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
White Zimbabweans	Closed	Katangais (t)	12 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 22 hours
Bernese Mountain Dog	Closed	Traumnovelle (t)	12 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 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 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Re'im music festival massacre

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by AntiDionysius on 22:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Re'im music festival massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• בר (talk · contribs)
• AntiDionysius (talk · contribs)
• Yr Enw (talk · contribs)
• דוב (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is ongoing dispute about whether to use the noun "terrorist", in place of "militant", to refer in-article to those who perpetrated the massacre in question, and members of Hamas in general. (The debate hasn't really been about the description of the act itself. There appears to be consensus about the title of the article, and no one has objected to its short description, "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" to my knowledge).

I think it would be fair to say the discussion is now just going in circles. It mainly concerns the applicability of the MOS:TERRORIST policy; should the word "terrorist(s)" be used only with in-text attribution, as the policy would appear to say, or should it be used in Wikispeak. I am on the former side of the issue, but obviously there is significant disagreement.

A similar (but perhaps not identical?) issue has also been discussed on the page for the conflict in general: (nb: the formatting of the heading of the discussion section is such that it cannot be linked directly to)

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

Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#USA, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan & many more, identify Hamas as a terror organisation.

Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Are Hamas soldiers terrorists?

Talk:Re'im_music_festival_massacre#Terrorist_attack

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The page is under a contentious topic restriction, meaning the 1RR is in place; there have been a number of unilateral impositions of one or other wording, and several reverts (some of which may have violated the 1RR). Some outside input, regardless of what it involved, might help to discourage that. I am not hopeful that participants in this dispute can be mediated towards seeing eye-to-eye, so advice from DR volunteers on how best to proceed would be appreciated.

Summary of dispute by BAR

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this massacre is a terrorist attack. Murder of hundreds of unarmed civilians; hostage crisis; Kidnapping and taking captive of dozens of innocent people; Sexual abuse and humiliation of bodies, the display in the streets of Gaza and on Telegram.This is exactly the definition of terrorism. No less than Nine-Eleven. All they want is to sow fear in the hearts of the citizens. If it is not terrorism, there is simply no such thing as terrorism. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yr Enw

My problem isn't with whether or not the actions fit a definition of terrorism, but that there is no possible application of the term in Wikivoice that will ensure WP:NPOV can be maintained. The social sciences have recognised for a long time "terror", "terrorism" and "terrorist" are biased, loaded labels (can source is req'd) and so it would then have to be applied to articles on Israeli reprisals, etc. It is far too broad a term to be of utility (esp if the lead definition on Terrorism is applied) and is not used in leads for (for eg) Omagh bombing, Deir Yassin massacre or the 1996 Manchester bombing. I do, nonetheless, recognise multiple sources have used the term and have no objection to including "X, Y and Z condemned the massacre as terrorism" or suchlike. This does, however, seem to have consequences for wikivoice on articles like September 11 attacks and the Jaffa Road bus bombings. But we are not losing anything by using other words or caveating the term with "X condemned Y as terrorism". Yr Enw (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by דוב

According to MOS:TERRORIST Value-laden labels should be avoided, this of course makes much sense to avoid biased writing. The manual althorugh, follows by "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", an example for which can be seen in September 11 attacks, where the term 'terrorist' has been used to describe the attack. There are over dozens of sources, which are offical statements of countries across the world who described the attack as a terror attack (over 80 countries) and considered Hamas as a terrorist organization, including the Europion Union. Calling it a 'militant group' isn't the right term, most of the militaries across the world don't behead babies, kidnapp civilians or massacare a music festival. If needed I can back up any of the claims with various overlapping reliable sources. דוב (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alalch E.

Editors want to include a mention of terrorism in the article, but seem unable to do it properly, and are unable to distinguish between Hamas being called a terrorist organization, Palestinian militants being called terrorists, and the event being called a terrorist attack. For the concerned article, which is about the massacre, the only truly important question is the last one. It's possible to say that it was a terrorist attack somewhere in the body, with some form of in-text attribution. Of course we don't have to say that every Palestinian militant is a terrorist. I significantly disagree with User:AntiDionysius' argument on the talk page: Special:Diff/1179573519. It's an argument against the notion of terrorism. But terrorism exists. It's studied in social sciences. For example, as topic within criminology. The word is not just a pejorative label. We have the article Definition of terrorism. This event was a terrorist attack.

A smattering of sources
References

The sources aren't calling the massacre a terrorist attack to make the perpetrators look worse, they are either using the word to describe what happened, in a fairly natural, non-emphasized way, or are explaining why it's terrorism and what the implications of that are.—Alalch E. 04:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Re'im music festival massacre discussion

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Re'im massacre)

I am ready to moderate. Please read DRN Rule E and state that you agree to the rules. The article may still be expanding, because the massacre occurred only a few days ago, so editors will be allowed to expand the article, but not to make any other changes, and not to revert any edits by other editors. The topic is a contentious topic because it has to do with Palestine-Israeli conflict. If you agree to these rules, you are acknowledging that contentious topic sanctions apply to disruptive editing. So do not be disruptive. Be civil and concise. Is the only issue whether to refer to the massacre as a "terrorist" attack in the lede sentence? If not, what are the other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Re'im massacre)

• Rule E is fine by me, and I agree to it. Regarding the bounds of the dispute: it is about whether the word "militants" (particularly in the first sentence of the article, but also elsewhere) should be replaced with "terrorists", without in-text attribution. I would describe myself as basically fine with the article as it is; it has the short description "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" and is in the category "Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups", but uses the noun "militants" when referring to people/groups in Wikispeak (but says "terrorists" once in the context of an attributed quote). I believe that some others would prefer the article be changed, maybe along the lines of this revision. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I read Rule E, and I agree to it. I agree with AntiDionysius's proposal. דוב (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Read and agree Rule E. I think my issue is ultimately wider, about WP:TERRORIST in general. So if that’s outside the scope of DR, I agree with AntiDionysius’s proposal. I note the article has been revised since their post Yr Enw (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Re'im)

I will repeat a few of the rules in DRN Rule E. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts often do not convey information. Sometimes they convey mood, such as that the poster is angry, but the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Do not reply to the posts of other editors. There is a section for back-and-forth discussion, but address your statements to the moderator and the community.

Will each editor please state what parts of the article they want changed? You do not need to say why you want the change. We can discuss that later. Please summarize concisely what you want change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Re'im)

My suggested changes are the following: Using the word 'terror attack' to describe the event similar to the articles Munich massacre and September 11 attacks, and usage of the word 'terrorists' instead of 'militants'. Regarding civil hostages, referring to it as "kidnaping" and not "capturing". dov (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is not using the term "terror attack" and to retain "militant(s)" over "terrorist(s)". I have no opinion on kidnapping/capturing. Yr Enw (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is to retain "militant(s)" over "terrorist(s)". --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Re'im)

It appears that there are three specific issues. The next step is to verify whether those are the only three issues, and to identify exactly what parts of the article are in question.

• 1. Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as 'militants' or 'terrorists'?
  • The term 'militants' appears in multiple places in the article. Does the question apply to all of the references?

• 2. Should the term 'terror attack' be used?
  • Does this involve the short description? Where else does this question apply to?

• 3. Should the taking of the civilian hostages be referred to as 'capture' or 'kidnapping'?
  • Where in the article are the references that are in question?

Are we in agreement that those are the issues, or are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss the reasons for these preferences at this time, because we will discuss the reasons in the near future. At this point, we are still focusing on identifying the scope of the content disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that those are the issues. dov (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think those are the issues. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Re'im)

Now that we have agreed on what the issues are, I will again ask the questions that are under points 1 through 3. Please provide a short answer to each numbered question. Please also answer the questions under the numbered question, which are mostly about where in the article the issue applies to. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1. Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as 'militants' or 'terrorists'?
  • The term 'militants' appears in multiple places in the article. Does the question apply to all of the references?

• 2. Should the term 'terror attack' be used?
  • Does this involve the short description? Where else does this question apply to?

• 3. Should the taking of the civilian hostages be referred to as 'capture' or 'kidnapping'?
  • Where in the article are the references that are in question?

Please provide short answers to the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Re'im)

• 1. Militants. Applying to all references in Wikivoice. Not applying to quotations.

• 2. No, except in reference to sources who have used that description.

• 3. No opinion.

Yr Enw (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1. terrorists - should be changed in all the references. Specifically in the opening paragraph.
• 2. Yes - like in similiar articles.
• 3. kidnapping.

dov (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Jennifer Connelly

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Thedarkknightli on 06:03, 14 October 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 Jennifer Connelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Thedarkknightli (talk · contribs) Dr. Simon Hurt (talk · contribs) Timceharris (talk · contribs) GDuwen (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Should we include Connelly in Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of Jewish descent? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jennifer Connelly#Categories, User talk:Thedarkknightli#Category removal How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Consensus on this is needed. Perhaps we should expand WP:ETHNICRACECAT. Summary of dispute by Dr. Simon Hurt Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Timceharris Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GDuwen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jennifer Connelly 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.

Hickory Wind‎

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by ThaddeusSholto on 15:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hickory Wind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs)
• Eldanger25 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article has a subsection entitled authorship controversy which details an article written on folklinks.com dating to 2002 which claims one "Sylvia Sammons" actually authored the song. Now this whole section is dependent on that one source so that alone may be a undue weight issue.

Eldanger25 added material about a 1993 article which gives information on someone named "Sylvia Sammons" and has used that information to claim refutation of the later authorship claims. This is very obviously WP:SYNTH as the two articles cannot be used to draw one single conclusion not stated in either one. Further there is no concrete evidence this is the same Sammons in both articles.

Eldanger25 is repeatedly adding the information and claims on the talk page there is "strong circumstantial evidence that it is the same person" which they feel makes it valid to include.

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

Talk:Hickory_Wind#disputed_authorship I explained the issues with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here and pinged Eldanger25 which led to a conversation that quickly went nowhere as I found myself repeating the same policies to no avail.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need someone to clarify if my understanding of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are correct and/or if the 1993 can be included in that section as evidence against Sammons' claims of authorship.

Summary of dispute by Eldanger25

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

This is an admittedly unusual dispute. Ultimately, the section of the article itself - an "authorship controvery" - should be deleted as based on a single source from a broken link, i.e., undue weight given to currently unverifiable information in a currently unavailable source (EDIT - the archived source has been restored, though the undue weight issue remains).

In essence - in 2002, an individual made a public claim of authorship of a work of art published in 1968, and provided certain biographical details about herself (age, region of the United States, physical disability, professional history). Some time after 2002, a 1993 news article became available online that was a profile of a person with the same first and last name, profession, region of the United States, and identifying physical disability. This article provided contradictory biographical information about the 2002 claimant - specifically, that she became a performing musician circa 1980, 12 years after the work of art at issue was published.

There is a claim of synthesis/improper original research if the 1993 article is included, apparently because it did not identify the subject of the 1993 article as the same person who claimed authorship in 2002 of a song published in 1968 by a songwriter who died in 1973. To the extent this is an "authorship controversy," I submit that data in a reliable, accessible 1993 article about someone who is almost certainly the same person as the claimant who told a different story in 2002 is directly relevant to the "controversy," and should be included in some fashion, if the controversy is included at all. If this is a policy violation, then the policy should be changed, because Wikipedia is a valued, primary source for many people, and all relevant facts should be available when someone accuses a dead person of fraudulent/criminal conduct 30 years after their death, and appears to have told a different story to a newspaper just a few years earlier.

In any event, I think the whole section should be deleted given the undue weight/inaccessible link issue, but if the 2002 claims are included, certainly the 1993 data should also be.

Thank you for your time, and thanks to ThaddeusSholto for a sincere, vigorous, and interesting good faith discussion. Eldanger25 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldanger25 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. I do not know anything about this song or its authorship controversy, and the editors will have to explain to me and to the community what the issues are. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I understand that this request for mediation has to do with the section on the authorship controversy. Before we get into the question of whether there is synthesis or original research, I would like each editor to provide what they think that the authorship controversy section should say. Also please say whether there are any other issues besides the authorship controversy. I want to see the alternative text versions of the authorship controversy section before considering whether either of them involves original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Statement fromEldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a proposed draft of the section below. Other issues include: whether the section should be deleted entirely on undue weight grounds, as the "authorship controversy" is effectively premised on a single source - a 2002 article appearing roughly 35 years after 1968 publication of the song at issue, in a now-defunct website (http://folklinks.com/) - and is multiple paragraphs long.

Thank you for your time and moderation.

Eldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement from ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

While there may be an undue weight situation based on the single source for the section, I don't think the fact that the website is dead is relevant. We have an archiveURL for it active right now. For me the main issue is attempting to use a 1993 article to refute the content of a 2002 when the two never directly connect to each other. It is textbook WP:SYNTH to use two references to draw a conclusion not explicitly made in either reference themselves. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft versions of authorship controversy section

Hello - thank you for your time and moderation. My proposed draft is below:

Authorship controversy

In 2002, an article on the website www.folklinks.com controversially claimed that "Hickory Wind" was not written by Gram Parsons, but by Sylvia Sammons—a blind folksinger from Greenville, South Carolina—with Bob Buchanan later contributing an additional verse. Sammons' alleged authorship of the song was first made public by traditional musician Kay Justice during a performance at a small church concert in southwest Virginia. Additionally, L. Beatrice Hutzler, a former professor at Clinch Valley College (now the University of Virginia's College at Wise), recalled that she too had heard Sammons sing the song in person prior to its being recorded by The Byrds.

When interviewed in 2002, Sammons claimed that she had written the song and that she regularly performed "Hickory Wind" at coffeehouses and other folk venues in Greenville during 1963—a time when Parsons was also performing in Greenville with his band The Shilos—and that her song was stolen during this period. She further claims that in 1969 she reached a cash settlement with a music publisher for the rights to "Hickory Wind" and agreed to turn over a tape-recorded copy of the song, which was her only physical proof of authorship.

A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a Mt. Dora, Florida, public park; the article described Ms. Sammons as having been "a professional singer and guitar player for 12 years on the coffeehouse circuit," or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds.

Sammons's claim to the song has been rebutted by both Bob Buchanan and Chris Hillman, with the former stating "I helped him [Parsons] a little on the melody and turnaround and the second verse and he had the bulk of it . . . I was there when he wrote it," and the latter stating "As far as I know Gram and Bob Buchanan did indeed write 'Hickory Wind'. As unstable as Gram was in my brief time with him on this earth, I sincerely doubt he was a plagiarist in any of his songwriting endeavors unless his co-writer Bob brought him the idea."

Eldanger25 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Authorship controversy version 2

In 2002, an article on the website www.folklinks.com controversially claimed that "Hickory Wind" was not written by Gram Parsons, but by Sylvia Sammons—a blind folksinger from Greenville, South Carolina—with Bob Buchanan later contributing an additional verse. Sammons' alleged authorship of the song was first made public by traditional musician Kay Justice during a performance at a small church concert in southwest Virginia. Additionally, L. Beatrice Hutzler, a former professor at Clinch Valley College (now the University of Virginia's College at Wise), recalled that she too had heard Sammons sing the song in person prior to its being recorded by The Byrds.

When interviewed in 2002, Sammons claimed that she had written the song and that she regularly performed "Hickory Wind" at coffeehouses and other folk venues in Greenville during 1963—a time when Parsons was also performing in Greenville with his band The Shilos—and that her song was stolen during this period. She further claims that in 1969 she reached a cash settlement with a music publisher for the rights to "Hickory Wind" and agreed to turn over a tape-recorded copy of the song, which was her only physical proof of authorship.

Sammons' claim to the song has been rebutted by both Bob Buchanan and Chris Hillman, with the former stating "I helped him a little on the melody and turnaround and the second verse and he had the bulk of it...I was there when he wrote it," and the latter stating "As far as I know Gram and Bob Buchanan did indeed write 'Hickory Wind'. As unstable as Gram was in my brief time with him on this earth, I sincerely doubt he was a plagiarist in any of his songwriting endeavors unless his co-writer Bob brought him the idea."

ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

There are two proposed versions of the Authorship Controversy section. They appear to differ in that one of them has a paragraph about a 1993 Orlando Sentinel article. Is there any other difference? I understand that the issue is whether inferring that the song was released before Sammons began performing as a singer is synthesis amounting to original research, and that is why one editor includes the paragraph in the draft and the other does not. I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to why the questioned paragraph should or should not be included. We may refer this question to the original research noticeboard, but we will try to resolve it here first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Second statement by ThaddeusSholto

The paragraph beginning with "A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002" shows that this is SYNTH. You cannot use an article which precedes the 2002 claim to refute the 2002 claim. This is original research on the part of the editor who added it. References must explicitly state what is being claimed in the article and this reference does not do that because it cannot. It cannot refute what hadn't yet happened.

WP:SYNTH specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is exactly what is happening with this paragraph. The editor even adds their own conclusion with "or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds." This is not in the 1993 article because that article has nothing to do with Hickory Wind or its authorship.

It is also OR to even claim this is the same Sylvia Sammons. There is no way to know that as the 1993 article about Sylvia Sammons and the 2002 article about Sylvia Sammons describe people of different ages; something Eldanger25 is using as "proof" Sammons cannot be the author. Drawing this conclusion is 100% original research on their part. Again, the policy states that an editor cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Second Statement by Eldanger25 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1993 article is relevant to the "controversy" at issue. The very section is entitled "authorship controversy." Inconsistent statements in a news article published nearer in time to the claim itself (2002) than the work of art at issue (1968), by an individual with the same name, disability, and fairly unique occupation, provides useful and reliable context (particularly when two full paragraphs of this subsection have been dedicated to an authorship claim that is a paradigmatic minority viewpoint, i.e., the 2002 article being the sole source of the controvery). Moreover, the information in the proposed paragraph is drawn from a single source - the 1993 article - and any accompanying contrasts raised with data in the 2002 article are simple calculations (i.e., 1981 versus 1968), which is allowed. More broadly, data relevant to an event or claim sometimes predates the event/claim, and the alternate interpretation of OR that is offered would, in essence, rule out ever including such data, because apparently in order to be relevant, the source must discuss the event/claim itself. I do not think this is consistent with the policies at issue, including OR and SYNTH. Eldanger25 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hickory Wind‎ discussion

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