him, and denying responsibility for everything bad to befall the country and taking sole responsibility for anything good, are some of the traits that reveal the parallels between Donald Trump and a totalitarian leader working to advance his cult of personality.

I am trying to hit some common ground here and if we can eliminate those areas we all agree to (e.g., perhaps WP:V) then perhaps we can focus on those areas where we might have expressed some differences (e.g., perhaps WP:WEIGHT?, etc.).

Mercy11 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to Moderator [@Winged Blades of Godric:] -- You commented "I have strong exceptions about whether this is a reliable source.Also, what about scholarly sources?"

My heart is not set on that one citation in particular. It would had been beneficial, however, if you had said what it is that you find so strongly objectionable with The Hill. That paper is highly regarded in Washington. And, yes, as for 'scholarly sources', there is a ton of scholarly sources regarding Donald Trump's cult of personality. As for WP:WEIGHT, I think the following --partially if not wholly-- addresses that topic of our discussion head-on: Experts Do Identify at Least Two "levels", if you will, of Cults of Personality:

(1) At the top level, you have "the nefarious 20th-century individuals: Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao."

(2) At the bottom level, you have "the somewhat less gruesome ones: Franco, Perón, Tito, Ataturk, Castro, Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, and others." Then, there is a huge body of literature liking others to CoPs, including the British Monarchy, Putin, Trump & Obama - even Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln & FDR.

That said, I tend to agree with Fierysunset that Trump does not belong in the same class of CoPs as Mao or Stalin (see his edit summary), and more so now that we have cite/s for it. But let's make no mistake, tons of reliable sources exist full of statements making it clear Trump has a cult of personality.

4 Trumps Cult Sources

Donald Trump and the 'Oxygen of Publicity': Branding, Social Media, and Mass Media in the 2016 Presidential Primary Elections. (American Political Science Association Annual Meeting 2016.) Sarah Oates (Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland) and Wendy W. Moe (University of Maryland - Robert H. Smith School of Business). 25 August 2016. Post-Truth, Complicity and International Politics. Philip Conway. E-International Relations. 29 March 2017. Political philosophy suggests that Trump will either double down on his behavior or eventually give in to institutional opposition. Daniel Kato. (US Politics, Queen Mary University of London). London School of Economics US Centre’s on American Politics and Policy. 8 February 2017. How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution. Joel Pollak and Larry Schweikart, (University of Dayton). Regnery Publishing. 2017.

On the other hand, I disagree with User:NinjaRobotPirate's idea that "at least one peer-reviewed, academic source before anyone can be added to the list." While it is a noble ideal, in practice, the entire article would fall apart: there isn't currently one single peer-reviewed academic source in the entire 121 citations of the article's reference list. We need to be cognizant of the reality that improving an article in a constant work-in progress. Mercy11 (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Addendum to Reply to Moderator [@Winged Blades of Godric:] -- I see you haven't responded for some 3 or 4 days since your last post and mine. You appear to be involved with several other matters at this DRN, which perhaps might explain why. Since we haven't heard from neither [@Fierysunset:] nor [@NinjaRobotPirate:] since, I believe, for several weeks now, I am not sure if either Fierysunset or NinjaRobotPirate have any more to contribute to the discussion, and would like your opinion in that regard. Other than some general observations by NinjaRobotPirate (and regarding which I believe I have addressed them all his concerns) and the detailed opening discourse from Fierysunset (again, I believe I addressed the substance of his 2 main issues there), I think you could now identify any other matters you might want me to address so we can, hopefully, wrap this up and relieve you to your other business here. That said, can you provide your opinion on the direction now or, perhaps, even a resolution considering my most recent response (above) to the questions in your last posting? Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, what's your definition of "peer reviewed academic sources"? You appear unusually comfortable with the term, and I sense I might be thinking differently here. Can you provide a meaning in your own words (as apposed to a link) so we can be on the same wavelength. Mercy11 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FIREYSUNSET

See my comments.Winged Blades Godric 07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

So, first I will say that I have to defend Trump here, even though I would rather not. I also would like to say the users Eddediteddie and NinjaRobotPirate has first asked to remove it, and has repeatedly commented as well on the talk page about this, so you should invite them as well. This dispute has a clear answer. Donald Trump has not ever had statues built for him, songs praising him, or any sort of cult like behavior. I understand that you were clearly offended by my comparison to Mao or Stalin, so I will pull out some more figures, but less crazed. One of these figures is one that you have pulled out, Nasser. And another one is Ataturk. Both of these figures are highly revered in their respective countries and even in the region as a whole. Nasser's ideology of Arab Socialism influenced Gaddafi and Saddam. His ideas were so popular at the time of his death in 1970, that people chanted on the street (see my bio section below). Ataturk is even more so an example. Numerous public bridges in Turkey are named for him. His face is the only face printed on the Turkish lira. Statues of him are everywhere. His political legacy influences Turkey's modern CHP and the secularist ideology of it, which is gaining momentum in the face of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It is also illegal to criticize Ataturk in Turkey, which explains much of the censorship that is going on in Turkey. Trump cannot dream of this level of popularity. You clearly oppose him strongly. I am no supporter, either. I doubt many people are at this point. Nasser section from Wikipedia: Almost immediately after the procession began, mourners engulfed Nasser's coffin chanting, "There is no God but Allah, and Nasser is God's beloved… Each of us is Nasser."[274] Police unsuccessfully attempted to quell the crowds and, as a result, most of the foreign dignitaries were evacuated.[274] The final destination was the Nasr Mosque, which was afterwards renamed Abdel Nasser Mosque, where Nasser was buried.[274] Because of his ability to motivate nationalistic passions, "men, women, and children wept and wailed in the streets" after hearing of his death, according to Nutting.[269] The general Arab reaction was one of mourning, with thousands of people pouring onto the streets of major cities throughout the Arab world.[274] Over a dozen people were killed in Beirut as a result of the chaos, and in Jerusalem, roughly 75,000 Arabs marched through the Old City chanting, "Nasser will never die."[274] As a testament to his unchallenged leadership of the Arab people, following his death, the headline of the Lebanese Le Jour read, "One hundred million human beings—the Arabs—are orphans."[276] Sherif Hetata, a former political prisoner[277] and later member Nasser's ASU,[278] said that "Nasser's greatest achievement was his funeral. The world will never again see five million people crying together."[273] I would also like to include some historical sources on the talk page, as I have thoroughly looked through the page. A few years ago, back in mid-2015, a Breitbart article was included in, describing Obama as a cult leader. It provided convincing evidence as well, similar to that of your articles. It is indeed, however, biased as well. This makes it inappropriate to include due to the pure conservative sourcing, just as your articles are pure leftist sourcing. In no way would it be considered appropriate to include it. Obama had people like Jaime Fox call him "Our Lord and Savior", and numerous celebrities endorsing him and making videos of it. He was more popular as a president than Trump, and yet there is no cult section for Obama. The mainstream media loved Obama. Yet there is no section for him right here for him, because it would be biased smearing. So if you want a section calling Trump a cult, then Obama is one as well. Honestly, my solution is to just say the role of president in the US is basically a cult-like status, anyways, no matter who it is. It is not really that strong, but nonetheless, I will compromise. Another point here is the lack of counter sources. Articles from The Hill, HuffPo, etc. allege that Donald Trump has a cult following. You state that I must keep these sources while simultaneously get more from pro-Trump sources. This is just pure nonsense. This is like someone alleging that Hillary Clinton was a closet Communist party member. It is presumed to be negative until actual convincing and objective evidence is provided. Just like a presence of a Trump cult is presumed negative until you prove it. I have copied your citations one by one and will refute them: A Newsweek article compared the political tactics employed by Donald Trumps to those of Adolf Hitler.[1] - A comparison of Trump to Hitler is nothing new. A comparison of Obama to Hitler isn't anything new, either. This is just a smear campaign that has been thrown around multiple times. I could get you numerous links to both Trump and Obama being compared to him. Comparing a politician to Hitler in the US is nothing new. Heck, Obama even had an entire birther conspiracy. Link to Obama being compared: https://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/05/09/13-mind-blowing-similarities-between-hitler-and-obama-video/ Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service professor Joseph Sassoon explains that "when Trump says he’s his own best adviser and has no speechwriters, 'this is really a prototype of Saddam or Qaddafi or Nasser...the wanting to control the language of their speeches.'"[2] - Having one's own speechwriter is not a sign of demagoguery. It has long been an attempt by politicians to say speeches "from the heart". See the link from WaPost below for that. See this link and go to the fourth section https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-political-speechwriting/2016/07/22/a23ee460-4f70-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.8e3c9970bd0a In his piece, Adam Garfinkle states that due to the short amount of time that Donald Trump has been president, what bears watching is not only the President himself but his movement, referring to the followers that brought him to power.[3] - Fair enough, but Obama had some pretty brainwashed supporters as well. There were people who called him "Our Lord and Savior". In Donald Trump’s Cult of Personality, Ruth Ben-Ghiat compares Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi in their personal brand, financial clout, charisma and media strategy.[4] - This is similar to the one above. Obama has also had high charisma and media strategy. He was deemed to be the savior to all of America's problems back in 2008 by the media. "He would solve the financial crash. He would heal racial tensions. He would get the working class back to work. He would save middle America." Donald Trump is a master of using the media, but he was never loved as much as Obama could be. There is a book on this, called the Obama Nation. I'm sure you would be offended by it, as it would have a counterbias, but against Obama not Trump. Jordan Dicciccio argues that a personal jet with his own name on it, claiming “he is the only one who can fix everything”, erecting monuments (Trump World Tower, Trump Taj Majal, Trump Building) that invoke confidence in the leader depicted, imposing strict control on media and the way journalists speak about him, and denying responsibility for everything bad to befall the country and taking sole responsibility for anything good, are some of the traits that reveal the parallels between Donald Trump and a totalitarian leader working to advance his cult of personality.[5]} - Fair enough, again, but his jets, buildings, and monuments are private property. There is no Trump bridge that is right in DC or something like that. "Strict control on the media" is a lie. Donald Trump may hate the media, but he hasn't made it a crime to criticize him like it is to criticize Castro in Cuba or Ataturk in Turkey. This is just fearmongering. This is just smearing. If anything, its just nonsense trying to get views and more magazine subscriptions. The media is falling for Trump by getting him more famous. The "<insert US president name> is Hitler" campaign is old, and won't work" You also allege that I am being belligerent. This is true, because I am tired of people sticking political agendas in something that is supposed to be neutral. Can we just apply objective standards to all US presidents, regardless of bias. A third opinion is needed here, preferably from Eddediteddie or NinjaRobotPirate who have commented on this before either me or Mercy11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC) FIREYSUNSET (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPirate

I'll add a header here for my views. I think too many of the citations are to primary sources, such as editorials and newspaper columns. This is especially important when dealing with defamatory claims about living people. Like the near-meaningless political insult "fascist", accusations of fostering a cult of personality are common in the media. This is why I've suggested we require at least one peer-reviewed, academic source before anyone can be added to the list. This was rejected by at least one person involved in the current dispute, who seems to have interpreted my suggestion as a proposal to abandon verifiability. Instead, I think due weight has already been thrown out in this article, and it's heavily lopsided toward indiscriminate labeling without any care toward whether the views expressed are fringe. The current dispute relies heavily on citing WP:V, but it completely ignores WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought about responding earlier, but I figured I would just be repeating myself. I think I made my case well enough that repeating it wouldn't accomplish anything useful. I think there are too many unhelpful examples on this page, and we should prune it down to the ones that have been studied in academic sources, possibly in violation of WP:FRINGE. The best way to combat this is to use peer-reviewed academic sources. If no peer-reviewed academic sources exist to say that a politician has a cult of personality, I don't see why it would belong in an encyclopedia entry on the topic. I suppose this can be settled with an RFC on the talk page, but I was hoping to avoid getting into that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of_cults_of_personality#Can_someone_get_rid_of_the_United_States_section.3F discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not listed some of the editors who have taken part in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Checking pre-requisites:--

Suitability--CY. I am willing to moderate the dispute after the other party has filed their opening statement.Winged Blades Godric 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion on talk page Y Informed all parties N.Informed the lone co-party on behalfY

• *Meanwhile, all parties should:

N Not edit the topic in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio et al.).

N Stop all discussions at all other venues related to this dispute.

N Abstain from commenting/aspersing on contributors in their respective statements or actions anywhere.Comment here, on content instead.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for being late!Going through the contents!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Fierysunset:--
  • The section heading is summary of dispute.So most importantly, be concise.
  • I collapsed your entire section.Per avoiding original research and avoiding synthesis, there's no point discussing over whether the sources were correct/wrong in describing the Trump personality cult. You could question their reliability and bias but not the verifiability of the content published in supposedly reliable sources.Another important step would be to reshape your arguments in light of weight.
  • Pinging NinjaRobotPirate for his opinions/views.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @NinjaRobotPirate:--Thanks for your summary par excellence!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Mercy11:--I tend to agree with much of what NRP has written.How do you feel about his way to tackle the issue of eliminating entries based on fringe reporting and address concerns of due weight.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Everybody:--Please keep your own replies/comments in your own sections.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• I will be posting some questions for both the parties tomorrow.Going for a sleep!Anyway, don't confuse numbers with quality.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--@Mercy11:--Sorry for being late! Many books and scholarly sources--you pointed to fail the reliability test.Many are at best tangentially related to the topic.Can you specifically point to about 4/5 of them in both the categories?Winged Blades ^Godric 10:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--Seen.Will be replying soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--I have strong exceptions about whether this is a reliable source.Also, what about scholarly sources?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--Utterly regretful for keeping the disc. stale for over 3 days.IRL pressures meant that my editing across the span was sporadic bursts--unsuitable for involvement with DRN.I will be replying soon(today).Winged Blades ^Godric 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--I think the dispute is way too broad-scoped and consequential.It will be prob. best to launch a RFC on the topic and seek community view.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thompson submachine gun

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Bellerophon5685 on 22:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Thompson submachine gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bellerophon5685 (talk · contribs)
• Trekphiler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is the first time I have used mediation, so I might be posting this in the wrong place. This dispute has actually been over the category links in a number of articles and has been discussed extensively here.

I was creating narrower introductions by year page and created cats for weapons introduced by year. After User:Trekphiler reverted the edit for .22 Remington Automatic because it was ammunition I expanded the cats to "Weapons and ammunition introduced by year" User:Trekphiler has continued to revert the edits on the reasoning that items such as the Thomson machine gun do not count as ammunition and therefore the Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in 1919 was incorrect. I feel that any reasonable person looking at the cat and page would see that the tommy gun, and other items User:Trekphiler fell into the "weapons" part of the cat and that not every item in the cat supposed to be both a weapon AND ammunition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve this on the talk page at the Firearms project, to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify that the meaning of the wording in Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in X year is inclusive, meaning it includes BOTH weapons AND ammunition. NOT items that are both weapons AND ammunition. I feel this should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Summary of dispute by Bellerophon5685

• This dispute is not solely, or even mostly, about the Tommy gun. It is a dispute between two editors that has been going on across multiple pages. The Tommy gun was just a representative example. This is there first time I have gone to mediation, so I am not sure what the precise procedure is. From what I read on the dispure resolution page, this seemed like the most appropriate forum.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to Vol. note 1.
• It is a dispute over categories - I created several new cats under the introductions by year - typefaces and fonts by year of introduction, flags by year of introduction etc. I created the cat weapons by year and included an ammunition cartridge. User:Trekphiler reverted this because it was ammunition. I amended the name of the cat to weapons and ammunition. Trekphiler has repreated undone these cats because the articles I put the cats in, such as the Tompson machine gun, ar not ammunition and other articles, such as .22 cartridge, are not weapons. I would think it would be obvious to any reasonable viewer that the cat is meant to include both ammo and weapons and that not each item is supposed to be both. I do not think Trekphiler is harassing me, because I think he is editing in good faith, but I think he is wrong to keep on undoing these edits.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to Vol. note 2.
• I never said that. I used it as a representative example of the dispute we have been having.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to comment 1 by Trekphiler.

Summary of dispute by Trekphiler

• This didn't start with the Thompson. I find categorizing weapons & ammunition together, as if they are the same thing, absurd. Moreover, categorizing guided bombs (Fritz X) in a "weapons & ammunition" category is ridiculous. Is Tallboy "ammunition"? What, exactly, is wrong with categorizing them separately? And notice, this "joint category" was following categorizing ammunition as "weapon", which strikes me as an effort to demonize; claiming this all started with the Thompson is, at best, disingenuous. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Redacted 196.52.16.16 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"User:Trekphiler fell into the "weapons" part of the cat and that not every item in the cat supposed to be both a weapon AND ammunition." I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't presume to know what I was thinking. And if you'd bothered to pay the slightest attention to my remarks on the Firearms Project page, you'd realize it's the lumping together of two things that are in no way alike, not to mention adding things that are in no way "ammunition", into a common category, that has been, & is, what troubles me.

"Trekphiler is just here for an argument." I repeat, I'd appreciate not having presumptions of my thinking. I am frustrated by Bellerophon5685's unwillingness to address my concerns about using the same category for disparate items. I've offered numerous examples of things that, by the same reasoning, should be categorized together, but aren't & won't be. For instance, do you intend gasoline & cars to be jointly categorized, by this rationale? Why not? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thompson submachine gun 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 at a WikiProject talk page, but not at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This noticeboard is for disputes about article content. There isn't any single proper forum for a dispute between two editors that is going on across multiple pages. If there are disputes about the content of multiple articles, they can be discussed at multiple talk pages. If an editor is harassing, hounding, or bullying another editor, that is a conduct dispute that can go to WP:ANI, but not every claim of harassment, hounding, or bullying is what it is stated to be. Please state more clearly what the nature and substance of the dispute is. It might be appropriate to ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--Please do not reply to other's questions/comments irrespective of the truth-value.You are here because the usual back and forth has failed.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---- I am going through the contents of the dispute and will prob. be the moderator.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 83.54.140.34 on 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Phys.org#Edits today (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• 83.54.140.34 (talk · contribs) who has created the account Naesco (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This discussion involves edits of 3 articles: ScienceDaily, Phys.org and Eurekalert. Jytdog has placed several references to churnalism, and removed all other content, that he claimed to be SPS. Deleting all information and only leaving the churnalism statement makes these articles biased and non-neutral. He cites only blogs sites that discuss churnalism, making the whole articles opinion-based, rather than fact based. Not to mention that these are the blogs where science journalists from rivalry websites discuss influence of churnalism on science journalism (COI?)

He rejects any edits with links to WP:ABOUTSELF even if they make sense, or even with links to externals sites with whois data, traffic stats etc.

I have requested a 3O, that agreed that these articles should be written in more neutral style. Jytdog has rejected that as well. Somehow ScienceDaily has not been reverted (may be yet) - and I believe it is now written in a neutral way.

Jytdog has said and I quote here: "phys.org, sciencedaily,etc ...that useless and pernicious".Redacted by volunteer.I suggest that an independent editor reviews these articles.

Redacted by volunteer

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third opinion was requested, but ignored by jytdog

How do you think we can help?

Re-write ScienceDaily and Phys.org in neutral non-biased style. Churnalism should be mentioned, but it shouldn't be the only information. Remove churnalism claim from Eureaklert section; it is false and it is not even supported by the references.

Summary of dispute by 83.54.140.34

• I've added myself to the Users involved. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note to moderator: This dispute is between jytdog and myself. The above mentioned users haven't contributed anything valuable to the discussion. Alexbrn have only reverted the page (without contributing anything to its content) for a plain "I don't agree" reason. The Quixotic Potato did the same for a made-up reason (I explained that on the Talk page). I suspect that both have simply acted on behalf of Jytdog, so that he could not be blamed for Edit Warring. PaleoNeonate have only once commented on my Wikipediocracy reference that blamed Jytdog and Alexbrn working in tandem. Mark Marathon provided a requested 3O who backed up my point, but was ignored. This was my reasoning for not including any of these editors into the dispute. If you believe I should still include them, please let me know. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary: First of all, I apologize for the attack on the editors. These are my comments on the content. There are 3 almost identical edits (rev,rev,rev) of 3 articles referring to the same sources. If I'm obliged to tackle a lone article of phys.org in this dispute, so be it. However, in the context of the discussion, it is absolutely necessary to describe the other pages to address the "similarity" statement. My initial suggestion: make lead sentences according to WP:NPOV -- describe things the way independent reliable sources describe them, namely:

1. Eurekalert: nowhere in the secondary sources it is accused of churnalism or described as '... generating churnalism, similar to...'. Shipman describes it as press release distribution site and bulletin board for PRs, Angler as news service ... that organize news into categories. This is also supported by .
2. Science_Daily: Shipman doen't talk about churnalism on ScienceDaily. Angler describes it as press releases news service (page 44). There are sources that describe ScienceDaily as 'science news website' and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism.
3. Phys.org - Shipman describes it as large news aggregator (page 24) and science news website ... that practice churnalism .... where much of content is directly from press releases (page 42). 'Much of content' is not all of the content, which requires further clarification. This ref describes it as summarizing science findings from peer-reviewed articles, and staff written stories are reported by Livescience, Sciencemag, space.com, CNN, IEEE Spectrum (1,2),The Guardian etc (3, 4, 5, 6). Again, there are sources that describe it as 'science news website' and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism..

My IP has changes, from now on I'll comment under new user name. Naesco (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Question to moderator: is the dispute in progress already, so we can discuss the quality of each individual ref? I didn't do it in the summary of the dispute as I needed to keep it short. Otherwise, I can add it to the summary now. I just want to avoid cherry picking when some blogs are WP:RS and some are not. And shall I open separate disputes for other 2 articles or can we discuss it within this one, because the refs are the same?  Naesco (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary on refs: Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi  who is an established science journalist with the proven track record  -- she wrote for  Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. Not to mention that it is the most up-to-date ref (2017). So please no card stacking. I may agree that [8] might have a COI because they are a PR service. The same is valid for [5] and [9] -- according to WP:RS both refs have COI on 2 points out of 3 -- authors are paid by competitor websites, articles are published on the same websites (imagine a blog on Apple.com would criticize Microsoft). Ref [3] is clearly a WP:RS/SPS.

All in all, however, I am not suggesting to exclude any of these references, but instead strictly adhere to WP:NPOV guideline: ensure all majority and significant minority views ... are covered.

I want to make one thing clear: I do not want to revert back to my earlier edit, I agree that it was not properly sourced and SPS (WP:BITE). This is my suggestion for the lead sentence (in full accordance to WP:NPOV - describe things the way WP:RS describe them). It is practically a word by word quote from our most reliable and independent source [1]:

Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news website, that practices churnalism, where much of content is directly from press releases . It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines .

Can we agree on that? Naesco (talk)

• Question to the moderator: What are the exact criteria from WP:RS that ref. [7] does not meet? It is not clear from your comment, so I would like to clarify. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Summary #3: I want to address several key points of this discussion, that we can't agree on.

1. Content: press releases or something else? Obvious choice and commons sense suggests using WP:ABOUTSELF. If I simply browse through the latest headlines (yes, I'm aware of WP:NOR, I'll address it shortly), there are indeed plenty of articles adopted from press releases. But at the same time, there are stories credited to Associated Press, AFP. On top of that, there are reports, that are indeed short summaries of articles from peer-review journals. Since WP:OR is not accepted, these are references from WP:RS: Treehugger, Usatoday, The Register. They report on a stories from "AFP/AP via Phys.org". It's not difficult to find plenty of such links online. As for the staff-written reports, I've already shown in my first summary refs from CNN, livescience, sciencemag etc that quote reports from Phys.org. In addition, this one is from BBC (!) quoting a "report from science news website Phys.org". Those reports are original staff-written summaries, these are not press releases [so many respected news outlets cannot not be mistaken]. My point here is that both statements: Phys.org publishes only press releases" and "Phys.org publishes only staff written content" are incorrect. Based on all the refs here, can we agree that this statement about the content is true "Phys.org publishes press releases, news articles from various media agencies, and self-written summaries on science articles"?

2. News website or PR services? BBC and others clearly describe it as a "news website". Shipman describes it as a "science news website". I don't see any WP:RS that state the opposite. This again rises a question about WP:NPOV. It does not matter what one thinks about this subject, what WP:RS say matters. I personally think that a 'news aggregator' [1] is the most appropriate description. I understand the churnalism criticism -- it's totally relevant -- but it mostly relates to the nature of the origin of the content. However, the content itself is news. The same way The Onion is described as a "news satire organization" and The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) as "a tabloid newspaper". News journalism has many genres (blogging, analytics, opinion, citizen, etc.), and churnalism is one of the forms of journalism. So we should not mix two different concepts. Can we agree on the point that, based on all WP:RS, Phys.org's content is news and its genre is, in big part, churnalism?

3. If we are to summarize all WP:RS from above we should describe it as something like this:

Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news aggregator, that publishes press releases from research organizations, stories from news agencies, such as AP, AFP, and summaries on peer-reviewed science articles. Phys.org practices churnalism as much of its content is directly from press releases.

Alternatively, we may quote the WP:RS as is, as I proposed earlier. Anything else will not be WP:NPOV. Naesco (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:: I understand your point. Thank you for proposing a new lead, I do believe it now starts to sound more NPOV, and we're moving forward in this dispute. To fully reflect on all RS collected, I suggest slightly modifying the 2nd part of the proposed description -- I'm not sure whether any RS quotes  '... sometimes slightly edited' or describes the degree of editing:

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic British science, research and technology news aggregator website. It mostly republishes press releases and stories from news agencies, such as Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, etc. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.

Naesco (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

1. 'Science journalists writing about science journalism' - am I the only one who sees the potential COI here (the same as it was for [8])? Anyway, regarding ref [7] : it clearly says : Phys.Org is primarily a news site, but they’ve dedicated plenty of articles to debunking popular rumors.... And jytdog just proved that point: there are articles about debunking - some are from press releases, some are not. Actually his second link is republished from The Conversion - it is not a press release. These are 'debunking' stories from AP, AFP, Universe Today, Physorg own reports, etc, etc, etc. Again, that just proves my point -- there are press releases, stories from news agencies and staff written content. The ref [7] describes the site exactly as it is  -- ' primarily a news site'. And I don't think that any ref that says something positive is by definition 'promotional'. (And every ref that criticizes should be taken as a golden example. All authors describe their own opinion. Some references are clearly incorrect about describing the site. For example, they say that Phys.org only distributes press releases. But there are enough references that prove there are other content sources. So we should not blindly rely on them). Moreover, debunking or not - it has nothing to do with the proposed lead. It only distracts us from a constructive building of a good Wikipedia article about the site. Should we focus on writing a good lead?
2. Word 'British' is based on WP:ABOUTSELF: the company is registered in the Isle of Man. Last statement is from ref [10]. I don't think that talking to the authors behind the scenes and interpreting answers should be taken as an argument, it's more a psychological warfare. If it 'has zero value here' why bother and present it here? And cross examination would be beyond the scope of this dispute.

PS. OK, we all clearly understand that jytdog doesn't like the website, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. A lot of emotions about the website design are counterproductive. A person with this attitude shouldn't write a WP article in the first place. Again, let's focus on writing an NPOV article here. Naesco (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

The content is dispute is simple. The IP prefers the old version of the page (diff for Science Daily, diff at Phys.org), each of which was promotional and dominated by content sourced from these websites themselves and had unsourced content, and misrepresented what they actually do. Both lightly edit press releases and republish them and do not state clearly that what they publish are press releases. Our articles now state this clearly. As I have said before, if the IP wants to propose an independently sourced alternative I am more than open to hearing that. Such a proposal has not been forthcoming, since their first comment on this matter here: User_talk:Jytdog#Churnalism (I trust that the DR volunteers will remove comments that are not about the content itself in the OP) Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out at the article talk page, ref #8 is on the website of a company that sells PR services to biotech companies. Of course it thinks phys.org is great. Not independent by miles and miles. With regard to ref #10, Esther Ngumbi 's blog posting in Scientific American, this person is not a science journalist, but rather is a post-doc at Auburn, and the piece is naive with regard to phys.org as well as other aspects of science communication. The sources I originally brought are by well established scientist journalists. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not OK with the second sentence of the proposed content. The source is weak. Fwiw I reached out to the author and asked her to read the refs in our article, and she said she regretted what she wrote but cannot change it. I realize that has zero value here. But I do not change my opposition to using a low quality ref to support a promotional claim.

With regard to the 1st sentence, I struggle, mightlily, with referrring to phys.org as a "news site". It is not legitimate science journalism -- it is just part of the science PR machine and is not transparent about what it is doing.

Folks have said that they feel that "churnalism" is jargony. I would accept something like "phys.org is a website that republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited". Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric my apologies for not replying.

About ref #7, if "best by miles" means "most amenable to being used promotionally" then one can only agree.

That is an interesting source. The ones that I have brought are by science journalists writing about science journalism. This is from someone who characterizes himself like this: "Alan Henry is a technology enthusiast. He’s a full-time geek, a technology and lifestyle writer in one life here and now, and a technical project manager in another, a long time ago. He writes, he herds cats, he games, he writes some more. He tweets, he plurks, he spends a little time liking things on Facebook, but that’s about it. He’s severely opinionated, which explains why he writes so much. He’s also a coffee snob, a little bit of a gourmet but not too good to not visit a food truck. He likes workspace mods, desk accessories, anime, music, gadgets and gear, and bunnies.", writing on "lifehacker" in a sassy, trying-to-draw eyeballs kind of way. So that is the context.

Rather than writing from perspective of people who write about science, Henry writes from the perspective of the consumer of information, faced with a bewildering internet. In that context, I guess a press-release laden website is better than NaturalNews or Mercola. But really. This is not about science journalism, it is just another blog trying to catch eyeballs. (and yes he is good at that, which is surely why the NYT hired him for their digital strategy)

It is really hard to find good refs that actually talk about phys.org in the context of actual science journalism and reporting. I probably spent about 4 hours to find the ones I did. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but "majorly" is not good English. What is the source for them being a) British, and b) publishing summaries of articles?

Following the Lifehacker ref, I went to their site to look for "debunking" which is one thing that source says they do. (I just searched their site for "debunking".) In this first page I found two.

• Video: Should you pee on a jellyfish sting?. So what is that? A video from Youtube, with text apparently from the American Chemical Society. (one of things that is most irritating about phys.org, is that they put a link at the name where they credit the content they steal republish from, but if you click on that, you don't actually leave their website. You end up at a brief description of the organization (lifted from Wikipedia, with a link to their Wikipedia article) and a list of other content from that organization that they republished. There you get a link to the organization, but not to the actual source they were republishing. They trap you. Great webdesign for making money - really terrible for helping anyone follow the story.) You have to kick out and google it, and if you do on that one, you find the original from ACS. There is no added value, content-wise, to what phys.org did there - and they didn't actually produce that.
• Why urban legends are more powerful than ever, not really debunking, but OK maybe. Anyway, that is republished from the original. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

IP seems to want to downplay the well-sourced churnalistic nature of these sites and big up on self-sourced and/or unreliably-sourced content. Our articles should be based on decent secondary sources, so I disagree with those ambitions. I too wonder if there is a COI aspect to this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today discussion

General comments

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

Note to volunteer: there are many more than two editors involved in this, at least: me, The Quixotic Potato, PaleoNeonate and Mark Marathon. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is generally a good idea to comment on content, not the contributor. Maybe even more so for IPs who end up at WP:DRN because other people disagree with them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for the invitation to comment. I agree that my role in this dispute was only to remind the IP address editor 83.54.140.34 of WP:TINC. I have rarely read Wikipediocracy threads but I remember that the few I read did not portray a rational view of the particular scenarios involved and appeared to be rants by people who have issues with Wikipedia. I don't think it can be used to justify aspersions. It may even be best for Wikipedians to not care about it, it's preferable to discuss Wikipedia matters using on-Wiki public talk pages, noticeboards and other Wikipedia processes like this one for scrutiny. I had no initial intention to debate the content here, but I could perhaps participate by commenting on the various sources presented, if I'm invited to do it. My experience with source evaluation in this field is however limited. —PaleoNeonate - 20:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with Jytdog et al. I am too lazy to explain how Wikipedia should work to Yet Another IP With A COI (YAIWACOI). I would like to point out that I am not a fan of publishing statistics about the amount of visitors of websites on Wikipedia articles because they are often incorrect and misleading. Anyone who uses Google Analytics knows that a statement like "Website X received Y visitors in year Z" isn't useful information; you'll need a lot of other numbers to provide context (e.g. how long did they stay?). Interpreting those numbers isn't as easy as it may seem. The constant stream of ad hominems gets boring fast. Jytdog has tried to explain the situation in detail on the talkpage. On the internet republishing content made by others is a profitable business model (go ask Ray William Johnson if you do not believe me). Has the IP declared a COI? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer/moderator comments

• Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This noticeboard isn't for a dispute between an editor and one other editor only; it is for disputes about the content of an article. If the filing party isn't interested in article content, only in the conduct of User:Jytdog, they are in the wrong place. Also, it isn't constructive to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors and say that they are acting on behalf of another editor or that they have made-up reasons. Is this really one unregistered editor against the world? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -
  • Aspersions/attacks on editors have been redacted.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @IP editor:-- Can you please summarise the points of content dispute sans any reference to any editor?(In the form of:-- 1)Whether source XXX constitutes a rel. source. 2)Whether the word YYY(supported by a, b, c) can be mentioned in lead....)Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the summary (under new username). Naesco (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• • We are tackling a lone article here.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn and Mark Marathon: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Quixotic Potato and PaleoNeonate: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades ^Godric 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--Thanks to everybody for your valuable comments!Will be shortly commenting!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--I don't think LifeHacker,Howtogeek.com, blogs etc. to be constituting WP:RS and don't attach much value with other rel. sources referring to Phys.org as an evidence of it's non-churnalistic nature.Pinging Jytdog for his takes on Ref-8 and Ref-10.But the quality of the sources describing the site as churnalistic are superb!Am not commenting on websites rel. to other articles.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Yeah,you may post concise summary about the three sources I specifically opposed to, the two sources whose credibility were effectively questioned by Jytdog and about my second concern.No, first let's confine ourselves to this article only.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

responded with the second summary Naesco (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note--@Jytdog:--Thanks for your opinion!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Thanks!
• Volunteer note--
  • WP:RS states:--Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications..So, I don't wholly concur on the treatment of [3].
  • References [6] and [7] are discounted as they fail the stringency required to be a WP:RS in this regard.
  • Reference [8] is discounted for having COI links.
  • Jytdog is asked to counter(if he chooses to) the point raised by Naesco in defence of [10] and Naesco's description of [3].
  • Reference [9] is a WP:RS by miles--written by credible journalists.
  • Jytdog is asked to look at whether the compromisatory solution seems viable.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Naesco:--Basically the source is some type of collective blog and I have strong doubts about credibility of the journalist.I will be double-vetting the reliability soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The site itself is a part of Gizmodo Media Group, owned by Univision Communications, a global media company. Alan Henry is a professional writer and editor. Last years he served as an editor-in-chief of Lifehacker. He is now a senior digital strategist at The New York Times. He wrote for Ziff Davis (Extreme Tech, Geek.com, PC Mag) and Purch ( Tom’s Guide) websites. He is by miles the most reputable expert of any others represented here. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Naesco:--Geesh! I replied that w.r.t to [6].Err....Winged Blades ^Godric 17:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, ref [6] is not really applicable per rules set in this dispute, as it only discusses ScienceDaily and not Phys.org. I'm not sure how this dispute is supposed to proceed: am I allowed to comment on the latest Jytdog's arguments or should I wait for the moderator?  Naesco (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No need!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment---Heartfelt regrets for the long delay.Got stuck IRL.Will be commenting soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog and Naesco:--How about something like:--

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic science, research and technology website, that mostly republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited.

Sources to be used acc.(after each phrase or so).Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog:--Your opinion/rebuttal (if any) is sought on Naesco's assertions about Ref-7(spec. to the point-- that it's the best source by miles).Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---Well, how's about

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic British science, research and technology news aggregator website, that mostly republishes press releases. sometimes lightly edited It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.

Sources to be used acc.

• Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--Leads are hardly so complex in structure and syntax.NPOV does not warrant inclusion of minor and major viewpoints with equal weight--in the lead.
  • To reply you comment-wise:--
    • 1)I agree to an extent.But in my opinion there can exist a much better way to include the point (that they publish summaries et al) with due credence to weight.
    • 2)On some research, yeah churnalism is a form of journalism.Maybe utterly despicable but it is!
    • 3)Disagree.See afore-proposed lead.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:-Any comments?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---Lead slightly edited.I personally have objections to mentioning press-agency names etc. in lead.(Keep it short!)Winged Blades ^Godric 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Now redundant
Volunteer comment ---Barring Jytdog commenting on the advances within next 48 hours, I will be closing this as failed due to lack of intervention by a party.Winged Blades Godric 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

*Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ---Naesco---Ypu are spec. asked to counter the following arguments:--
  • 1)Counter Jytdog's rationale about Ref 7 in general.(For example, you may show certain debunking examples in the site to counter his analogy by examples.)
  • 2)Source the word British and the last statement in the afore-proposed lead exactly or near-exactly.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 97.127.112.18 on 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Amaury (talk · contribs)
• Callmemirela (talk · contribs)
• MPFitz1968 (talk · contribs)
• Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs)
• IJBall (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over whether or not the TV show "Cory in the House" should be listed in the "preceded by" box on the TV show "Raven's Home"'s page. The show "Raven's Home" is the second spin-off another show called "That's So Raven", and as such I added "Cory in the House" in the preceded box because they are all in the same show universe, and "Raven's Home" comes after "Cory in the House" chronologically. One user keeps removing it, yet has seems to have no interest in having an actual conversation about it's conclusion. They have been dismissive of my point of view, they have given conflicting statements on website rules to match their point of view, and have told me that a consensus needs to be reached, even though one has not. There have been other users who have weighed in, but overall their has not been a consensus for whether or not to list the show in the preceded by box. The user was the one who told me consensus is needed, yet their last message, was "'Kay. Whatever helps you feel better. If you refuse to let this go, I think it will just be better if we all just ignore you and not make any further responses to you.". That is not helping to reach one.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have not currently taken other steps because the user has been dismissive of having further conversation.

How do you think we can help?

Involvement from more parties, probably Wikipedia staff, would be helpful to this issue as the user involved clearly has no interest in talking about the issue. There last message flat out said they would ignore further comments from me. That is not reaching a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Amaury

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

Summary of dispute by Callmemirela

This dispute involves more than one party. To summarize this, the IP argues that Cory in the House should be included in the preceded by of the infobox of Raven's Home. CITH (mind the abbreviation, it's long) was a spin-off show of That's So Raven and occurred after the original show's airing. Raven's Home occurred after the airing of CITH. However, the dispute is about whether Raven's Home is preceded by CITH. Raven's Home does not proceed after CITH. It proceeds the original show. The show's star, Raven-Symoné, even said herself it was "That's So Raven 2" back when she announced the sequel. CITH has nothing to do with this show. I tried asking the IP let it go as more than one user has said that CITH does not proceed the sequel show. But here we are. PS: The IP did not inform the user above. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House discussion

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

• I concur with Callmemirela's summary here. There are multiple people, myself included, that oppose listing any relationship to Cory in the House, which is an independent spinoff of That's So Raven, and which has absolutely no relationship to the Raven's Home TV series. Also, please see this discussion: Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House – to say that it "hasn't been discussed" is inaccurate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Part of the problem is the interpretation of the "preceded_by" attribute in Template:Infobox television, which I brought up in the article's talk page discussion. The first part of the instructions for that state: If Show A was a predecessor of Show B, insert the name of Show A and production years. (Name in italics (linked if possible) followed by year-to-year in parentheses, e.g. That Ol' Show (1956–1957).) Very little to go on, and it can be left open to mean how the filer of this dispute is interpreting it, as being part of the franchise that started with That's So Raven. But I side with Callmemirela and IJBall on not including Cory in the House. That and Raven's Home do spin off from That's So Raven, but they don't share the same branch of a tree (analogy not my wording, and apologies to whoever I'm borrowing this from, but analogy fits well in this case). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with all the above as well. I'll say this, as IJBall mentioned, discussion did take place and consensus was that it shouldn't be included, and now this IP is unhappy that it didn't go their way and came here to try to cause trouble. Contrary to their claim, I am perfectly happy to discuss issues and wasn't dismissive from the get-go. I was only dismissive—or however you want to phrase it—once it was clear that they weren't going to drop the stick and move on; instead, they just kept going around in pointless circles. Consensus was against them and they refused to accept it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• It has nothing to do with me being unhappy or upset, and I'm not hear to cause trouble. I'm trying to have a conversation and you are being completely rude. It's your attitude throughout the whole process, and based on what others have said, it doesn't look like CLEAR consensus. There are people who said they had reservations on the issue, but didn't really care about whether or not to include it or not. Only two users have expressed clear opposition on the talk page, while I wanted it included, another did not care either way, and yet another did not give a defineite yes or not. That is not consensus. Not to mention, one user said one thing about the rules in this matter, and then you came in and changed what you thought they were to fit your narrative. That is my main problem, the clarity of the situation. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Keep discussion here to a minimum until a volunteer opens discussion. There has been discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator: Hello, I am Kostas20142, the moderator of this discussion. Will each editor please describe in one paragraph what do they believe that the issues are, after reading these rules  ? --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure why this is necessary, as this was discussed above, but here goes: the Disney Channel series That's So Raven (2003–2007), which starred Raven-Symoné as Raven, has now spawned two subsequent spinoff series: Cory in the House (2007–2008), which focused on Raven's brother and father, and Raven's Home (2017) which is more of a "sequel" than a spinoff, and which again focuses on Raven, and her best friend from That's So Raven, and their now-children. The specific issue in this case concerns whether the Preceded by parameter in the infobox at Raven's Home should include just That's So Raven, or That's So Raven AND Cory in the House. As Cory in the House is viewed as a spinoff that is "independent" of Raven's Home (as it does not concern the character of Raven at all), the consensus seems to be that Preceded by in the infobox should only include That's So Raven. Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above. If the IP's claims about this not having to do with the consensus at the aforementioned discussion by IJBall is true, then this should have never been filed to begin with as it was already resolved on the article's talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I, the filer of this dispute, do not agree that there has been a clear consensus reached. Up until I put this discussion here, they had be only one user on each side of the argument, me for the inclusion of the disputed item, and Amaury against it. While other users did come to the discussion, they did not provide definite answers or sides to the argument. IJall came in with his opinion and as far as they were considered, 2 vs 1 was automatically a consensus reached and I was told to get over it. However, my problem is still not solved in my mindset. Other users have made it clear that there is no definite rule for the "Preceded by" box on tv shows, and if there is no definite rule, there is no reason not to list "Cory in the House" in the template as all three shows fall within the same TV show universe, in my personal opinion. That is why I have asked for moderation in this debate. I am fully willing to accept the outcome even if it is not in my favor, but I do not appreciate told to get over it and "I think it will just be better if we all just ignore you and not make any further responses to you." That is no constructive to editing on this site. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator: Looking at the template documentation page, I also found a field named related for related shows, such as spinoffs. Would both parties be satisfied if we included only That's So Raven in Preceded by and added Cory in the House in related ?? --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we're aware of that parameter. The thing is, it doesn't matter what the parameter that we use is, Cory in the House has no relation whatsoever to Raven's Home. They are completely unrelated. That's So Raven and Cory in the House are related and That's So Raven and Raven's Home are related, but Cory in the House and Raven's Home have nothing to do with each other and have no relation at all. Raven's Home doesn't even have any starring cast from Cory in the House which further proves the point, but it does have two starring cast from That's So Raven. Also, the IP's claims that IJBall and myself were the only people opposed to including Cory in the House on the article's talk page are outright wrong. Callmemirela was also clearly opposed to including Cory in the House, so that's three-to-one. MPFitz1968 originally wasn't sure, but later opposed above, so that's four-to-one. Geraldo Perez is kind of our wild card as he's half opposed to it in that it didn't matter to him quite as much either way, but he did lean toward not including it. If you want to look at it this way, that's four and a half-to-one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with Amaury – switching to the Related parameter just side-steps the issue, and I agree with Amaury in that Cory in the House isn't really even "related" to Raven's Home. As I said above, they are both spinoffs of That's So Raven, but are essentially independent spinoffs of each other. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

third statement by moderator Valid arguments supporting that the shows are not related have been presented. @97.127.112.18:, do you have anything that can support the opposite? Also, would any other parties like to propose a solution to the issue?--Kostas20142 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I have assessed the discussion in talk page and I actually ser a consensus (I would like to remind to everyone though that it doesn't have to do with numbers). This means that including the show in preceded by is not a valid solution. It can only be done if a new consensus is reached. This would ideally need an RfC, but the chances of success are low. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I will admit that I did miss Callmemirela's response and it is a very short one that kind of got sandwiched in between larger responses, but that user said "this is what the box is for", even though it was stated abouve that that site rules are vague about the parameter usage and MPFitz1968 did not disagree with it, they said discussion was need. Saying that Raven's Home and Cory in the House are not related in any way is just false. As I said, they are all part of the same TV universe, and Raven, the titular character and actor in both That's So Raven and Raven's Home appears in Cory in the House. I would totally be fine with included CITH as "related", but is it even possible to feature both a related and preceded parameter in the same box? --97.127.112.18 (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

the documentation does not forbid it. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator: From what I see, the other parties are not willing to accept this solution. So, I would like all parties to describe what would they consider an acceptable outcome, and to what extent are they willing to withdraw from their initial position --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel we've been ignored. As I have said plenty of times, CITH is not related to Raven's Home. Most of us are unlikely to support adding it in the info box, so that's a no. I am not widthdrawing my statements and position. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur – note to the moderator: Cory in the House is already mentioned in the lead of Raven's Home, so it's not like it is being ignored. But Cory in the House's "connection" to Raven's Home is too tenuous to justify including it in the infobox. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

In trying to understand the uses of "preceded_by" and "related" in other TV articles in attempting to establish some precedent of their uses, I'm remembering two old series from way back when (though I definitely am old enough to remember a good part of the original runs of these series) that spun off multiple series: All in the Family and Happy Days. The Happy Days article is showing that it spun off from Love, American Style, which is showing under "related" series that actually spun off from Happy Days. Laverne & Shirley, which I believe was the most successful spin-off from Happy Days, shows under "related" in that article Mork & Mindy, another HD spinoff, though there is no actual connection between L&S and M&M as far as characters or storylines go. The same could be said about two All in the Family spinoffs: Maude and The Jeffersons - no connection (as far as I know) with the characters and storylines between those two, but related (and shown as "related" in those respective articles) because they both came from AITF. Now the "preceded_by" in Maude, The Jeffersons, and also Archie Bunker's Place all show AITF, as they were directly spun off from that show, but those three series appear in each other's article as "related". Looking at the Happy Days spinoffs, L&S, M&M and also Joanie Loves Chachi, the "preceded_by" on all three articles show both HD and Love, American Style, but the three spinoffs appear in each other's article as "related". How much all this applies to our current discussion, I'm not totally sure, nor am I questioning how the "related" parameter is used in all these articles about shows from 35 to 45 years ago, but from the precedent set in these articles, I'm inclined to believe Cory in the House should be listed as "related" to Raven's Home, and vice versa. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I would argue that the reverse is true – that the "Related" parameter is used (far!) too liberally in the articles for the various spinoffs of All in the Family, and that its use in those articles (especially) should be trimmed back – IOW, it should not be used as a 'catch-all' for every show within a so-called TV "universe". But that's a discussion for WT:TV, not here, and how that parameter is used elsewhere is basically a WP:OSE argument – the consensus at this article is pretty clearly against including Cory in the House in the infobox even with the "Related" parameter. I for one am pretty adamantly against including it, as it is a completely unrelated show in terms of story and characters... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I will not disagree about my above statement being based on WP:OSE; I had even thought about WP:SSEFAR ("Precedent in usage") over there, but even making a case based on that is quite shaky. Note when I said "I'm inclined to believe..." doesn't mean I will go against the consensus decided for Raven's Home, but it is another angle to consider. Even the instructions about the "Related" parameter at Template:Infobox television seem too vague, which is allowing what has been done for the All in the Family and Happy Days spinoffs, plus many other past TV shows which I haven't read thru yet. Certainly having a discussion at WT:TV (or thru an RfC) about the proper use of the parameter, and clear examples of proper use, will guide editors better in the future. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The above is a great example of the template being used way too liberally indeed, but this is not the case with these three shows. They are very closely tied together, and yet again I say, Cory in the House and Raven's Home are related to each other through the character of Raven herself. Raven's Home has aired all of 2 episodes, the connection should be even more obvious in the future. Personally I feel like me being ok with putting the show in "Related to" was a compromise on my part, and now the other parties are resorting to downright lying to get their way. These shows are related. Also we, this is 97.127.112.18, we had a big storm and lost power, and now when our internet was reconnect I had a new IP for some reason. --70.59.85.238 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry again, this is still me. We have storms coming through the area and every time the power went out a new IP came with, 97.127.112.18, 70.59.85.238, and now this are all the same person. --70.59.77.10 (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer regarding this whole issue when I have settled back home from vacation. Perhaps wait until the storm is over to avoid millions of IPs? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

discussion irrelevant to the case--Kostas20142 (talk)

Volunteer note - Any editor who insists on editing from IP addresses rather than creating an account (which has multiple advantages) should be aware that dispute resolution does not work very well for unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC) I don't insist on editing without registering. I live in a building where everyone has to use the same 4 computers and I wasn't able to make an account because the stupid security on the computer prevented it. It's not by choice. --70.59.77.10 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

comment by moderator I still need the input requested in my previous statement --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

International Anti-Corruption Academy

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Richard.eames on 18:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• International Anti-Corruption Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Richard.eames (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• HeadOverHeels (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi – I’ve been involved in a talk page discussion/dispute with user Jytdog regarding "independent" sourcing of content about the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA). Can the Wikipedia community help to clarify?

First of all, let me declare my COI in connection with this page – I’m the Senior Coordinator for Advocacy and Communications at IACA and have previously made direct edits to this page in my own name. I stopped doing this owing to my COI and instead proposed content on the talk page. I fully understand that a Wikipedia page is not the IACA website and I want to play a part in helping to improve it, but I’m struggling to understand what Wikipedia regards as an “independent” source.

The content I proposed is basic facts about the organization that are of public interest. All the references I used were external and supported all the proposed content. In reply, Jytdog says the following sources are not independent:

1] A press release from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), because UNODC was one of the agencies that formed IACA. However, the current page about IACA includes a press release from the UK government, which also played a role in IACA’s formation. Why is one press release independent and the other not?

2] The IACA Agreement, the organization’s founding treaty, because it’s a "primary source". Is it Wikipedia policy not to allow any primary sources as references?

3] The IACA website. But the Wikipedia pages of many other international organizations that operate in similar areas to IACA - such as UNODC and Interpol - have multiple references to their respective websites. Why the inconsistency?

I’d be grateful for any comments/clarifications here that will help build content and create a more useful page.

Thanks and best wishes, Richard

Summary of dispute by Richard.eames and other associate COI editors

• Reply to moderator:--Thanks for your note, Winged Blades. Regarding your request about which content is being cited by each source:

On the talk page I proposed the following wording to go at the start of the article:

The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders.

IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization.

IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking.

In reply, Jytdog said the first source (Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy) doesn't mention IACA. It is an index page. So here is another link on the same Ministry website that goes direct to the Ministry letter confirming that IACA is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution: https://wissenschaft.bmwfw.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Kasparovsky/EMpfehlungen/2.1.4.15a_E_BF.pdf

Jytdog said the second source (UNODC) is a press release by one of the agencies that formed the academy. This is not independent. - Winged Blades, I see you don't have strong objections to this

Jytdog said the third source - the IACA Agreement or treaty - is what we call a "primary source" and not independent.

Look forward to hearing from you, Winged Blades - many thanks. Richard.eames (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Moderator: @Jytdog has deleted the content in the lead about IACA being an international organization. But this is a fact under international law, i.e. IACA's founding treaty - and I understand from @WingedBlades that this primary source is OK to cite.

Secondly, @Jytdog added the statement that "IACA has been asked by one of its major donors, Siemens, as well as by reporters to published audited financial statements". But the Correctiv article that Jytdog cites doesn't say that Siemens has asked us to publish audited financial statements. This content is not supported by the source - please remove the reference to Siemens here.

Assuming the current lead is Jytdog's preferred version, and if @Winged Blades has no big problems with the sources I previously cited, please could the moderator suggest a way forward? Thanks, Richard.eames (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear all, I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks and won't check in here. My colleague Adrian Ciupagea will step in for me, using his own name. He's also in IACA's communications team, so let me declare his COI here (he will do the same as and when he contributes). Hope we can continue this civil discussion and improve the page. Best,Richard.eames (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just talk page discussion with Jytdog

How do you think we can help?

By providing more clarification as to what Wikipedia regards as an “independent” source.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

This article has been under a ton of promotional pressure. The OP is continuing that, and wants us to source the WP article to the website of the organization he works for (which he writes) and to use a bunch of primary sources to describe the mission of this organization, which may or may not have anything to do with what it actually does and how well it does it.

He is giving the "other stuff exists" argument, which is not compelling. I have explained that Wikipedia is full of poor content, and instead of understanding that, he is continuing with the "why the inconsistency" argument.

I have requested independent sources several times, and that request has been steadfastly ignored. This is rather surprising, as I would expect the PR rep to be able to easily cite independent reporting on his organization. But I would be very happy to flesh out the article, based on independent, secondary sources that are reliable.

The sources at hand are also confusing with regard to the "founding" date. Claims have been made in various places, including by each of the other accounts, that 2011 is the "correct" date but what that means is unclear. This organization appears to have been founded at three times in seemingly different ways (initially under a first treaty, later becoming operational, and later yet as some sort of formal "international organization".) I have asked for sources explaining this, and this too has been ignored.

The third account mentioned here, very oddly appeared and started making the same arguments that the OP has made, arguing for the exact same language and sourcing. Hm.

There is really no valid dispute here - the way forward is clear but instead of following the path laid out, the two accounts are arguing for content that promotes the school based on sources that say little about what actually has happened. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The budget was mentioned below, as something that should be citable to the organization's website. Well, this is part of the problem here. I have been debating whether to add further content to the article from the independent sources we have, but now have done so, in this diff, namely :

The News reported that the IACA posted a budget of 12.98 million euros for the 2014 financial year and a budget of 13.24 million euros for 2015; the reporter noted that the actual revenues for 2013 were 2.3 million euros and expenditures were around 2.1 million euros. The reporter asked the IACA about the six-fold increase in budget and was told that these were projected figures, expressing a fund-raising goal.

The News also reported that although the IACA had fifty member states as of early 2016, less than 20 had contributed any funds and of those, six had contributed less than 10,000 and another five had contributed between 10,000 and 30,000 euros. Austria had contributed around 3.2 million euros in total to IARC by 2015.

References

These are the kinds of issues we are dealing with here. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've further amended the article to fit what independent sources say - the lead as well as the body. Please do see this diff. The promotional pressure here is unsurprising based on what independent refs say, and as i have noted before, somewhat ironic, given the putative mission. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• just wanted to note that I did make a mistake about Siemens. Fixed it. My apologies. Also -- this doesn't seem to be going anywhere, does it? Even with all this typing the other two accounts here have not brought forth the kind of refs we use to build WP articles. Just more general primary-ish sources that are not about what IACA actually does. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, User:BU Rob13 just made a very solid set of diffs to the article. I am fine with that version. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HeadOverHeels

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

There seems to have been plenty of useful data and facts about IACA in this article until recently, where some editing conflicts seem to have taken place. It would appear that a content campaign has been fought. The current text of this article has been shrunk by an admin to three paragraphs, based on this admin's interpretation of pre-existing data in the article. This led to an article which is clearly against WP:NPOV, which contains typos, wrong data (founding year), and stating controversial facts which are partially unsupported by the reference sources. Flawed sources are in German. Although not against editing policies it makes it impossible for most readers to understand the missing support of these claims. Here they are: "unclear" unusual staff turnover stated as fact, although the source article in NEWS refers to hear-say only, moreover the referred press article makes clear that an official explanation had been provided by the organization, so it's not unclear, reference to a "revolving door" is not supported by the cited NEWS article.

Non-necessary information.And Jytdog ain't an admin.Winged Blades Godric 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Whenever an editor, with or without COI, tried to contribute to a better article, the admin, who set it up, rejects facts and data, refers to various WP policies, but does not respond to the question under dispute. Even clear typos or wrong references are not removed or rectified after multiple explanations by editors. Impression is that because admin is the author of the current three paragraphs, there seems no honest will by admin to change. There is furthermore no common understanding on the requirement of sources. International organizations, with the blessing of Wikipedia (UN_WIKIMEDIA Cooperation) are referring to their founding year, number of staff, public projects, budget, ect. without anyone requiring external sources. Because that's where the information is available. With IACA that's rejected. Even sources from other IOs who were involved with IACA, such as the UN, are not accepted. International law is ignored as primary source, although statutary law is the most authentic source available. That's currently out of balance and admin seems to prevent any progress.HeadOverHeels (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

To make this article useful there has to be space for data, facts, and also for controversy. Grateful for any help we can get on this HeadOverHeels (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades: Thanks for your volunteer-efforts. Here are sources external to IACA which could serve as references in a lead. They provide data and facts, such as IACA’s legal status (international organization, institution of postsecondary education, and some more facts).

Australian Parliament: debate and approval to ratify the IACA Agreement (International Organization):

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jsct/23august2011/report/chapter2

Austrian Government, Certificate that IACA is an international organization and institution of post-secondary education:

https://wissenschaft.bmwfw.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Kasparovsky/EMpfehlungen/2.1.4.15a_E_BF.pdf

Austrian Government-Legal Information System (depositary of the IACA Agreement) International Agreement (Treaty) on the Establishment of IACA as international organization:

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2011_III_22/COO_2026_100_2_653036.pdf

Many more links external to IACA are out there on the web.

However, my question remains why, as Jytdog explained, statutary (international) law founding an organization is an unacceptable primary source to document this organization, its mandate and function, its financing, its governance. All is herein and for international organizations, their constitution (Int. Treaty) is the most authentic if not only source to learn who they are. It's just as writing an article about a state and not looking into its constitution or legal system. Also facts, such as the number of inhabitants, size of territory, geographical particularities are normally provided by the states, who else should know these data. Why should that not be permitted to establish an informative lead about IACA, by using data from their website and from their constitution before getting into substance matters and controversial content?

With my first „ambitious“ editing attack (apologies again), I presented a very concise proposal for a lead which was immediately reverted. I do not have a problems by using any other, more extensive language such as the Richard Eames proposal from the talk page, and sourced with the IACA Agrement and the IACA Website. That is applied standard on WP for international organizations and I simply don't read it as being against WP policies on primary sources:

Original Proposal for a lead by Richard Eames was:

„The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders. IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization. IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking.“

Your opinion and advice would be really welcome. Thanks! HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Anti-Corruption_Academy#IACA_page discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, and the other parties have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Welcome to DRN.I will be the moderator!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -I will request Richard.eames to kindly mention the exact locus of the dispute.It may be on the lines of:--

  I proposed XYZ.....as the wording but Jytdog reverted it to ABC..... on the following grounds:-1).....2).....3).....

It's very difficult to answer to general queries.

• Volunteer note---As to the queries by Richard; here goes the replies:--
  • Assuming that it is this source and was intended for use in your proposed lead at the talk-page, I don't have any strong objections.
  • No comments.I was unable to determine the exact area of usage for the source.But in general, primary sources can be used in a limited number of situations.
  • Generally, it's seldom allowed.But again, usage-area matters.

Thus, it would be prudential to exactly specify the content that is being cited by each of the source.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note---@HeadOverHeels:-- Your massive-reversion was outright-problematic.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Moderator:--Thanks for helping out! Sorry! Acknowledge wrongdoing! Was new to WP and copied previous style of editing at this article. Will not repeat for the sake of a useful result. Thanks again! HeadOverHeels (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note---I have problems with the contents of the lead and the language used but I don't have any massive problems with the sources.
• Volunteer note---@Jytdog:--Can you please sketch the lead desired by you?Or is it the current-standing version?Winged Blades ^Godric 13:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note---Extremely sorry for being entirely absent for over 3 days.Expect a reply soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note---I would prefer something bordering on:--

The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an organization based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was launched in 2010 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and INTERPOLwith the stated goal of training government officials to prevent and stop government corruption especially in the developing world.

Modified after Rob's edits

Additional comments on certain aspects(use of the term-international) are forthcoming.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note---@Jytdog:--Please evaluate my proposed compromisatory lead.Primary sources are acceptable under certain rare circumstances and I don't find any major disservice to the reader if a prim. source is used to assert the founding-members.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note---@Richard.eames: and/or to whoever will be supposedly stepping up--Please disclose your COI and edit from personal accounts.Shared accounts are forbidden here.Also evaluate my proposed version of the leadWinged Blades ^Godric 13:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note---@BU Rob13:--Thanks for the edits. That was jolly good! As a side-note, does the afore-proposed lead look any better?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Winged Blades of Godric: I have no issues with the proposed lead. My attention to the article came from a venue other than this one, and I have no particular dog in the fight here. (Also, I have absolutely no clue where I'm supposed to comment; feel free to move this to an appropriate section if this isn't the right one.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note---I find the article more-or-less entirely neutral without any biases to either side.Without any of the parties raising any problems within 48 hours, I will be closing this thread.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this is Adrian Ciupagea, graphic designer working at A&C department of IACA, and I disclose my COI. I, as well, want to contribute and improve the Wikipedia page and thank you all the volunteers for your work. Sorry I have not been active in the past days but I will reply within the next two days if possible @Winged Blades of Godric? Thank you.Adrian.ciupagea (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle for Caen

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by EnigmaMcmxc on 13:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Battle for Caen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contribs)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)
• Damwiki1 (talk · contribs)
• Keith-264 (talk · contribs)
• Aber~enwiki (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two sides are involved in a prolonged discussion (most of the current talk page and several sections in the latest archive), on how to include and how best describe the various controversies surrounding the battle. Outside opinion is requested to help move the dialogue forward towards a successful outcome.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion. Previously, there was a RFC. A 3rd opinion was requested, and turned down due to there being multiple editors involved. Further development of the article, and further disagreement on the talk page on how best to deal with the issue.

How do you think we can help?

Examine the discussion, and provide an outside opinion in an effort to push the conversation towards a constructive conclusion.

Summary of dispute by Wdford

The article has come a long way since the beginning of my involvement, but as it stands it is still not neutral. Some of the events at the battle remain controversial, including a) Montgomery claimed everything went according to his plan, but actually a lot of things did not; b) Montgomery mislead his superiors about his intentions for certain aspects of the battle, which almost resulted in him being dismissed. This has been reported by several of the most reliable sources, and is even alluded to by Montgomery himself, although with much defensiveness. My position remains that we need to follow WP:NPOV, and include all the viewpoints of the reliable sources, without any editorial bias. Certain editors are flatly refusing to allow that to happen, and have actively edit-warred to keep this information out of the article. Apart from various ad hominem attacks, their "defenses" have included that this article is somehow the wrong place for this information; that including a few paragraphs on this aspect of the battle would distort the article via WP:UNDUE; that I am trying to convert the article into an "anti-Monty diatribe"; and even that I am trying to make it look like the Battle for Normandy was actually an Allied defeat. After much arguing the article has slowly included a few of the contended points, but still in a manner carefully worded to distort certain facts. Other aspects of the controversy are still not being allowed in at all. For weeks I have patiently ignored the ad hominem attacks and have responded with detailed extracts from reliable sources, but to no avail. Wdford (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

My view still remains that we should apply WP:NPOV, and thus include the viewpoints of all the reliable sources. You cannot have an article about a battle without describing the objectives of the various parties, and the extent to which these various objectives were eventually achieved. In the case of the Battle for Caen, this simple exercise is complicated by Montgomery having claimed after the battle that his actual plan had been something other than the original plan that was on record, and that he had successfully achieved his actual plan. Please note that this debate is not about the overall plan for the Invasion of Normandy, but about the plan for the Eastern/Anglo-Canadian/Caen component thereof.

The existence of this "controversy" has been acknowledged by several reliable sources, including Montgomery himself. Some sources have described the issue in various ways and levels of detail. Some sources have taken one or other side, and some sources have chosen to avoid mentioning the issue. However I have seen no source that states "there was no controversy". All I am asking for is that these viewpoints from reliable sources also be included, and I feel that the reasons thus far offered by certain editors for repeatedly reverting all mention of this aspect do not hold water. They even refuse to allow the original plan to be reported in full, because it contradicts Montgomery's later claims. WP:NPOV cannot be overruled by an editorial consensus, and any bias – real or imagined – can only be countered by adding additional balancing sources, not by deleting sources you personally disagree with. Wdford (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Damwiki1

The Article The Battle for Caen is about the series of battles that led to the capture of the city and the actual consequences of those battles. The "controversy" is about interpersonal relations between the Allied High Command revolving around Montgomery that had no actual bearing on the battle nor did it effect the way the battle was fought. In short, Monty's plan was for the Commonwealth forces to attract and pin the bulk of the German armoured divisions around Caen, while the US Army would capture Brest, and then push west into Brittany through Saint Lo and also wheel around the Commonwealth forces and drive east towards the Seine river. There is no doubt that the German army did commit the bulk of their armour against the Commonwealth forces that were pushing up against Caen, and that the US Army did not have to face these strong units while performing their part in Montgomery's plan. Wdford is trying to state that this was not Montgomery's plan and to do so he has to use authors who rely on an incredibly complex web of anecdotal evidence. Consequently, I have argued that the "controversy" needs to be explored in a separate article since the overwhelming weight of historical opinion is against what Wdford is trying to put forward. Putting in his "summary" into the article will give undue weight to a very minority position amongst historians and lead to endless edit wars as other editors will continually try to remove it, or worse, expand the article to explore it in detail until the article is no longer about the Battle for Caen but becomes an article about the "war between the generals". Another factor here is Wdford's repeated abuse of of editors, which has been ignored hitherto but it hardly inspires confidence in what he proposes. Damwiki1 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Keith-264

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

An editor took an interest in a dormant article, which attracted attention. Differences arose over the purpose of the article which led to revert frenzy and the attraction of two other editors, followed by a fifth. Four editors broadly agree what the article is for but the original editor enthusiastically promotes a point of view not shared by the others. Only the constraint of the 3rr rule now that that editor is outnumbered 4:1 is keeping the peace on the article page but the dispute has moved to the talk page. I fear that as soon as scrutiny diminishes, the minority version will reappear to the detriment of the article. Keith-264 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

My views are slightly different now, I think that WD should be barred from editing the article on grounds of nuisance, spamming and time-wasting.Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aber~enwiki

Wdford seems to be trying to create an article emphasising Montgomery's "lies" and selecting reliable sources to support this viewpoint. However much of the underlying evidence is ambiguous, and reliable sources include a wide range of interpretations. My views reflect D'Este's Eisenhower p579 The furor over Montgomery's alleged failure to carry out his intended strategy in Normandy has obscured a basic truth that warfare is not an exact science, and battles and campaigns rarely evolve as they are projected on paper.

Battle for Caen discussion

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

First statement by moderator

I will try once again to moderate this dispute. Please read the mediation ground rules. Please note that I am serious about wanting a reply in 48 hours. Please also note that the instructions to comment on content, not contributors, and to be civil and concise are critical, and are not mere suggestions. Will each editor please summarize in one paragraph what they think the issues are? I understand that there are issues about historiography of the battle, in particular the assessment of General Montgomery. Are there any issues about the battle itself> (Both are legitimate concerns.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, this noticeboard will not sanction editors, but resolution of content issues may resolve any conduct concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

@Wdford:, @Damwiki1:, @Keith-264:, @Aber~enwiki:
The overarching British plan for Normandy was to advance to Falaise and then swing left towards Argentan and finally towards the Touques River (to note, this piece of information is in many of the articles that Keith and I have edited in regards to the Normandy campaign). In doing so, the British aimed to tie down German forces and protect the American flank in order to allow the latter to breakout. Due to various factors, the British bogged down in front of Caen and engaged in a protracted battle. This gives raise to the issue at hand. My understanding is that Wdford feels that, per WP: NPOV, the article should state quite clearly that the fighting at Caen is an indicator that Montgomery's original plan had failed and he changed his "master plan". My understanding of the position taken by the others is that any discussion of plan change and the surrounding decades-long controversy about that, are better suited in another article and not here. My own position is that both sides are somewhat correct on the matter, but that any discussion should be condensed since the overall strategy and battle for Operation Overlord is not necessary on topic for this article. I provided a small compromise draft on the article talkpage, which the moderator can review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything said by EnigmaMcmxc above. However "protecting the left flank of the US First Army" was only a part of the original plan for the British Army – there was much more besides. After Montgomery bogged down he had to substantially "evolve" the original plan, and he then adopted the "tie-down" strategy. However he subsequently claimed that everything had actually gone according to plan and that "There was never at any time any intention of making the break-out from the bridgehead on the eastern flank." This claim is totally contradicted by the official records of the original plan, which was basically as per EnigmaMcmxc above – in Churchill's words "to break out eastwards toward Paris, north-eastwards towards the Seine, and westwards to capture the Brittany ports". Other sources provide even more detail, including Eisenhower. This glaring discrepancy has been remarked upon by a number of reliable sources, and I feel this controversy should be noted in this article. I fully agree that this discussion should be condensed, but not so condensed that the issue is unclear to readers. Two paragraphs should do nicely – I have offered several potential drafts on the talk page. In addition, we have a "planning" section in the article which does not properly describe the full plan as per above. This can be corrected with a few extra sentences. I also believe the article should record that, in the Operation Goodwood component of this battle, Montgomery mislead his superiors as to his intentions in order to get extra air support, and was almost sacked as a result. This is also well attested by the reliable sources, and can be addressed with a few extra sentences. Finally, some issues in the "analysis" section have been twisted and misquoted, and this also needs to be corrected. I have made various attempts to implement all of the above, but my attempts have been repeatedly reverted. Wdford (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Churchill reference "Closing the Ring", pg 524, at [1]. See also Eisenhower pg 266 at [2] and Axelrod pg 126 at [3]. Wdford (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wdford quotes Churchill: "to break out eastwards toward Paris, north-eastwards towards the Seine, and westwards to capture the Brittany ports" [it would be helpful to provide the actual title and page no.] and this is what happened in the actual campaign: The US Army broke out through in Operation Cobra, moved into Brittany and simultaneously pivoted around the Commonwealth forces and in combination with them destroyed the German Army in the Falaise Pocket, drove to the Seine and Paris while the Commonwealth forces pushed up to and across the Seine River capturing or masking the Channel Ports on the way. The victory was achieved ahead of Monty's 90 day forecast. The article on Operation Cobra doesn't discuss "the war between the generals" because it had no bearing on what actually happened. Wdford is attempting to cast the Commonwealth operations in support of the overall strategy as a defeat rather than the prelude to one of the most stunning and complete victories in the history of warfare. The political infighting between the Allied High Commanders is simply not a suitable topic for inclusion in the Battle for Caen article because it is a completely separate issue that would serve only to deflect the article away from what actually happened. If Wdford wants to create an article about the "war between the generals" he's welcome to do so but the Battle for Caen article is about the Battle for Caen not controversy in the Allied High Command.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Please be concise. The above statements are civil, but are not concise. Do not reply to other editors. That was already tried on the talk page, and just resulted in back-and-forth. Be civil and concise. Each editor should provide a one-paragraph statement as to how the article should be improved (or what should be left alone in it). If you think that there are two subjects that need improving, such as the description of the battle itself and the description of the historiography of the battle, say so, and I will allow two paragraphs. In any case, focus on how to improve the article, not on a restatement of what happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not refer to other editors, and definitely do not comment on the objectives or motives of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

There are multiple neutrality problems, which are all related. A) The article needs to mention the controversy over Montgomery subsequently claiming that the "tie-down-the-Germans" plan was the original plan all along, despite much evidence to the contrary. This issue is well attested by reliable sources. It must be concise and condensed, but still factual and understandable – two paragraphs should suffice. B) The Planning section should include the FULL original plan, as is also attested by reliable sources. A few additional sentences will suffice. C) Montgomery similarly fudged his intentions for the Goodwood component of the battle, in a microcosm of the broader controversy. This is well attested by reliable sources, it is described in the main Operation Goodwood article, and since Goodwood was an important part of the Battle for Caen, a few sentences to summarize this issue should be included here also. D) The Analysis section needs to include viewpoints of all reliable sources, as per WP:NPOV, not just "approved" authors, and it needs to report those sources accurately and neutrally. Wdford (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

It appears that User:Wdford is saying that the article should be substantially rewritten. That isn't really within the scope of this noticeboard. Do the other editors agree that User:Wdford should go ahead and rewrite the article, or do they disagree? If the other editors disagree, then one possibility is formal mediation, a process that is more appropriate to disputes that are not easily summarized. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Will each of the editors please provide a very brief statement? If you want to rewrite the article, or do not want the article rewritten, say that, rather than providing a restatement of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

The article should not be rewritten by Wdford as this is unlikely to resolve the dispute about neutrality.Aber~enwiki (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wdford DOES NOT want the article to be rewritten at all. 98% of the current material is fine. As I stated clearly above (or so I thought), Wdford wants two sentences added to the planning section (based on reliable sources), two sentences added to the Goodwood section (based on reliable sources), two paragraphs added to the analysis section (based on reliable sources), and for a portion of the existing material in the aftermath section to be corrected where it is carefully misrepresenting what the cited sources actually say. That hardly constitutes a "rewrite". Thereafter the article can develop normally, provided all editors obey WP:NPOV and there is no more gatekeeping or censorship. Wdford (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The article should not be re-written. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that a substantial rewrite is required, but agree that minor changes should be able to make all parties happy and stay within scope.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

Are the other editors agreeable to the changes described by User:Wdford? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the reference to censorship was counter-productive. Do not refer to "censorship" in order to "win" a content dispute, unless the article is actually about censorship. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

No. We would have to explore the whole topic to explain that this is a controversial minority position.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

NO. I agree with Damwiki1.Aber~enwiki (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I take the middle ground on this. I feel that the article should at least acknowledge there has/is controversy surrounding various parts (I concede that Monty almost losing his job because of the confusion over Goodwood does seem apt for this article). However, derailing to explain the whole controversy around the master plan is outside the scope of this article and needs its own.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

User:EnigmaMcmxc has proposed a middle ground. Is it agreeable to the other editors? Will Enigma1990 please elaborate on the middle ground? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

The existence of this controversy is by no means a "minority position" – some of the biggest names in the field have reported on it. However there is no need to "derail" anything – two paragraphs is enough to properly outline the controversy, with the reliable references so that interested readers can follow it up for themselves. The planning section also needs to report the full original plan - two more sentences is hardly a derailment. WP:NPOV states that the article must represent all of the significant views of the reliable sources, so these views MUST be allowed to be added. WP:NPOV also specifically states that this core principle cannot be over-ruled by editor consensus. Wdford (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Brexit#History section bias against French president|Adenauer/de Gaulle discussion

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 81.131.171.187 on 17:00, 2 August 2017 (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:Brexit#History section bias against French president (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Womblez (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the Brexit article Talk page, I expressed the concern two weeks ago that only the French President de Gaulle is blamed for preventing Britain from joining the European Economic Community (EEC) in the 1960s. In fact it is well known that the German Chancellor Adenauer was also strongly opposed to Britain joining the European club. I provided a German reference (Der Spiegel) to illustrate this well-known point. As there has been no material counterview on the Talk page for the past two weeks, I then implemented my proposed addition in the Brexit article today (2 August 2017). Immediately a user "Womblez" deleted my edit, first using the excuse that it is original research. Then he deleted it again, this time using a different excuse, equally wrong. We have now both been cautioned of edit-warring by User 331dot. This User 331dot has recommended I present the matter to Dispute Resolution. I would be grateful if Dispute Resolution could read my cited source (Der Spiegel), could reinstate my addition on Chancellor Adenauer, and give User Womblez a verbal clip about the ears, and oblige him to present his concerns on the Brexit Talk page instead of edit-warring. My suspicion is that the edit-warring user "Womblez" does not read German, and therefore his reasons for deletion do not make sense, and therefore he does not participate in the Talk page discussion. For the same reason it would be helpful if anyone taking on this Dispute Resolution has a good knowledge of reading German. Thank you. 81.131.171.187 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Contacting user 331dot for mediation and for advice. How do you think we can help? In the Brexit article, get a German-speaking editor to read my reference (Der Spiegel) and confirm I am telling the truth. Then, in the Brexit article, reinstate my addition on German Chancellor Adenauer. And finally, request User Womblez to discuss any concerns on the Talk page rather than continue edit-warring. Summary of dispute by Womblez Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Brexit#History section bias against French president|Adenauer/de Gaulle discussion discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The discussion on the article talk page was two weeks ago. Resuming that discussion would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - The unregistered editor is reminded to comment on content, not contributors. Some of their comments above are complaints about a contributor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - The unregistered editor is particularly cautioned to avoid edit-warring, because a common action on edit-warring is semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Not suitable for DRN.We don't accept disputes with zero participation by editors on talk-page irr. of whoever's fault it was.Winged Blades Godric 07:17, 3 August 2017 (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.

Neon Genesis Evangelion

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Blackgaia02 on 05:43, 3 August 2017 (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 Neon Genesis Evangelion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs) UnknownUsername480 (talk · contribs) Diogatari (talk · contribs) 151.35.129.246 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Well it's an issue about the picture represented to the article. I replaced that logo with a BluRay box cover because it needs to be updated. And also its an anime series article in particular, not a company. But suddenly someone actually reverted it and replaced it with a small, unreadable low resolution logo of the anime that even people would need glasses to read it. It's 2017, articles sometimes needs to be up to date including pictures and I removed it and put the cover back. Though three people are just too clingy over it that they keep on reverting it. I don't even like that small logo and it doesn't belong to wikipedia in the first place. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None so far, but talked to Diogatari about on refraining on reverting my reversions. How do you think we can help? It's either the low resolution logo must go and accept that sometimes header pictures needs to be updated, or just remove all pictures alltogether. Summary of dispute by UnknownUsername480 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Diogatari Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 151.35.129.246 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Neon Genesis Evangelion discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.