Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	28 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 1 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	In Progress	Randomstaplers (t)	24 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	7 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	6 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 6 hours	EncreViolette (t)	3 days, 8 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	4 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 7 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	2 hours	None	n/a	Jonathan f1 (t)	2 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 20:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Purdue University Global

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JA1776 on 21:17, 29 April 2023 (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 Purdue University Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JA1776 (talk · contribs) Ushistorygeek (talk · contribs) M.boli (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe the lead in this article includes information that is inaccurate. I also believe it gives disproportionate attention to parts of the article than would be helpful to readers. I have been working to address this for about a month through the talk page, compromise and incremental editing but one particular editor has continued to revert my edits. (In full disclosure, we probably got off on the wrong foot because I engaged in some of the same behaviors initially). Specifically, the article claims that 12.5% of Purdue Global's revenue goes to Kaplan. I have shown through citations that that only occurs in certain financial situations. I also think this is a minor point that doesn't belong in the second sentence. Moreover, Purdue Global has existed for five years and is a significantly different school than when it was a for-profit university called Kaplan. It now is a public university managed by Purdue University. That history deserves to be in the intro, but at some point it should drop lower in the lead than the first sentence. Other editors have agreed with me but the change keeps getting reverted. This matters because some people who do not like online university, have an impartial view and want to try to paint it as still being in the control of Kaplan. Both viewpoints should be in the article, but I believe the aggressive protection of the lead may be due to NPOV editing. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Purdue_University_Global#justification_for_the_continued_inclusion_lead_and_facts How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like to get some additional editors involved to provide feedback and who can help us find the right edits to tighten the lead. Purdue University Global discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has neither listed the other editors nor notified them. The filing editor should list the other editors and notify them on their talk pages within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Apologies, This has been corrected. Any advice or assistance in breaking the stalemate is appreciated. Neither of us are expert editors, so some expertise would be appreciated it. JA1776 (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) I have continued to try out different edits in an effort to find consensus but the changes continue to be reverted. I am not an expert editor and stand willing to receive correction if that's warranted but unlike with past disputes I've had on Wikipedia, this particular editor prefers to revert my changes rather than edit them and that makes it impossible to find consensus. If this is a case worthy of your time, I would appreciate the guidance and assistance finding a resolution. JA1776 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Purdue) I will try to mediate this dispute if User:Ushistorygeek agrees to moderated discussion. Please read the usual rules. Do not edit the article in question while moderated discussion is in progress. However, User:Ushistorygeek has been notified of this filing, and has not replied, and has again reverted the edits by User:JA1776. I also note that another editor has joined the discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Purdue University Global. I am adding them to the list of editors and will notify them. Participation at DRN is voluntary. If Ushistorygeek does not respond, moderated discussion will be impossible. What the next steps are for JA1776 are described in the discussion failure essay, but maybe further discussion at the article talk page might be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon. Thank you for tagging me the in comment below and leaving a comment on my talk page about this discussion. I was unaware of this discussion forum until now and I welcome the opportunity to have a third party assist in moving us forward with a resolution. Ushistorygeek (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Purdue) I am new to this process so apologies if I get something wrong but I believe I am supposed to get things started here: First, the statement that "Graham Holdings is entitled to receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue" conflicts with the wording in the rest of the article and the citations I have offered such as this one. I propose that instead, we keep it consistent with how it's described in the body of the article such as "may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met." The wording matters because to my knowledge, the conditions to pay the full 12.5% have never occurred. Second, I do not believe the current intro gives readers an adequate synopsis of what Purdue Global is today and how it's governed by Purdue. The lede summarizes the history of its creation and relationship with Kaplan but outside one or two sentences at most, it fails to go beyond that. I suggest a paragraph summarizing what Purdue Global is today and a paragraph summarizing its creation and relationship to Kaplan. Third, all this matters because there are critics of online education who want to give readers the impression that Purdue Global is nothing more than Kaplan and the story of its start. I don't object to including that viewpoint, but balance requires space for a description of what the school looks like today and for the viewpoint of those who believe Purdue has transformed the school into an effective and mainstream, public adult-education university. I have tried to make these corrections through many attempts but feel like they have mostly been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA1776 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Purdue) I will try to mediate this dispute. Please read the usual rules again. Do not edit the article in question while moderated discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I am asking each editor to state, briefly, what parts of the article they think that there is a content dispute about. That is, what paragraphs do you want changed, or what paragraphs do you want left the same that the other editor wants changed? After we determine what parts of the article are being disputed, then we can discuss what the reasons are for the dispute. If there are any questions, please ask them at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Purdue) Generally, I am not looking to delete anything, just to to reorder and expand. I propose that the first paragraph briefly and succinctly introduce the school as being a part of the Purdue University System and that it was created by the acquisition of Kaplan University in 2018. For clarity, accuracy and balance, I would move the 12.5% sentence and one of the two references to Kaplan to another paragraph. I would put the current final sentence next and expand it to make it the second paragraph. It should describe today's Purdue Global: who leads it and the types of students it serves and the types of programs it offers. This would include a reference to its law school, which is highly unique as the oldest online law school in the country. Readers should know Purdue Global is more than its creation story. The current second and third paragraphs should come next which would make them the third and fourth paragraphs. The language would describe the partnership with Kaplan, including the 12.5% from the current first paragraph but with the added detail and citation that the 12.5% isn't a guarantee. Although I think the paragraph about the law that allowed Purdue Global to be created would be better in the history section, I am willing to compromise and keep that as the final paragraph. Editing to tag User:Ushistorygeek JA1776 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Purdue) One editor has proposed to rework the article. The other editor, while making a very brief statement, has not replied. At this point I will temporarily waive the rule against editing the article, and advise the filing editor to make the changes that they have proposed. If the other editor does not disagree, I will close the case. If the other editor disagrees, we will resume discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Purdue) 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.

Vurg

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by RoyalHeritageAlb on 20:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Vurg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RoyalHeritageAlb (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• AlexBachmann (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One user i adding personal information about an individual deeds and achievments into an article about a region. The other (me) is commenting that only the information about the region should be in the article about the region not personal information about the individual doings. Is a dispute which at the moment 4 different users have commented so after posting it at Wikipedia:Third opinion an admin redirected us here.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Vurg#Lefter Talo, Talk:Vurg#Lefter_Talo

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We are discussing what belongs and doesnt belong to an article about a region. So since different users claim different opinions we need an experienced and neutral user to show us what belongs to resolve this dispute.

Summary of dispute by Khirurg

Lefter Talo was an ethnic Greek individual born in the Vurg region of Albania who was active in the communist resistance during WW2 and his place of birth is now named after him. Sources describing this have been added in the article. The only reason there even is a dispute is because RoyalHeritageAlbania is extremely bothered by the mention of Talo's Greek ethnicity, and really really doesn't want it in the article. He won't say so openly, but reading between the lines in this talkpage thread [1] and looking at his edit summaries [2], it's pretty clear what he means when he says Informations about Lefter Talo dont belong here. This despite the fact that the sources in the articles mention his ethnicity (e.g. Kofos 1973). Khirurg (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RoyalHeritageAlb

I wanted to bring up a concern regarding the content in this Wikipedia article about the region where this notable person was born. I noticed that some editors have added information about the person's personal information & achievements and deeds to this article. However, I believe that this information should be included in the person's own personal article, rather than in the article about the region. While it is important to acknowledge the person's connection to the region, it is not necessary to include every detail of their personal life in the article. Doing so could detract from the main focus of the article, which is the region itself. Additionally, the personal achievements and deeds of the person are more appropriate for their own personal article, where they can be more thoroughly and accurately discussed. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

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

Summary of dispute by AlexBachmann

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

Vurg discussion

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

Yes, I am writing to report an issue with the Vurg. I noticed that information about a notable person's (Lefter Talo) personal achievements and background ethnicity has been included in an article about the region where he was born. I believe that this information should not be included in that article and should be mentioned to the resistance leader's personal article instead.

Furthermore, EVEN IF, some information about the individual could be included, I think that there are more important factors than details about his early life just as the ethnic background. However,i think these factors as well should remain on the individual's respective article, not on the region's article. A reader interested about Lefter Talo the individual should read about him on his respective article and only informations directly linked to the region should be in the article. The resistance leader should have his own page and be mentioned as a notable person in the region. But informations ABOUT him i dont think that belongs here. Thank you! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Vurg)

I am ready to mediate this dispute. Please read the ground rules and agree that you will follow the rules. This is a contentious topic because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Be civil and concise.

It appears that one matter of dispute is whether to include material about a particular guerilla leader. Is that correct? Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Vurg)

It appears that the issue is how much the Vurg article should say about Lefter Talo. The argument for minimizing what is said about him is that anything other than a passing mention of him is off topic. It appears that there is an article about a village that is named for him, but that there isn't a biographical article about Lefter Talo, the guerilla. I am asking each editor to state, concisely, their opinion on what the Vurg article should say, and their opinion about what should be said about Lefter Talo, and in what article it should be said. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Vurg)

My proposal is that we should only mention him as a notable figure (the name) then to create an article about Lefter Talo the individual (i have also proposed to move the Village's article [Lefter Talo] into "Lefter Talo (Village)" on the tp here [3] to avoid confusion but no other editor has replied). Then to link that specific article to the Vurg page and anyone who is interested to read about his personal information such as the background and deeds in this case can simply click there. (I am absolutely not trying to erase the well known infomation just like the ethnic background which the other user claims that i am trying to do.) RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if there was a separate article for the actual Lefter Talo person, there is still not a valid reason from hiding his ethnicity from readers of the vurg article, who might not read the Lefter Talo article. There is no question that hiding this information is the other party's main goal [4] [5]. All this time wasted, walls and and walls of text (and who knows how much more), just for that. Khirurg (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You mention all this "time wasted" but you forget that the user Alexikoua was the one who added these informations Special:MobileDiff/1149363047 and while i was saying to refer to the talk page for discussing this matter Special:MobileDiff/1149375870 we both were on our 3 revert. So you stepped in to do the revert for Alexikoua probably even to bait me reverting you again and getting blocked. So if you were ready to "win" an argument based on the number of reverts and "allies" i am ready to take whatever official rules/steps wikipedia requires to solve this dispute. So stop mentioning this "time wasted". And dont make this personal. I dont have a problem for an albanian "hero of the people" to have greek ethnic background. There are hundreds of Greek National Heroes who have Albanian/Arvanitic Background. So lets stay serious and discuss your arguments as per "Why it should/n't be here" do not discuss my intentions since we are supposed to "Comment on content, not contributors". Any detail of the individual should be part of his personal article not at Vurg. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Vurg)

Discuss edits, not editors. Is there any issue about the Vurg article other than what it should say about Lefter Talo? If he is biographically notable, we should have a biographical article about him. If he is not notable, why should we mention him in the article? Will each editor please state, briefly, what information they think should be in the Vurg article about Lefter Talo, and why there should or should not be an article on Lefter Talo? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there is an article on the village named Lefter Talo. Naming a village for him seems to be evidence of his biographical notability. If two articles, for the man and the village, are in order, they can be disambiguated, with hatnotes to each other. Please comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Vurg)

I think Lefter Talo is notable enough to have its own respective article. And should be mentioned as a notable person from the area. But informations ABOUT him either important like deeds or achievements either personal details just like the background and mother language religion etc should NOT be mentioned in the Vurg article but on the personal article which will be created about him. Lets keep Vurg only about the region. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Vurg)

Is there agreement that Lefter Talo, a World War Two Resistance leader, is biographically notable and should be the subject of a biographical article? If so, is there agreement that the article on the region should only have a passing mention, linked to the biography? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Vurg)

Even if there is a separate article for the individual, I don't see why cirtually nothing about him should be mentioned in the region he was from. It just seems a very strange and strict requirement. Khirurg (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if there would be anything to mention about the individual, would be the exact role that made the individual notable. Surely way more important than background information such as mother language ethnicity or religion. But still. Everything about him should be mentioned in his respective article not at Vurg. He was well known enough to have the name mentioned as a notable person but informations ABOUT him dont belong to an article about the region where he was born. Its like writing personal informations about Eminem on the Missouri article. This isnt even the article about Lefter Talo the village (which still should be limited to informations about the village itself not the namesake). Its an article about the whole region. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Vurg)

I will ask the question again, because I think that it has been answered, but am not entirely sure. Is there agreement that we should have an article on Lefter Talo, the resistance leader? The article about the village should be disambiguated so that its name will be about the village. The reason why we should only mention the resistance leader in passing in the Vurg article is that his life is off topic with respect to the region, and would make the article a coatrack.

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Vurg)

Sure! That was my initial proposal and i agree! We should create an article about the leader. The villages name should be moved. And his personal information doesnt belong to Vurg article since its offtopic. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Vurg)

We seem to have agreement that there should be an article on the person, Lefter Talo. If so, I will put this case on hold while the article about the person is being written. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Vurg)

Sure! I already moved the village article and will do the rest very soon. Thank you! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The creation of the article for Lefter Talo the individual does not in any way mean that all information about him should be wiped from other articles in the encyclopedia. I absolutely do not agree with that. Khirurg (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Vurg)

This dispute is on hold while we are waiting for an article to be written on Lefter Talo, the resistance leader in World War Two. When that article is written, there will be no need for the article on Vurg to describe his career in detail, because a link to the biographical article will be sufficient, and further discussion will be off-topic, as discussed in the coatrack essay. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Vurg)

We seemed to have agreement that there should be an article on the person, Lefter Talo. However, the article is not being written. Unless there are any further comments, I will be closing the case shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Vurg)

Oh, so we should proceed in creating the article and making the edits right? I though we should have waited for other responses. I will contribute to it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalHeritageAlb (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (Vurg)

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement. Having a village named for a person seems to be an additional form of notability to add to what reliable sources such as historians have written. So the next step is the writing of a biographical article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yamam

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Bharel on 13:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Yamam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bharel (talk · contribs) Nableezy (talk · contribs) Iskandar323 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview According to various users, government websites are not accurate sources for listing awards given by the government. The awards are also backed by secondary sources. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Yamam#Continuous_removal_of_the_awards_section How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully reach an agreement regarding reliability of awards handed by a government. Summary of dispute by Nableezy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I did not say it was not accurate, I said government sources dont establish weight for inclusion. The other sources like Police One read like puff pieces and boosterism for some contest of little interest outside of trade magazines. I dont really see why we are at DRN rn but whatever. nableezy - 13:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Iskandar323 Government sources are primary sources for their own awards; not due weight has been established for this stuff in secondary sources, or, in other cases, actual unreliable sources such as police1.com were being used. The restoration of these undue awards was also being accompanied by the restoration of BLP violations. Altogether, the material in question was pretty guideline-deficient, hence its removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Yamam 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.

Theanine

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Zefr on 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Theanine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zefr (talk · contribs)
• Reflecktor (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Reflecktor refuses to apply the only review concerning the effect of supplemental theanine on attention and other cognitive effects, defending use of primary studies (with low subject numbers) published 11-15 years ago, and ignoring WP:MEDASSESS. At Talk:Theanine, Reflecktor has not addressed the deficiencies of the primary studies, some of which had subject numbers as low as 5.

Since 30 April, Reflecktor has reverted constructive changes in the article 7 times without engaging in talk page discussion that addresses the deficiencies of the original primary sources. Reflecktor uses edit-warring rather thn dispute resolution which was recommended. I have posted WikiProject talk page discussions (no feedback yet) at Physiology, Pharmacology, and Dietary Supplements.

Reflecktor is defending weak, outdated primary research over the most recently published 2014 systematic review specific to the topics of concern. Reflecktor claims on the theanine talk page that there is no WP:MEDASSESS, which clearly states the heirarchy for choosing reliable sources on physiological/medical content, as applies for this dispute, is a systematic review.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk discussion specifically on the problems of small-study primary sources and preferred use of a relevant systematic review as advised by WP:SCIASSESS or WP:MEDASSESS (the content is physiological in nature, so WP:MEDRS applies).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The primary studies in question for the content Reflecktor wishes to use are too weak to support the content, and are 11-15 years out of date. A 2014 systematic review including the prior primary research is available as a source, and a statement about its findings was provided in the article here and on the talk page here. Rather than using the review to revise the content, Reflecktor has repeatedly edit-warred to defend the primary research, with no explanations offered on the talk page and no attempts at dispute resolution.

Summary of dispute by Reflecktor

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

Essentially what has happened was Zefr has been edit warring to remove content he dislikes from the article for about a week. He's been very reticent to engage on the talk page and when he has he's shown no intent or evidence of intent to collaborate or compromise, instead he's serial reverting for his preferred version without consensus for his recent changes.

As I explained on the talk page here Zefr has completely misrepresented the study review he cited. So not only is he being disruptive but he's inserting content not supported by the very source he cites. The reliable peer-reviewed journals that are used to source the longstanding version of the article are from very reliable journals, are plentiful in number, and are very recent. There's no reason they can't be reported in the article. Reflecktor (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This user is purposefully misrepresenting the facts. Reviewers will see that I started the talk page discussion challenging weak, outdated, primary sources, and have detailed several objections to using primary studies rather than this systematic review. Rather than being collaborative, answering objections to the primary source challenges, and revising from the review, Reflecktor has a knee-jerk reaction to revert with a claim of "disruptive editing" or edit-warring. Reflecktor has made no attempts on noticeboards or other means of dispute resolution. For the record, the primary sources Reflecktor prefers are 11-15 years out of date, and are replaced now by a 9 year old review. Zefr (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes you started the talk page discussion but then you abandoned it for 6 days while refusing to use it, instead opting to disruptively edit without any regard for WP:CONSENSUS. For the record I've attempted to address some of your concerns by even removing sources you had a problem with as seen here.

It's also not at all clear to me why 11 years is 'outdated' but 9 years is not, that's a very arbitrary line to draw. Reflecktor (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Please show us your attempts to establish consensus on the talk page or collaborate on the only review available that summarizes the state of science on the topic? The talk discussion was opened on 30 April, and this is 10 days later, when I have detailed 6 entries concerning the issues with your text and sources. Yes, 9 years is out of date, but it is the most recent source and the only review.

You can end this dispute now by using the review to rewrite one sentence that summarizes its main findings on theanine. Zefr (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Theanine discussion

This user should remove less content less often. I don't have time to learn everything on Theanine, however I have verified some of the sources in this edit are RS.

This is a common problem. SECONDARY sources are not PRIMARY. Removing SECONDARYs based upon the objection that they are PRIMARY is strange. I think that is obvious.

There are much worse problems on Wikipedia but I do find this irritating. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This comment is unclear. Who is the user that "should remove content less often"? The purpose in this dispute is to source a systematic review as the secondary source rather than 7 primary studies. Small pilot or even randomized controlled trials with small subject numbers - as is each of the disputed sources (all having n < 50) discussed on the theanine talk page - are primary research, shown in the left pyramid of WP:MEDASSESS as inadequate unfiltered sources for medical content. Primary sources supporting vague content that is WP:UNDUE should be challenged (better if removed) until a strong encyclopedic source is provided. Zefr (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Theanine)

Please read the usual ground rules. Please pay particular attention at this time to the rule that there is to be no back-and-forth discussion, because that is just going back and forth more. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. Do User:Zefr and User:Reflecktor agree to moderated discussion, and to accept the rules? Comment on content, not contributors.

Our objective is to improve the encyclopedia. So each editor should, in addition to agreeing to the rules, state briefly what you want to change in the article, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants to change. Focus your comments on article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Theanine)

Thanks, Robert - I agree. I made this edit using the only review on the supplemental cognitive effects of theanine (by itself is of interest for the Wikipedia article): A 2014 review of human studies found that combined caffeine and L-theanine improved alertness and attention in the first 2 hours after ingestion, but when 250  mg of theanine was administered by itself, no effect on alertness was found. Reflecktor reverted that edit and has not tried to improve the content using the review.

Quoting from the review Discussion: "250 mg of L-theanine was administered in isolation, no treatment effect on alertness was reported." Also quoting: "Further data containing varying doses of L-theanine administered in isolation would be necessary to more accurately determine the differential effect of L-theanine on alertness." Among all the Discussion where theanine in isolation was evaluated, there was mention of "a moderate effect on contentment", but no other no firm conclusions to state for the general encyclopedia user. I'm open to any other editor's interpretation of that review and contribution of a clear summary statement. Zefr (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree to the rules. I want to keep the original version of the article, specifically this part 'The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy' which is sourced by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly journals. In addition to this I oppose the introduction of Zefr's content above as it misrepresents the source cited. Reflecktor (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Theanine)

Above, and in the theanine article as it stands, Reflecktor cites 7 separate primary studies to state the following effects on cognition (not including mood, which has also been investigated and is assessed separately in the review):

'The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster 1) simple reaction time, 2) task switching, 3) sustained attention, 4) faster numeric working memory reaction time, and 5) improved sentence verification accuracy'. (numbers are mine for organization)

Firstly and significantly, this is problematic for the article because the isolated effect of theanine should be the only information included in an article on theanine. Including an effect of caffeine immeasurably disguises separate knowledge of theanine properties alone. In the Conclusion section of the review, the authors state "analysis of trends in predicted values suggests that the majority of the attention-enhancing effects can be attributed to caffeine dose", i.e., theanine stimulatory effects alone on the cognitive parameters were not found.

To attempt clarification on what theanine alone does to cognitive parameters mentioned in Reflecktor's sentence, I made the following summary from the Camfield review for only the cognitive effects, providing "direct quotes" in italics from the review below. The review is not easy to read, so I invite Reflecktor and the moderator to clarify any mis-statement.

1. simple reaction time. "Since no noticeable effects on RVIP accuracy or reaction time were observed when L-theanine was administered in isolation, these findings suggest that caffeine is most likely responsible for RVIP performance improvements". RVIP = Rapid Visual Information Processing, a test of sustained attention related to working memory (defined in the review).

2. task (or attention) switching. "For L-theanine, the predicted values for effect sizes suggest that L-theanine dose has little effect on attention switching accuracy in the first hour and only marginal effects on accuracy in the second hour, with a trend toward a gradual decrease in accuracy as L-theanine dose increases."

3. sustained attention (measured by RVIP). "Since no noticeable effects on RVIP accuracy or reaction time were observed when L-theanine was administered in isolation, these findings suggest that caffeine is most likely responsible for RVIP performance improvements."

4. working memory. This parameter is included in the RVIP definition, so is the same conclusion as #3.

5. sentence verification accuracy. Not assessed in the review. Apparently, this parameter was included in Reflecktor's sentence only from a primary source, i.e., preliminary research unconfirmed by followup studies or a review, and therefore too inconclusive to include in the encyclopedia per WP:MEDASSESS.

The sentence I had written into the theanine article (reverted by Reflecktor) was "A 2014 review of human studies found that combined caffeine and L-theanine improved alertness and attention in the first 2 hours after ingestion, but when 250  mg of theanine was administered by itself, no effect on alertness was found." Based on the conclusion above to avoid content that includes the combination of caffeine and theanine, I withdraw that sentence for consideration.

A more accurate conclusion from the review and my summary above - specific for theanine by itself - suggested for input to the article under Research on supplement use is: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory." (citing the review). Zefr (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that Zefr is completely misreading the source he cites. For instance the quote 'since no noticeable effects on RVIP accuracy or reaction time were observed when L-theanine was administered in isolation, these findings suggest that caffeine is most likely responsible for RVIP performance improvements' is not a part of the systematic review conclusions, but merely a summary of one primary study. The quote in question is proceeded by "In the study by Owen et al" indicating such, anybody can read the review and confirm this for themselves. So if the problem is that primary sources are not reliable (as Zefr indicates) then it should not be stated that theanine is not responsible for this effect based upon the finding of one primary study.

Furthermore the review itself that Zefr cites seems to contradict what they are sourcing it for. It states in the conclusion that 'analysis of trends in predicted values suggests that the majority of the attention-enhancing effects can be attributed to caffeine dose'. I have italicized the phrase 'the majority' for to say the majority of the effects is caused by caffeine is not to say all the effects can be account for by caffeine. This seems to contradict Zefr's suggestion that this implies theanine in isolation does not cause these things.

It's also worth noting that the review Zefr cites states 'a small effect size was reported in the second hour in response to 200 mg of L-theanine administered alone' and that 'For L-theanine, the predicted values for effect sizes suggest that L-theanine dose has little effect on attention switching accuracy in the first hour and only marginal effects on accuracy in the second hour'. All of this indicates that although theanine has limited effects, it does indeed have an effect and that it's not just the caffeine having an effect.

So in summary the content Zefr wishes to introduce is not supported by the source they have provided. Reflecktor (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Theanine)

The above statements are long. When I say to be civil and concise, I mean to be civil and concise, not to be civil at length. So I am starting over and asking each editor to state concisely what the issues are. If there are multiple sections of the article where you disagree, provide one paragraph about each of them. At this time, do not explain why you think your version is better; just tell what you want.

So, identify each section of the article where there is a content dispute, and state in one paragraph what the disagreement is. We can discuss why later. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by Zefr (Theanine)

The existing sentence for the article's section entitled Research on supplement use, composed by Reflecktor and supported only by 7 primary sources, states: "The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy." The parameters assessed are physiological and/or psychological in nature, and therefore fall under WP:MEDRS, which states "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information", with further MEDRS guidance here.

A search of the literature shows that only one review exists, covering all the topics of the disputed sentence except "sentence verification accuracy" (unsourced). My draft statement using the review - proposed to replace the existing statement and 7 primary sources - is: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory."

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being uncivil to state objectively that - throughout the dispute discussion at Talk:Theanine and the 9 times that Reflecktor has reverted changes in the article history - this user is tenditious, WP:TE, and appears unwilling to accept a change and use the review constructively to state what experts have published. I am prepared to begin a new report at WP:ANI. Zefr (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by Reflecktor (Theanine)

In keeping with your request to 'not explain why you think your version is better; just tell what you want', I'll just state very briefly what I want. I want to keep the long-standing version of the article which states 'the combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy' with all of the accompanying peer-reviewed sources. Reflecktor (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Theanine)

It appears that the disagreement is about whether to keep the following sentence in the article or remove it:

The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy.

It also appears that the reason for the disagreement is a question about whether that sentence is supported by medically reliable sources. So my first question is whether that is the main dispute, and whether there are any other content issues. My second question is whether this is a dispute about the reliability of sources. If so, we will ask at the reliable source noticeboard whether the sourcing is sufficient. If the editors agree with my assessment of what the issues are, then I will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard and wait for their opinion. If there are any other issues, we will discuss them here.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by Zefr (Theanine)

Yes, the highlighted sentence is problematic because 1) each topic of the 5-part claim is based on outdated primary research, 2) it addresses the combination of effects by caffeine and theanine, and therefore cannot represent an effect by theanine alone, and 3) it is not consistent with the conclusions of a more recent review. Please state these factors in your question to WP:RSN. There are no other disputed content issues.

Concerning your question for RSN:

1. the dispute is not about the reliability of individual journals cited as ref 38 here, but that a thorough, subsequent review exists and does not support the claims of the disputed sentence.
2. the content of the disputed sentence is a 5-part health claim constructed from primary research; under WP:MEDPRI - "Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field." There is no MEDRS-quality review stating that theanine by itself has such effects.
3. the dispute derives from whether the 7 primary sources are medically reliable sources and whether they - as preliminary research - can support the extraordinary, 5-part health claim made in the disputed sentence; WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
4. a 2011 scientific opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (cited in the Theanine article) concluded that "a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of L-theanine from Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze (tea) and improvement of cognitive function." No review since 2011 has been published to support the disputed sentence. Zefr (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine)

Yes, the issue is the reliability of the sources of the highlighted sentence, but also about the text which Zefr wishes to replace it with and the source he is using to cite for it. The review he cites has been misinterpreted by said user. Reflecktor (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

So, with this comment by Reflecktor, we have an opening to resolve the dispute. Reflecktor acknowledges that a review exists on the topic, and that my proposed sentence can be revised. The proposed sentence is: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory."

Robert McClenon: let's take advantage of the opportunity and work with Reflecktor to state the facts from the review concerning the isolated effect of theanine on reaction time, alertness, attention, and memory. Zefr (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Theanine)

I will ask at least one more time. Is the article content issue about the sentence quoted above? Now I am confused about the sourcing of that sentence. Can someone explain to me? The sentence has a footnote that appears to be number 38, which in turn refers to footnotes 31 through 37. Is a source combining the analysis of the seven sources, which is secondary sourcing, which is good? Or are we combining the analysis of the seven sources, which is synthesis having the nature of original research? I will ask each editor to explain again, in one paragraph, why the questioned sentence should stay in the article, or why the questioned sentence should be removed.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by Zefr (Theanine)

Use of the 7 separate primary sources to support the disputed sentence is conspicuous WP:SYNTH by the editor who put it there. Take the view of a common, non-science, tea-drinking user of Wikipedia reading that sentence and being led to a list of 7 individual primary research sources, each of which refers to the combined effects of theanine and caffeine. What would she derive from that information concerning an individual effect of theanine and list of sources, which would all have to be read in an attempt to understand content-sources? That is unencyclopedic. That is why we require a MEDRS-quality review to summarize for the reader what the best primary sources say.

The best and only review we have provides analyses which lead to the conclusion "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory." Zefr (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine)

Robert, I wouldn't at all agree that "there is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory". The evidence that Zefr provides for his proposal to introduce this is a systematic review which does not state this, Zefr has completely misinterpreted the content of the source, as no such statement is found there. As such this proposed introduction is a case of WP:OR. Reflecktor (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Theanine)

It appears that User:Zefr and I posted at the same time, a quasi-edit-conflict. Can we agree that: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory."? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Theanine)

We should be careful that any statements about caffeine and theanine are attributed to medically reliable sources that refer to caffeine and theanine. We should be careful that any statements about theanine without caffeine are attributed to medically reliable sources that refer to theanine. Now I am asking User:Zefr and User:Reflecktor to discuss, back-and-forth, how to word a statement that they can agree on. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion between editors (Theanine)

A compromise solution is to eliminate the disputed sentence and its 7 primary sources altogether, as I recommended with this edit on 29 April. We do not need to replace it with anything. Just leave it blank.

Let's make this easy for the common Wikipedia user looking for information on the possible effects of theanine alone: the Theanine article section on Research on supplement use would state this only, as it exists now: "A 2020 systematic review concluded that L-theanine supplementation between 200 and 400 mg per day may help reduce stress and anxiety in people with acute stress, but there was insufficient evidence for treatment of chronic stress." - cited to PMID 31758301. That is a review source that focused on the effects of theanine alone, and came to a succinct conclusion.

In the absence of any effort by the opposing editor to compose or revise a summary sentence using the Camfield review, it may be best to just use the statement by itself from the 2020 review. Zefr (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is primary sources then these can be replaced by systematic reviews like this one which states "After reviewing the studies, we found the combination shows favorable clinical significance in the domains of attention, memory, cognition, and hyperactivity. Overall, we conclude that the combination of L-theanine and caffeine is likely a safe and effective cognitive enhancer". Reflecktor (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The journal Cureus is not MEDLINE-indexed, which makes it ineligible as a WP:MEDRS source and may be predatory. I stated this in an edit summary on 29 April and in the talk page discussion on 30 April.

A search in PubMed for review articles on theanine yields this list showing that most of the reviews are not specific to theanine, are not published in rigorous medical journals, or are published in dubious journals suspected of predatory practices, which make them unusable for Wikipedia content.

The issue from the beginning of this dispute is a sentence making a 5-part health claim based on primary sources, so we are at the right place now that you acknowledge a review is needed to represent any claim about theanine having an effect on psychological or physiological properties. As no high-quality review exists to support such a claim, I recommend that the sentence with the primary content and its 7 sources be deleted, and that this dispute discussion now be closed. Zefr (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted WP:MEDRS, which states "Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE". In other words not being MEDLINE-indexed does not make it unreliable, it merely hints that it could perhaps be unreliable.

I offered a systematic review to replace the present peer-reviewed journals as a compromise, as I previously specified. Please do not twist that to say that I've said that the present peer-reviewed journals sourcing the content are not reliable. They very much are, and there is no Wikipedia policy that says they are not.

Furthermore, I find it concerning that you're so intent on ending this dispute resolution when the discussion has hardly even begun. Reflecktor (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia medical community does not use sources that are not MEDLINE-indexed like Cureus because there are questions about the quality of editorial review and the potential for predatory practices where the authors pay for publication, making it ineligible for MEDLINE indexing.

This is represented on WP:CITEWATCH where Cureus is listed as #26 - see the introductory Disclaimer comments about why CITEWATCH journals are dubious. Such sources are clearly ineligible for Wikipedia's medical content.

Because 1) the issue is settled that primary sources representing very preliminary research cannot be used for medical content, 2) there is no more thorough assessment than the negative 2011 EFSA scientific review, and 3) Reflecktor has no quality review source to support the statement concerning the unconfirmed supposition of theanine's effects, the sentence with the primary content and its 7 sources should be deleted.

Robert McClenon: can you agree that this dispute discussion is now closed? Zefr (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia medical community does not use sources that are not MEDLINE-indexed" The wikipolicy WP:MEDRS indicates otherwise, as cited above. Using WP:CITEWATCH as a justification for this is an improper reading of the it. WP:CITEWATCH itself states "This list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them..... these can still be reliable (or be otherwise acceptable) in limited circumstances" so to use CITEWATCH as a rationale to oppose a source is to misunderstand it.

"Because 1) the issue is settled that primary sources representing very preliminary research cannot be used for medical content" I have no idea where you got the notion that this has been 'settled' given that I have certainly not agreed with this idea and the idea has not even been discussed in any detail during this dispute resolution. It would be very premature to close this given that there has been practically zero discussion of it.

"there is no more thorough assessment than the negative 2011 EFSA scientific review" The EFSA 'review' (if you can even call it that) is 12 years old and examines a measly three sources, this would be very weak grounds to cite something on, especially considering the abundance of reliable sources which disagree with this conclusion by one party based on an outdated analysis of 3 outdated sources. Not only that but it examines theanine in isolation, not theanine combined with caffeine. Reflecktor (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Theanine)

We tried back-and-forth discussion, and it did not make any progress. So we will resume the question-and-answer mode. There has been edit-warring. I will ask you to read the usual rules one more time. What part of the instruction not to edit the article, which was rule A4, didn't you understand? Also, do not forum shop, and canvassing for support from other editors is either forum shopping or canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to fail this dispute resolution. You don't want me to fail this dispute resolution either, because a common result of a failed dispute resolution is that it is reported at WP:ANI, and then the editors who caused the dispute resolution to fail are topic-banned. So don't make me fail this dispute.

I will be inviting editors who have commented on or edited the article to take part in this discussion. It appears that the main issue has to do with the medical reliability of sources. Will each editor please list all of the sources that they have any questions about. We will then request opinions from the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Also, will each editor please state what they want the disputed portion of the article to say. Once again, do not provide reasons for what you want, except for questions about the reliability of sources, which we will deal with separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statements by Zefr (Theanine)

Please proceed with RSN as extensively discussed from the start of this DR, specifically in my statement 4. The disputed sentence and its 7 primary sources should be deleted, as was done today by a neutral editor (reverted again).

I have not been part of edit-warring or canvassing on the content of the disputed sentence. My recent edits made at the theanine article were not about this disputed content, but were made to eliminate poorly-sourced misinformation on a different topic. Zefr (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Rock in Rio

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Mortyman on 17:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rock in Rio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mortyman (talk · contribs)
• JimboB (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have sadly been in dispute with user JimboB for several years now regarding this issue and JimboB seems to be hell bent on not accepting any sources that disagrees with his views. The commentary has become unfriendly and totally unacceptable.

In 1991 A-ha played for a record crowd of 198.000 people at Rock in Rio festival. This is a well known and accepted fact around the world, except perhaps in the US, where A-ha has not been much in media since the mid 80s. I have over several years now provided several links to sources that substantiate this, including the official Rock in Rio site. However JimboB has never accepted this and keeps on reverting the info, claiming that the sources are not good enough, even thoguh it's the official Rock in Rio website and also the biggest newspaper/Tv channel in Brazil, namely Globo Brazil.

JimboB has provided newspaper clippings that mention a very different number from the day, however this is no doubt info that is from the start of the concert / day.

JimboB has had some rather unplasent comments that I find problematic, such as: "Stop being childish. Journalistic sources will always take precedence over promotional fluff, especially promotional fluff misguided by years of preposterous inflated numbers being pushed by fans like you. I will always delete your numbers because they are FALSE"

Just some sources:

• Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page) https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/

• https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

• https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg (Scan of Guinnes Book world of records)

• https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html (Article from Rock in rio 2015 where A-ha's record in 1991 is mentioned)

• https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/?fbclid=IwAR06U4E_ru7Ilz2WMOXyOdX0PCTedY0gjoLBHiENtrQyKKfRDw3fpZxPAYg

• British newspaper clipping: A-ha beats Macca and Guns N roses https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpg

• Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium

Recently Jimbo B has reverted the number 198.000 to 100.000 to now no number at all and removed all my sources from article.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rock_in_Rio

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe that the official Rock in Rio site and their mention of A-ha should be accepted as proof of the 198.000 number. As I have tried to convey to Jimbo B, Why would the official Rock in Rio website credit A-ha with the 198.000,a Norwegian band of all things and not a local band or lets say Paul McCartney or Guns N'Roses, if it was not true?

Summary of dispute by JimboB

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

First, I have requested earlier today a third party view on this. I am bringing this to moderators' attention. Timelogs should prove this. Mortyman is merely taking my lead.

Second, my sources, which I have repeatedly added to the article, are clippings from O Globo and Jornal do Brasil, two of the main newspapers of Brazil back when this concert took place, which, in conjunction, make my case clear. These are first-hand sources, taken from officials by reporters at the festival's site, during their coverage of the event (not numbers inflated by hearsay after the fact).

As for Mortyman's sources, over the years they have come primarily from a-ha fan sites, even when later echoed by hurried third hand reporting or by the event's website for promotional purposes.

For years now, fan clubs have tried and for a while succeeded in promoting this narrative, even with Guinness which no longer publishes those numbers - which are inexact, anyway, since whatever number of people were there, they were there for a festival with plenty of acts, not a single act.

No numbers of concert attendance can be more accurate than those collected in site by independent reporting. My two clippings say clearly 100.000 for a-ha, not 198.000 (Maracanã possibly didn't even hold as many people).

As for "unfriendly", "unpleasant" comments, one does get flustered after ten years of trying to stop misinformation.

Thanks.

P.S. I suggest you take a look at Mortyman's history of edits regarding a-ha in other pages as well.

Rock in Rio discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio)

Are User:Mortyman and User:JimboB ready for moderated discussion? Please read the rules, and, in your reply, state that you agree to the rules. If so, please state concisely what part of the article you want changed (or what part of the article you want left the same and the other person wants changed). It is not necessary at this time to tell why you want it changed or left the same. We can get to that later. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

i wish to keep the headline in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_in_Rio#Rock_in_Rio_2_(1991) as is, for I consider the current version the correct one and the sources presented the most accurate, for reasons stated above. Thank you. JimboB (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Please sign your statements by putting four tildes, ~~~~, at the end of your post. This provides information to both humans and bots. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User JimboB has for about 8 years now kept reverting A-ha's 198.000 uadience number at the Rock in Rio concert even thoguh official Rock min Rio website states this numberto be correct. The number from the Rock in Rio site should be the one used in my opinion. Yes I am and agree to rules Mortyman (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Rock in Rio)

It appears that the content disagreement is about a statement that, in 1991, A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000 people. Is that the only article content issue?

If that is an issue, regardless of whether it is the only one, I would like each editor to state in one paragraph why the statement should be made, or why it should not be made. Also, if different reliable sources are making different reports about the crowd for that performance, should the encyclopedia report both viewpoints, with attribution? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio)

The Rock in Rio own websites states that A-ha played for 198.000 people. Why would the official site say that if it was not true. Why A-ha, a Norwegain band of all things and not a Brasilian band or Guns N Roses or Paul McCartney or someone else ?.

As already mentioned: Just some sources:

Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page) https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/

https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg (Scan of Guinnes Book world of records)

https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html (Article from Rock in rio 2015 where A-ha's record in 1991 is mentioned)

https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/?fbclid=IwAR06U4E_ru7Ilz2WMOXyOdX0PCTedY0gjoLBHiENtrQyKKfRDw3fpZxPAYg

British newspaper clipping: A-ha beats Macca and Guns N roses https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpg Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium

I believe the official Rock in Rio website number should be used, as there is no reason to doubt them.

The Maracana stadium back then in 1991 was capable of an audience of over 200.000. Today it could not accept such an audience as the stadium sat derelict for many years and with the newly refurbishment, the audience number has been reduced.

Mortyman (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio)

It is the only point of contention among us, yes.

The sources I added to the article, currently in place (historical clippings in Portuguese from O Globo and Jornal do Brasil, reputed newspapers with their own pages on Wikipedia), were collected by reporters in site while covering the actual event. Those numbers, the same ones I remember from back in the day, show that not only the January 26th night, headlined by a-ha, didn't attract 198.000 people, but it wasn't even the biggest crowd in the whole event (that would have been over 100.000 people, on January 20th, a Guns n' Roses headlined night). The inflated a-ha numbers, a urban legend initiated by fans, have gained traction on the internet over time and went on to be echoed by websites, even the festival's own, in poorly fact-checked pieces, done naively or with promotional purposes in mind. For a while, even the Guinness Book of Records jumped on the bandwagon, which seemed to give credence to it (it was apparently listed as "biggest crowd gathered by a single artist", which is inexact regardless of the actual numbers, since Rock in Rio is a big music festival and other six acts performed on the same night)). I argue that no attendance numbers can be more accurate than those collected from the press directly from officials on performance's night. The 198.000 claim is a huge exaggeration, concocted by fans of a particular act to promote it (arguably Maracanã didn't even hold as many people, although this would be a separate discussion). JimboB (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Rock in Rio)

It appears that the issue is a contested claim that 198,000 people heard A-ha perform. If so, the reasonable compromise is to state that as a disputed claim, with sources supporting the claim, and optionally sources disputing the claim. Can we agree that the compromise is to state that some sources have said that A-ha played for an audience of 198,000? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio)

I believe - in fact, being from Rio and having actually been at the 1991 Rock in Rio, I KNOW - the sources that support the claim are not reliable on this matter (not to mention ludicrous claims like "Maracanã having sat derelict for many years", which Mortyman just came up with and has no factual basis whatsoever as the lead section of the Maracanã article itself will prove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maracan%C3%A3_Stadium). As silly as this point of contention may be, I believe the solidity of first-hand sources should prevail and that Wikipedia should be kept free of fan fluff. I insist: numbers delivered directly from organizers and/or city officials to the press on performance's day are neutral and reliable. Inflated claims whose origin is blurry, even if later echoed by journalistic sources deceived by propaganda, are not. JimboB (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nyovuu on 21:23, 12 May 2023 (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 Arvind Kejriwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kridha (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Checkout discussion related to removal of criticism and controversies section:discussion#Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023 @Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians. He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like Public image of Narendra Modi, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha edit 1 - in which you removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022 edit 2 - in which you removed on 6 September 2022 edit 3 - in which you removed on 16 September 2022 edit 4 - in which you removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023 edit 5 - in which you remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023 edit 6 - in this you remove edit 7 in which you remove Request Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arvind_Kejriwal#Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023 Discussion related to Criticism/Controversy section Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Whole criticism section shouldn't be removed.controversy with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Summary of dispute by User:Kridha Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Arvind Kejriwal discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note = The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I have done this,Thanks for letting me know 👍 Nyovuu (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor is strongly advised to register an account. There are myths about how unregistered editing improves privacy, but they are myths. Pseudonymous editing improves privacy by hiding your IP address. 16:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - User:Kridha hasn't edited in more than three days, since before they were notified of this filing. This case will be closed for lack of response if they do not reply that they are willing to take part in moderated discussion, and an editor who isn't editing can't take part in discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) So can i request to undo his edit of removing section. He isn't replying in consensus. Nyovuu (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2023 (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.