Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Naseem Hamed	Closed	Mac Dreamstate (t)	13 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours
White Zimbabweans	In Progress	Katangais (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours
Bernese Mountain Dog	In Progress	Traumnovelle (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Traumnovelle (t)	14 hours
Macarons	Closed	62.211.155.242 (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 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 03:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Amaury

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

Summary of dispute by Callmemirela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussion irrelevant to the case--Kostas20142 (talk)

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

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

My position is still the same as above. "The above is a great example of the template being used way too liberally indeed, but this is not the case with these three shows. They are very closely tied together, and yet again I say, Cory in the House and Raven's Home are related to each other through the character of Raven herself. Raven's Home has aired all of 2 episodes, the connection should be even more obvious in the future. Personally I feel like me being ok with putting the show in "Related to" was a compromise on my part, and now the other parties are resorting to downright lying to get their way. These shows are related." --97.127.123.210 (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

announcement by moderator: Case will be closed in 24 hours due to lack of participation. If anyone other than the last party to comment still has an interest in the case, should add their statement before this period elapses. --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• The above comparisons to Happy Days and All in the Family are not apt as their spinoffs were overwhelming of the backdoor variety. The key distinction here is that the main cast of CITH and Raven's Home are derived from the MAIN cast of That's So Raven. Further, they are immediate family. Surely the lives of her brother & father would have some impact on how Raven raises her own children (the central plot of Raven's Home), where Archie never gave Weezy another thought. A better comparison would be Trapper John, M.D. and AfterMASH (the former has the latter listed as related, but without reciprocity). Chronology is the right choice here, but related is a reasonable compromise. There seems to be a clear benefit to including this, in giving readers a greater understanding of this universe. I find it difficult to see where the harm is. GCG (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

International Anti-Corruption Academy

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks and best wishes, Richard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi again, this is Adrian Ciupagea, graphic designer working at A&C department of IACA, and I disclose my COI.

Thank you Winged Blades ^Godric for your proposal and volunteers’ efforts to suggest a way forward! Just a few comments to your lead’s proposal:

Firstly, the legal personality of IACA as an international organization is supported by other sources as HeadOverHeels mentioned (e.g. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jsct/23august2011/report/chapter2). I do not understand why the legal personality is contested if it is a fact based on international law and the proper referencing is done.

Secondly, the year “2010” is not mentioned in the source. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-backs-new-corruption-fighting-academy.

Thirdly, if you say that primary sources can be used to assert the founding members, we could still use richard.eames’ proposal, right? It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders with the following source [1]

Fourthly, second sentence is not fully supported by the source (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-backs-new-corruption-fighting-academy). Please check e.g. references to training of government officials and especially in the developing world.

According to your Winged Blades ^Godriccomments, your contribution and confirmation, I believe we can agree that the lead below and the sourcing is acceptable:

---

The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization[1] and post-secondary educational institution[2] based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders[3].

IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization[4]. IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this Agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking[5].

---

Apparently Jytdog accepts the current lead. Winged Blades ^Godric, Could you please assess these comments and our proposal since still there are sourcing issues in the current lead?

Hi again, this is Adrian Ciupagea, graphic designer working at A&C department of IACA, and I disclose my COI.

Winged Blades ^Godric, Thank you again for your input and for your devoted interest in coming to grips with this matter. I hope that it has been clear to you that the references from my proposed lead were the ones you questioned.

1) Regarding Jytdog’s reply on “international” and „academy“. “Organization” alone does not describe the legal personality of IACA. Headoverheels, thank you for pointing this out. Winged Blades ^Godric : this means that “educational institution” is accepted. Do you think that you can include the reference to "educational institution" in the lead?

2) Great, however, another sources might be more accurate than the one used in the proposed lead. There are sources, as suggested in my lead, that make direct references to the required information. Headoverheels, thank you, agree.

3) Winged Blades ^Godric, could you explain what a primary source is in the light of the explanation made by Headoverheels? Your proposal still only relies on one article. You stated “that primary sources can be used in a limited number of cases”, do you think certain facts included in the lead qualifies for the use of primary sources?

4) There are plenty of sources which describe aims and purposes. Winged Blades ^Godric, the essence of the original text has to be kept even when paraphrasing a source. The current second sentence of the lead, as stated in my previous comment does not reflect what it is written in the article. That is why I suggested to use the same IACA Agreement; no doubts can arise if you quote directly from this source. Looking forward for your comments.

??Winged Blades Godric 07:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Also supported by this link: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jsct/23august2011/report/chapter2 (replaced as requested by Jytdog and confirmed by Winged Blades Godric- see note 27 July) https://wissenschaft.bmwfw.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Kasparovsky/EMpfehlungen/2.1.4.15a_E_BF.pdf. (supported by Winged Blades Godric - see note 27 July) UNODC. "International Anti-Corruption Academy established in Austria" (usage area identified as requested by Winged Blades Godric - see note 27 July) Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria. "Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization" (usage area identified as requested by Winged Blades Godric - see note 27 July) Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria. "Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization" This is partially reflected in https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-backs-new-corruption-fighting-academy

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian.ciupagea (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just talk page discussion with Jytdog

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

• User:Winged Blades of Godric I believe that the words "international" and "academy" are in the title of the article and the bolded repetition of the title in the first sentence; the first sentence also has the word "training" in it. We do not have to beat those horses to death in an encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• removed "revolving door" thing and implemented the "founded by X and Y" in these diffs. Please note that I have labelled the press release as such. I have spent about as much as time on this as I am willing. Another blatant SOCK has entered the fray and I am really out of patience with this relentless effort the use WP for promotion - the now-removed content about "Alan Doig, an anti-corruption expert who was briefly on the faculty in 2014 and left because he was unhappy with how IACA was run, the IACA has an "'obsession'" to be recognized as an international organization.[2]" is proving itself too true. An organization's obsession with its PR is not a concern to us should not become this kind of drain on volunteer effort. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HeadOverHeels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Proposal for a lead by Richard Eames was:

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

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

• ---@Winged Blades of Godric:----Coming back after some watching:--
  • • 1)The issuefor me is not a missing reference to "international". If we are aiming at a useful article, then the legal character of the subject of the article is paramount. "International Organization" is a specific term with a specific set-up, and I feel that this is not valued in this discussion. Please look up the very useful and complete description of this term at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organization.

• • • 2) The current lead is simply not reflected in the cited reference source. This reference does not with one word support what is stated in the lead. No reference to "training government officials to prevent and stop government" and no word about "especially in the developing world". To the contrary, it contains a reference to "both developed and developing countries". What is reflected, moreover, is the character of IACA as international (or intergovernmental) organization. See the reference to the 30+ signatory-states in 2010. If the current lead remains, the source is worthless. If this UK-government source seems so invaluable (which I personally doubt) then it should be properly reflected, I think. Reading it will make you sure.

• • • 3) Why is it that the UK goverment source is held so dear here whilst other goverment-sources of IACA-partners such as Australia, Austria, the OECD, the UN, disqualify as primary sources??

• • • 4) Using https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2011_III_22/COO_2026_100_2_653036.html as a source was originally my idea as referring to the Austrian Government as the depositary of this international treaty. Under international law this would be the only acceptable and authentic source.

• • • 5) Eventually my point on the second paragraph remained undiscussed, throughout this DR and I hoped it may come up at some point: The reference source (NEWS) DOES NOT contain one word pointing to a "revolving door". Whereever this comes from, it's not the mentioned NEWS-article.

• • Summarized: If we take sources as serious as it appears to be from previous communication on this article, then neither the lead nor the second paragraph are properly supported by sources and should be redone. I'm more tha happy to propose a lead (as I did in the past). However, if there is no will to rethink the lead and bring the second paragraph in line of what we know (from the sources) instead of what we feel, then I'd rather advocate the deletion of this article in its entirety. I don't think it's neither worth an encyclopedia, as it currently stands, nor is it useful for the average reader in any way.

• • My humble bit on this. And once more: I have no chips in this game!! As I explained earlier, I am an IOs-freak (if such a person ever exists). I am as interested as you to make this article useful but would rather see a complete deletion and move on to the next article before contributing to the flood of existing poor and ill-sourced content. Thanks to all of you for bearing with me, HeadOverHeels (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• • ---@BU Rob13:--: THANK YOU! Your guidance on the remaining issues would be greatly appreciated. HeadOverHeels (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric::

at 1), 2), and 5), thanks! Specifically the lead seems a solid starting point that says at least something meaningful about the subject of the article.

at 3 and 4): Regarding founding partners, I'll see what I can find.

Regarding the UK article and primary sources (my last shot, I promise):

Laws have a special meaning and function as primary sources. If you'd like to know how a state works you'd go directly to this state's constitutional law. Such as the US 2nd amendment when it comes to discussions on arms control. If you'd like to know how an IO works you go to their constitution, the founding treaty. It is imposed on the organization by its member states such as statutary law is imposed on enterprises by parliaments. The IACA Treaty was not made by IACA but by obviously 30+ States and organizations and IACA can do nothing about it but comply. That's why I think this is one of the exceptional rare situations where we have to use the IACA treaty as a source to learn and inform more about this organization. I understand that Jytdog raised some doubts that the organization is not doing what it was intended to do. But here is my point: If we don't accept to study and source the mandate given to IACA by its owners, how would we know what IACA was supposed to do? The IACA-Treaty is the original, agreed by all states and binding on the organization. If there were criticism of member states about IACA's actual activities that would be relevant but again has to be compared with the imposed mandate. Here, however, we seem to prefer a press release of a UK-minister about what he/she thinks IACA will do in the future, over the binding tasks imposed on IACA by all of its member states. Please consider: Without accepting carefully selected primary sources in articles about international organizations and states there wouldn't be any article about IOs and states, and there wouldn't be the Wikimedia:UN-project, which I think is great value for the WP-community. I hope you'll understand my point, as much as I value WP polices and your input. HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Anti-Corruption_Academy#IACA_page discussion

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

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

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

It's very difficult to answer to general queries.

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

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

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

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

RedundantWinged Blades Godric 08:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer something bordering on:-- The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an organization based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was launched in 2010 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, INTERPOL and other stake-holders.with the stated goal of training government officials to prevent and stop government corruption especially in the developing world. Modified after Rob's edits

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

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

• Volunteer comment-Assesing.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment-@Adrian.ciupagea:--Replying point-wise:--
  • • 1)Pinging @Jytdog: for comments on the addition of the word international and educational institution in the lead.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • 2)--This reference was published on 3rd September 2010.It stated-The academy, launched yesterday (Thursday).We are allowed to use limited mental-skills!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • 3)This source asserts that it was founded by two organizations--UNODC and Interpol.And, I am uncomfortable with using such an acutely prim. source.(See my afore-proposed lead)!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • 3)This is not the IACA website.There is no notable benefit to readers in quoting all your self-proclaimed goals/mottos at the lead of the article.Also, we are allowed to paraphrase a source; subject to editorial discretion.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Thus, in general, your proposed lead(esp. the entire second paragraph) is far from acceptable.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment--Next proposed lead:--

The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was launched in 2010 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, INTERPOL and other stake-holders.with the stated goal of preventing and tackling corruption across the world.

Modified after Rob's edits.Modified after HeadOverHeel's concerns.

@HeadOverHeels::--Replies (pointwise):--

• 1)Included.Not much problematic.
• 2)Edited.
• 3)At least, it's slightly more independent!Can you please give a independent rel. source that just asserts the founding members?If you can, I see no problem in including all the names.
• 4)WP is governed by WP:RS; not by international laws!
• 5)As to the revolving-door part, I have already asked for clarification from an editor comfortable with the language.If he concurs with you, that will be surely removed.

Winged Blades ^Godric 11:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment--@Jytdog and HeadOverHeels:--As pointed out in this revision by one of our most experienced and long-standing editors, I propose the revolving door part be removed in it's entirety.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--In absence of any new source being proposed w.r.t Point 3 within 48 hours, I will be looking to close the dispute.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• @Jytdog:--Many thanks!I know how this dealing with tireless COI feels and prob. hate this as much as you do but ....As a side-note are you comfortable with the rem. portion of the last-proposed lead?Winged Blades ^Godric 08:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• • @Jytdog and Winged Blades of Godric::

• • Deletion of "revolving door obviously fine with me, since not source supported. I wonder what the value of the remaining statement about large staff turnover is, but anyway.
  • Will be unable to providing more sources to (3. within the coming days, but will continue my struggle;
  • As IACA seems the only article about IOs and countries on WP where primary sources are unacceptable to editors involved, I feel that this article may not develop to something useful for the readers of this encyclopedia;
  • I wonder why some adaptations made by --BU Rob13-- were first praised and then partially reversed, but honestly the issue with this article seems to me a much wider one than just about content.
  • Hope everything will fall nicely in place one day; all the work done in this DR was to remove blatant flaws, that's not encouraging! Without substantial information about IACA, which also allows for controversial text, this article is meaningless for WP-readers;
  • Big thanks, however, to all volunteer efforts, particularly in this DR, and shame on all who achieved disruption of progress only;
  • If I learned a lesson during this article dispute than it was not about WP policies but about the rule of steroides over reason; moving on for now;

Best wishes - HeadOverHeels (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

Redacted by volunteer

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third opinion was requested, but ignored by jytdog

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by 83.54.140.34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we agree on that? Naesco (talk)

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In general, I think the latest Jytdog's proposal is pretty good. However, I suggest to cite as closely as possible to the sources, as proposed by the moderator. For example, words 'occasionally publishes' are not from ref [7]. On the opposite, the website seems to publish several per day. I would like to propose the following summary. It is very close to what Jytdog has proposed today, but applies almost direct wording from the references:

Phys.org is a British [ref] science, research and technology news agregator [1 page 24], [7], where much of content is directly from press releases and news agencies, a practice known as churnalism [1 page 42], [3],[4],[5]. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [10], [ref],[ref]. In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health [ref].

I don't fully agree with the 2nd part about similarity with ScienceDaily and Eurekalert, but I'm not addressing it here. I've already pointed that out in my first summary. This needs to be discussed separately once we're done with the 1st paragraph. Otherwise, the discussion may get side-tracked. Naesco (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Have you seen my version (it looks like our posts have crossed)? Please review it. I don't think your latest version is in agreement with your earlier statement to cite 'as closely as possible' to the sources, especially the 2nd sentence. It also looks like there is some opposition from Jytdog to use words 'science news website', so I propose 'news agregator' as stated by Shipman in his book [1], page 24. "Much of content is directly..." and "summaries on peer-reviewed articles..." are also direct quotes from the sources. In general we are all on the same page about the 1st sentence, but I prefer the Jytdog's wording. Naesco (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to go sentence by sentence:

1. It looks we all agree on the 1st one. Shall we consider it as settled?
2. Although I agree in essence with the second sentence, I can't agree with the wording. This statement is fundamentally correct, but the wording "practices limited science journalism" does not explain anything to WP readers. This is generalization / interpretation of the fact that the site publishes "summaries on selected science papers". Ref. [10] description is factually correct, supported by what we've seen with all the examples by BBC, CNN, Science magazine, IEEE, etc (see above). Why are we excluding source 10? It is WP:RS and describes the things as they really are. This is one more ref that supports this statement: "...strive to publish peer reviewed science...". Moreover, words "occasionally/limited" are not supported by any source, and are vague and subjective (What's the exact percentage for something to be described as "limited"? How should "occasionally" be interpreted - once a year, once a month, once a day?) The word 'daily' would be more appropriate if we use ref WP:ABOUTSELF. So for the second sentence I propose something like: It also (daily ref?) publishes summaries (reports?) on selected science (peer-reviewed?) articles [7], [10], [ref] (, which is known as science journalism?). Naesco (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
3. update: Eurekalert is a paid press release distribution site (no editorial control, etc) similar to AlphaGalileo. It is like PRWeb or Business Wire for research organisations. It is not a news website, and it is clearly described by the sources as a PR distribution service, so comparison with it is incorrect. Comparison with ScienceDaly is in general correct, but only in terms of churnalism for republishing PRs. It is well supported by the references. But it doesn't look like that it runs its own science journalism. I'm not sure how we should handle this for the 2nd paragraph, but I believe it is not correct to simply say that both sites are similar. Maybe something like this: "ScienceDaily is similarly criticized for churnalism ..." Naesco (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with 'post-doc wanna-be-science blogger'. Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi  who is an established science journalist with the proven track record  -- she wrote for Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. I've already commented on that. Ref [7], [10] supports my second statement. The link is the most recent (2017) and factually confirms all the report examples from CNN, BBC, IEEE, Science mag, many others. @Winged Blades of Godric: I agree with your last proposed modification. Naesco (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I found two more secondary sources to support the ref [10]: this one (page 27) describes Phys.org  as publishing  '.. accessible articles on recent developments..' and the second book (page 250) as '... science news and information site...' . Again, I think ref 10 describes the site journalistic part in the most accurate way, and it is also supported by other sources. I'm Ok with the proposed lead sentence, but it needs to be complemented by the other part that describes the science journalism as suggested by other sources. Otherwise it's not balanced and fully factual. Naesco (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Request @Winged Blades of Godric:: I will be travelling for the next few days, and will not be able to respond at least till Monday. I kindly request to put the dispute on hold until then. Naesco (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog phys.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have said nothing about site design. Don't know where that is coming from. I find the "COI" thing kind of bizarre - the IP/Neesco has been upset that phys.org is not given some kind of credit for being legitimate science news. Science journalists are the people who generate science news. Science journalists look at phys.org and say "that is not what we do". And now that is a COI? Good lord.

Anyway, this is not a matter of "liking" anything. Phys.org is what it is is - is republishes stuff it gets from elsewhere, without making that clear. It is just science PR, not science news. This is what the best sources say about it. However we say this, is fine with me. I am not married to "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Winged Blades of Godric - OK how about

Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism. It occasionally publishes its own science journalism. In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.

ScienceDaily is similar to it; EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it only aggregates press releases and clearly labels them as such.

References

• I reject "british". I have no idea why neesco is leaning on that so hard, but none of the independent refs mention that and there is nothing particularly british about the site. They use american spelling, there is no ".uk" in the URLs, and the "contact" offers no physical office at all (similar to other dubious organizations). So no "british".

I have compromised as far as i am willing and spent about as much time as i am willing.

btw I have come to accept the distinction with EurekaDaily, which is honest that it republishes press releases - it is a press release aggregator. The thing that makes phys.org so toxic is that it that it hides that the fact these pieces are press releases. Even ScienceDaily has more integrity in that it generally says "press release" right at the top, when it passes them on.

So i am actually going to push back from what i offered above and add Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases ,not labelled as such,and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism."

And no we are not linking to phys.org's "feature" search section - this is spamming. And the BBC ref is just a passing mention to a "report" on phys.org.

Again I have compromised with this PR effort as much as I am willing. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The "not labelled as such" is central to the definition of "churnalism" which i have compromised on, by moving to the end. One of the good sources, Ars, says "The coverage at Science Daily and PhysOrg is eerily similar, with many instances of identical phrasing, starting with the title itself. That's because both are using mildly edited versions of a press release made by the publisher, Cell Press, which was available via Eurekalert, an aggregator of science press releases. If others are presenting science press releases as news, why shouldn't the universities cut out the middleman?". (ref) And the ScientiicAmerican piece says "We also have press-release farms such as PhysOrg and ScienceDaily that seem to me to do little else but repackage press releases one can find on science press releases sites such as EurekAlert.." (ref) "not labelling them as such" = "presented as news" and "repackaging" from the sources. This is not "jamming down the throat of the reader", it is simply more clearly defining "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• with apologies i am not catching the "work around" with regard to ref 10 (which is the post-doc wanna-be-science blogger passing mention, that we already dismissed right?) as for mediabiasfactchecker - nothing at RSN. Looks like they just took the marketing blurb from phys.org and stick a "pro-science" label on the site. no value there; just a directory. Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• with regard to ref 10, it is what it is. hopefully the person you talk with will see it for the naive wanna-be error that this passing mention to phys.org was. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

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

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today discussion

General comments

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

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

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

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

Volunteer/moderator comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources to be used acc.

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

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

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

Volunteer/moderator comments (continued..)

• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--My views tend to share a similarity with the opinion exppresed by Neasco throughout (except the presumed COI in case of science journalists) and esp. in the second point of his last post.I am asking Neasco to propose a new lead borrowing words as closely as posible from the sources, strictly adhering to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.--in lines of my last-proposed lead.Ref-a0 shall be omitted and Ref-7 may be used(I scanned the RSN about life-hacker and there seems to be a consensus that they are gen. reliable).I don't find major problems with the word British.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: short question - what do you mean by Ref-a0? is it ref 8? Thank you. Naesco (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Naesco:--Ref 10.Sorry for the delay!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Let's wait for Naesco to propose his/her preferred one.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Another moderator-proposed lead

Preferred lead--My preferred version (bordered on Jyt's version) goes as:-- Phys.org is a website that mostly practises churnalism, republishing press releases and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology.[1][2][3][4][5]It also practises occasional/limitedWhich is preferable? science journalism.[6]In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.[7] ScienceDaily is similar to it[2][3] and EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it self-describes as a churnalistic site.[1][4] For corresponding references see the accompanying references in Jytdog's proposed lead.Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Without going into the 2nd paragraph, Naesco's proposed lead (esp. the 1st part) looks good.But I have doubts as to the sourcing of the second line.(I prefer the self-reference and the BBC piece be removed and the Lifehacker piece added.)Also, the second line shall preferably adheres to Jyt's version.(Despite me asking Naesco to adhere to the sources as closely as possible!)You may build on the version adding more references and fine-tuning the language.Any comments?Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--V.good proposal!Ref 10 shall be excluded!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Next Lead:--I would prefer something like:--

Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.It also practices limited science journalism.^{Life-hacker piece and another source} In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health. ScienceDaily is similar to it and EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it self-describes as a churnalistic site.

All other lines could be comfortably and un-controversially sourced!So, no mention of sources.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The another source shall be a WP:RS which mention(s) phys.org non-trivially!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ---Jytdog's arguments about removal of British are accepted.We are quite good to remove any mention of the nationality from the lead when the website-owner-organization are themselves not quite openly stating it and we have to resort to some synthesis.Further, the latest suggestion is particularly non-needful.We ain't waging a battle against Phys.org despite their dubious journalism and don't need to push something down the reader's throat.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---I would also strongly suggest Naesco to bring another source(which was afore-seeked) within 36 hours, pending which we can make some slight changes(about the 2nd line) and ask the parties about their acceptance of the lead and proceed to close this accordingly.And Naesco the next post shall be only about such sources that you may have discovered and a concise one/two-paragraph statement about your proposed line(w.r.t to Science Daily and EurekaAlert) and reasons for opposing the current version .Winged Blades ^Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---To make my points clear to both the sides:--
  • 0)We are all good about the 1st sentence.

• • 1)Regarding the BBC piece and the self-reference, I've already given my views that they are un-acceptable.Self-referencing in controversial cases are dis-allowed.BBC piece covers the site too non-trivially to be used to buckle the lead.

• • 2) That leaves us with the LifeHacker source which is reliable.But, I am not comfortable with inserting a certain information in the lead on basis of only one RS that counters diametrically opposite info backed up by several other sources.Thus the need for at least another RS covering Phys.org non-trivially.

• • 3)Ref-10 is interesting.I will be adding my points soon.I'm thinking of asking out some editor who regularly frequents these areas and have a know-how about the credibility of these sources?Winged Blades ^Godric 09:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• • 4)I am quite uncomfortable with Jytdog's recently proposed phrase-addition for reasons described in my last comment.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Any comments about my proposed work-around about Ref-10(It will be similar to as it happened in the revolving door case.)?And any comments about whether this passes WP:RS.I am skeptical.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment---@Jytdog:-Sorry for not making myself clear.I am at cross-roads about Ref-10.Thus, my way-out was that (just like I asked Kudpung in the prev. IACA dispute as a 3O) I will ask someone who has long wiki-experience in these areas to comment on suitability of 10 as a reference.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---Echo Jytdog about mediabiasfactcheck.com.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---As an alternative, I'm amenable to--It shares many similarities with ScienceDaily and EurekAlert! in the sense that all of them practice heavy churnalism.<footnote>(EurekaAlert! though self-describes itself as a churnalistic site.)</footnote> Also, it may be duly noted that we are not linking the trio up, the science-journalists are!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---Naesco, do you agree with my last proposed modification.(The footnote portion will appear at the end of the article.)Anyway, I will be soon asking about Ref-10.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Galkayo#I.27m not_warring_over_any_page

– New discussion.

Filed by Faarax200 on 11:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Galkayo#I.27m not warring over any page (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Faarax200 (talk · contribs)
• Mohamed958543 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is about which state controls the neighborhoods of Garsoor and Horumar in Galkayo city. Another dispute is about the number of neighborhoods that exist in Galkayo city. I said the town consists of 4 neighborhoods. and he is saying 5 neighborhoods.

I used a reliable source article from UN organization of reliefweb. The UN article says neighborhoods of garsoor and horumar are part of puntland state . The user Mohamed958543 is using as a source non-english article from unreliable website that is biased. This user is saying Galmudug state controls parts of Garsoor and Horumar neighborhoods but he has not provided any reliable source to back up his claim. Here in this [[2]] edit he replaced a UN organization reliefweb english article source with a somali language article from unreliable website.

References

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried resolving on the talk page but no progress.

How do you think we can help?

Help us resolve

Summary of dispute by Mohamed958543

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

Procedural comments

 Comment: Mohamed958543 was not notified and therefore I did so myself. Please always remember to notify involved users when filing a case --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Galkayo#I.27m not_warring_over_any_page discussion

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

comment by volunteer The case seems ideal for WP:3. Did you try filing a request there? --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not filled there. I don't know how to file there. Faarax200 (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The link I provided you includes instructions. However since you filed a case here let's wait for the other user to comment first --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I have posted a request for a Third Opinion. Please leave this request listed but not answered for now, and wait and see whether a Third Opinion is provided. If a Third Opinion is provided and is satisfactory, this dispute can be closed as answered. If there is no satisfactory Third Opinion, this request will be marked as available for a volunteer. (For now, any DRN volunteer who wants to act as the 3O volunteer is welcome to do so.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Alanf777 on 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Alanf777 (talk · contribs)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs)
• Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs)
• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs)
• GangofOne (talk · contribs)
• TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs)
• 31.48.240.103 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a contentious topic, with a long history of editorial disputes.

The particular section is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Lawsuit and the talk is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Lawsuit_Settled

A RS reported : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=794216280

Triangle Business Journal reports that "Cecilia Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge, dismissed the case with prejudice last month after both parties notified the court that they'd reached a settlement a week into the trial" and that details of the settlement were not disclosed in the court record.

Editors agree that 1) the case was settled 2) the details were not released

The contentious element is that I want to include the phrase "with prejudice" (in any suitable format).

And seeing that I've opened this dispute, I also want it noted in the article (RS Popular Science) that Rossi was paid $11.5M in addition to the $89M ($270M with triple damages) he sued for.

A couple of other issues, but I'll hold off on those for now/

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page. Nearly every change I have made has been severely edited or reverted, sometimes without discussion. I have consulted with other editors.

How do you think we can help?

1. To determine whether I can say that the case was closed "with prejudice" (ie can never be reopened)

2. To recommend/approve the exact wording

3. To add the fact that Rossi was already paid $11.5M by IH

Summary of dispute by VQuakr

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

Cold fusion topic subject to GS. OP isn't getting any support for propping up a viewpoint that he believes lends credibility to the subject. The 11.5 million thing hasn't been discussed on the talk page to my knowledge so I don't think it is eligible for discussion here. In general I think escalation beyond the talk page is premature at this point. VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

On the $11.5M having never been discussed : see [3] Alanf777 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing inclusion of that viewpoint being discussed in that section. I suggest starting a new dedicated section on the article talk page as back-and-forth here is against the rules. VQuakr (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Insertcleverphrasehere

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

Per the actual disputed material that has been discussed on the talk page, "with prejudice", I don't see the harm in including it, but I also don't see an absolute necessity to include it either. I don't understand why VQuakr is so adamant about not including it, or why Alan777 thinks it is so important and am pretty much on the fence here.

As per the other thing about Rossi getting paid, I'm not aware that Rossi got paid anything other than the 11.5M (he was paid this ages ago). As far as I have read, the settlement seems to merely return the IP rights to Rossi, and doesn't involve him getting paid any additional funds [4], however EVEN THIS has not been reported in a RS as far as I am aware, and so I don't endorse including anything to the tune that Rossi was paid or anything regarding the settlement without a RS that says so. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 31.48.240.103

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

A silly dispute over adding legal jargon that the sources cited don't explain and which the readers' cannot reasonably be expected to understand. The article states that the dispute has been settled, and that the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Which is all it needs to say. Neither unexplained jargon nor WP:OR about what we think it means would add anything of merit to the article. Frankly I am at a complete loss as to why Alanf777 thinks this is of such importance anyway. Perhaps he could tell us? 31.48.240.103 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And as for anything Popular Science has to say on the E-Cat, or any other sources not previously raised on the article talk page, I have no intention of discussing them here, since it is clearly an abuse of this noticeboard to bring up issues not currently under dispute: which they clearly can't be, since we don't know what they are... 31.48.240.103 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

I have edited the page but have made no comment one way or the other regarding the facts that the OP mentioned. As such I do not intend to participate here. In closing, my views on the overall conduct of the OP largely echo those of User:VQuakr. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GangofOne

comments and references since this filing added to Talk page. Summary: "with prejudice" is part of direct quote, it is completely appropriate. No explanation need be given. GangofOne (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TenOfAllTrades

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

I go away for a few days, and this happens? I gather that there's a tiny wordsmithing argument that somehow is being escalated here. How very silly.

Ho hum. If I must opine, I think that it's unnecessary and potentially confusing to the majority of lay readers to use the technical term of art "settled with prejudice" when the much more common and readily understood "settled" will serve just as well. (This is one of those lucky cases where the 'casual' meaning of a word happens to convey the correct 'legal' sense.) Wikipedia generally follows this principle; a quick Google search suggests that the phrase "settled with prejudice" appears only three times on the English Wikipedia—and two of those, oddly enough, are in articles related to Duke Nukem Forever. I would use the technical terminology – with appropriate explanation – only in particularly complex instances where it might otherwise be ambiguous what cases or parts thereof had actually been settled (for example, if a settlement involved only some of the issues, but left others for trial.)

On a procedural note, I strenuously object to Alanf777 using a trivial wording dispute as a wedge to 'trap' future disputes he intends to start regarding this article (at least one of which he hints none-to-subtly at in his statement) at this noticeboard rather than more appropriate venues—e.g. WP:RSN, WP:FTN. Broadly speaking, Wikipedia is better served when content disputes in fringe areas (like cold fusion) are reviewed by a broad, scientifically-literate cross-section of editors – as one might find at RSN or FTN – rather than confined to the invited participants from a fringe topic's talk page—like we get here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Discussion at this noticeboard is voluntary. We are waiting for statements from some of the editors. Due to the number of editors involved, this case may not be ideal for discussion here, and might be better handled by formal mediation or a Request for Comments. The editors are reminded that disruptive editing is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions for the pseudo-scientific topic of cold fusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will try to moderate this discussion among those editors who want to discuss it. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Be civil and concise. You are expected to check this page and reply to it at least every 48 hours. Comment on content, not contributors. Now, to get down to the fact that we are talking about content, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their issues, if any, are with the content of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

I'm not sure anything more needs to be said at this point, until Alanf777 gives a clear explanation as to why he thinks the article should include unexplained legal jargon which scarcely appears elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that GangofOne's comment about it being a direct quotation is rather beside the point, since there doesn't seem to be any obvious justification for a quotation anyway: we normally precis third-party sources, rather than quote them, unless there is something particularly significant about the wording, or something particularly significant about the source, and this is run-of-the-mill reporting by a local business news website. 31.48.240.103 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:BIRAD

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Merav burstein on 13:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Draft:BIRAD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Merav burstein (talk · contribs) Dispute overview After a thorough examination, I launched a new entry into Wikipedia on "Biard - Research and Development Company Ltd." of Bar-Ilan University in Israel. After collecting the relevant information for the entry, I entered the company information on a draft page. (I've sent you the link). I will be grateful if one of your editors will see the text and be able to help raise the value to the encyclopedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I will be grateful if one of your editors will see the text and be able to help raise the value to the encyclopedia. How do you think we can help? I will be grateful if one of your editors will see the text and be able to help raise the value to the encyclopedia. Draft:BIRAD discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - This is a request for review of a draft, and can be made at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Jcc#Regarding_your_review_of_page_on_Dennis_M._Kelleher

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Charnich on 14:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Jcc#Regarding your review of page on Dennis M. Kelleher (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Charnich (talk · contribs) jcc (talk · contribs) Dispute overview As a new user, I posted a page that had been marked for deletion addressing the concerns cited in the AfD process. The person who reviewed the page seemed to offer a different reason for refusing to move my re-post out of draft space and simply ignored my request of an experienced editor for help and guidance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The talk page shows a lengthy give and take between jcc and myself. How do you think we can help? I'd love for a completely new editor, if anyone is willing, to walk me through my article and show me where I strayed. The original piece was marked for AfD for being a glorified CV and a lack of notability. If my language created the CV issue I could use some help on where. And as I repeatedly explained to jcc, I think I adequately addressed the notability issue but jcc wouldn't really offer any guidance on why I was wrong in that case too as I thought I had addressed it. Summary of dispute by jcc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Jcc#Regarding_your_review_of_page_on_Dennis_M._Kelleher 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.