Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 201

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
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 have proposed making a number of changes to the belligerents list in the article's infobox, and backed them all up with many sources. Armenia, like Turkey, did not officially declare war despite both nations being heavily involved. For example, no fighting took place in Armenia's borders, even when enemy forces reached them. Both Armenia and Turkey should be listed under a "Supported by:" or being listed as full belligerents. Personally, I support the former because it better reflects how no fighting could take place in their borders due to a lack of declaration of war. However, Erdogan's support has been stated by many sources to have been vital and decisive, so he should also be listed in the leaders. Russia should also be removed as a belligerent completely because the Russian government made an official statement that it doesn't support Artsakh. And "Armenian diaspora volunteers" should be removed from the infobox, because these are individual cases and not the result of organization's official backing, unlike the Syrian mercenaries (which were recruited and deployed by Turkey). Thus, it is giving them too much undue weight.

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

Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like for users that have no personal bias in the subject to review the arguments and evidence put forward, and help discuss what changes should be made.

Summary of dispute by CuriousGolden
I'm not too involved in this discussion, but the user's proposals of additions and removals are simply wrong. They're using unreliable sources or are cherry-picking from various sources to match the additions/removals they want to implement. I stopped engaging in the discussion after Steverci asked what's wrong with an obviously non-WP:RS, biased source, yet questioned the reliability of Al Jazeera, as I realized the discussion wasn't going anywhere. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  21:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grandmaster
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Edits proposed by Steverci are absolutely unacceptable, as I tried to explain to him. First of, Armenia is a party to conflict, it is directly involved in it, and moreover, it is legally recognized as a belligerent. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement was signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Russia as a mediator. If Armenia is not directly involved in the conflict, as a belligerent, how could it sign the ceasefire agreement? Armenia agrees to stop fire, and according to the text, "The Republic of Armenia shall return the Kalbajar District to the Republic of Azerbaijan by November 15, 2020, and the Lachin District by December 1, 2020". If Armenia is not involved directly, how could it occupy districts of Azerbaijan, and agree to withdraw from them? It defies common logic.

In addition, most of Armenians fighting in Karabakh were soldiers and officers drafted from Armenia. Just yesterday dozens of Armenian soldiers were taken prisoner by Azerbaijani army, it turns out they were all from Shirak Province in Armenia, and their relatives are protesting now. If Armenia is not involved, how did those soldiers from Shirak get to Nagorno-Karabakh?

As for role of Turkey, there's no reliable source to support direct involvement of Turkey in the conflict as a belligerent. Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan by training personnel and providing arms, and also expressed political and diplomatic support. But Turkish army was not involved in the hostilities. Most of mainstream sources do not support this claim, and marginal sources are not sufficient to support it. And Russia is not listed as a belligerent.

"Armenian diaspora volunteers" were involved in the fighting, and their presence is well documented and is confirmed by the Armenian side as well. I see no reason why infobox should not reflect this verifiable fact. Grand master  16:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Every single WP:RS mentions Armenia as a belligerent in the war. Even Armenia has confirmed it on several occasions. They literally were the ones to sign the ceasefire agreement on their and Artsakh's behalf. Thousands of soldiers from Armenia were killed, and they were buried in Armenia Even Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights had reported that a huge chunk of the ethnic Armenian soldiers in Nagorno-Karabakh were from Armenia.

Removing Russia is a joke. Russian government made an official statement that it doesn't support Artsakh, so what? This isn't the first time we've seen a giant power denying that it finances a proxy in a war. Iran might've denied the reports but has yet to prove its claims. Many ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran also protested the country serving as a gateway for Russian arms. If we remove Russia, we'd have to remove the Syrians too. As there's also no direct evidence on their involvement, and that they've officially denied taking part in the war.

Claiming that Turkey took part in the war directly, as a belligerent, is WP:OR and the user's own interpretation. Only the Armenian government and Armenia-funded Russian partisan sources like WarGonzo claims such a thing. There's not a single WP:RS that states Turkish forces were fighting in Karabakh.

Removing the Armenian volunteers is, again, a false narrative. There are reports that ethnic Armenians from Lebanon, US, Syria, and other places, numbering in hundreds, and possibly thousands had taken part in the war. Thousands of individual cases (as Sterverci put it) are well enough to show that non-Armenian nationals took part in the war. In the meanwhile, these reports also give organized involvement, like ex-ASALA members and the Nubar Ozanyan Brigade of the SDF.

Sterverci seems like he wants to show the as Artsakh vs. Azerbaijan, Turkey, Syria, while it isn't the case at all. He can head to Armenian Wikipedia for such things, as English Wikipedia isn't preferred for a narrative pushing.

--► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  13:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by moderator (NK War)
Please read the ground rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask the questions, because I expect that you will obey them anyway. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

The first step is to determine what the scope of the conflict is, and how it will be resolved. Will each editor please make a brief statement saying whether the conflict is limited to the infobox, and also saying what their position is about the infobox. Also, will each editor please state whether they want moderated discussion in order to reach a compromise, or whether they want a Request for Comments. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors (NK War)
The dispute is about infobox. I think that the infobox should be left as it is now. No additional belligerents should be added, due to reasons I stated above. Also, I believe third party opinions might help to resolve the dispute. Thank you. Grand master  00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It is limited to the infobox. Both Armenia and Turkey should be listed as either supporting belligerents. Erdogan should be added to the leaders. Russia shouldn't be listed as a belligerent at all. Neither should "Armenian diaspora volunteers". I hope a third-party will be able to review the arguments put forth and help decide on a solution. --Steverci (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The dispute is limited to the infobox. It should stay like how it is now. No additions are required per my comments above. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  03:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (NK War)
I was asked by the filing party to reopen this case as having closed it prematurely. It appears that the dispute is about the infobox. Will each party say whether they want to engage in moderated discussion, leading to a compromise, or whether they want an RFC? Also, please either state what you want changed in the infobox, or provide your own version of the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (NK War)
I believe it would be best for a third-party to help reach a compromise. I propose both Russia and Armenian volunteers being removed and Armenia listed as only playing a supporting role, for reasons I previously cited. I also propose Turkey being made a full belligerent and Erdoğan listed as a leader, in addition to the reasons I previously cited, and also because I just realized the infobox, in its current state, is lying. The Syrian mercenaries are listed under Azerbaijan, when it is Turkey that recruited and mobilized them ("The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces" per a source already on the article). I included a version of the infobox with mainly just the syntax being changed, for simplicity. --Steverci (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we are just going in circles. I have nothing new to add to what I have already stated in my previous statement. Steverci's proposals are totally unacceptable, for the reasons I stated above. Turkish army was not directly involved in hostilities, therefore Turkey cannot be listed as a belligerent. One source is not enough to claim that Turkish involvement is a generally accepted fact. And even that one source Steverci refers to make no sense whatsover. If Turkey is to be considered directly involved in the conflict just because it stations its planes in Azerbaijan's territory, then so is Russia on a much bigger scale, because it has a military base in Armenia. Armenian army was directly involved, moreover, Armenia signed a peace agreement, undertaking to withdraw its army from Azerbaijan's territory. If Armenian government admits that it is involved in hostilities, how can we say that it is not? Armenian and Russian volunteers were directly involved, which is why they should be listed. I don't see why this discussion was reopen, there's clearly no consensus for your proposed edits, and you have nothing new to add to what was already discussed. Grand  master  12:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (NK war)
I am trying to avoid taking a position, because one editor would like for help in reaching a compromise. I would however say that any formulation that does not list Azerbaijan as a belligerent on one side and Armenia and Artsakh as belligerents on the other side is a strawman, not a compromise. Go ahead and try to work out a compromise on who are supporting the sides. If anyone wants to leave out Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Artsakh as belligerents, that is sufficiently one-sided to require an RFC. So: Do you want to try to compromise on who is supporting whom, or do we want an RFC? If we have an RFC, it can be multiple-choice, to list each candidate country as a belligerent, supporting, or nothing.

Compromise on supporting parties, or RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (NK war)
Thank you for your opinion, Robert McClenon. Your efforts are much appreciated. The way I see it, this is not going anywhere. As you noted, it is impossible to not to mention Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh as belligerents, and this was said by every other editor here. Yet here we are discussing the same thing over and over. Supporting parties were also discussed many times, and there's the same person who is not satisfied with the lack of consensus for his ideas. I think further continuation of this discussion would be just a waste of everyone's time. Grand master  22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be willing to compromise on Armenia being listed as a full belligerent as long as Turkey is as well. Artsakh should be listed above Armenia though. --Steverci (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (NK war)
I will not try to work a compromise when one editor takes a non-mainstream position. I suggest that an RFC on the infobox is in order, and will go forward with it if at least two editors work with me. The RFC will be structured to ask whether country X or faction Z should be listed as (a) a belligerent; (b) supporting; (c) not listed. While it is obvious to me that at least Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Artsakh were belligerents, we can ask about them also. Each editor is asked to list as many possible participants as they want to list, such as Turkey, Syrian mercenaries, Iran, whatever. If you really want the RFC to ask about North Korea, or lizard-men, we can list them. So please identify what countries or factions should be included in the RFC as possible parties in the war. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (NK war)
Through the Syrian mercenaries, Turkey's role in the war is undeniably mainstream accepted. American, British, and French media and even the French president have accused Turkey of deploying thousands of combatants. --Steverci (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose: adding Turkey as a direct belligerent, rather than Supported by; adding Armenia as Supported by rather than a direct belligerent; removing the Armenian diaspora volunteers as a direct belligerent; removing Russia from arms supplier. Reasons:

The role of Armenia has been discussed here and sorted out. And the role of Turkey as a belligerent in the war is not "undeniably mainstream accepted". Quite the opposite, it is generally accepted that Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan, diplomatic, military, etc, but Turkey had no boots on the ground, i.e. no Turkish soldiers were directly involved in the hostilities. Syrian mercenaries are not Turkish army, being a belligerent means sending its own forces into the battle, and not assisting third parties. By that token, Syria is also a belligerent, because it assisted Syrian Armenians to travel to the conflict zone. Grand master  21:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Turkey's direct role is only alleged by the Armenian government and a partisan and Armenian-funded WarGonzo. There's not enough third-party sources or evidence on direct Turkish involvement. The Turks made a joint drill with Azerbaijan in the same year, and when the war began, they couldn't leave. Turkish planes in some remote area of Azerbaijan doesn't mean Turkey was directly involved in the war. If that was the case, we would have to add Putin as the leader of the Russian troops stationed in Gyumri. Also, about Macron, this is Wikipedia, not a Paris-owned organisation.
 * 2) On the other hand, Armenia's direct involvement is confirmed by the third-party sources.      Its also not a shocker to acknowledge that the Armenian forces from the Armenian Armed Forces fought here. Pashinyan himself has said that in Shusha the Armenian Armed Forces had taken part.
 * 3) Removing the volunteers part is also WP:JDLI. They're not citizens of Armenia, thus, they're a different party.
 * 4) The Russian arms supply was reported by the Azerbaijani and Iranian media. These reports caused large-protests in Iran, resulting in the arrests of hundreds   and statements from Tehran government.  Iran doesn't even deny sending trucks to Armenia during the war. Like the case of the Syrians, removing this is simply lying to the readers, just for the reason of both beign reported and amassing mass reaction and lacking direct evidence. --► Sincerely:  Sola  Virum  15:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (NK war)
We are not, at this point, trying to resolve what countries are belligerents. At this point we are only trying to resolve what countries to list in the RFC. I will list Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Artsakh only if anyone questions their status as belligerents. I will list Turkey, and Syria, because you are discussing whether they are involved. Who else should be listed in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (NK war)
It's not the country of Syria, just mercenaries from Syria were part of the Syrian National Army, so actually enemies of the country of Syria. In addition to RFC listings, Russia should be removed from the belligerents altogether because for doing nothing to support either side, Armenian diaspora volunteers should be removed for referring to individuals and not any organization, and Israel should be added back to supporting Azerbaijan as is currently being discussed. --Steverci (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (NK war)
Please do not say who not to list in the RFC. I am only asking what countries and non-state actors to list in the RFC. If you do not want a country listed in the infobox, you will say so in the RFC. At this point, think of this as printing the ballot. Who should be listed in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (NK war)
Adding Turkey (full belligerent) and Israel (as arms suppliers). --Steverci (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No additions to the infobox. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  03:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I support leaving the infobox as it is. No additions are necessary, as it was extensively discussed at the talk. Grand master  00:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (NK War)
The infobox currently lists Azerbaijan, Armenia, Artsakh, Syrian mercenaries, Armenian volunteers. It lists Turkey as supporting and Russia as an arms supplier. There is a request to upgrade Turkey to a belligerent. There is a request to add Israel as an arms supplier. What other requests are there, so that I can print the ballot? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I have not been invited to this discussion initially, but I participate in infobox discussions on talk page currently. Can the ballot please include remove Russia as arms supplier if were are defining arms supplier as supplier which continued arms supply during this war  and add Russia as arms supplier to both Armenia and Azerbaijan if we are defining arms supplier as supplier which supplied arms during or before this war? It is no secret that Russia supplied arms to both countries before the war, and the speculations of Russia's continued arms supply to Armenia during the war are largely based on one resigned military official's statements. Thanks, Armatura (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We are using war-time arms supplies. Israel also supplied Azerbaijan before the war, but other editors are keen to add it because some Saudi-government owned website said so. The "speculations of Russia's continued arms supply to Armenia during the war are largely based on one resigned military official's statements," this is abruptly false. Hakobyan stated that after the war, while there were reports and protests in Iran about Russian arms supply. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  10:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (NK War)
The draft RFC is available for view at Dispute resolution noticeboard/NK war RFC. You may comment on it below, or you may tweak it if your changes will be non-contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to get this RFC running.

PragerU
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

Unflattering facts repeatedly questioned and deleted, result is false balance and whitewashing by omission. "Critiques of videos" Prager controversies repeatedly deleted:
 * PragerU vids with Owen Benjamin backed by 3 journalistic sources
 * PragerU vid on Robert E. Lee, backed by 2 journalistic sources
 * PragerU vid with Douglas Murray backed by 4 sources
 * PragerU's known links to far right repeatedly deleted despite 2 academic sources.

The 3 eds often deleting material-, and  (formerly User:Ronz)-have edited this page since May 2017(Hipal/Ronz), (Feb 2019) Shinealittlelight, Sep 2019 (Springee) Hipal clearly has preoccupation with editing PragerU and [[Dennis Prager pages. Their talk page history has many mentions of PragerU,eg one of many here Nearly 200 edits of PragerU page by Hipal (and 100+ on Dennis Prager page) much of it revs of new material. False balance is real problem. I contend there's partisan desire to remove unflattering facts. Can provide much more relevant evidence from talk page + archives

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


 * Arbitration request, which was premature and I apologise,arbitrators suggested going to DRB
 * attempt at BRD compromise, but I maintain result was very unsatisfactory
 * endless to and fro on page, see
 * many revisions, counter-revisions eg

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This page is unsalvageable - there is endless debate about what is due weight for inclusion, what sources are reliable, why material shouldn't be included. I believe result is status quo stonewalling, misunderstanding of consensus policy, whitewashing of PragerU controversies by omission. I believe mediators will agree when presented with full range of evidence. I believe controversial page like this have full admin protection if consensus cannot be reached, which unfortunately is likely

Summary of dispute by Shinealittlelight
I'm happy to participate, but I don't see a content proposal here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Springee
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with Hipal. Coming here with the assumption that a content dispute is due to issues other than RS, WEIGTH etc will make it hard to reach an amicable resolution. Springee (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MasterTriangle12
This dispute is about what is considered DUE and what is considered a RS. There are many specific additions that are caught up in this but it is primarily a dispute about whether criticism of the content produced by PragerU from widely respected sources is notable enough to be added to the page. PragerU is a highly controversial entity and has garnered massive criticism for their content, I do not believe that the extent of this should be diminished on their Wikipedia page. The addition I was attempting to make was a single sentence in the introduction referencing the large amount of criticism that has been levied at PragerU for the content they produce, the discussion of this is found here. In this discussion the only reasonable issues I (self) identified was a possible problem with synthesis since I was making the claim that criticism was widespread by referencing several respectable sources, although a few specifically mentioned the claim I was synthesising, and the wording possibly being too harsh. But these were not why it was blocked, there was a belief that all the sources were either of "low quality" or their commentary could not be used due to bias, I believed the claims to that effect were poorly supported, but my refutation of these claims was barely engaged with. I have only had a little engagement with some of the other content discussions that were mentioned by Noteduck, but despite the different content it seems the disputes are very similar in scope and extent. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hipal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not sure if I'll participate if Noteduck cannot more closely follow our behavioral policies. I've found it an incredible waste of time to try to educate new editors on content policy when behavior policy is not being followed first. If Noteduck's opening comments here are not heavily refactored, I don't see how we can make any progress. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and witchhunts tend to end poorly.

So far, what I can make of the dispute is that a new editor, Noteduck, is unhappy with the PragerU and related articles, and is having a very difficult time understanding how Wikipedia works (eg the roles of admins, what are reliable sources, how to work to create consensus).

I'm happy to refactor this statement to more focus on the content issues, but at this point I don't see how we can move beyond behavior. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

First statement by moderator (Prager)
As we and the arbitrators have agreed, I will mediate this dispute. This does not mean that I will decide on content; I will not decide on content, which will be decided in one of two ways by consensus. I will address one comment by the filing party up front. The filing party writes: "I believe controversial page like this have full admin protection if consensus cannot be reached, which unfortunately is likely". The article will not be locked. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We will try to achieve consensus in either of two ways. The preferred way is by compromise. The alternate way is by a Request for Comments.

Read the usual rules. I will repeat some of them. Do not reply to each other, except in the space marked Back-and-forth discussion, and we will not necessarily pay any attention to back-and-forth discussion. Reply to me and to the community (and I am the spokesman for the community and for the arbitrators). Be civil and concise. Some of the statements made have been too long to understand. Very long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so we will talk about the article.

Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. (If you edit the article while discussion is in progress, I may request that you be partially blocked, locked from editing the article.)

Each editor is asked to state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same. If you need more than one paragraph to say how you want to improve the article, you may create a subpage, or you may explain on your talk page. Keep your statements here concise. Make your statements in First statements by editors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Prager)
The bare bones of my complaint are that that this page is a whitewashing of controversial aspects of PragerU by omission. For ease of reading I won't add links to specific past talk page discussions or edit histories at this point but will happily do so upon request. I believe core issues here are false balance, status quo stonewalling and misuse of principles of undue weight and consensus - yes I have read said principles. Inclusion of material in the "critiques of videos" section of PragerU seems completely arbitrary. References to Prager vid on Douglas Murray greatly shortened without basis. References to PragerU vids with Owen Benjamin removed unjustly. References to PragerU Robert E. Lee vid removed unjustly. References to PragerU links to far-right removed without basis. "Reception" and "critiques of videos" far too short. Note that "Conflicts with YouTube and Facebook" subheading more sympathetic to Prager is 7290 characters (493 words) (per character count tool). By contrast "critiques of videos" section is just 3635 characters (370 words), "reception" is 5121 characters (465 words). Sources removed include references to: And yes, I note that SOME material from Tripodi's reports has survived on the page, but too little. Good journalistic and academic sources removed on seemingly arbitrary basis - eg I can't see any reason why reference to Snopes is on PragerU page while above sources aren't. Only consistent feature of material removed is that it could be perceived as unflattering to PragerU. I fail to see why widely reported criticisms of PragerU from reliable journalistic or academic sources don't belong on this page. Removal of material so arbitrary that partisan bias only realistic basis. Looking forward to responses Noteduck (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Journalistic sources: Washington Post, Mother Jones, The Australian, Los Angeles Times, VPM radio interview with renowned political scientist Larry Sabato
 * Think tank or academic sources: Southern Poverty Law Center, academic journal Interface: A Journal on Social Movements, extensive reports by University of North Carolina professor Francesca Tripodi at non-profit research project (something like a think think tank) Data & Society, Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative (an extensively-staffed academic research project intended to discuss Islamophobia

Second statement by moderator (Prager)
User:Noteduck, User:Hipal - Both of you! Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. A discussion at another noticeboard about another article is not important here. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article in question, not to discuss other editors.

User:Noteduck - What you said above appears to be a long complaint. Can you state, in one paragraph, what you want changed or left the same? If you have a long list of changes, please create a subpage, or a section on your talk page. What do you want changed?

User:Hipal - What do you want changed, or left the same?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Prager)
User:Noteduck - Your statement is one thousand words shorter than your statement to the ArbCom. It is still hard to tell what you want changed. We know that you think that there is false balance. We know that you either think that material should be removed or that material should be added. So: Put everything in bullet-point fashion. Make a list of items that you think should be changed. Put it in a form such as:
 * 1. Change X to Y.
 * 2. Delete A.
 * 3. Add B.

Put it in list form. Do not cite policies and guidelines. The objective is to improve the article, not to discuss how to improve articles in the future.

If you can't explain what specific changes you want made, the rest of us can't figure out what changes you want made. So provide a list of items. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Prager)
This is the minimum I believe needs to be done in terms of content: Note that this is without links to previous versions of the page or talk page content history, all of which can be provided on request. My other problem relates to ongoing problems on page regarding stonewalling, false balance, undue weight and consensus not being unanimity - but perhaps these are outside the scope of the current complaint Noteduck (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * restore paragraph on Douglas Murray "The Suicide of Europe" Prager vid in full
 * restore paragraph based on PragerU vid "The Charlottesville Lie" in full
 * restore material on PragerU platforming far-right activists
 * restore material based on Data & Society think tank in full
 * restore paragraph on Owen Benjamin vids
 * restore paragraph on Robert E. Lee vid

Fourth statement by moderator (Prager)
User:Noteduck has identified six specific items that they would like restored or added to the article. (It doesn't matter whether they were deleted or were never in the article.) If other editors agree to restore the material, then we have agreement. If not, then the question is whether Noteduck wants a multi-point RFC on whether to restore or add the items. Do you want an RFC on whether to restore the items?

User:Noteduck raises general questions about undue weight, false balance, and other concerns. We don't discuss such concerns in general form at DRN. Please see Be Specific at DRN. If you think that another editor's conduct is problematic, you can report them at a conduct forum, such as WP:ANI (but be careful going to conduct forums). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal
Without better indication of exactly what changes are being proposed and what discussion has been made around those changes, then I don't see how we can make any progress as far as content is concerned. This is basic consensus making. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC) .

Statement by Shinealittlelight
I agree with Hipal that "better indication of exactly what changes are being proposed" is needed, including proposed text and sourcing. If the paragraphs that Noteduck wants added were reverted, then please provide diffs. If they are new text, then please provide the proposed text with sources. Otherwise I have no idea what is being proposed, and I do not agree with Robert's statement that Noteduck has identified six specific items that they would like restored or added to the article. There is no specificity here as I see it, so I can't say whether I agree or not. There was a whirlwind of edits over the days before this drn case, and some proposals were made as compromises. So it's really hard to tell what Noteduck has in mind without specifics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Prager)
Noteduck has asked to restore or add six items. Other editors have asked for details as to what the six items are. So Noteduck is requested to provide links showing exactly what the six items are. Diffs are not required, except that a diff is sometimes the best way to provide a link. Putting the six items on a subpage or in paragraphs on a user page or user talk page would be one way to do this. After the six items are provided, I will determine where we go from here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Noteduck
Note that I've added a seventh point - that a header for PragerU addressing its controversial nature be restored. The text underneath the following 7 subheadings has all been copied without any changes directly from the PragerU page history. I believe this is the MINIMUM I believe needs to be done. Virtually every one of these has been fought over extensively in the talk page or in reversals, so there may be a deluge of contestations.
 * Note 1: I've observed that (5) and (7) need to be amended. (5) should be amended as to all appearances PragerU was not aware of Benjamin's neo-Nazi tendencies when he made those videos and this should be mentioned. As for (7), the statement is accurate and a header is essential but additional sources need to be added. A bevy of good sources, both academic and non-academic, link Prager to the far-right, in addition to propaganda and disinformation, so there's no reason to restrict it to the one source. PragerU is extremely controversial and is a target of frequent criticism from journalistic and academic sources, and there's no reason to excise material just because it's unflattering.
 * Note 2: I suspect (6) might be most contested. Note that HillReporter is a journalistic source with editorship and that several other sources reported similar things about the Robert E. Lee video

1. Restore paragraph on Douglas Murray "The Suicide of Europe" Prager vid in full
A 2018 video about immigration to Europe presented by author Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'. Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric" but that the video wasn't fascist or white nationalist. The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right", while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right".
 * Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021. For discussion on talk page see

2. Restore paragraph on video "The Charlottesville Lie" in full
The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. Tim Murphy in Mother Jones called the video an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected Cortes' notion, saying that "Anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand". Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump.
 * Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021

3. Restore material on PragerU platforming far-right activists
PragerU has drawn scrutiny for platforming controversial figures including the far-right activists Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos and Stefan Molyneux.
 * Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021

4. Restore material from Data & Society
/> PragerU's videos are often highly visible and accessible, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute finding that a YouTube search for the keywords "social justice" returned a PragerU video that was highly critical of the concept as the first result.
 * Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021

5. Restore, but alter material about PragerU's videos with Owen Benjamin
PragerU produced two videos featuring comedian, conspiracy monger, and holocaust denier Owen Benjamin in spring 2018. One video has Benjamin suggesting that right-wingers not argue with left-wingers. Varied parties have criticized PragerU for spreading Benjamin's views, including conservative writer Bethany Mandel and writers at Media Matters and the Southern Poverty Law Center. By early 2019, the videos had accumulated over five million views.
 * Revision as of 02:38, 19 November 2020 (view source) (thank). For discussion on talk page

6. Restore material about PragerU's Robert E. Lee video
In November 2020, PragerU uploaded a video titled "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine.
 * Note that while this wording is mine this was not unilateral but a synthesis of contributions by myself and other editors on the talk page, see

7. Restore, but reword header including some of the criticisms frequently directed at PragerU
The company has been frequently criticised for the content they produce, being accusing of flawed historical revisionism, propagandistic teaching style, and misrepresentation of facts and concepts.
 * source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=989318856&oldid=989182802

Statement by Shinealittlelight
Maybe we can take these one at a time?

The first item (the one about Murray) misquotes Pitcavage, fails to summarize the Murray video under discussion, and uses a redundant Bridge reference. Kotch is also apparently misquoted, and the quote of Kotch's opinion is not attributed to him. I do not think that the opinion of Kotch, a mostly unknown journalist writing for a website ("Sludge") that few people have heard of, is DUE. So I think the quote from him--even if it were corrected to be an accurate quote and attributed--should not be included. Finally, the proposed content misquotes Halper's piece in LAT. It never says "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right". Those words do not occur in the piece. We need to be careful to understand how quotation marks work! On the talk page, I had suggested the following version in light of these points:

Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The second item (about the Cortes video). This is awkwardly written. It slightly mischaracterizes Cortes's claim about "journalistic malfeasance" (the piece in this context refers only to neo-Nazis, not white supremacists). It attributes the headline of the MJ piece to the author of the piece; this is just incorrect since authors rarely write their own headlines. In fact, the MJ piece says very little about the video itself; it just characterizes the video as a part of a broader attempt on the part of Trump's allies to "delegitimize “the media,” defend his most militant supporters, and cast the president’s opponents as violent radicals." The quote from Sabato does not refer to Cortes specifically, but says that "Anybody who tries to pretend that he wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand." Our previous source does not have Cortes talking about "white nationalists" but only about "neo-Nazis". Are we to assume that these are the same? Seems SYNTHy to me. The reference to Prager is a primary source; the Washington Examiner is not RS. I'm not opposed to including something about the Cortes video, but this proposal is a non-starter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The third item (about platforming alt-right figures) uses two sources, one by Kriegal and the D&S piece by Tripodi. The Kriegal piece simply refers to the Tripodi piece, so it is redundant. The Tripodi piece never says that PragerU "platformed" these figures. That's entirely made up. What it says is that "Prager’s amplification strategy also regularly promotes the ideas of white nationalist thinkers". I think what she's getting at is something our article already contains: her claim that there are "algorithmic connections" (whatever that means) between PragerU and the alt-right on Youtube. It seems to me that what Noteduck is trying to say here is just the same thing as this, which is already in the article. I do think that "algorithmic connections" could use some clarification. What Tripodi means is that Youtube's programming ends up suggesting alt-right videos to people who watch PragerU videos. I don't know why we don't just say that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The fourth item (about YouTube search results) seems to me more about YouTube than about PragerU. In any case, the proposal mischaracterizes the source. What the source says is The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video... Ok, so "highly critical" is not in the source, nor is "first result". Again, I don't know why this is due anyway, but if it is DUE, we have to accurately summarize the source, which basically just says that the Goldberg video came up one time when the author searched "social Justice" on YouTube. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The fifth item (about Owen Benjamin) appeals to Media Matters, Jewish Telegraph Agency, and Rightwing Watch. This sourcing could hardly be weaker: these sources do not seem like RS for this content, and do not demonstrate that the material is DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The sixth item (about Lee) is not DUE, per the talk page. As explained there, the Hill Reporter (the proposed source for this content) does not appear to be RS, the author in question does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree. Finally, in any case, the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish DUE weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The seventh item (an addition to the lead) is something we can return to after we finish the changes to the body. The lead should follow the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Springee
I think Shinealittlelight really hit on the issues here. This isn't a case of good content kept out because editors just don't like it. In every case there was a reasonable amount of talk page discussion explaining issues with the content. Springee (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Since sourcing has come up as one of the issues, I will note there is an on going RSN discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative which is one of the sources proposed for the PragerU article.[] My read is the discussion is NOCONSENSUS regarding if the Bridge Initiative is a self published/primary source or a secondary RS. Noteduck feels consensus has been reached. Springee (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal
I don't know why poor and outright unusable references are still being considered after they have been rejected, but no consensus is going to happen if this cannot be corrected. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Prager)
It is not necessary for other editors to refute any of the points that an editor has requested be included in the RFC. Discussion of the merits of those points can be done in discussion of the RFC after the RFC starts running. (If you have made a lengthy refutation here that you think will be useful when the RFC is started, you can copy your comments.)

Please check whether any references are being rendered correctly. If there are Reference Errors, please either correct or delete the malformed references.

If anyone wants to identify any more points to go in the RFC, please list them, and be specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal
Multiple references have been argued to be poor if not outright unusable, and they are not confined to just what's currently at RSN.

I expect editors to do more than simply repeat their previous comments without regard to rebuttals or other relevant discussion. Perhaps that's too much to expect, but in my experience rehashing like that is a serious behavior problem that stifles consensus-making. --Hipal (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (PragerU)
One editor says that there is a behavior problem that stifles consensus-making. This appears to be in reply to my statement that it is not necessary to refute any requests with which you disagree. There is no harm done in disagreeing with the edit requests, but there is, in my opinion, no good done either. The Bold Revert Discuss cycle has not resulted in consensus, and further discussion does not appear to be likely to result in consensus. That is why the dispute will be resolved by a Request for Comments, which does establish consensus. We do not discuss behavior at DRN, or in an RFC, and ArbCom has agreed that resolving the content issue should mitigate the conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The draft of the RFC is at Dispute resolution noticeboard/PragerU RFC.

If there are any other article changes to be addressed in the RFC, please identify them as soon as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shinealittlelight
So we're going to keep obvious errors (like for example the inaccurate quotes I pointed out) in the RfC, and no changes will be made to the proposals based on the points I made above? No changes to the proposed text from Noteduck whatsoever? Robert, I feel that I genuinely don't understand what we're doing here. Are you not charged with applying policy to the content of these RfCs at all? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MasterTriangle12
Those quotes need to be fixed, but I'm sure Noteduck can do so easily since the meaning was not altered. Some of these additions seem quite necessary to me, others are a little tangential but are not out of place and might as well be considered. Bringing this to RFC seems most appropriate, it really needs wider input to sort this out. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal
So we're moving on to preparing a huge RfC? RfC's of that size tend to be problematic in general. A number of small RfCs would go much better. Regardless, links to past discussions on the topics should be included. Basic verification and reliability issues should be addressed prior to any RfC. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (PragerU)
User:Hipal asks whether we are planning on a large RFC or multiple smaller RFCs. I have prepared a draft for one large RFC because User:Noteduck provided me with a long list of changes that they want. Does User:Hipal have an idea for how to submit the RFC or RFCs? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Shinealittlelight says that some of the items in the RFC have errors. Please identify any correctible erros in the RFC that can be edited before the RFC is posted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the editors who oppose the changes to the article want me to act as a gatekeeper as to what changes can be discussed. That isn't my concept of how DRN works. Do the editors who oppose the additions want to stage the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (PragerU)
Sure, see my above comments where I identified the errors. I don't want you to be a gatekeeper. I want you to apply policy to formulating a reasonable RfC. I also want you to read my comments which frankly it appears you did not do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with one big RfC. The alternative is the article gets flooded with RfCs. Conversely, if Noteduck would prefer to create their own RfCs rather than having Robert McClenon do it that is also fine with me. That doesn't mean I support the content, only that RfCs are, per typical content dispute resolutions, the way to move forward here. Springee (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We're already being flooded, while it's unclear if past discussions are being read or policy is being followed. I suggest we focus on one item of Noteduck's choice, and work on it until we agree that basic policy is being followed and relevant background identified. Then move on to others as we build the RfC. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (Prager)
I acknowledge that I didn't initially read the comments by Shinealittlelight in detail. The comments were a combination of general disagreement and specific issues, and we should not be wasting preliminary time in restating the general issues. I have read them in more detail and will respond to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

One editor wrote: "Quotes must be exact. Misquoting could be seen as evidence of serious behavioral problems." The first sentence is correct. Misquoting can have several causes, including various sorts of copying errors, or sloppiness. This noticeboard does not discuss editor behavior, and participants are expected to assume good faith. You may not reword text in a direct quotation. You may not, in this discussion, use errors in quotes to imply bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The first item needs to be reworded to be an exact quotation.

Is Shine asking to reword the second through fourth items, or only disagreeing with them?

Shine's comments on the fifth through seventh items are disagreements that can be addressed by disagreeing.

Hipal wants to work on one of Noteduck's items and ensure that basic policy is followed. Which one? If you think that one of them can be improved, please offer a change. (Otherwise it seems that I am being asked to be a gatekeeper of discussion, and my plan is to let the RFC through the gate.)

So. The quote in the first point must be corrected. Are there specific rewordings being requested for 2 through 4? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Prager)
The quotations in item 1 have been amended as requested. I have (with help from MasterTriangle) written up edited versions of all 7 points of complaint that I believe are balanced, due and detailed (though there may still be revisions required) on Dispute resolution noticeboard/PragerU RFC. The last item alone has several dozen references. Hipal has made vague complaints about policy not being followed but hasn't made substantive requests for changes.

I find it quite baffling that some of the editors who are parties to this debate are not contributing but continue to actively post on the PragerU talk page. The aim in taking this to the DRB was to improve the page and I've worked hard at that. If there are complaints about any of the 7 items, please voice them, and let's focus on working to make this a better page Noteduck (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shinealittlelight
It's my understanding that I can continue to comment on the talk page during this; if that's not the case, let me know and I will withdraw from this process. In any case, I am unclear on the distinction you are drawing, Robert, between "disagreement" and (let's call it) useful feedback on the RfC. You seem to agree with me that we don't need an RfC to determine how quotation marks work. Great, that's progress I guess! I would tend to agree with you that the question of whether (for example) an opinion from Kotch--a journalist that most people have never heard of--is DUE might arguably be an RfC sort of question. So I can accept that if that's what you think, even though I think it isn't really hard to see that this is not DUE. But (again, for example) the claim that Kotch's opinion must be attributed to him in text seems to me an obvious point about policy that does not need an RfC. So shouldn't we be asking about a version of the material about Pitcavage that attributes to Kotch? I see that Noteduck has proposed such a version. As the moderator, would you like to weigh in on whether that's the version that's going to be used? I also proposed (following a suggestion from Springee) that we should include a summary of the content of the video drawn from the LAT piece. Should that be included? Again, this does not seem like an RfC dispute; it seems obvious that it's just an improvement in the proposal to include a description of the content of the video following such a source as the LAT. If I'm right about all this, the first RfC just needs to ask whether the Kotch quote is DUE. The rest would not then be in dispute, and should not be part of the RfC. I've got more to say about the other items, but I'm going to wait and see how you respond to this before spending more time. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal
I repeat my request to Noteduck: Please pick one item that you feel best meets the basic policies of WP:V and WP:RS so we can review it in depth against those policies and all relevant discussion and consensus. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Prager)
There seem to be a few questions now about what overall approach we are taking to mediating this content dispute. This mediation began when Noteduck made some edits to the article which were reverted. Noteduck then made a good-faith but mistaken request for arbitration, and I offered to mediate the content dispute. Noteduck has the right (as does any editor) to file a Request for Comments. Noteduck then proposed seven changes to the article, and I put these proposed changes into the form of a draft RFC. Questions were then raised about the accuracy of the points in the draft RFC, and some editing has been done on the draft RFC. Now there seem to be different ideas as to how to continue with the mediation.

Hipal wants to select one item and work on it and be sure that policy is followed. I am willing to work on one item at a time in putting together the RFC if Noteduck is willing to take this approach. However, Noteduck has the right to have their proposed changes sent forward as an RFC if they wish.

Shinealittlelight: Are there now any items in the draft RFC that you are ready to have published in an RFC?

Noteduck: Are you withdrawing item 3? So are we down to six items?

What I will do at this point is to step back for three days and allow the editors to talk back-and-forth and see if they can agree on how to go forward. There can be back-and-forth discussion in the Tenth Statements section. Editing the draft RFC is also permitted. If this works, then it works. If this does not result in agreement as to how to go forward, I will take control again.

Tenth statements by editors (Prager)
No, I do not think any of the RfCs are currently well-formed. I tried to engage with the moderator about why the first one is not well-formed and he has decided not to engage with me. Thus, I do not know what I am doing here. If Noteduck would like to respond to my last statement, I would be glad to try to make progress. I sure am glad that I didn't spend more time on my last comment, since it seems to have been disregarded. If I'm just going to be talking to Noteduck, I don't know why we aren't just on the article talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with either. A series of RfCs is a bit of a pain and tended to flood the uninvolved editors but it also helps keep the discussion more focused. The alternative is the big all in one. That could result in a messy close but it's also less likely to get a consensus for inclusion. Since I think all of these edits were problematic I have a perverse incentive to say go for all at once then as it's likely to not result in a consensus to include the whole mess. Perhaps the best option would be for Robert McClenon to help Noteduck learn how to write a single, focused, RfC. Once that one is going then Noteduck would be able to add more RfCs as needed. This is a content dispute but also a dispute due to Noteduck's lack of experience. One thing that helps build experience is going through the RfC process. Springee (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what the etiquette with RfCs is but I think Noteduck might be able to correct the problems with the quotes directly rather than just add suggestions? Please correct this if I am wrong though. Shinealittlelight should put forward some sort of proposed content about a "summary of the content of the video drawn from the LAT piece", either here to discuss it's insertion into the RfC, or into the discussion on the RfC page, I looked around in the previous statements and the article and but don't know what this is talking about, sorry if it was brought up earlier but I can't comment. This proposals are disparate enough that multiple RfCs are certainly needed, but I could see a few of them being combined without conflicting them, maybe next time since it's not too critical here. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't want multiple RfCs. The aim in bringing this dispute forward was improving the PragerU page by ending what I contend is a pattern of partisan deletions and stonewalling on the page, and I don't want to get dragged down in extended arguments over minor points. There was an attempt by Robert to build consensus at Dispute resolution noticeboard/PragerU RFC but several of the involved editors showed no interest in contributing despite continuing to post here and on the PragerU talk page. Here are some of the revised versions of the items presented on that RfC based on contributions by MasterTriangle and myself (I don't believe anybody else contributed, though Hipal offered criticisms). Note that item 3 has been discarded for now. I am not saying that each of these items is perfect and may not warrant further revisions, but there is a huge body of worthy source material here based on mainstream (mostly)journalistic assessments of PragerU's work which warrants inclusion on the page. Yes, the quotes in the Douglas Murray passage have been rearranged. Remember, it's not enough to simply assert that there is no consensus or that a source is unusable - let's work together to improve the PragerU page please. The revised edits so far:

Revised item 1
The 2018 video "The Suicide of Europe" about immigration to Europe, presented by author Douglas Murray drew criticism in the media, with Sludge's Alex Kotch contending that the video's "rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'". Kotch interviewed Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, who said that while he didn't consider the video fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right", while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right.

Revised item 2
The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. The Forward's Aiden Pink and Mother Jones' Tim Murphy criticised the video, with Murphy calling it an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected the notion that Trump was not referring to the far right with his "both sides" remark, saying that "anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists [at Charlottesville] is simply putting their head in the sand". Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump.

Revised item 4
PragerU's videos on controversial topics are often highly visible and accessible through YouTube's search engine, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute noting that a YouTube search for "social justice" returned the PragerU video "What is social justice?" that was highly critical of the concept as the first result.

Revised item 5
PragerU received criticism for producing two videos in 2018 featuring comedian Owen Benjamin, who had attracted controversy for mocking Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg, making racist and homophobic slurs in his material, and promoting conspiracy theories. In February 2019, Benjamin attracted negative publicity for making anti-semitic remarks, and in April 2019 the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Bethany Mandel reported that he had made a "full-blown descent into Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism", while noting that his appearances on PragerU had helped him "maintain a limited degree of visibility in the conservative world. PragerU later removed their videos with Benjamin from their website and from YouTube.

Revised item 6
In November 2020, PragerU attracted criticism for its video "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine.

Revised item 7
The accuracy and reliability of PragerU's videos has been extensively questioned, with several sources referring to PragerU videos as containing propaganda   and misinformation. Specific criticisms levelled at PragerU videos have included the claims that they perpetuate views associated with the far-right or alt-right,   contain controversial speakers, including those linked to the far right,    promote racism and Islamophobia, promote misleading information related to the COVID-19 pandemic,    and contain misleading information related to climate change.

Noteduck (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to make my comments here as per Robert's instructions. Given that the JTA is a well-established mainstream media source and Bethany Mandel is an experienced and accomplished journalist, I think substantive arguments are needed as to why this source should not be included. There are three additional sources referring to the PragerU videos with Owen Benjamin, by the way. For those who didn't see it, this was my previous response to Hipal: ":I don't accept that the JTA piece is poor and I don't believe the rebuttals on the talk page established that it is. Can you make your case as to why it shouldn't be included? Noteduck"

Noteduck (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, the Jewish Telegraph Agency is a storied and credible source and Bethany Mandel is a highly experienced journalist with a formidable resume who has written for multiple high-profile publications, and she is particularly known for her work on Jewish issues and anti-semitism. Yes it's an opinion piece, but all the Mandel source is used for is making two fairly incontrovertible points (1) that Owen Benjamin is an anti-semite (2) that his appearances on PragerU helped him maintain some visibility in the conservative world. The piece is highly detailed and coherently written, extensively sourced, and actually reached out to Benjamin for comment. The source is clearly attributed and not in Wiki's voice, and there are four other sources in the paragraph, each of which aligns with the Mandel article. Benjamin's videos for PragerU received 5.4 million views. I'm not sure what universe we're in if PragerU making videos in spring 2018 with someone who was exposed as an anti-semite in October of that year and later as a holocaust denier(!) doesn't belong on their page, especially when 5 sources have reported on it. Anyway, your turn to offer a substantive rebuttal Noteduck (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal
Please remove the opinion piece published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency per the article talk page discussions and comments here. What other references are similarly poor and need removal before this can move on? --Hipal (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that the JTA piece is poor and I don't believe the rebuttals on the talk page established that it is. Can you make your case as to why it shouldn't be included? Noteduck (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made my case based upon policy multiple times. Why am I asked to do so again? This is a waste of time. If there's no policy-based reason for inclusion, it should not be. If the RfC is so weakly based upon following policy, it will be rejected. --Hipal (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Springee
In reply to Hipal's comment above, I agree the use of an OpEd from the JTA was a problem. However, as I said before this simply makes the RfC question weaker and more likely to be rejected. If I were on the other side of this content dispute I would want to make my RfC's as strong as possible. Springee (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator
I have prepared a revised draft RFC. I am prepared to post it, so that we can then see if there are any other issues, or I can make it available for one final review. I don't want what happened with the last draft RFC, which was a premature argument about the merits of the points in the RFC. Do you want me to go ahead and post the RFC, or to provide a draft copy of the RFC for comments, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck
Hi Robert - yep, I'm happy to see the new revised draft RfC. Noteduck (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal
I'm against the RfC because poor if not unreliable sources are still being used and the basic policy of WP:RS appears to be ignored, as have the basic instructions for behavior here. . If we can't agree on references, we're not going to agree on anything that's based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MasterTriangle
.

Twelfth Statement by Moderator (Prager)
One editor objects to the RFC because they state that the sources are unreliable. The reliability of the sources is one of the issues to be determined by the RFC. If the community agrees to accept the additions, that implies that the community is accepting the reliability of the sources. Conversely, other editors can argue that the sources are unreliable as a reason to omit the proposed additions.

I will be adding a draft of the revised RFC for information purposes only. Please do not !vote in the Survey until it is moved to the talk page and becomes a real RFC. It will be at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Draft Prager RFC (which is presently the header only). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal
As presented, this will be a typical, if lengthy RfC not focused on discussion but on simple approval/disapproval of each proposal. We can expect superficial voting and little discussion.

This attempt at moderated dispute resolution demonstrates behavioral problems that continue that are likely to undermine collaboration to reach policy-based consensus.

Each and every reference should be individually identified in the RfC for discussion, so we can properly address reliability issues.

The RfC should identify all relevant past discussions.

The RfC should identify the specific content policies of concern. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by moderator (Prager)
The RFC is running at Talk:Prager University.

User:Hipal - You have the right to identify all past discussions, and to identify the specific content policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Noteduck had the right to put their own RFC forward, with or without my involvement.

Behavioral problems may be reported at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion
Robert McClenon thank you for agreeing to moderate. If my initial statement needs rewording or needs to be more concise I am happy to amend it. Regarding Hipal's statement, I find the particular contention that I don't understand the reliable sources and consensus policies to be patronizing and unhelpful for resolving the dispute. I am actively trying to resolve this dispute constructively and was directed here by Arbitration Committee Noteduck (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like before,, I'll refactor if it helps. The facts remain. This comment was made by you just today. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

, you've asked for content to be restored, which assumes it was added then removed. Could you provide relevant diffs, minimally of the last time the material was removed? Could you also indicate what discussion(s) on the talk page are relevant, if any? --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't said much but my view is that the proposed changes were not improvements to the article. I think there are two different types of changes in question. One of the proposed changes was high level and stating that PragerU has been subject to widespread criticism. The problem is this became OR since we don't have RSs saying this. []. The other questions related to specific video commentary/criticism. That applies to the material critical of the PragerU videos which covered Robert E Lee, Benjamin Owens, and Douglas Murray (exists in article already, dispute is over a substantial expansion). So here at a high level the PragerU wiki article shouldn't be a collection of every criticism we can find about any PragerU video. Enough editors have weighed in on these questions to say there isn't a consensus of editors supporting any specific criticism topic. Other than simply editor opinion how else might we decide if the criticism of a specific video is due? The most obvious might be to cover videos discussed by RS articles about PragerU. Note this isn't RSs about Owens or about Murray as that would tend to lend weight for inclusion in those articles. A second issue has been that many of the sources presented to support inclusion are marginal in terms of and/or reliability/weight. For example, the Owen's material was supported by three sources[], Business Insider, an opinion article in The Jewish Telegraph Service and Mediamatters. Thus we have weak sourcing trying to support a specific video criticism that doesn't really contribute to the high level article which is supposed to be about PragerU as a whole. We have similar disagreements regarding the quality of sourcing that has been proposed for other content. For this reason several experienced editors have rejected these changes. While it might be hard to claim consensus against inclusion, consensus for inclusion certainly isn't there. Springee (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In response to Shinealittlelight, I'm not against some of the material I've suggested being amended or discussed. However, what has repeatedly taken place on this page is the wholesale deletion of material. Point by point:

Point 1: The direct quote from the Kotch article is "The rhetoric of “suicide” and “annihilation” [in the PragerU video] evokes the common white nationalist trope of “white genocide” - hardly a misquote. Pitcavage was quoted accurately. Alex Kotch is not a "mostly-unknown journalist". He's written for The Guardian, Newsweek, Salon, VICE etc. The Sludge source has been extensively discussed and justified as reliable on the RS noticeboard The direct quotation marks should be removed for the Halper article, but otherwise, your point about the LA Times article is pedantic. Halper's point is clearly that some Prager vids echo the talking points of the alt-right...[including] the Dinesh D'Souza and Douglas Murrray vids.

Point 2: Your point about the difference between "neo-Nazis" or "white supremacists" is pedantic and somebody could have made a quick revision to this paragraph to clarify the terminology, but instead it was repeatedly deleted in its entirety. Regarding the Sabato quote, VPM Radio interview makes it sound like Sabato was interviewed for a response to the PragerU video, but again this could have been amended to something like "Sabato rejected the contention Trump wasn't referring to neo-Nazis..." . You've mischaracterized the Washington Examiner as an outright non-RS, see here

Point 3: It's possible that we could work this in to a different part of the article. "Promoting" instead of "platforming" does indeed sound like a more appropriate term in this instance. Note that there are other sources that explicitly mention platforming of controversial far-right figures by Prager. The source material should be kept but may belong in another section. It may be worth having a separate paragraph on "platforming of controversial speakers".

Point 5: Regarding the Owen Benjamin content, I'm not sure on what basis Jewish Telegraph Agency and Media Matters for America are sources that "could hardly be weaker". Business Insider is not the best but is not deprecated. Benjamin's videos for PragerU have been mentioned by other sources including The Forward and by another Media Matters article

Point 6: You can't just assert HillReporter is not an RS - the fact that it has editorship and has been used on other Wiki pages has been discussed on the talk page. You haven't addressed the fact that other sources (which I previously referred to) also supported its contentions.

I partially retract point 3 of my complaint and maintain all my other points of complaint about the page. I am not averse to discussion and compromise, but note that large blocks of material are frequently deleted wholesale without any substantive discussion from this page. The material I've pointed to should be restored as indicated. Noteduck (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * just a short response to Springee's latest statement: I don't necessarily agree that consensus has been reached regarding Georgetown University's academic project Bridge Initiative on the RS noticeboard (discussion here) but rather that the objections raised aren't strong and that your understanding of consensus policy is not entirely correct. It's peripheral to this discussion anyway Noteduck (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just want to set the record straight on the misquotes:
 * Noteduck's proposal attributes this quote to Kotch: "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'.
 * Here is what Kotch actually said: The rhetoric of “suicide” and “annihilation” evokes the common white nationalist trope of “white genocide,”...
 * Noteduck's proposal attributes this to Pitcavage: Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video"...
 * Here is what Pitcavage actually said: “The video is “filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric. There is certainly prejudice inherent in the video…White supremacists are certainly almost all anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, so they would certainly agree with a lot of the things that [Murray] says.”
 * Perhaps we need to start an RfC to see how people think we should use quotation marks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding Pitcavage, adding the caveat "almost" certainly wasn't my intention but it looks like I did so in error. The Kotch quote is a minor rewording that would be perfectly acceptable in an academic context, but at any rate, these are extremely minor points and raise the question: if editors are focused on improving this page, why not make these minor amendments to material instead of deleting whole blocks of text? None of this justifies the Douglas Murray paragraph being repeatedly deleted wholesale Noteduck (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot reword what someone said and then put quotation marks around it as if it were a direct quote. I had plenty to say above beyond this, see above. I was just setting the record straight on this small matter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that quoted text must be exact. Taken as a rewording the first one is pretty accurate, the second one has an errant "almost", but these are quotes so if you need to do some work to make them fit then you do that outside of the quote marks, or with [text inserted for clarity]. I have had teachers that say you can reword text in a direct quotation so I get why you could think that, but Wikipedia and most serious academics are pretty absolute on it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quotes must be exact. Misquoting could be seen as evidence of serious behavioral problems. --Hipal (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the JTA ref: What policy makes supports making this opinion piece reliable? --Hipal (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This thread looks like paid editing and advocacy. Or maybe it is just AP2 pov editing, but it sure looks crazy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be no policy-based argument now or forthcoming for the JTA ref. If this is indicative of the general approach to this dispute, then we're wasting time here. I hope editors will reconsider their approach. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What a disappointingly patronizing response. You've been given the chance to make your case repeatedly and have refused to do so (even though you've made close to 200 edits on the PragerU page in the past). Yes I am familiar with Editing policy,NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, Reliable sources etc and it's not enough to assert that I don't understand Wiki's editorial policies. I've presented a volume of good-faith attempts to improve the PragerU page and expect a constructive response Noteduck (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * update in the interests of transparency: I put a strikethrough through my comment about Hipal's previous edits to the page, which is immaterial to the discussion at hand Noteduck (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey
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 has been extensive discussion at Talk: Lana Del Rey regarding the inclusion of recent social media comments reported by reliable sources in the "Public image" section. This was extensively discussed, then resolved via RfC establishing overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS to include it. Two days ago, disgruntled users from the original discussion began edit-warring, which I reverted, before it was reverted once again by Alextwa. After leaving a message on their talk page, Alextwa took it upon themselves as a "reviewer" to "reviewer" the dispute that had been resolved, establishing an opinion that violated consensus and proceeded to "rework" the page as such.

Despite multiple requests. Alextwa has provided no verifiable WP policy showing that they, as a self-initiated reviewer, can do such a thing against majority and thoroughly discussed consensus, and refuses to listen to the otherwise. The content in question is essentially a summary of Del Rey's comments regarding former Present Trump as well as her social media remarks about her new album cover, both widely reported in the media for starting controversy - nothing in the text suggests wrongdoing, it's a mere summary of the comments followed by "this incited commentary" etc. etc. relevant to her public image, as again, established by previous consensus. While I admit to have reverted more than nessacary due to my own misunderstanding - Alextwa refuses to listen to requests about consensus and continues to implement their own idea of their own accord. Regardless of my opinion, majority consensous has already been established. For a resolved matter, this is incredibly frustrating - I questioned if this was the right noticeboard to bring the dispute to, but after light investigation, it seemed the most appropriate. Is Alextwa truly within his rights as a reviewer to repeatedly ignore user consensus and insert themselves into a resolved matter?

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

Talk:Lana_Del_Rey Talk:Lana_Del_Rey Talk:Lana_Del_Rey

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

My primary issue is if Alextwa, a reviewer, can take it upon themselves to go against established consensus and enforce their own "take" regarding content already resolved and discussed. If this is above this page's pay-grade, I'm happy to go elsewhere. Thank you, and have a wonderful week.

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

Lana Del Rey discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note It sounds as if your concern is with the behavior of a single user- which should be taken to the WP:ANI rather than here. Especially if a consensus has already been established and you feel policy is being broken Nightenbelle (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nightenbelle Thank you for your feedback, I'll redirect my concerns to the appropriate channel. Is there any way to subsequently close this discussion? Have a great week.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll close it in a moment. :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nutrisystem
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

Nutrisystem is a commercial provider of weight-loss products. This dispute relates to how we present a study on Nutrisystem's efficacy in the lead.

The lead in the article for Nutrisystem describes a systematic review in 2014 that examined previous studies on Nutrisystem's efficacy. The systematic review concluded that, as a weight-loss tool, Nutrisystem "demonstrates better short-term weight loss than control/education and behavioral counseling." However, the systematic review could not draw any conclusion about Nutrisystem's long-term efficacy because there were no long term studies on the matter. To quote the systematic review again: "we identified no long-term trial results. We conclude that Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions."

User:Alexbrn is, intentionally or not, misrepresenting this systematic review in a fashion that implies Nutrisystem has been proven to be ineffective. Most recently, he has edited the page to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that "The authors recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence [than Nutrisystem], in preference." This is pure invention on his part; this claim appears nowhere in the source, which concludes that "Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions.".

Alexbrn is also, intentionally or not, engaged in another, more subtle form of misrepresentation. He has repeatedly (e.g.: 1) (2) (3) (4) inserted the claim that there is "no good evidence of any benefit [from Nutrisystem] in the longer term".

Alexbrn's use of the qualifying adjective good in the phrase "no good evidence" implies that there is some kind of evidence, presumably bad evidence; but in fact there is no evidence whatever for or against long-term efficacy because, as the paper says, there are simply no long term trial results regarding Nutrisystem. I have explained why this language is misleading, and multiple other users have pointed out the same problem on the talk page. Yet Alexbrn swiftly reverts any attempt to replace his misleading language with a simple quote or paraphrase of the actual conclusion from the authors, namely that Nutrisystem is promising but the absence of long-term studies prevent a definitive conclusion.

As noted above, Alexbrn also has added to the lead the claim that the authors of the systematic review "recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence [than Nutrisystem], in preference," a claim that he completely made up, and contradicts the actual conclusion drawn by the authors.

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

Talk:Nutrisystem

WP:ANI

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I suggest you do two things. First, after reading my complaint, read the systematic review carefully. Second, determine whether whether the two sentences added to the article by Alex comport with Wikipedia policy concerning NPOV, WP:V, and OR. Alex's sentences are as follows:

''→A systematic review of 2015 said there was tentative evidence that at three months that Nutrisystem resulted in at least 3.8% more weight loss than a control group, but no good evidence of any benefit in the longer term. The authors recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence, in preference."''

Summary of dispute by LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * User:Alexbrn, I am happy to withdraw my accusations of bad faith against Alex. I am no mind-reader. Alex, please go ahead and try to debunk my claims, and please note that they are made without any allegation or assumption of bad faith on your part. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by PaleoNeonate
A few days ago I posted as third opinion on the talk page, but feel free to request for a fourth, possibly via WP:3O if the outcome is to close this thread, — Paleo Neonate  – 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
I'd be happy to participate if the OP withdraws the accusations of bad faith. DRN should not be be a forum to enable and formalize un-WP:CIVIL behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to be clear, I expect to see all this "intentionally or not" and "engaged in misrepresentation" crap struck out. Let me know if it happens. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On the content
 * Any properly-conducted systematic review starts by selecting high-quality evidence in preference to low-quality evidence. The review is thus, by definition, a review of "good evidence" and best summarized that way (as is common on Wikipedia and in medcomms generally). Low-quality evidence (for example this study which Nutrisystem promotes) would have been inelligible per the review's quality requirements for the research considered (has to be a RCT; has to be >= 12 weeks in length, etc.).
 * We call the evidence "tentative" for short-term results because of the limited nature of the evidence, a point that features strongly in the source. I would not object to "only weak" or "only limited" in place of "tentative", and indeed these may be better. Or - leave out the short-term stuff altogether, as for diets it's pretty much irrelevant.
 * The point about how other diet products are recommended in preference (the study names them as Jenny Craig and Weightwatchers) is in the source. Interestingly, lay-press from the time of the study picked this up and cross-confirms this is how another independent assessment of the review sees it. I'd not object to amending the text to name the two diet products that were recommended, though this seems perhaps undue.

Nutrisystem discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Question - Is this a request for a non-binding Third Opinion about the systematic review, or a request for moderated discussion, possibly leading to compromise, or a request for assistance in filing a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a third opinion is best. I was and am exasperated by what I regard as the addition of text that is not supported by the reliable source cited, and tends to disparage the subject of the page. But I am open to the possibility that there is something I'm missing here, and I admit I should have assumed good faith. A (non-binding) third opinion would be great, though you'd have to ask Alex what he thinks of that. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Nutrisystem)
I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the rules. I will restate a few of the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not respond to each other, unless I provide a space for back-and-forth discussion. Respond to me on behalf of the community. The first question is whether both editors want me to give a non-binding Third Opinion. If so, I will review the materials in detail and provide an opinion, and then this case will be closed, because I will no longer be neutral. If either editor wants moderated discussion rather than a third opinion, I will try to provide moderation. So: What method of dispute resolution will we use? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, User:Alexbrn ? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you read through the source and the disputed edits, and then offer a non-binding opinion. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Nutrisystem)
I have read the history and the discussion, and I have read the systematic review, with a focus on the abstract and the conclusions. I think that it is best for the article to state what the systematic review says, without any attempt to elaborate on or infer from what it says. See the policies against synthesis having the nature of original research. It appears that there weren't any long-term (more than 3 months) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Nutrisystem. It appears that any conclusion about the long-term effectiveness of Nutrisystem isn't based on the evidence that isn't there, but I will ask again what the question is.

The objective of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. Is there a specific question about wording of what the article should say? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Nutrisystem)

 * User:Robert McClenon, I would like you to answer the question following (compound) question:

Do the following two sentences in the current Nutrisystem article—"A systematic review of 2015 said there was tentative evidence that at three months that Nutrisystem resulted in at least 3.8% more weight loss than a control group, but no good evidence of any benefit in the longer term. The authors recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence, in preference—entail improper synthesis and OR? If so, why? LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Nutrisystem)
That statement is really sort of borderline. It goes a little beyond the systematic review in terms of what it says and doesn't say about Nutrisystem. The second sentence is a slight stretch. They didn't compare Nutrisystem to Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig. They said it was permitted to recommend Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig. They didn't compare them to Nutrisystem. They were very careful in what they did and didn't say, and we should be also. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Nutrisystem)
Yes, strictly speaking the review compares 11 diets to control/education or behavioral counseling - and not directly against each other. So could we say something like': "Nutrisystem was one of 11 diets reviewed, but of these only Jenny Craig and Weightwatchers were considered by the reviewers as suitable for referral" or, more simply and avoiding naming the other diets, "the evidence for nutrisystem was not sufficient for it to be recommended by the reviewers" or somesuch? Alexbrn (talk)

Fourth statement by moderator (Nutrisystem)
I was asked to offer an opinion. I have offered an opinion. I said that in that case I would not be able to act as a moderator because I would compromise my neutrality, and I am not able to act as a moderator. We should not say anything about the systematic review that is not exactly supported by the systematic review. Even a modest rewording of what the systematic review said runs the risk of being synthesis having the character of original research. You may continue discussion on the article talk page, or you may use a Request for Comments. I am willing to assist in formulating an RFC if that is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)