The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Brexit#History section bias against French president ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Womblez ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the Brexit article Talk page, I expressed the concern two weeks ago that only the French President de Gaulle is blamed for preventing Britain from joining the European Economic Community (EEC) in the 1960s. In fact it is well known that the German Chancellor Adenauer was also strongly opposed to Britain joining the European club. I provided a German reference (Der Spiegel) to illustrate this well-known point. As there has been no material counterview on the Talk page for the past two weeks, I then implemented my proposed addition in the Brexit article today (2 August 2017).

Immediately a user "Womblez" deleted my edit, first using the excuse that it is original research. Then he deleted it again, this time using a different excuse, equally wrong.

We have now both been cautioned of edit-warring by User 331dot. This User 331dot has recommended I present the matter to Dispute Resolution.

I would be grateful if Dispute Resolution could read my cited source (Der Spiegel), could reinstate my addition on Chancellor Adenauer, and give User Womblez a verbal clip about the ears, and oblige him to present his concerns on the Brexit Talk page instead of edit-warring.

My suspicion is that the edit-warring user "Womblez" does not read German, and therefore his reasons for deletion do not make sense, and therefore he does not participate in the Talk page discussion. For the same reason it would be helpful if anyone taking on this Dispute Resolution has a good knowledge of reading German. Thank you. 81.131.171.187 ( talk) 17:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contacting user 331dot for mediation and for advice.

How do you think we can help?

In the Brexit article, get a German-speaking editor to read my reference (Der Spiegel) and confirm I am telling the truth. Then, in the Brexit article, reinstate my addition on German Chancellor Adenauer. And finally, request User Womblez to discuss any concerns on the Talk page rather than continue edit-warring.

Summary of dispute by Womblez

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

• Volunteer note - The discussion on the article talk page was two weeks ago. Resuming that discussion would be a good idea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The unregistered editor is reminded to comment on content, not contributors. Some of their comments above are complaints about a contributor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The unregistered editor is particularly cautioned to avoid edit-warring, because a common action on edit-warring is semi-protection. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Not suitable for DRN.We don't accept disputes with zero participation by editors on talk-page irr. of whoever's fault it was. Winged Blades ^Godric 07:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Wdford

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Damwiki1

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

Summary of dispute by Keith-264

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

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

Summary of dispute by Aber~enwiki

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

Battle for Caen discussion

First statement by moderator

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

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

First statements by editors

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

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

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

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

Second statement by moderator

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

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

Second statements by editors

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

Third statement by moderator

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

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

Third statements by editors

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

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

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

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

Fourth statement by moderator

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

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

Fourth statements by editors

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

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

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

Fifth statement by moderator

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

Fifth statements by editors

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

The "controversy" under discussion is not a simple matter. Wdford has concentrated on Montgomery's role and comments. There are also a wide range of other factors which are relevant to the controversy especially office politics within the high command (stretching back to 1942), differences in understanding of the plan for, and the actual battle of Normandy by different parties, and views on the military capabilities of the forces involved. EnigmaMcmxc's suggestion of a separate article on the various controversies has some merit; adding some sentences to the article to selectively include one part of the controversy does not. Aber~enwiki ( talk) 17:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

There doesn't seem to be agreement on whether to leave the article alone or whether to expand it to reflect issues about the historiography of the battle. One possibility would be to move this controversy to requests for mediation for longer-running mediation with a more skilled mediator. However, even that may not resolve this, and it is probably better to use Requests for Comments. Since one editor wants multiple changes made, it would be be highly advisable to them to formulate multiple RFCs, one for each change. I will assist in wording the RFCs neutrally, but only if asked to do so. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

Thank you for your efforts. However, please could you also clarify for us the correct interpretation of WP:NPOV? The wording of the policy says that articles should represent "without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It goes on to say that: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." However up to now certain editors have been repeatedly reverting attempts to include some of the views of some very reliable sources. This would appear to be a blatant contravention of a core policy. In your opinion, does WP:NPOV still apply, or has it become acceptable for editors to revert relevant material from reliable sources at will? I would appreciate your interpretation please. Wdford ( talk) 20:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The article has already been greatly expanded to include elements on the historiography of the battle. At the moment is still needs some minor polishing, or alternatively moving much of this material into another article dealing with the various controversies. Aber~enwiki ( talk) 17:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never suggested "adding some sentences to the article to selectively include one part of the controversy". On the talk page I proposed adding two paragraphs – one to outline the viewpoint of Montgomery and his defenders, and one to outline the viewpoint of his critics. That is what I have proposed here too. In sections where only part of the full story has thus far been reported, I propose to add a few sentences to complete the full picture as per the reliable sources. I fully support EnigmaMcmxc's suggestion for a new article dedicated to describing the various controversies. However the particular controversy relevant to Caen relates directly to the plans and objectives of this portion of the invasion, and as this is a significant viewpoint of a number of reliable sources, an outline thereof should thus be included in this article as per WP:NPOV. I would certainly expect other editors to contribute toward ensuring that the final product is fully neutral, but by contributing constructively rather than by deleting significant viewpoints from reliable sources. Wdford ( talk) 22:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement 6.5 by moderator

User:Wdford – I have already cautioned you once for asking a loaded question, and it seems to be necessary again. You know very well that neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, but you should also know that you are not always the sole judge of what balance of viewpoints is the best presentation of the neutral point of view. Neutrally worded Requests for Comments can be useful in achieving the best balance in articles. (Non-neutrally worded RFCs or RFCs containing loaded questions are not useful for that purpose.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:27, 5 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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by FIREYSUNSET

Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPirate

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

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

Talk:List of_cults_of_personality#Can_someone_get_rid_of_the_United_States_section.3F discussion

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

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

• *Meanwhile, all parties should:

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

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

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

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

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.

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:Joseph1100 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Joseph1100 ( talk · contribs)
• JudeccaXIII ( talk · contribs)
• Yopie ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

First off I had to edit out (delete) the comments made by the other editors as they were negative and uneducated as to the Wikipedia OR terms. I feel these editors are censoring, only and not allowing the truth of the research as both of my sources are published works and held in high regard. The history of talk page contains the sections. It is not always mainstream research that is entirely true, and my edits are not "fringe" but a truth which has been published in smaller circles. These are important matters which can inspire many readers to continue the grasping of the truth.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It was apparent that they use the talk page for negative comments, to undo their action was tried.

How do you think we can help?

Review my edits in the context of the published works, of reference, and allow my edits to remain.

Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIII

Summary of dispute by Yopie

procedural notes

This notice noticeboard accepts only content disputes. For conduct disputes you should go to [WP:ANI|ANI]]. So do you have anything content related in specific  ??-- Kostas20142 ( talk) 16:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Joseph1100 discussion

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Meta-analysis#software ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sardmeta1 ( talk · contribs)
• jytdog ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Meta-analysis page had a list of links to very useful software related to the topic. This was recently deleted by jytdog claiming this was an "indiscriminate list" and justified the deletion claiming that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost for links that you believe are useful".

I countered this as it says on Wikipedia regarding External links or Internet directories:

"There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia"

The software lists are very few (after spam is removed) and they are a rich source of information (akin to the existing external links) and are the only way that people wanting to examine the area more can glean more information. Conflating this with a list of songs or an internet directory of businesses is counter-intuitive in this case and actually represents a problem.

Please help restore the important links

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried reasoning this out with jytdog but he declines all lines of reasoning and keeps reverting my edits

How do you think we can help?

Please help make a decision on these external links after reviewing the edits I have made that jytdog reverted so that these can be reinstated

Summary of dispute by jytdog

Talk:Meta-analysis#software discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but it was two weeks ago. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, discussion may begin here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:51, 5 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.

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 ( | 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

• 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.

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 ( | 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

User talk:Jcc#Regarding_your_review_of_page_on_Dennis_M._Kelleher discussion

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.

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

• [ [4]] 

Users involved

• Ultrahome ( talk · contribs)
• Obsuser ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor Obsuser, guided by his feminist beliefs, is repeatedly editing the page on man's rights movement, deleting any links to relevant web sites and Facebook groups (in Serbia actually there is only one web site and one FB group there, other FB groups are more specific, related to father's rights). I would like this ideological policing to stop.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page

How do you think we can help?

I would like this ideological policing to stop.

Summary of dispute by Obsuser

Dispute at sr.wikipedia discussion

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.

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

• Energy Catalyzer ( | 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 /info/en/?search=Energy_Catalyzer#Lawsuit and the talk is at /info/en/?search=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Lawsuit_Settled

A RS reported : https://en.wikipedia.org/?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

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 [5] 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

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 [6], 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. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 31.48.240.103

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

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

• 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)

Second statement by moderator

There have been no substantive comments since I opened this case. I will wait for a little while and then, unless there are any comments, close it due to lack of interest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Galkayo#I.27m not warring over any page ( | 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 ^[1]. 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 . ^{[2] [3]} The user Mohamed958543 is using as a source non-english article from unreliable website ^[4] 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 [ [7]] edit he replaced a UN organization reliefweb english article source with a somali language article from unreliable website.

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

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

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)
• Volunteer note - I will try to moderate the dispute, since it appears that there might not be a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Please read and comply with User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Be civil and concise. Will each editor state, in one paragraph, what the issue or question is? Every editor is always expected to reply within 48 hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

This is the edit in dispute [ [8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faarax200 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 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.

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

• International Anti-Corruption Academy ( | 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 ^[1] 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 ^[2].

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 ^[3].

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 ^[4].

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 [9]

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.

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

• Dear Winged Blades, Dear all,

As requested regarding point (3), here’s an independent reliable source (Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) that names IACA’s founding members (UNODC, OLAF, Interpol, Republic of Austria) in paragraph 6: https://www.mae.ro/en/node/11653 Can all four names now be mentioned in the second sentence of the lead? Sorry for not proposing this sooner – I only got back to IACA today (again declaring my COI here).

Best, Richard.eames ( talk) 14:25, 14 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

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. ^[5]

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. ^[5]

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

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.

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 /info/en/?search=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)

• • @ 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:International Anti-Corruption_Academy#IACA_page discussion

• 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. ^[1]
  • 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---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House ( | 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

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

• 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)

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:HansMair ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HansMair ( talk · contribs)
• Parsecboy ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been contributing significant sourced material to the USS Constellation (1854) page, specifically the implement a Construction section, until Parsecboy stepped in to undo/revert all of it. He falsely accuses me of "original research", and inserting nonsense, because the official period facts don't support his modern interpretation and agenda. He seems to want to act as a super-editor/administrator, deciding on appropriate content for his favorite pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page discussion/dispute

How do you think we can help?

Please instruct Parsecboy to undo his revert, and begin to act appropriately as a regular editor instead of an administrator with special privileges.

Summary of dispute by Parsecboy

In a nutshell, Hans is trying to insert fringe theories about the article in question. If we look at the edit in question, we see use of primary sources and coatracking. What we don't see are the numerous modern historians who refute the nonsensical idea Hans is trying to push. This is textbook original research, and what's more, it's based on the work of amateur historians who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

On a procedural note, Hans filed this request and failed to notify me. Furthermore, his accusations are entirely baseless. I have not used the tools in any way here, nor is this is not my "favorite article" - I don't know that I've edited it at all apart from reverting his additions twice. I came to the dispute by way of this thread, where another editor reported having trouble with Hans. Frankly, there is no real point to pursuing DR at this point - consensus is against Hans on the matter; what he needs to do is accept that fact and find something else to do. Parsecboy ( talk) 01:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:HansMair discussion

I created a missing "Construction" section for USS Constellation (1854); Parsecboy summarily deleted it. Dismissing sourced official records as "fringe theories", coatracking, and "original research" calls into question Parsecboy's ability to function as either an editor or administrator. He makes it worse by attacking supposed "amateur historians who don't have a clue what they're talking about."

Independent Wikipedia authorities will determine for themselves that my contributions are encyclopedic and valid. I hope to continue to improve the page to reflect the two centuries-long understanding of her legacy that has only recently been called into question. That question should certainly be reflected on her page, but cannot be allowed to wipe out or cover up the facts that preceded the question. HansMair ( talk) 02:30, 18 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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• O1lI0 ( talk · contribs)
• Esiymbro ( talk · contribs)
• Aknanaka ( talk · contribs)
• Lisan1233 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1.Do we need to avoid the use of Chinese information? 2.What is use neutral Chinese? 3.Delete content that does not agree or dislike.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The page has socks puppet editing, IP editing and registered user edits.Some of them have similar editors.I am trying to explain my understanding of neutrality and the history of previous discussions.I know that socks puppet do not stop editing before reaching the goal, although I do not know his purpose. Remind them not to WP:GAME through due process.

How do you think we can help?

Honestly, I do not know.But I am very anxious about those who do not know the real purpose of the socks puppet or the Chinese group is planning what.

Summary of dispute by Esiymbro

Thanks O1lI0 for the invitation.

I suggested the removal of Chinese terms in the leading section for two reasons, as stated at the talk page:

1. They are Taiwanese terms, and not used in mainland China. Even an editor who don't know Chinese should be able see this from the .tw websites and the traditional Chinese script they used. If Taiwanese words are used in the first line, why don't we use Russian, Portuguese, or Punjab words? I see no need to include native language terms at all, as no part of the phrase "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China" need a native language for clarification.

2. They all mean "invasion", or "swallowing up", none means "incorporation". That they are translated wrong is obvious to any editor who knows Chinese.

This was meant to be a content discussion.

Yet O1lI0, refusing to answer any of the points, had made his opinion very clear: to "avoid the use of Chinese information". And by "Chinese information", the editor means not information from Chinese sources, but "All Chinese users' information". (See the talk page) This is where the point of dispute lies: the editor suggests that Chinese users should be barred from this article, so my opinion on this article is of no importance to the editor.

I hope moderator can see that the dispute is unsolvable if this remains O1lI0's attitude.

On the sock puppet part: The article has 96 watchers, 28 of whom visited recently. Many of them would know Chinese. And the wrong translation is right in the middle of the first line. I have already answered this at the sock puppet investigation page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aknanaka and a Teahouse section. I won't answer to such accusations anymore. Persistent unfounded accusations are not accusations but insults. Esiymbro ( talk) 16:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aknanaka

Summary of dispute by Lisan1233

Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China‎ discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Will the filing party please state, in one paragraph, what the content issue is? This noticeboard does not consider claims of sockpuppetry (and unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry are a personal attack). What is the content issue? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The question is the deletion of the content, the reason for the request for deletion is not neutral or is not the usage of the People's Republic of China. No matter what the reason is related to the position of the People's Republic of China.There are currently four kinds of people who advocate the deletion of these contents 1. Single use and very few times the number of editors 2. Has been identified as socks puppet account 3.IP 4. Nationality from the People's Republic of China.I personally think that the first three kinds of people have a direct relevance, may think that this is a personal attack, but one thing can be sure that these content are controversial to the people of the People's Republic of China.And my argument is very simple, the world of the Han or that the Chinese people in the People's Republic of China's largest population base is a fact, but this does not mean that all Han or Chinese view should be based on the People's Republic of China.The view is that the People's Republic of China can not fully accept and write, the view is not the People's Republic of China can not be completely denied and deleted. This requires a certain degree of balance. If you can not reach a balance or insist on deleting or writing the position of any party, then do not write any view from the Han or Chinese people and information.-- O1lI0 ( talk) 12:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will try to act as the moderator here. I do not entirely understand what the issue is, and I need another explanation. (It appears that User:O1lI0 is having a great deal of difficulty explaining in English what the issue is. English is the only language in which we resolve disputes in the English language Wikipedia. If you can't explain disputes clearly in English, then you can either edit non-contentious articles or you can edit in another language.) Please read the mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Will each editor please explain in one paragraph what should be added to or removed from the article, or why the article should be left as it is? (Allegations of sockpuppetry should be made at WP:SPI.) Please reply within 48 hours. We can try to get this resolved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: I think Happyseeu's editor has reflected my thoughts and reached Esiymbro's demands. Also solved the POV problem.-- O1lI0 ( talk) 15:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Murder of Jo Cox ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• This is Paul ( talk · contribs)
• Sceptre ( talk · contribs)
• AusLondonder ( talk · contribs)
• Ianmacm ( talk · contribs)
• TransporterMan ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over whether or not this incident, the murder of a British MP, can be defined as a terrorist incident. The issue has been raised on a number of occasions but without resolution. There are references to terrorism upon the perpetrator's conviction, but generally the British media did not refer to the murder as terrorism, although it appears the case may have been tried under aspects of UK terrorism law. Most recently it has been added to two terrorism related categories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The issue has been discussed previously, by a number of editors, but without resolution. I am one of a number of editors who have been involved in this debate.

How do you think we can help?

The dispute could be resolved by reaching a decision as to whether the murder of Jo Cox should be defined as a terrorist attack, and added to the relevant categories accordingly.

Summary of dispute by This is Paul

Although this case was tried under aspects of UK terrorism law, it seems unclear as to whether or not it has been defined as an act of terrorism by the courts. Unlike these people, the perpetrator of this crime was not convicted on a charge of terrorism, but one of murder, and references to the former in the media appear to be the opinion of one or more individuals. Because of this ambiguity I feel we should refrain from using such terms as terrorism, terrorist incident and terrorist attack in the article, as well as adding it to categories relating to terrorism. I would draw attention to WP:LABEL, which states "Value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". This is Paul ( talk) 17:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sceptre

This is ridiculous. It is well sourced that this was a terrorist attack, and to remove any discussion of that fact would be, in effect, giving credence to the fringe viewpoint that it is not. Mair was prosecuted under terrorism protocols and, upon conviction, the CPS stated it was a terrorist murder. There is on Wikipedia, as in real life, a systemic bias that seeks to excuse terrorism perpetrated by white people as not terrorism (something that was widely discussed after the white-supremacist Charleston terrorist attack – WashPo, New Statesman). However, in this case, such a systemic bias in Mair's favour does not exist; when John Humphrys tried to claim Mair was only mentally ill, Humphrys was criticised intensely by other journalists and lawyers. The only justification that I can proffer for the removal of the terrorism categories are in service of this – frankly, racist – systemic bias against calling white people who perpetrate terrorist attacks as terrorists. Sceptre ( talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AusLondonder

This should be unambiguous. Not only was the offender prosecuted by the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism division of the Crown Prosecution Service but it was described as by the CPS as the "terrorist murder of Jo Cox". Sue Hemming, Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service said "...his pre-meditated crimes were nothing less than acts of terrorism designed to advance his twisted ideology". The CPS list "the terrorist murder of Jo Cox MP" on their Terrorism Fact Sheet. Reliable sources, such as The Guardian have pointed out that Mair was "indeed prosecuted as a terrorist, and this was made clear during preliminary hearings". Media coverage of the sentencing also mention that Mair was a "far-right terrorist". This is Paul seems to be confused that the media did not refer to the murder as terrorism prior to a conviction - but this is based on the presumption of innocence. Mair has now been convicted and there is no longer any hesitation by official sources and media sources in using the word terrorism. AusLondonder ( talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm

It's clear that Mair targeted Cox because of his crackpot political beliefs. He was given a prison sentence rather than being detained in a mental hospital, because the court found that he was sane enough to understand his actions. The main source that I have relied on is the sentencing remarks of the judge where he said "It is clear from your internet and other researches that your inspiration is not love of country or your fellow citizens, it is an admiration for Nazism, and similar anti democratic white supremacist creeds where democracy and political persuasion are supplanted by violence towards and intimidation of opponents and those who, in whatever ways, are thought to be different and, for that reason, open to persecution." This is an accurate assessment of why Mair did it, but it doesn't use the word "terrorism" explicitly. This has set off another WP:TERRORIST debate.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TransporterMan

I've made a number of comments at the article talk page about the ground rules set by policy affecting this dispute. Having made them, I'm done and will not be participating further in this dispute. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their issues are with regard to article content? The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If the primary issue is whether to describe the assassination in the lede as terrorism, please also specify why this matters in the article. It should be agreed that the body of the article should summarize discussions of the motivations of the murderer. Please reply within 48 hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

The debate started off being a question of whether the events described in the article should be added to categories relating to terrorism, but the wider issue seems to be whether Thomas Mair can be described as a terrorist. The trial was held under aspects of UK terror law, but it is unclear whether he could be defined as a terrorist. He was convicted of murder, and although some media and individuals within the legal profession have used the term terrorist when describing Mair's actions, crucially, in his summing up of the case the presiding judge did not use the phrase. While I have no objections to the use of the term, I feel our coverage of these events should be impartial and reflect the judge's opinion since he oversaw the trial. I note our article on terrorism describes it as "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim", while the Oxford English Dictionary says that it is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". In the case of Mair, his actions were not indiscriminate, since he selected his target. It is perhaps the same reason why someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or Mijailo Mijailović would not be described as a terrorist, even though one could make a similar argument to do so. Consequently, I feel that while we could record that Mair has been described as a terrorist by various sources, we should stop short of directly calling him one ourselves, or referring to this case as a terrorist incident, and it should not appear in any terrorism related categories.

I know this is an ongoing issue that affects many articles (this being the second recent case I know of that's ended up here), and it may be that we need to have a much wider debate on the whole subject. But that's probably for another day. This is Paul ( talk) 10:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

One editor has said that, while we should report that the killer has been called a terrorist by various reliable sources, we should refrain from calling him that in the voice of Wikipedia. )This seems like the most neutral resolution anyway.) No one else has made a statement in 48 hours. Is there any disagreement? Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sing! China (season 2)#Edit dispute: Episode 5.27s inclusion of information ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

• [ [10]

Us ers involved

• Da Funny Dude ( talk · contribs)
• DerricktanJCW ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On Sing! China, some contestants were given a second chance to sing again on stage such that a coach who previously did not press his or her button could do so again to recruit the singer on his or her team. At their self-introduction, the show labelled them "抢星学员", or "grabbing-star contestants". As I found this piece of information important to be included, I included it in the article. However, DerricktanJCW at first denied the fact that the show mentioned such a thing, but after proving him wrong, he went on to mention that it was so subtle that no one would notice it. His eit descriptions included remarks like "JUST STOP" and "I believe I have said enough here." without properly explaining his stand, despite numerous requests to leave a message on my talk page so that this issue could reach a compromise. He still did not budge, so I decided to bring this issue to dispute resolution. I hope that this issue can be resolved peacefully. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left messages on his talk page, where he did not reply to them, and instead deleted them.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that DerricktanJCW will accept what I am editing as true and supported, and that you would help me explain my stance to him as he refuses to listen to anything. You can check the Sing! China revision history at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sing!_China_(season_2)&action=history to assist you in this. Thank you so much.

Summary of dispute by DerricktanJCW

Talk:Sing! China_(season_2)#Edit_dispute:_Episode_5.27s_inclusion_of_information discussion

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Google's Ideological_Echo_Chamber#RfC_about_including_.22Sources_cited_in_the_memo.22_on_this_page 

Users involved

• Keith Johnston ( talk · contribs)
• Arkon ( talk · contribs)
• Minor4th ( talk · contribs)
• Dr. Fleischman ( talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs)
• Rævhuld ( talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs)
• ChiveFungi ( talk · contribs)
• FallingGravity ( talk · contribs)
• Kingsindian ( talk · contribs)
• Staszek Lem ( talk · contribs)
• airuditious ( talk · contribs)
• Markbassett ( talk · contribs)
• De Guerre ( talk · contribs)
• Athaenara ( talk · contribs)
• Jazi Zilber ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should this page contain either a section on "Sources cited in the memo" or otherwise clearly reference the sources in such a way that users can easily refer to them?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page Rfc Survey and discussion

How do you think we can help?

The talk page discussion has petered out. Its not obvious to me how to reach consensus on those discussions we have had, or how to give weight to the arguments provided. While the numbers are against inclusion many of the arguments have not been addressed.

Summary of dispute by Arkon

Summary of dispute by Minor4th

Summary of dispute by Dr. Fleischman

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof

Summary of dispute by Rævhuld

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Summary of dispute by ChiveFungi

Summary of dispute by FallingGravity

Summary of dispute by Kingsindian

Summary of dispute by Staszek Lem

Summary of dispute by airuditious

Summary of dispute by Markbassett

Summary of dispute by De Guerre

Summary of dispute by Athaenara

Summary of dispute by Jazi Zilber

Talk:Google%27s Ideological_Echo_Chamber#RfC_about_including_.22Sources_cited_in_the_memo.22_on_this_page discussion

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.