Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 116

Talk:Impalement#tagging
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User:OccultZone and User:I am One of Many have not addressed concerns regarding the section of Talk:Impalement/GA3. The one comment made by User:I am One of Many on Talk:Impalement/GA3 is nearly identical to These edits, though well intentioned, do not meet Wikipedia standards.

The reassessment is an individual assessment; after 9 days, with no comments, I decided to delist the article from "good article status". I during the reassessment, I did not inform contributors because I felt that there were too many contributors inform. Some contributors have now been informed, and but the GA3 is not easily accessible on the talk page: One must go through the special pages and insert the prefix.

Per WP:BRD, both users should be discussing the concerns. Comments can be made at the section or at the GA3.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The main issue seems to be my rewriting of the lede; User:I am One of Many states: "My main concern was that you created a lede that did not match the content of the article.". I disagree with this assessment by both of you.
 * Take the following for example:
 * The included literature suggests that impalement across a number of cultures was regarded as a very harsh form of capital punishment, as it was used particularly in response to "crimes against the state". Impalement is  mentioned as a punishment within the context of war, such as with the suppression of rebels, punishment of traitors or collaborators, or for breaches of military discipline."


 * "versus"


 * "'It was used particularly in response to 'crimes against the state' and regarded across a number of cultures as a very harsh form of capital punishment and recorded in myth and art. Impalement was also used during wartime to suppress rebellion, punish traitors or collaborators, and as a punishment for breaches of military discipline.'"
 * Take note of "The included literature suggests ...". This would imply that the article is a meta-review of a synthesis of sources.  The rewrite didn't change the meaning of the article.  There are other problems, as well, such as the circuitous footnote which I removed.  I also changed the definition of impalement so the language was not as loquacious.  It didn't use proper anatomical terms, essential in any article to prevent confusion and to accurately describe the body.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?







How do you think we can help?

The page protection needs to be removed. If the page is protected, there is no incentive for any users to discuss changes. Encourage discussion on the article.

Summary of dispute by OccultZone
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This edit was the last one, made by 96. Anyways, what we have to see is, that there are no issues with the sources and the information.

That is why dispute resolution is not the right place to discussing this matter. It is particularly more about changing the article's theme, for doing so, first it should be discussed, and this sort of edit warring is probably not going to decide a lot of things. I believe that article should remain protected and any productive changes should be discussed on the article talk page. It is a GA, if or I am not going to agree with these changes, anybody else would still observe and recommend what has to be done.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by I am One of Many
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


 * This is not the place to discuss the content of the article. I take it that your goal resolve perceived disputes.  This in large part can be achieved by learning the processes and procedures on Wikipedia.  --I am One of Many (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Impalement#tagging discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - As written, this appears to be an issue about tagging. The purpose of tagging an article is to identify a need for improvements.  The purpose of discussion at this noticeboard is to agree on how to improve articles.  If this is only a dispute about tagging, and not about article content, it isn't worth moderated discussion.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but would like an explanation about whether this is a dispute about tagging, or about article content as such.  I will also advise the filing party to create a registered account.  IP addresses change, and it is sometimes difficult to work with unregistered editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It began as an issue with tagging. The above named editors deemed that the changes were in contradiction of the article's GA status.  An individual reassessment was done, but there seems to be no sincere discussion as to their reverts.96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - There appears to be a misunderstanding of GA reassessment procedure here. According to Good article reassessment, IP editors may not engage in individual reassessments, but the IP editor acknowledged that that's what they did. Barring pertinent information from other involved editors I would advise the IP to let this issue pass and open a community reassessment if they feel it is warranted. DonIago (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is most pertinent issue but where does it say that IP editors may not engage in individual reassessments?96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment." Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well please close this. This has been resolved. Thanks!96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I make an account, I stand by my GA3. This will be obvious when I make a Good Article Reassessment (2nd).  How am I to proceed when there editors who disagree on the basis of the IP account's previous reassessment?96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Try and discuss the specific reasons they have for disagreeing with your reassessment, and see if you can get to the root of their concerns. I'm not trying to suggest it has been anything otherwise from you in prior interactions with them, but do everything you can to keep the conversation impersonal, collegial and focused on the content, not the contributors, and you may be able to work something out. If it doesn't work out, perhaps try for another venue like WP:3O to get another uninvolved editor's opinion on the matter, and if that doesn't smooth things out, you could always return to DRN. Wish you well, in any case. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to have my autoconfirm status removed when I make a new account?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * After four days and 10 edits WP:AUTOCONFIRM. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are watching this section? Are you simply following the rules?  If I was to make an account, are you going to revert and ignore these discussions?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IP, I understand that this has probably been a frustrating couple of days for you at the Impalement article, but for the sake of this discussion I'd recommend you relax your tone towards the other editors. Assuming bad faith isn't going to resolve the issue you brought to the table. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , i've been specific about my concerns on both the GA3 and talk page section. The other editors have not.  For these reasons, i've struck out my comment saying that the situation has been resolved; id rather have the situation resolved now, at an opportune time, rather than an indefinite point later.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel the discussion would best continue here in the interest of improving the article, then that's perfectly fine. I'm going offline in a few minutes, but I'm likely going to pick up this case as the primary volunteer when I'm back (either late tomorrow or the day after), unless another volunteer wishes to do so before me. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One of my main concerns as an editor on Wikipedia is in maintaining the quality of articles on Wikipedia. You were bold and rewrote the lede, which is find but two other editors read your new lede and didn't agree with you that it was an improvement. My main concern was that you created a lede that did not match the content of the article.  I also disagreed with the direction you appear to have wanted to take the article. A good way to proceed in the future is to propose changes with good secondary sources to back them up.  If you make compelling arguments, use good sources, and have patience you will usually find success. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am glad we are in better states of mind. I disagree with the assessment that 2 editors disagreed with my version.  Note: User:OccultZone said: "Then you should continue editing the way you wanted to.".  I will gladly make an account and post on my user page that I previously used this IP address.  But the GA3 should be considered assessed by me.  If you prefer, we can close this case, and maybe resume the discussion on the talk page.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've appealed to for their input on the matter in case they missed the last few pings. At any rate, let me know if you're certain that the discussion can continue without issue on the article talkpage, in which case I'll close the case. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until both of them respond, but since the discussion is on going, I don't see any need to close this case any time soon.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * May I ask to elaborate a little on their concerns, ideally by providing specific passages or diffs of the IP's edits and explaining the issues had with each? Please remember to keep your commentary on the content, not the contributor. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would be happy to. I reverted here for a several of reasons. First, as previously written, the was more broadly construed to include organisms.  Second, the proposed lede changes were more definitive about the uses and purposes of impalement, which may or may not match the sources. Third, some detail was lost in the text reduction.  Finally, although I think the text can be improved, I thought the earlier lede was better written. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. A few more questions, if you don't mind: I notice that your rationale for reverting his edits was based on WP:OR policy, in the diff you provided. In reference to that, what specifically do you see in the IP's changes to the lead that cannot be attributed to what is contained in the body of the article, or a reliable source in general (which would constitute OR)? Moreover, is shifting the verbiage of the lead to refer to impalement as a method of capital punishment/human execution, as opposed to a more general definition of the term (penetration of an organism), causing an overall detriment to the rest of the article, or appear irreflective of its body/sources, and why? Lastly, what details that the IP removed did you feel were best to remain included in the lead, and why? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I wish to request clarification on the purpose of this case, on the part of the filer., you stated that your wish is to have the protection of the article removed as an outcome of this case, that there is "no incentive for any users to discuss changes" otherwise, to quote you. However, it is important to note that in discussion of contentious material, consensus must come first before putting the material in place, therefore whether or not the article is protected will not change the fact that the content is in dispute and must be discussed and consensus achieved before the change can be implemented-- in short, article protection is not going to affect your ability to discuss it, nor does it give the other editors an advantage in the discussion.


 * I suppose the simpler form of my inquiry is: Do you want to be able to edit the article again and that is all, OR do you want to be able to edit the article again and have other editors agree with or at least understand your rationale for your edits, and discuss the matter constructively with them to achieve this result, so this doesn't become an edit war again? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:BlusterBlaster, I've changed the request to reflect that page protection does not have bearing on discussion.
 * I shall address User:I am One of Many's concerns:
 * The first concern, that it was broadly construed to include organisms, was rectified in the latest version, to include only humans.
 * The lede is broken into 3 paragraphs, which I cut down to two. The reason for this was that ledes should follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which current lede does not do.  This answers your 4th concern.  It also answers your 2nd and 3rd concern, because the current lede is excessively detailed, yet does not summarize many sections of the article properly, such as longitudinal and transverse impalement, as well as other variations of impalement and torture, and other cases of such impalement practices in Rome, Egypt, and Biblical lands.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion appears to have gone stale, so I will post one last round of DRN talkpage notifications to request input from the other parties before I do a general close in a day or two. Obviously parties are not obligated to comment on DRN cases, but it will not be able to proceed if there is no discussion. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One further comment; from here on in I encourage some further engagement between parties here, lest the case grow stale - as discussion continues, I would recommend that once the IP editor has created their account as they mentioned was their intent, they should disclose their username here and start using that account permanently from now on. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Idea I've done some thinking, and was wondering if the article should also fall within the scope of WP:Wikiproject Medicine?  The main article does refer to impalement as torture technique, but some sort of discussion on treatment should improve coverage of the article's topic.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual, the edits can be still proposed and implemented, once they are proposed on talk page.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The bottom line for me is that I just don't want to see the article go down hill. I have not been a content contributor to the article, but I'll be happy to provide input on possible improvements.  I think if IP  makes an account and brushes up on policy, editing will go more smoothly in the future. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:OccultZone,User:I am One of Many: Tehy They were proposed on the talk page.  This DRN case was filed because of an impasse on the discussion.  I admit that I made a mistake initiating a reassessment without an account.  In this file, I offered to make an account, but note that my comments at Talk:Impalement/GA3 do not change.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

With consideration given to the statements made by the involved parties above, I have the following suggestions to make in the interest of resolving this dispute:


 * That should create an account, for their own convenience and for the convenience of their fellow editors. Adjoint to this suggestion, they should consider researching the pages on important editing policies such as WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS and perhaps the Manual of Style, to name a few in no order of importance - this is not a recommendation intended to impugn the IP's competence or knowledge of editing; there are certain intricacies to editing, working collaboratively and using community resources on WP that are a little complex at a glance, and often require some study to make working on WP easier for everyone. I'll say that, as an editor who only signed on this year, those pages were extremely helpful for me when I first started out, so I can endorse this as a good-faith suggestion.
 * That the involved parties consider taking advantage of consensus-building and community discussion resources such as requesting a third opinion or filing a request for comment. This may help the discussion from remaining a stalemate, with there being too few parties with opposing views involved to reach the all-important consensus decision on what to do with the article.
 * That any and all discussion relative to this article should focus more on what can be done to improve the article, rather than focusing on the question of whether or not it should be classified as a GA anymore. I don't see anything productive coming out of trying to carry on a back-and-forth about whether or not it's good enough to be a GA as-is, as both IOM and the IP have mentioned they have, or may have, ideas for how to improve it. Consider the little TP blurb that all GAs on Wikipedia contain: "XXX has been listed as one of the XXX good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so." Emphasis mine.

What do the involved parties think of my suggestion(s)? Do you consider any combination of these an acceptable step towards resolution? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a 3rd party neutral perspective on this matter. I like to quote User:I am One of Many on Talk:Impalement: "*Comment With these edits, the article no longer meets the standards of a good article and will have to be reassessed.".  Do you agree or disagree that Talk:Impalement/GA3 is a good faith reassessment, noting that I made a mistake making the assessment before making an account, and that if I made an account, that the GA3 should refer that I made the reassessment?96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I can assert with complete confidence that you made the reassessment in good faith, but instead of focusing on downgrading the article to non-GA status unilaterally based on the changes you believe need to be made-- which is an approach that can make other editors very defensive, because of the high value put on promoting and maintaining articles to GA or FA status-- I would recommend your first priority being discussion followed by consensus-based implementation of improvements to the article, and only after that, if you feel a reassessment is needed still, do the reassessment as a community process, rather than an individual one. Again, I am not saying this to demean your ability to reassess based on your experience. I find that it is always best to have more people providing insight where possible, rather than relying on your own judgment alone, when it comes to making important editing decisions like this.


 * One more important point to consider when it comes to this matter is something stipulated on the WP:GAR page itself: "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.". BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's assume that the good article status is irrelevant. You already mentioned this ("rather than focusing on the question of whether or not it should be classified as a GA anymore").  What, then, do User:I am One of Many and User:OccultZone object to, when I have stated WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, a guideline, as a main reason for my improvements of the lede?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is little bit trivial. Indeed you are sticking to the usual theme, but there is no consensus for changing it.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no protocol for such individual articles to have a specific "theme". I've seen a number of Good Articles and featured articles, and for whatever reason the article was promoted to GA status 2 years ago, the current state of the article is in contradiction to its status.  Per WP:SOFIXIT, regardless of the "quality" of the article, if there is an improvement to be made, it should be done.  I also would not characterize fixing the lede to satisfy WP:SUMMARYSTYLE trivial, and WP:CONSENSUS is decision-making that "... involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines".  Please address my concerns, and explain how changing the lede per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is not an improvement.96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Request Starting with this comment, I will be away from the computer, so I request that the case stay open for a minimum of 5 days after my last comments?96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. It won't hit the two-week mark for another six days, so a five-day absence shouldn't jeopardize it. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Request User:OccultZone has a pending arbitration case and I'm requesting an extension until that is settled.96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't bother about it. I would rather suggest you to continue this discussion on the talk page.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

has been banned by the arbitration committee. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 01:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The case now has one registered editor and one unregistered (IP) editor. If there are remaining issues between those two, then the case can resume when the IP is available.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I have posted one more round of notifications on the remaining two parties' talkpages about this case, and on the recommendation of other DRN volunteers, I will close the case as stale in 24 hours if discussion is not continued or a conclusive result reached by the involved parties. My recommendations for how the parties should proceed on this dispute are the same as I said on the 26th:


 * That should create an account,
 * That the involved parties consider taking advantage of consensus-building resources such as requesting a third opinion or filing a request for comment, and
 * That any and all discussion relative to this article should focus more on what can be done to improve the article, rather than focusing on the question of whether or not it should be classified as a GA anymore.

It is up to them to decide on how they will proceed with the dispute in terms of either continuing it here, or using some other resource, to reach a consensus on the issue. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I never considered myself in dispute with the IP editor. I think the dispute is resolved by the IP editor studying policy and following it. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is to create a separate article impalement injuries. I will consult wp:wikiproject medicine on that.  If such an article is not warranted, an accurate medical definition will be the most inclusive solution.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am quite perplexed by your request for me to study policy. Do you mean that you will disregard the purposes of my changes because of my past errors/mistakes in editing?96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear about what you are asking, but I just mean take some time and get to know some of the policies. I think you are already doing that.  In fact, I would help you out if I can (e.g., I have access to huge range of online sources). Impalement Injuries does look like a plausible article. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a game plan: I'll post an "invitation" on the wikiproject.  I'll notify you of the section on the wikiproject talk page.96.52.0.249 (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#AP_Urban_area
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The user is removed the edit even though I had it the enough info on the talk page prior to his revert. The user is stressing on removing Delhi NCT, which I have performed on his request. He also removed Andhra Pradeh capital city urban planning body which do exist earlier before the state was divided in the name of VGTMDA. Here is the ref. APCRDA official website the capital is yet to be built, but the region officially exist prior also with 4 municipalities.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've written in his talk page about that, he then bluntly removed and placed population as a means of first priority where the name itself suggest metro area.

How do you think we can help?

Just express opinions on that talk page and both of us talk pages. Also, please check which one is true. Whatever you decide I'm ready to accept.

Summary of dispute by JayB91
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:List of_metropolitan_areas_in_India#AP_Urban_area discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Jytdog reverted a change that I made to a page and is refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for the reversion. I initially took this matter to ANI but was told that it was a content dispute. The change I made was to remove a citation that did not support the sentence in the article that the citation purported to substantiate. He claimed that the following sentence in the cited web page was his basis for claiming that the citation substantiated the sentence in the article: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. ..." Please note that these sentences make no mention of any scientific consensus. Please also note that they do not pronounce that any such foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." When I requested his basis for believing that these sentences from the linked web page were somehow equivalent to the claim in the article, his response was as follows: "I hear you; that is your interpretation" When I pressed him further (see my 05:36, 29 May 2015 post in the talk thread), his response was: "really, you are beating a dead horse here." When I again asked him to "...explain [his] analysis in more detail to justify [his] position that the citation should remain in the article," his response was: "And I don't agree...You cannot change things by pounding away on dead horses, ..." A further attempt at engaging in good faith resolution was met with: "...you are just shifting ground here. I suggest you drop the stick."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I submitted an ANI. Please see it for more information.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to hear an opinion by an experienced editor on whether I am correct that he is not making a good-faith effort to come to a genuine consensus on the matter. My secondary hope is that someone can help break the logjam in the discussion.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Grayduck has been here for literally 12 days and edited on exactly one topic - this citation in this article. That includes filing an ANI because i supposedly "refused to answer". My response there, was this, which includes diffs that I did respond directly. (The ANI was closed btw as this is a content dispute; there was no behavioral violation for action at ANI) It is a violation of the WP:TPG to misrepresent what another editor writes. I will consider joining this DRN if the OP strikes his/her mischaracterization of my response - namely that I am 'refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for the reversion" when they deleted the source. It may be that Robert McClenon is correct when he writes below that this may benefit from more structured mediation.  But I am willing to give this a shot. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Please note that, when I brought this up as an ANI, he did not address the substance of the dispute but, rather, attacked me personally with false accusations. If that is the way to make progress, please let me know--I can go ad hominem, too. GrayDuck156 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon is incorrect; no RfC exists pertaining either to the primary issue or to the secondary issue. The primary issue is Jytdog's failure to provide a substantive explanation for his reversion. He is the only person directly involved in that issue. The secondary issue is whether the WHO citation should remain. Only about half a dozen editors have weighed in on that issue substantively and all of them have either agreed that the citation should be removed or that the statement should be changed to better reflect the WHO source. An RfC does exist on that page, but it is a political debate about the safety of GMO food--not a discussion about whether the statement accurately reflects the WHO citation. Every editor that has substantively commented specifically on the WHO citation in that RfC agrees that it needs to go. For example, Sarah (SV), who has been a Wikipedia administrator for a decade, says that "...[the WHO's] position doesn't really support the paragraph." GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I have reviewed this request and am neither accepting nor declining it. I have two comments for the coordinator.  First, there is a currently running Request for Comments.  Second, while this request lists two editors, a large number of editors have discussed at great length on the talk page, so that, if the RFC is closed, this content dispute may be more suitable for formal mediation than for informal moderated discussion here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2nd volunteer's comment to Robert McClenon - it appears to be a case of semantics (how the statements cited in the RS are actually written). It doesn't matter how long the OP has been editing WP. What matters is the collaboration between the two involved editors.  Behavior and tenure aside, what is the OP's proposed solution?  If the sources do not support the claims, I agree that the claims should be removed and the problematic phrasing be rephrased according to what is clearly supported by the sources.  --Atsme 📞📧 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not welcome your participation as a volunteer in this DR. I told you here that I believe you have no good will toward me, after your many comments at ANI and elsewhere chiming in with the sole purpose of attacking me. I really meant what I wrote there - please stay away from me. Your judgement in chiming in here as though you are neutral, is terrible. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not/am not showing ill-will towards you and I do not appreciate you casting aspersions against me. Opposition to or raising question about some of your edits/reverts is not ill-will, nor is participation in one discussion at AN/I brought by another editor against you. You are now demonstrating ill-will by not AGF, diverting the discussion from content to behavior, and by casting aspersions against me simply because I don't agree with everything you say or do.  I am here trying to be helpful and purposely addressed my comment to Robert, not to you or the OP.  I'm sorry if my comment doesn't support your position in this content dispute, but that is no reason for you to accuse me of ill-will. This noticeboard does not address behavior issues - it addresses content disputes and I ask that you please respect the purpose of this noticeboard and AGF. --Atsme 📞📧 16:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this board is dispute resolution and it requires neutral mediators for the process to work. I do not believe you are neutral with regard to me and I told you that a month ago. You perhaps did not take that seriously. It was serious, and written with intention. I intend to stay away from you and ask the same of you; you have burnt this bridge to the ground. If this were going forward I would refuse to participate on the basis of your involvement alone. Your judgement in piping in was terrible. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, Jytdog, and it further demonstrates which of us has an issue with neutrality. FYI, editors who disagree with you may indeed be demonstrating the best judgement.  would you be so kind as to hat this off-topic discussion?  Jytdog scores advantage by eliminating editors from disputes when they disagree with him - it appears to be a behavioral pattern.  I will voluntarily agree to not participate here but will seek further advice as to his behavior and to what extent he is allowed to protest an editor's participation by casting aspersions.  I'm concerned because there are a large number of editors who disagree with him, and without opposing views in content disputes he would actually have free reign of the encyclopedia. --Atsme 📞📧 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, your bad judgement in piping up here at DRN after I asked you to stay away from me, is very clear. And really - if you pipe up again in a dispute in which I am involved and you are otherwise uninvolved - which you have done consistently and always negatively -  I will likely seek an Iban. I have the diffs to show it and they are crystal clear. Please save us the drama and stay away from me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Atsme, but even assuming the best possible faith, it can't be described as anything other than very poor judgment, given your recent, very contentious interaction with Jytdog in many venues, to decide to jump into this particular discussion in the role of "volunteer" as what appears to be your second-only-ever DRN case you've participated in.  18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well,, at least I agreed to not participate and asked that this off-topic discussion be hatted. Perhaps you should self-analyze because your consistent defense of Jytdog is even more troublesome considering your position as an admin.  As for the iBan, I would think it requires a substantive argument and I doubt my post to Robert and/or Transporterman fall under that category.  I did not address my suggestions to you rather you cast aspersions against me.  Perhaps you should initiate an ARBCOM request if you feel that strongly about anything I've done or that my attempts to help resolve a content dispute are worthy. --Atsme 📞📧 19:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I neither express (nor have, because I haven't looked behind it) any opinion about whether Atsme's participation as a volunteer was or was not appropriate, but I would note that our guidelines here at DRN say that, "If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute." Atsme has agreed to withdraw, so this discussion is now moot and should stop now. I'm not going to hat it in light of our coordinator's statement, below, that he intends to close the entire listing in less than 24 hours, but there's no point in it continuing further and would respectfully request all participants to walk away at this point. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(Self-appointed acting) Coordinator's Note: Our regular DRN coordinator is tied up with Wikipedia Australia matters at the moment, so I'm going to act on his behalf because this needs to be cleared up before this case moves forward any further. The filing party defines two issues above. The first one is about a user's conduct (i.e. "failure to provide a substantive explanation") and will not be dealt with here since DRN does not handle conduct matters. The secondary one is whether the WHO citation will remain. Though the filing party says that the RFC pending there does not cover that issue, his/her edit here begins, "The purpose of this RfC is not to debate GMO foods, it is to discuss whether the citations support the sentence in the article. The WHO citation, specifically, does not support it." That would seem to contradict the filing party's assertion that the RFC does not cover the issue. I would ask GrayDuck156 to please explain the contradiction because if the RFC does cover the issue, as it would appear to me to do, then this case must be closed under our rules here at this noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Coord note - thanks TransporterMan (things are under control with the WMAU stuff). Read over this briefly and agree. I believe that the in progress RFC should run its course (the usage of the WHO source is relevant in the discussion from what I can see and is not a separate issue). I also note there was a previous RFC on this issue in 2013. The WHO source is one of eight being used to reference a statement, so singling it out here does not make sense. The RFC needs to run it's course first - if it closes with no consensus, it can come back here, but I see this DRN thread duplicating the discussion in the RFC. Will close this case off in 24 hours, but it can be refiled if the RFC closes as no consensus. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  15:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

3rd volunteer note: I spent time reviewing this issue, reading the talk page dialogue and the dialogue here, and i find that it appears that there is valid concern that the WHO source does not support the claim in question. Apparently there are a number of other sources to support it, so it doesn't need to be removed on this basis. I would side with removing the WHO as a source to this statement. I also see Jytdog's behavior on the talk page as being obstructionist, and not following good dialogue practices with integrity. Disclosure: I have had similar issues with Jytdog in the past in the realm of food safety as relates to PCBs, glyphosate, and David Gorski. I do not think this disqualifies me from commenting but does indicate that i have history with him/her as s/he pops up ubiquitously in these realms. I think that integrity is key in Wikipedia editing, otherwise "consensus" means nothing and becomes a lawyering/bullying process. SageRad (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * you are actually not a volunteer at DRN as far as i can see, SageRad. Please stop following me around. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And an almost identical situation with SageRad.  19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the mistake of posting as a volunteer when i was not. I didn't know the rules here regarding this, of which Robert McClenon has kindly informed me, and once i learned my mistake, i admitted it. I could have posted my comment as a non-volunteer, as an observer, on this page, and i still do stand by my comment, as a non-volunteer, or as a volunteer, as the case may be. As to the very dire accusation that i'm following you around, Jytdog, i am not. I have been in some controversial editing questions in the recent past, and so i took an interest in what disputes are on the table, and put a bit of time into addressing them. I certainly was not following you around. It didn't surprise me to see you here, but i was not out looking for you, just looking at what recent controversies were listed. SageRad (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So what should I do now? My ANI (on the primary matter I raised) was closed on the basis that it was a "content dispute." [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Jytdog_repeatedly_disregarding_requests_for_explanations_concerning_an_edit] Can I reopen that issue based on the assessment, here, that it is a "conduct matter"? GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"I would ask GrayDuck156 to please explain the contradiction because if the RFC does cover the issue, as it would appear to me to do, then this case must be closed under our rules here at this noticeboard." I have three problems with your conclusion. First, the paragraph at issue in the RfC does not even exist in the article at issue. Second, even if the RfC was talking about the sentence that actually includes the citation, the official question is as follows: "Do the sources support the content?" That question can be interpreted as "Do any of the sources support the content?" rather than "Do all of the sources support the content?" Some editors might answer in the affirmative because one citation supports the statement rather than because all of the citations support the statement. The danger with conflating those two concepts is that doing so potentially allows editors to combine unreliable sources that directly support a statement with reliable sources that do not support a statement and pretend that they sum to a statement that has reliable sources that directly support the statement. Another problem with conflating those two concepts is that addressing individual citations is a much easier task that is more likely to produce analysis that precisely addresses the strengths and weaknesses of each individual source. Only when the merits of each individual source are addressed can we realistically assess whether an extremely complex and sweeping claim truly is well sourced. The third problem I have with your conclusion is that many of the participants in that RfC are clearly interpreting it as a debate about the safety of GMO foods. For example, the first affirmative commenter--none other than Jytdog, who is both the person at issue in this thread and the author of the RfC--wrote: "No science has emerged since 2013 that changes the scientific consensus." That statement does not pertain, in any way, to whether the existing citations support the claim. It is merely a personal opinion that is designed to provide additional support to the claim. But if the claim needs additional support, what does that say about the strength of the existing citations? GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that it's very important to address process issues as summarizes, as being very careful about the scope of discussion, and accuracy at every point in a dialogue is important especially in controversial topics. We can achieve transparency and good decision-making, but to do so, we must insist on accurate dialog. This includes limiting the scope of the question, as GrayDuck156 was attempting to do, and to make sure each statement is on point and considered sound by others. That clearly didn't happen here. SageRad (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you GrayDuck156 for the response. It's now up to the DRN coordinator to make the call of whether to close this or not. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing as per my original comments. It can be refiled here once the RFC closes if there is no consensus. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  23:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Massive difference of opinion on whether a page created for an award-winning podcast is notable for inclusion. There is also disagreement about what has been put on the page with admins deleting information that other people feel is important for inclusion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just extensive discussions

How do you think we can help?

Gibe an unbiased opinion on whether the page is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia in its original form before admin GiantSnowman made edits and also after GiantSnowman made edits.

Summary of dispute by Calico1903
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Agouthelis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rinkydink84
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by RedJulianG40
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Imperatrix Mundi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Fenix down
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by GiantSnowman
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Bantams_Banter_(podcast) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The header at the top of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard states: We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.  This is under discussion at Articles for deletion.  I recommend that the coordinator close this request as already under discussion at AFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Beepi
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I requested via RFC that an editor assist with what I see as basic updates to an article where I have a WP:COI. e.g. The revenue of the company is now incorrect in the article and a more recent citation is available by the New York Times; Forbes now provides the company's valuation, which puts the previously cited venture raise of $79 million in context; the company received a major recognition from Forbes Magazine.

There are new, in-depth profiles of the company in The New York Times, USA Today and Forbes and I attempted to improve the article with new information from these sources.

I cannot make these edits directly because of my COI, or unless another editor approves them. The RFC editor asked for broader content and context beyond the financial updates so I provided new information on that as well. However, the editor rejected this non-financial content as well.

I think the proposed editions (e.g. updating article's now incorrect revenue with a new, major independent source) would be completely non-controversial had I not revealed my COI. The editor is under the mistaken impression that financial information about a company is only of use to investors, when in fact, the financial aspect of a company is useful to anyone interested in the company, whether it's a consumer, journalist, government regulator, etc. Venture capitalists, in fact, can get the company's financial information from the company. VCs don't need Wikipedia, so the editor is incorrect in his assertion that I am proposing all these changes to solicit investors.

Trying to keep the article up to date. Beepi has emerged as an important new company being extensively covered by most major media outlets.

The Talk section cites above is a continuation of: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit&section=4 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit&section=6 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit&section=7

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I requested another RFC. This reviewer, Damotclese, was in favor of putting the content requested in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit But declined to make the edits directly himself (and I didn't want to do it with a split decision) and more generally, said the article was promotional in tone. I asked for specifics so I could improve the article. I provided major sources to support all facts. He summarily rejected all sources (NY Times, USA Today, Forbes, Wall Street Journal) as "paid-for stuff, it's the way the Capitalism works."

How do you think we can help?

Please evaluate the suggested content based on whether it would improve the article; whether the sources are reliable; whether the language is neutral. If I had not revealed my COI, would there by any issue with this content? If any of the new or existing content/language seems to you to be promotional, please help with changing the language or tone. I believe I wrote this as I've written other article for Wikipedia, without any COI, but am glad to learn from specific suggestions.

Summary of dispute by Jojalozzo
I was invited to the RFC randomly by a bot. The edits proposed by BP1278 in the RFC relate to financial performance of the business. I asked for more content that discussed interesting aspects of the business such as the ways it was disrupting business as usual and the response of the industry. I also suggested that editors might be more open to the proposed, more promotional, content (mainly of interest to potential investors) if it was balanced by information of general interest.

The fact that lots of crap gets contributed to business articles is not a good reason for lowering our standards for COI editors. Editors with a COI are supposed to suffer greater oversight and take more care. I think we are correct to expect high quality, well informed contributions from editors with a personal relationship to the subject.

If the most interesting information about Beepi is its financial performance then I question the value of having a Wikipedia article about it at all and I certainly don't see any reason I or anyone else should spend more time on it than we have already. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Beepi discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I'm neither opening or taking this case, but just want to note that there appears to be adequate discussion and notice has been given to the responding party. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am now opening this case for discussion; I will have further comments after I study the page history and talk page discussion. There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you want to add or change, concretely, textually?. -- Keysanger (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you want to add or change, concretely, textually?. -- Keysanger (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your time. Here are my suggestions:
 * Hi. Thank you for your time. Here are my suggestions:

These were items I requested. As part of a WP:RFC, Jojalozzo suggested the article be improved with "more content about user experiences, successes and complaints, and about how the car sales industry is impacted and responding". Many of the articles about Beepi have very positive anectodes about user experiences but in my opinion, they would come across as promotional. WP:PROMO There are not yet reviews of the service from an independent sources such as Consumer Reports. So there's no way to satisfy the first half of the suggestion from Jojalozzo. But there is information that can be added about "how the car sales industry is impacted and responding", which could be added to the end of the "Services" or "Growth" sections: The above points are all I could find about how the car sales industry is impacted. No reliable source as of yet on how the car industry is responding.
 * In "Growth" section, update out-of-date factual statement: Replace "In October, 2014, the company said it was earning revenue at a $15 million annual run rate." with “In April, 2015, the New York Times reported the company said it was earning revenue at a $100 million annual run rate.”
 * In "Growth section" mention significant honor that also gives additional information on the topic of "growth: “In 2015, Forbes Magazine named Beepi to its annual list of 25 “The Next Billion Dollar Start Ups.”
 * "A 2014 study by the Capgemini, a research firm, reports that about one third of Americans and two-thirds of Chinese surveyed say they would purchase an automobile online." In 2015, Thilo Koslowski, the chief automotive analyst for research firm Gartner predicted online car buying services would service about half the user-car buying market. Some remain skeptical whether consumers will buy cars online, without a test drive, but Beepi has reported less than 1% of online purchases have resulted in a return."

Thank you very much. BC1278 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)BC1278


 * There are few articles in WP that have been elaborated from the beginning, most of the articles are living a dire existence until someone or several editors improve them to an acceptable level. The Beepi article does it well and while I think there are good reasons for WP to prevent COI contributions, I don't believe that every article deserves a "Criticism" section. I don't see any reason not to update or expand it with well referenced information.
 * -- Keysanger (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand that "disruptive" is a positive in 21st century business, not a criticism.
 * I am asking for useful information that adds to our understanding of the business, how it works, what its impact is, etcetera. I don't see a need to add more content touting the financial performance of the company which is most all the article does already.
 * Anyone can add the financial minutiae proposed in the RFC but it does very little to improve the article. At best, it serves to promote the business to potential investors and that is not what WP is about. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Every company article should include its revenue, if that information is available. This is the most basic information about a company. For major examples, see well-known company article such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Starbucks, Netflix. Just look at any public company with an article in Wikipedia. And for private companies, it's revenue and its worth (valuation), should also be included if it's been reported in reliable media sources. See,for example, the articles on major private companies like Uber (company), Airbnb and Snapchat. Right now, the revenue figure used in the Beepi article is out of date and can been updated with information from the New York Times, a highly reliable source. So not doing an update actually means the article is factually incorrect.
 * Every company article should include its revenue, if that information is available. This is the most basic information about a company. For major examples, see well-known company article such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Starbucks, Netflix. Just look at any public company with an article in Wikipedia. And for private companies, it's revenue and its worth (valuation), should also be included if it's been reported in reliable media sources. See,for example, the articles on major private companies like Uber (company), Airbnb and Snapchat. Right now, the revenue figure used in the Beepi article is out of date and can been updated with information from the New York Times, a highly reliable source. So not doing an update actually means the article is factually incorrect.
 * Every company article should include its revenue, if that information is available. This is the most basic information about a company. For major examples, see well-known company article such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Starbucks, Netflix. Just look at any public company with an article in Wikipedia. And for private companies, it's revenue and its worth (valuation), should also be included if it's been reported in reliable media sources. See,for example, the articles on major private companies like Uber (company), Airbnb and Snapchat. Right now, the revenue figure used in the Beepi article is out of date and can been updated with information from the New York Times, a highly reliable source. So not doing an update actually means the article is factually incorrect.


 * Revenue and valuation tells you how big the company is and how successful it is, which is important to many different audiences who rely on Wikipedia, such as consumers and journalists. Also, the article now says how much money Beepi raised (also very basic information) but not the valuation, which tells you what percentage of the company was sold in exchange for the investment. So the article without this new information is less than fully informative for the reader.


 * I think User:Jojalozzo is probably unfamiliar with writing articles about companies. I mean that not as a criticism, but as an explanation as to why this very basis attempt to update the article has turned into an issue. Beepi is a company that has attracted major, in-depth company profiles in the New York Times, USA Today, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg Business Week, among others. It's WP:Notability has already been well established. It's an important new company. Now it's time to improve the article over time as more information becomes available. For example, I think that it is highly informative that Forbes has identified the company in its "25 Next Billion Dollar Companies]] list because it helps readers understand more about the company and its importance in the market. It's one thing for Beepi to set up an online marketplace for buying and selling cars; it's quite another thing to know that the online marketplace is working based on revenue, valuation and growth. The information I am requesting be added provides this context and is perfectly standard on Wikipedia. I believe User:Jojalozzo is only objecting because I have a self-reported WP:COI, not because the article is not improved by the information.


 * Furthermore, based on User:Jojalozzo's specific feedback about adding additional background information about the car market, I did research and provided the exact information he requested. There is a full new paragraph suggested about this topic (with extensive WP:Reliable sources, which he/she is not addressing in his most recent comment. But he/she declined to include or approve this update this as well. There is now well-established policy for editors with a WP:COI to provide their suggestions on the Talk page, rather than making direct edits. I am abiding by this. I see no specific critique by User:Jojalozzo of any proposed language or existing language in the article which makes it WP:PROMO. In fact, User:Jojalozzo requests even more information "that adds to our understanding of the business, how it works, what its impact is..." I would be glad to work on doing this, but he/she's already indicated that he doesn't want to work with me because of my WP;COI, so I am going to wait to see whether this round of improvements is allowed before I take even more time to expand the article. BC1278 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I have been hanging back and watching the conversation because it looked like it was moving forward, but I believe that it is now time to step in. Here is what I propose as a way forward. BC1278 copies the article to a subpage in his user space (I suggest User talk:BC1278/Beepi Draft as a title) and edits it until it is just the way he likes it. At that point I will look it over for any obvious problems, and will ask a couple of other uninvolved volunteers to do the same If we think it is better than what we have now (possibly after suggesting a few improvements), I will replace what we have now with the draft. Needless to say comments by other participants that attempt to point out problems with the draft would be welcome, but the decision will be made by three or more uninvolved editors, not the editors who have been unable to reach agreement on this. And of course once the new version is in place anyone can edit it,`following the principles of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Sound fair? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. The edits are minor, so I can accomplish this in short order. Many thanks. BC1278 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278


 * I completed the re-draft as suggested. User talk:BC1278/Beepi Draft ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BC1278#User_talk:BC1278.2FBeepi_Draft )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC) BC1278 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278


 * I'd like to add that revenue is such an established part of company profiles that it is built into the "Infobox" as a standard field for public companies. Private companies are not required to publicly release their revenue, but when they do, and a reliable source reports on it, it is just as important in understanding the company as it is with a public company. This is not just information for investors. It's also of interest to consumers, journalists, bloggers, other companies, etc. etc. If we tried to remove revenue information from existing Wikipedia articles about companies, thousands of editors would object and revert.

Note: Anyone, involved or not. os welcome to look at BC1278's proposed changes and comment on them here. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User, as someone completely uninvolved in the topic, i took a few minutes to read and check out two of your proposed changes. I appreciate the above-board declaration of COI and willingness to work with more than usual watchfulness. I agree that the article should not be stuck with an old run-rate valuation of $15 million. However, i see a contradiction between the Forbes source, for which you want to cite Beepi as being in their list of "Next Billion-Dollar Startups", which gives a current run-rate of $50 million, and the prediction in h NY Times of $100 probable this year. The actual text of the NY Times article on this is "Yet after just a year of operation in California, Beepi is now buying and selling hundreds of cars a month and is on track to book revenue of $100 million over the next year, the company said. The start-up has raised nearly $80 million in financing and it plans to expand to seven additional regions nationwide by the end of the year." What's the certainty of the NY Times prediction? What's the weight/relevance of including this predictive claim in the article on Beepi? What's the weight/relevance for putting the "Next Billion-Dollar Startups" prediction from Forbes into the article? Putting those questions here for discussion. How weighty are these predictions, and do they warrant a place in the article, or does it give the article too much of a glossy brochure feel? Is it too promotional? I can see an argument for the relevance, but i'm cautious about articles becoming too puffed up with future predictions, even from sources like NY Times and Forbes. SageRad (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * i work on COI issues regularly. I think that holding the requested changes to the revenue, hostage to requests for other updates, is bogus.  Simple changes to factual things like revenue need of course to be supported by reliable sources and can then be implemented. This whole thing got wildly off-track with that initial mis-step.  I'm going to implement the updates to the revenue and will review the other changes, but this DR should be shut down. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User I agree the difference between the New York Times source and Forbes source is confusing. Fobres refers to "this year", meaning 2015, I think. The New York Times quote is for "over the next year", meaning the 12 months from April 2015 to April 2016, I think.  Either one of these would be an improvement from the current stat, so long as the language is careful to distinguish which means is which. Or you can cite both. As for mentioning the Forbes list, it's a closer question. I think it's more informative than an individual, even an expert, making a prognostication about just this one company because it's part of an overview story about the landscape of fast growing companies from a source, Forbes, well-known for estimating wealth, such as the Forbes 400. Their reporting is very credible on topics like this. If I was doing research on the company, for whatever reason, I think I'd want to know this information. But I think it appears more questionable because all the press reports so far are positive, so the article doesn't seem "balanced." The company is experiencing rapid growth and positive press to date.  Sometimes companies have lots of consumer complaints or they run out of money or they lay off staff members or their valuation collapses. None of these things have happened to Beepi as of yet (at least reported in any sources I could find), and if they do, interested editors can do appropriate updates at the time. Nevertheless, as I said, I do find the Forbes list information to be a closer call and if that were the only thing that was objected to, I would not have bothered to post a dispute.BC1278 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278
 * User, thank you for the clarifications to my questions. Sounds very reasonable. User Jytdog has made some edits that i think you will find to your liking, although i think he did so in a "damn the torpedoes" way, and may have some pullback from other users here. I'm uninvolved, and i came here to offer my outside assessment, and that's all i have time for, personally. Thanks for the reply. SageRad (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * yep i hope that was helpful. happy to discuss here or at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the article is being improved, and I am seeing zero objections from Jojalozzo, here or on the article talk page. I am going to wait another 24 hours to allow final comments, and if there are no objections I am going to close this as resolved.

I would like to thank Jytdog for the hard work he has put into improving the article.

I would also like to thank SageRad for his thoughtful comments. They really went to the heart of the issue.

Have either of you ever considered becoming DRN volunteer mediators? We just recently doubled the pay (which was previously $0)... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Related issue #1; we have established that it is OK for BC1278 to make uncontroversial edits to pages where he has a COI, and that the kind of financial information about current performance (as opposed to predictions about future performance) that is in pretty much every Wikipedia page about a corporation is uncontroversial.

Related issue #2; a question was raised on the article talk page about compliance with our COI policy, and I have suggested that it be discussed at WP:COIN (certainly not on DRN or on the article talk page). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in commenting here. Better late than never? I've read over the proposed draft and apart from some formatting issues (adding sections etc) it looks and well balanced and suitably referenced. I'd encourage discussion to continue on the talk page to propose further changes in the future - progress was made here and I'm confident you can all work in a collaborative manner from here. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  05:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement_in_countries_where_fair_use_does_not_exist
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User Bianbum is not engaging with me or the other editor who disagree with an addition of theirs on multiple grounds. Erpert suggested opening a request here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Me and other editor have left messages on Bianbum's wall and asked them to use the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Weighing in on disputed text and suggesting future courses of actions

Summary of dispute by Bianbum
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Tedickey
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement_in_countries_where_fair_use_does_not_exist discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just giving a reminder and a recommendation: Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The filing editor should remember from the instructions at the top of this page that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned.
 * I recommend to the DRN coordinator that this case be closed as premature. While there probably has been adequate discussion at the article talk page to satisfy our requirements, the discussion there is proceeding and shows no real sign of stalling out. Bianbum may not have been as promptly responsive as the filing editor might like, but unlike many cases which come here, he is responding. The discussion should be given more chance to develop and if it clearly stalls out after a few days, then this can be refiled.
 * Thanks. I've added notices to the other users on their talk pages. There have been a few reverts back and forth without substantive discussion despite my pleas for it. I'm not sure what else to do and am trying to nip a potential edit war in the bud. Input here or otherwise from other editors on working towards a productive resolution would be appreciated. Pengortm (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Coordinator note - Hi all, I'm Steve, the current co-ordinator of DRN (this just means I help keep the noticeboard running smoothly, and nothing more). While I do note that discussion on the talk page is continuing, I want to leave this DRN thread as an option open for the time being. Thus, I'm going to park this case for a few days and check on the talk page by Sunday (Australia time) - if discussion is continuing productively there, I'll close it out. If it's stalled by then (or there's an agreement among parties that outside assistance is needed - note that this does not mean you didn't get the resolution you wanted), it can come back to DRN. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  21:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, the conversation seems to have stalled at the talk page (as has this thread). I'd say this thread is fair game now, however if no one comments here within a few days I'll close it out as stale. Sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  23:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sean Hannity
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There have been allegations that Sean Hannity associated with neo-nazi Hal Turner. A proposed entry on the allegations has been rejected on the grounds that the episode's very inclusion in Hannity's bio constitutes undue weight. Should the allegations feature in the article? If yes, to what extent?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive debate in talk section.

How do you think we can help?

Establish a consensus on whether or not an entry is appropriate, and on what kind of entry should be made is if is.

Summary of dispute by Niteshift36
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * It's worth pointing out that many of the listed editors are inactive, not having edited for some time. Many inactive for years. The requestor simply listed everyone who has discussed the issue over the years. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll reserve commenting on the issue, pending the withdrawal of the mediation request. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cwobeel
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Malerooster
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rocdahut
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jimintheatl
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Kelly
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Asher196
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by FuriousJorge
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Stargnoc
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Baltech22
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zonerocks
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by JohnInDC.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Sean Hannity discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Mediation Committee Chairperson's Note (with DRN volunteer's PS): There is a Request for Mediation pending on this matter, which is due to be rejected or accepted by the Committee by June 16 (though that date may be extended if the filing party here adds additional parties there; the list of parties here is much more extensive than that given there). If RemoteControl97 wishes to proceed here at DRN s/he should immediately withdraw that request by putting a note on the mediation request page. For the Mediation Commitee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
 * PS: Having said that, if I may put on my DRN volunteer's hat for a moment, if RC97 will take a look at the DRN talk page history you'll find substantial agreement among the DRN volunteers that cases with more than three or four participants are almost never successfully resolved here at DRN and generally ought to be referred to MedCom or to RFC. Also, if you do intend to continue here rather than at MedCom, please also be aware that it is your obligation to notify each listed party by putting a note on their user talk page. You can put"Sean Hannity — ~"at the bottom of each user's talk page to do that or write a custom note with a link to this filing. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (as DRN volunteer)


 * Second Volunteer note - I concur with the previous volunteer note. On the one hand, there has been extensive discussion on the talk page.  There has also been edit-warring.  This issue is ready for dispute resolution.  The question is which method of dispute resolution.  I see that the filing party has requested two forms of dispute resolution at the same time, which is a good-faith violation of a highly technical rule.  (Requesting two forms of dispute resolution is much better than edit-warring.)  He or she has both requested lightweight moderated discussion here, with a very long list of participants, and formal mediation at Requests for Mediation with a shorter list of participants.  As noted, with a very long list of editors (who have not been properly notified), this case may not work well at this noticeboard.  In my opinion, given that the issue is straight-forward, whether to include or not include a particular paragraph, there is probably a better form of dispute resolution, a Request for Comments.  I suggest that the filing party consider withdrawing both of these requests and publishing a Request for Comments to obtain consensus as to whether to include the language.  A DRN volunteer may assist in wording the RFC to ensure that it is neutral.  (RFCs that are not worded neutrally are common, being composed by editors with a strong preference, but are often difficult to work out and close impartially.)  I suggest that the filing party request assistance in composing a neutral RFC and let the RFC decide whether to include the language.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * DRN co-ord note - I agree with the perspective of the other volunteers. While it's not my place to decide, I don't feel that this case is suitable for MedCom (or for DRN) - a community RFC would be best suited to this discussion. I would be happy to help draft such an RFC. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  02:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

List of_Murder,_She_Wrote_episodes
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This page unlike EVERY OTHER page on wiki has details about who the Murderer is, Yet i have pointed out this is out of sync with all other wiki pages about TV detectives. I pointed out why is this one so special I never get a proper response to this. Wikipedia:Spoiler is used but there is a BIG difference to plot etc and naming who did it on this one page, show me another page with Murderer.. Quincy, M.E. doesn't Kojak doesn't etc

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page but not one want to give any suggestions

How do you think we can help?

Have a proper ruling on this subject, and have everyone singing of the same hym sheet. Personnel I don't think its WIki job to give pin point details about Murderer. IF that was the case Why would you read up on the pages in the first place????

Summary of dispute by Skyerise
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of_Murder,_She_Wrote_episodes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - It appears that there has only been very brief discussion on the article talk page. I am neither opening nor declining this case at this time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How do we solve this without going into the Edit war, because the other person WILL NOT speak?? edit he comes back with the same point, but there does not seem to be any equal rule thoughtout wiki

Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Well originally this dispute came about because an Indian study stated that some estimates suggest the Typhoon has 1/4 the RCS of a Rafale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Radar_signature_reduction_features http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf It simply added supporting information. I didn't state anything that wasn't in the sources or say it in a way suggested anything other than what was said.

It originally read:

According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.

I added "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite. "

Can't see the problem. I've been accused of OR but I haven't synthesized anything not in the sources as you can see. If the issue is whether composites have a lower RCS then metal, that is a scientific fact, well supported even by wiki:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/navy-experimenting-with-composite-superstructure-for-warships/articleshow/47056945.cms http://www.ramboats.com/why-ram.html http://nano.iphy.ac.cn/N04/papers/NO4_papers%20all%20pdf/HJ_Gao.0710.pdf http://www.deccanherald.com/pages.php?id=473934 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21038610/Composite-Materials#scribd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussion, not resolved.

How do you think we can help?

Look at the two sources provided in my addition (2&3) and determine if I've said or inferred anything not in them.

Summary of dispute by Mztourist
I have already raised Z07x10's edit-warring at WP:ANI, but will respond here. the issue first arose from an edit in February where I questioned the reliability of a source on the Talk Page, see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon, the statement was tagged and was left at that. On 24 May Z07x10 editted the phrase claiming to add a source but actually just removing the tags, I reverted this. On 28 May Z07x10 added a comparison of relative %s of composites and his OR/Synthesis that the Typhoon had a reduced radar signature. I reverted this and Z07x10 and I discussed this on the talk page. User:Fnlayson who tagged the disputed statement then trimmed the OR on 29 May. On 30 May I removed the OR and restored the tags. Earlier today an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. I reverted the changes and advised that the IP wasn't me. Z07x10 has then engaged in an edit war, his changes have been reverted by me and 2 other users. Z07x10 then made the baseless accusation "You have also reverted more than 3 times using sock puppet accounts. Home PC, work PC, lap-top, mobile device, proxy servers, all unsigned edits. I've had the same problem with you before". As can be seen from the current Talk Page and the latest Archive, Z07x10 has done OR before (number of hardpoints) and adopts an extremely argumentative approach with other users who disagree with him (maximum speed). If you look at his Talk Page you will see frequent warnings for edit warring and incivility. Mztourist (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So after the 29th of May, when Fnlayson and I had agreed on a change, why did you continue to make reversion edits, with discussing it on the talk page or raising a DRN as per policy?
 * Please explain to us all what is OR wrt this comment that you edit warred over: "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite. "
 * Let's not play all innocent here either, you also have several edit-warring warning and arguments on your talk page. This specific warning covers your evasive and extremely annoying habit of deliberately waiting more than 24 hours before making the exact same revert and clearly states that it is still edit warring.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mztourist#Edit_warringZ07x10 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * you have been warned Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring there is no point in trying to continue to argue here. Mztourist (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * YOU have also been warned for edit-warring and evasive 3RR sidestepping tactics only 6 months ago.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mztourist#Edit_warring
 * Are you going to explain where the OR is in that statement yet?Z07x10 (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: Unless User:Mztourist has any remaining issues, I think we've probably reached an agreement on the article talk page. I am happy with current edit.Z07x10 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we have not reached agreement, I have asked other users to form a consensus on the article Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought we agreed yesterday that each individual sentence is now individually supported by sources and free of OR.
 * Here is the latest proposed edit anyway:
 * According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.  Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.   The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.   An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.  Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.  The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection.  Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding  a larger reflection. Z07x10 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I and other users are concerned about the OR/Synth nature of what you have proposed as shown most recently by User:McSly's edit, I am waiting for them to join the discussion on the talk page to form a consensus. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I must express my concern that the edits by Z07x10 (talk) seem to present the view that the purported difference in RCS between Typhoon and Rafale is due to the 15% difference in composite surface area and the latter's metallic intakes. This specific assertion is *not* supported by any of the sources given. There are cites of some general sources which confirm that composites reflect less radar signal than steel, but to tie that or other features to specific comparisons of RCS is clearly synthesis. I would therefore oppose their inclusion. I would also discourage the use of manufacturers' own websites as citations, except for innocuous details such as date of first flight etc. HLGallon (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please point out where you think I've said this:
 * the view that the purported difference in RCS between Typhoon and Rafale is due to the 15% difference in composite surface area and the latter's metallic intakes.
 * The text above does not say that. Every sentence says exactly what is in the linked source at the end of the sentence to the letter as per example 3 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material.  Any 'synthesis' is in the head of the reader.  If you feel that it's necessary to state that RCS depends on other things too, or simply link the wiki RCS page, I'm happy with that.
 * As regards manufacturer websites, information like percentage of materials used can only originate from the manufacturer, there is no other possible source of such information besides direct regurgitation of that manufacturer specification. For this reason primary sources are not prohibited, it's just preferred that they're backed up by secondary sources but only where it's actually possible.Z07x10 (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source which states unambiguously that "...the RCS of Typhoon is 1/4 that of Rafale because it has 85% composite surface area rather than 70% etc." Without this, the presentation of arguments as they currently stand is synthesis. You might try copyediting to remove the apparent link between the two separate assertions. HLGallon (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But I have not actually said that it's because of the composite percentages, I have pointed the percentages out as a separate fact, in a separate sentence, supported by a separate source, as per the third example on the synthesis page, which is marked correct and permissible. What is copyediting?  Moving the text around to a different place in the paragraph?  I can do that if that's what you mean.Z07x10 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You will need to do that, at minimum. Even though the synthesized information is not explicitly stated, if sentence 1 stating the RAF's claim as to the relevant Radar Cross-Sections is immediately followed by sentences 2 and 3 which compare the relative composite surface areas and intake construction, then even a technically-minded reader would directly associate the first sentence as being the result of the next two. Reversing the order and splitting them might help, but there is in any case some repetition and redundancy in the section. Sentences 2 and 3 seem to repeat information in the preceding paragraph which makes them appear even more to be specific to the RCS comparison rather than generalised statements.HLGallon (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by involved McSly
HLGallon and Mztourist have nailed it. This is a clear case of synthesis. Z07x10 is inferring that difference in radar signature between the Eurofighter and the Rafale is due to the difference of composition of their surface without any source stating that link. This is not the first time is this user is trying to push his own OR/Synth on this article with a battleground mentality, see this from last year for example. --McSly (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I am trying to form a formal consensus on this issue on the Talk Page as a number of users have reverted the edits there but Z07x10 persists in rewriting the para to push his OR/Synth Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but am merely noting that (1) notice and discussion seem to be adequate, but that (2) there is a EWN report which could affect this case. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Update: the EWN case has been closed without action which might interfere here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I am opening this issue for discussion. I don't know much about this topic, and I expect the participants to provide me with any information that I need. My job is not to decide any issues, but to facilitate discussion. I see that there is a question about whether particular statements are original research because they may be synthesis by Wikipedia editors. Original research by Wikipedia editors is not permitted. Are there any other issues? Please be civil and concise. It appears that the participants in this thread have been civil, which is good. Civility is not an optional nice-to-have factor in Wikipedia, but is mandatory. Please explain your position briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment in your own sections. Do not add your comments to those of another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on contributors. Comments on other contributors may be stricken or hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Z07x10
Ignoring what has or hasn't happened previously, as it is irrelevant, in the current edit, shown below, every separate sentence is individually sourced and says exactly what is supported by the source and no more, as per the 3rd example in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, which is marked as correct/permissible. The allegations that the following contains OR/synthesis is false, I'm simply pointing out exactly what is contained in a variety of sources and have not made any links or suggestions that one proves/disproves the other (as per the two incorrect examples on the OR/synth page):

"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.  Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.   The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.   An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.  Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.  The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection.  Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding  a larger reflection. "

Also particularly relevant to some of the counter points you'll see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not

1. Wrt composite percentages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article."

2. Wrt counter opinions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all "If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim."

3. Wrt to maximum detection range equation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_explanation "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question "Most Wikipedia articles, those on subjects of general interest, should be comprehensible to a typical secondary-school student. It does not follow that a secondary student should be able to evaluate whether the cited sources suffice to verify a particular assertion. Inevitably, many sources are more advanced than the article. Normally, however, an ordinary educated layperson can understand the sources adequately. If such a person can confirm that the sources suffice to verify the claim, then the claim is not SYNTH -- even if a typical secondary-school student would have trouble evaluating the question."Z07x10 (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Mztourist
A clear case of OR/Synth that follows a pattern by User:Z07x10. The issue first arose from an edit to Eurofighter Typhoon in February stating that "some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return". I questioned the reliability of a source on the Talk Page, see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon, User:Fnlayson then tagged the source and it was left at that. On 24 May Z07x10 editted the phrase claiming to add a source but actually just removing the tags, I reverted this. On 28 May Z07x10 and User:Fnlayson added a comparison of relative %s of composites and OR/Synthesis that the Typhoon had a reduced radar signature to support the questionable ref. I reverted this and Z07x10 and I discussed this on the talk page. User:Fnlayson who tagged the disputed statement then trimmed the OR on 29 May. On 30 May I removed the OR and restored the tags. On 4 June an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. I reverted the changes and advised that the IP wasn't me. Z07x10 then engaged in an edit war for which he was warned for edit warring and false sock accusations, see:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Z07x10 then accused me of edit warring see: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, so it hasn't exactly been civil. Since then Z07x10 has continued to modify the paragraph adding sentences that while they may be individually factual (if primary sources are accepted and after some questionable sources were revised) add up to synthesis all intended to support the original questionable statement. A number of other users have also revised or reverted the paragraph and I have notified them of this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator
I can see that the basic issue is whether certain edits by User:Z07x10 are synthesis amounting to original research. I can see that Z07x10 says that they are not original research. However, because of the length of the discussion, I would like a very brief summary, either quotes or diffs, showing exactly what edits are the controversial ones. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, while this is a reasonable place to discuss whether edits are original research, there is a separate specialized noticeboard for discussing arguments about original research. One possibility would be to move this discussion to the original research noticeboard]. Would the parties agree to move this discussion there?  If not, we can continue it here.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil and concise. Comment on content (including possible synthesis and OR), not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Z07x10
No problems, here is the current paragraph with contentious bits in bold. I am happy with it, they are not:

"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.  Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.   The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.   An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.  Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.   The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection.  Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding  a larger reflection. "

With respect to first bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm insinuating that the composite percentages are the reason for the Typhoon having a lower RCS than the Rafale, just because it follows a sentence that does draw a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:

1. Wrt composite percentages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article."

I.e. it is not synthesis just because two sourced facts are stated in separate juxtaposed sentences. So when Mztourist says, "This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence," he is incorrect. Even if we removed the part about the Rafale, it would still be in the Rafale article, indeed the image source is from that article anyway. So the facts would all still be there in wikipedia, saying the exact same thing and having the same meaning. As per "SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition" the reader gets the same facts even if they are placed elsewhere in the article, or project.

With respect to second bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm proposing this as further synthesised proof of RCS, just because it follows a sentence that does source a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4""

I.e just because I'm summarising the content of the radar detection range equation in the sources, it is not synthesis, and as before, it isn't synthesis just because it's juxtaposed either. The statement is correct, radar detection range is proportional to the 4th root of RCS as per equation marked out in source following sentence. See also, if required:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) Also of note, if two separate sentences are individually sourced and accurate to that source, it is not synthesis/OR and complies with example 3 in:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

Also applicable to complaints against paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question

I am happy to include any sourced counter claims, as mentioned by Mztourist, if he can find WP:RS for them.Z07x10 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Mztourist
I think that Z07x10's statement "I am happy with it, they are not" (emphasis added) speaks volumes here, there is a consensus against Z07x10's drafting, yet he still pushes the issue.

To analyse the contentious paragraph: "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. This is the original wording from February that all of Z07x10's later edits seek to support.

''Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes. The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.  This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence.

An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar. I'm really not sure what this is trying to say as it is comparing the Typhoon against a completely different, stealthier aircraft.

Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. '' I'm also unsure what this is trying to say.

''The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection. '' This is another attempted comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale (which does have a vertically mounted radar).

In my view all of the above amounts to Synth to support a claim made in a questionable source. User: Z07x10 doesn't present any information that could support the contrary position such as that the Rafale's engine intakes conceal the engine face more efefctively than the Tyhpoon. I certainly don't wish to see this page devolve into a blog of "the Typhoon is steathier because of this" versus "the Rafale is stealthier because of this." Unfortunately that will be the result if the questionable source is supported by this OR/Synth. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by HLGallon
In this case, in contrast to the general case of What SYNTH is not, the juxtaposition is the root of the matter. It is obvious to me and several others that there is a clear implication in the first three disputed sentences, of "A *because* B and C". The "because" which readers may very well infer is the synthesized OR. The sentences would not have the implied meaning if they were in separate paragraphs or part of the article. All other arguments and apologia are irrelevant.

Third statement by volunteer moderator
I think that there is an impasse. As I noted, the issue is whether certain edits by User:Z07x10 are synthesis amounting to original research. In particular, is there "mere juxtaposition", or is the juxtaposition such that it amounts to synthesis? Two editors think that the edits by Z07x10 are original research. Z07x10 maintains that they are not. I see two ways forward. The first would be a Request for Comments to the community. The second, which I recommend, is to go to the specialized original research noticeboard and ask the opinion of other editors who have experience in dealing with original research controversies. I will be closing this case after getting comments from the editors as to which route to take from here. (If there is no agreement as to how to go forward, I will go to the specialized noticeboard). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Z07x10
Yes, the OR noticeboard would probably be a good idea Robert. I can't agree that two separate sourced statements amount to synthesis, because neither of them amounts to the suggestion of a third point that isn't expressed by either of them, and that is the crucial aspect of this. If you look at the incorrect examples here. There is a third point/opinion being suggested by the crucial words in bold:

"The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

"The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."

In the third example it's more complicated but there is still a clear insinuation that the rule broken is not plagiarism and that Jones may have broken another rule relying on one editor's interpretation/OR of a source:

"If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

You can see the clear linkage between the sentences, "practice" -->> "this rule" and the manual "does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead..." It could be acceptably rewritten as:

"Not consulting the original sources is contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. According to the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

There is no longer any editor OR/synthesis although a reader may still perform their own OR/synthesis, which does not count as editor WP:OR.

Now my edit:

"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.  Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.   The Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.

Here the point that the Rafale has a larger RCS is included in the first sourced sentence, the Typhoon's surface area composition is stated in the second point and the Rafale's surface area composition is stated in the third point, without any adjoining commentary linking the two. There is no suggestion that the Rafale has a larger RCS as a third point, because that's already sourced and pointed to in the first sentence. Could the first sourced point be because of the second and third sourced points? Well it could but the editor has not suggested that themselves with any inflammatory text, as shown in bold in the above examples. Any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader and that is impossible to prevent and does not constitute editor OR, as shown in ."

''An apple is a kind of fruit that is eaten by many people. Apples contain fruit sugars, vitamins, water, and fiber. Apples can be eaten raw or cooked. Some people are allergic to eating apples.''

Is the reason that many people eat apples because they contains fruit sugars, since these are sweet? Is it because of the flexibility provided in being able to be eaten raw or cooked? Well it might be but the editor has not suggested this simply due to juxtaposition, any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader once again. Wikipedia rules under juxtaposition do not hold an editor accountable for reader OR, only their own OR. It simply tells complainants, as readers, not to perpetrate their own OR and blame it on editors :

"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't."

Ultimately it is impossible to write in a way that stops readers thinking and drawing an opinion on the multiple facts presented to them and would we want to anyway? Editors are not responsible for human nature, only their words. Inferring words that aren't there is a complainant problem not an editor problem.

Z07x10 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by McSly
Yes, this should go to the original research board. This is as a clear case as it gets.--McSly (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
Two editors have agreed that this can be taken to the original research noticeboard to ask other editors who are experienced in determining what is and is not original research. The other two editors did not disagree. As a result, I have opened No_original_research/Noticeboard and am closing this thread. Further discussion will be at that noticeboard. Please be civil and concise there also, and comment on content, not on contributors. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Disagreement about what content to include related to the context of the War of the Pacific in the article Economic history of Chile.

Our discussion is about what is neutral and what is relevant for inclusion. I cleared the article of non-economic content that user Keysanger thought would balance the views on the origin of the war. Yet Keysanger have also at times removed and put into question some of the sources I have provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested a third opinion.

How do you think we can help?

By helping define what sources are valid or not and what content is relevant or not for the article economic history of Chile.

Summary of dispute by Keysanger
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


 * No. This is not the point.
 * The point is whether
 * only a fringe view about the causes of the war should be presented as the only main cause and the other causes dismissed or vaguely hinted in a footnote or
 * all the causes of the war according to the mainstream historians should be presented, and the reader should decide the real importance of the fringe view
 * -- Keysanger (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User Dentren wrote: ''Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[55] Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain.[50][56] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[50] In the mid-1870s, Peru nationalized its nitrate industry, affecting both British and Chilean interests.[55] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[55] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[55] In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:[50][55] If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883).[50] It has been argued that the economic situation and the view of new wealth in nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war against Peru and Bolivia.[50] [note 2] I ask Dentren to respond following questions course according to the 5-WP pilars:

I thank Dentren in advance for his cooperation to resolve Salazar's trouble. -- Keysanger (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you agree that Salazar is considered a "leftist", "marxist" historian?
 * 2) Do you agree that he represents a tiny sector of the mainstream of historians?
 * 3) What do Salazar says in the reference 50 to this snippet: This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883).[50] It has been argued that the economic situation and the view of new wealth in nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war against Peru and Bolivia. Please be generous and lets know all the context of the assertion. I think, Salazar's book is unknown out of few libraries of Santiago de Chile.
 * 4) Can you deliver some examples were Salazar's view is positively cited in academic books?
 * 5) Why did you delete (here) the point three of my contribution? That is Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works to strengthen its nitrate monopoly and in order to achieve it, the Bolivian and Chilean salitreras had to be controlled by Peru.... It isn't an economic cause of the war?
 * 6) Why did you delete (here) my contribution US historian Fredrick B. Pike calls this allegation absurd... Is it not an academic rebuke of Salazar's view?
 * 7) Why did you relegate (here) to a footnote the opinion of all others historians?
 * 8) Why did you push information that bring the reader to believe that Chile was in a deep economic trouble but you refrain to inform and delete information about the much worse situation in Peru and Bolivia?
 * 9) Why did you refrain to inform the reader about the situation in Peru and Bolivia?
 * 10) Had Peru never tried to control the Bolivian salitreras in order to sort out its financial debacle (default, deficit)? Did you tell it the reader?
 * 11) Do you think that the sensation-grabbing cite of A.Pinto words is correct. Wanted Anibal Pinto the war? What do the historians say about Pinto's stance?
 * 12) Do you agree that historians write that the WotP had several causes, especially territorial, geopolitical, economics and domestic political causes?
 * 13) Do you think that the mention in the main article of only one view of the causes of the war is according with the NPOV of Wikipedia?

Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer note: Keysanger has been notified. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Without objection, I will be opening this shortly. I am an inexperienced volunteer (only two previous cases, and both of them were closed as stale) so I'd appreciate if another volunteer could keep an eye on this as well. Thanks. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)  Oops, I see that  has not provided a statement yet. --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's Note: I've pinged L235 that this case is ripe to be opened. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
 * has indicated a prolonged absence, I am willing to take the case if she is not able, but I course defer to her if she's willing and able to. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm now opening the case. I'm happy to have oversight and guidance while volunteering for this case though. : I'm a he, not a she --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 15:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was thinking of somebody else. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that both parties are currently blocked for edit warring, so discussion will hold until those blocks expire or are lifted. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind on that. I will be on enforced wikibreak until 19:00 28 May UTC. If discussion starts before then, another volunteer is free to mediate. Thanks, and my apologies. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Comment - Both editors are blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, so that they can comment tomorrow. I would like to remind them of the caution by blocking admin User:EdJohnston that this is a long-running dispute that may require topic bans.  Participating in this dispute resolution may be the best chance that the parties have of getting the matter resolved without topic bans.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keysanger, this is not the place to discuss content. This is the place were to find a way/mechanism to resolve our differences or at least to stabilize the article. As far as I understand content discussion should take place in the article talk page. Dentren  |  Ta lk  13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Following McIenons suggestion I will discuss some issues here. I do first want to let you know that I do not disagree with all of what you have put forward since February. I have tried to accommodate some concerns. I do think we need to concentrate on the specific issues and not expand this dispute. By questioning the reliability of Chilean National History Award winner Gabriel Salazars work you are affecting about 20 articles plus near all sections of Economic history of Chile (that were not previously into dispute) and expanding the original issue much beyond what it was at the beginning. As I have said numerous times before my focus is on resolving problems not to open new fields of disputes. I have observed plenty of disputes degenerate into a myriad sub conflicts to an extent it is unmanageable to address them. Such evolution could eventually be disruptive.


 * Acting in good faith I propose that you Keysanger, and the observers and mediators too take a look at this version and see if you find it acceptable. The changes are not small. Dentren  |  Ta lk  18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My response is this one and my rationale this one. I propose that you stop changing the article before consensus has been reached in order to discuss about one ground. -- Keysanger (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wasting your time if you are trying to discredit Salazar. Besides note that this was not your original concern in February, that concern was that "he was rebuked" by other historians. Since then you appear to have changed your mind and now he is to you a fringe, unknown and ¿Marxist? The fact is he is a recognized historian whether you like or not.
 * If we move a relevant issue is if you can actually "rebuke" a 2002 statement (Salazar & Pinto) with a 1963 statement (Pike). To do is WP:OR. One needs to be careful.
 * I'm ready to help accommodate your concerns that are legitimate. I tried to do in my last edits. Apparently it didn't convince you. The widening of scope of your attack is worrying, because it hinders the solution to this problem that arose from a specific issue. We need to focus. Dentren  |  Ta lk  21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, lets wait until the volunteer open the discussion. I will discuss here and not in the article page. -- Keysanger (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So, not sure, but I think now is the discussion open.

Hello L235, thanks for helping us to sort out the trouble. I must say that English is not my first language but I keep it simple and direct. Don't hesitate to stop me when you mean that something is not clear.

I propose following roadmap to resolve the problem:


 * 1) We agree not to change the relevant parts of the article's current version until we get consensus
 * 2) We agree that following should be said to the reader about the causes of the war in accordance with the respective WP rules:
 * 3) That the causes of the war were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political
 * 4) That at that time the three warring nations were in deep economic trouble and saw the nitrate as a solution for the woes
 * 5) That the 10 cents tax and the secret treaty triggered the war but that the causes were much more profound.
 * 6) We agree to use only reliable sources that represent the mainstream historiography in accordance with the respective WP rules.
 * 7) There are two books in English language about the war: (US) Sater's "Andean Tragedy" and (UK) Farcau's "Ten Cents War". Sater has written several books about the theme and is THE authority in these questions and his books and views are indispensable for any encyclopedic work about the war
 * 8) Any minority view should be earmarked as such and set in relation to the mainstream historians in the English language in accordance with the respective WP rules
 * 9) We elaborate a wording for the text in accordance with the respective WP rules. That could be for example:
 * 10) The causes of the War of the Pacific were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political issues combined to produce an impasse that lead to war and it is disputed which was the main cause of the war as there are mutual recriminations about the origin on the war. Regarding the economic causes, in the 1870s, Bolivia, Chile and Peru economies suffered under an exceptionally strong economic downturn triggered by the global financial crisis and internal turmoil and their governments desired to make more profit from the nitrate exploitation. Bolivia broke flagrantly the 1874 Boundary treaty imposing a new tax on Chilean capital, Peru wanted to improve the guano and nitrate revenues through a monopoly but needed for this purpose the control over the Bolivian salitreras and Chile sought to protect the business of the nitrate in Chilean hands.

L235, Dentren, what do you think about?. -- Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You proposal is definitely a step forward.
 * I agree on that we should stop making edits without consensus. To obtain consensus we should perhaps try some involve a third editor.. who would need to be interested in the topic.. and of course, considered a good editor by us both.
 * I do also concur on that the origins of the war are complex.
 * I am aware that Bolivia and Peru were also affected by economic downturns. Think this should be addressed in economic history of Peru and economic history of Bolivia. What concerns this article is Chile.
 * I agree to use reliable sources. Have always attempted to do so.
 * Yes William Sater is good scholar and certainly appears to be a heavyweight in issues relating to the War of the Pacific. Yet his work should not be read as a Prima scriptura.
 * The thing with the article is that it is about Chile and economics. I have attempted to put the war in the economic context, not give a detailed account on the origins. The article is no meant to have such discussion.
 * Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated. Chilean wheat exports were out-competed by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain. Chile's silver mining income also dropped. Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile. Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation". In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:
 * “ 	If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen 	”


 * —Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.


 * It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians, some rejecting it and others considering it simplistic. Another thesis relating to the economic crisis has been proposed by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez postulates it as force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.


 * Note that this version stress that the war was costly and explicitly presenting concerns and rejections of the profit-thesis (without endorsement). No reader with critical thinking could understand this version as "Chile was the bad boy" . Hope you find this version agreeable.  Dentren  |  Ta lk  12:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's Note: I've moved the foregoing discussion from the summary section to here in the discussion section, just to put it in the right place. You are free to continue the discussion at the article talk page until the volunteer opens this for discussion, but please refrain from discussing it here until that time. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (current Coordinator)
 * Volunteer Note - Editing the article without discussing the edits here (and without even discussing on the talk page) while waiting for a mediator is unproductive and disruptive. Stop editing the article in advance of the moderated discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's Note #2: L235 has announced that he will not be able to take this case. Kharkiv07 can you proceed with it, since you've expressed an interest? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly, allow me to review the material and I will comment shortly. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I will now be mediating this case; I highly appreciate Keysanger's points and Dentren's response to them, this dispute is already going in the right direction. For now, I would like you to comment only in your own section; however I will allow you to respond once to a point the other makes in your own section. I would also strongly advise both of you to refrain from editing the article for the time being, if there are any more blocks for edit warring on the article I will withdraw my support and I fear it may lead to topic bans. Now, as far as the dispute goes, I would like both of you to either give text or simply a handful of ideas which you would be happy with and you think the other person would be happy with, remember the goal here is compromise. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 20:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Dentren's first proposal

 * Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated. Chilean wheat exports were out-competed by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain. Chile's silver mining income also dropped. Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile. Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation". In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:
 * “ 	If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen 	”


 * —Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.


 * It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians, some rejecting it and others considering it simplistic. Another thesis relating to the economic crisis has been proposed by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez postulates it as force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.

I have tried to follow these principles in the writing: References
 * 1) Being concise (considering section and article length)
 * 2) Avoid duplication of things already discussed in depth elsewhere
 * 3) Incorporate different views in a brief but weighted manner.
 * 4) Retain the attention in the economy of Chile over the intrigues of magnates
 * 5) Mention of historiographical debates/differences should not obstruct flow or prose

Dentren |  Ta lk  21:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's first proposal
Welcome Kharkiv07!.

Dentren doesn't want to say any thing about Peru and Bolivia, only about Chile, because, he says, Avoid duplication of things already discussed or The thing with the article is that it is about Chile and economics.

Do you think that (X=Jews/Armenians/Yazidis/Gypsies)


 * Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the genocide.

would be a fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views description of X-genocide?

I think we don't disagree on content, but in the hard facts that should be shown. Compare both descriptions:

I stick to the first line written in WP:NPOV:All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Dentren wants to save hard disk space, he says. But indeed, his text is sensation-grabbing and larger than mine!.

Kharkiv07, What do you think about the genocide description?. Do you think it is neutral?. What do you think about the description of the causes of the war?

-- Keysanger (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses
Keysanger has already more or less responded to Detren's, and I will not comment what I believe to be NPOV or not, but I would like to hear constructive responses to the other, including suggestions that would make you happier while preserving the original author's intentions. The goal of this is not to get to a final product, but move closer to a compromise in the middle. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 17:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Detren's response
From Keysangers proposed text I can think of having brief mention of economic downturn in Bolivia and Peru (and perhaps globally). What I would like Karkiv, Keysanger and others to do is to rememberv that the article is ultimately about the economic history of Chile. Anything about the War of the Pacific that is not related to the economics of Chile should be kept to a minimum and discussed elsewhere. Dentren |  Ta lk  19:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's response
In order to explain the economic causes of the war in Economic history of Chile we have to explain which was the context of the war, that is the situation and role of Peru and Bolivia or we get the description ''Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the genocide.'' That is what you are offering now in your proposal: a biased, fringe use of some sources for an sided description of the causes of the war.

Dentren says, he followed the principles Being concise ..., Avoid duplication ..., Retain the attention in the economy of Chile ..., Mention of historiographical debates/differences should not obstruct flow or prose. But aesthetics or saving of hard disc space aren't not the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV  is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.


 * 1) Dentren agrees that the origins of the war are complex but he doesn't mention it. He mentions a marginal theory first and only.
 * 2) Dentren agrees that Bolivia and Peru were also affected by economic downturns but he doesn't mention it. Dentren mentions in his proposal Canada, Russia, Argentina, Spain, and USA, but not Peru and Bolivia!. Is it that you call a "weighted manner"?
 * 3) Dentren agrees that Sater is good scholar and certainly appears to be a heavyweight in issues relating to the War of the Pacific but he doesn't mention his views at the beginning of the paragraph.
 * 4) Dentren suggests that Anibal Pinto was a warmonger, (giving a reason for "Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains") but he doesn't mention Daza who provoked the war with his embargo of property!.
 * 5) Dentren never mentions that Bolivia provoked the war imposing a tax (that is money=economy) nor that Peru was decided to control the Bolivian nitrate production (production=economy), that was in Chilean hands.

Any solution must be based in the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, aesthetics and saving of hard disc space must play a secondary role. And marginal, fringe ideas must be mentioned AFTER the main views have been explained.

-- Keysanger (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Mention of complexity is redundant as long as no simplistic view is presented. Why should one think the causes are simple by reading the version I proposed?
 * 2. Mention of United States, Argentina, Canada and Spain are indebted to their impact on the export sector of Chile. Mention of Peru and Bolivia is also a possibility. Not closed to that.
 * 3. Including a particular scholar views above others discussing the same topic needs a lot a thought and careful weighting. The approach I have taken avoids such lengthy considerations in favour of focusing on what all agree (that a certain notion exists).
 * 4. Embargoes of property of nationals living abroad is not usually counted as part of the economic history of that country. It is really a side note. The embargo you refer to has another relevance: in explaining the origin of War of the Pacific.
 * 5. Bolivian taxes belong the economy of Bolivia. Avoid mixing things up.
 * Keysanger: you need to look beyond war and nationalism and focus on economic facts and economic relevance. If you achieve that you will realize my point. Dentren  |  Ta lk  17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's second point
From now on I'd like you two to only comment in your own section. Now, that being said, I tried my best to work out a compromise based on your points. Tell me how you feel about them. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The complexity of the situation is briefly mentioned.
 * 2) The seems to be agreement that are okay to be mentioned.
 * 3) Sater may be mentioned, however it will be near the bottom and remain brief.
 * 4) Regardless of who's right, it should have an expert's opinion to back it up. If you both find experts with opposing views, both views may be mentioned.
 * 5) Again, sources.

Keysanger's response
Pinging for comment  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 16:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I expect a proposal that match the WP rules. My Proposal is known:
 * ''The causes of the War of the Pacific were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political issues combined to produce an impasse that lead to war and it is disputed which was the main cause of the war as there are mutual recriminations about the origin on the war. Regarding the economic causes, in the 1870s, Bolivia, Chile and Peru economies suffered under an exceptionally strong economic downturn triggered by the global financial crisis and internal turmoil and their governments desired to make more profit from the nitrate exploitation. Bolivia broke flagrantly the 1874 Boundary treaty imposing a new tax on Chilean capital, Peru wanted to improve the guano and nitrate revenues through a monopoly but needed for this purpose the control over the Bolivian salitreras and Chile sought to protect the business of the nitrate in Chilean hands.
 * -- Keysanger (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you believe violates the NPOV policy (from above)? Kharkiv07  ( T ) 13:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Dentren's response
I appreciate the work of Kharkiv in this dispute resolution. Hope we have managed to reduce the issues to their essentials in order to solver them. I would not like this effort bogged down by a sudden rise of new or resurected complains.

I don't see a major difference on "who's right" on facts (at least reading from the last commnetaries of Keysanger), the issue is how to present them in a maner that is: a. relevant to article and not off topic b. how to in brief words express plurality (of views) and weight (of views by expertise and what is the "scholarly maintream".. if there such thing.) relating to the impact of the economic crisis on Chile's decision to enter war.


 * Dentren |  Ta lk  11:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

24 hr closing notice: Neither the moderator, User:Kharkiv07 nor the 2nd involved party, User:Keysanger have commented in 7 days. If there is no activity soon, this case will need to be closed .-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I posed a question to Keysanger requesting clarification approximately 24 hours before you posted this. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes in the section above. I didn't see that. My apologies, please continue :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It is now my turn to give a 24 hour closing notice due to inactivity, if no response emerges in that time will close the case. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 00:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kezsangers proposal is not sound or acceptable in a sound Wikipedia article. There are no special rules for the War of the Pacific. It should be treated like any other content in economic history of Chile – that is by describing the Chilean economic context when it occurred and then its economic impact. I would like to hear Kharkiv07 or somebody elses opinion because Keysanger is unlikely to withdraw his biased and unreasonable demands for inclusion of a detailed account on origin of war in a text about economics (footnote could be acceptable) unless more editors confront him. Dentren  |  Ta lk  09:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dentren, my name is Keysanger and:
 * Kezsangers proposal is not sound or acceptable in a sound Wikipedia article. -->that is your opinion
 * There are no special rules for the War of the Pacific. It should be treated like any other content in economic history of Chile -->we agree
 * that is by describing the Chilean economic context when it occurred and then its economic impact. -->No. WP:NPOV says also for Economic history of Chile: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please, take a note of all. WP:POVFORK states :Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article
 * I would like to hear Kharkiv07 or somebody elses opinion because Keysanger is unlikely to withdraw his biased and unreasonable demands for inclusion of a detailed account on origin of war in a text about economics -->have you never read: ... I will not comment what I believe to be NPOV or not ... Kharkiv07 (T) 17:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (footnote could be acceptable) unless more editors confront him. -->That is what you want. Mainstream to to the footnote, fringe theories to the front''
 * -- Keysanger (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keysanger. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We can agree on that. I follows that content is divided between articles to make distinct topics easily accessible. That requires that content that does not belong in an article is kept apart. That is not my opinion, that is what Wikipedia is about.
 * No special rules for the War of the Pacific. Can you then image Economic history of Chile filled with detailed accounts on the origin of.. the Chilean War of Independence, the 1973 coup, the War of the Conferedation, the 1891 Civil War? Would that text be about economics? No. Dentren  |  Ta lk  21:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)