Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 135 - Wikipedia

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Erwin Rommel#About the revert of my 1 Feb 2016 correction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rklawton (talk · contribs)
• Gorthian (talk · contribs)
• 209.179.86.123 (talk · contribs)
• 209.179.22.107 (talk · contribs)
• Camino 2-1-2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 1 Feb 2015 I made a good faith edit to the Erwin Rommel article where I corrected four factual errors and included one footnote. Since the article is semi-protected and my contribution was from my IP address instead of a named account, my edit was pended and had to be approved before it went live. Later on 1 Feb, user Rklawton reverted it, with the rather condescending comment of, "Let's not provide readers with bad translations - especially when the German is both clear and linked." In fact my translations were correct, the German was NOT clear (hence my corrections), and the link is irrelevant, which Rklawton apparently doesn't know. On 2 Feb I politely asked RKLawton on the article Talk page why he reverted my edit. His answer was non responsive, referring me to his vague edit comment. Since I had made several corrections, i didn't know which one(s) he meant, which made it impossible for me to understand his point (especially since I had no errors). Since he was essentially unresponsive, I tried the edit again on 5 Feb. At this point another editor (not RKlevin) reverted it. Oddly, when Gorthian reverted it, he cited WP:BRD, even though his own action ran counter to that guideline. After that, RKLawton sent me a message to my Talk page (209.179.86.123) threatening to block me, again without showing any sign of willingness to discuss my edit. On 7 Feb I made another request to him to discuss it but as of this writing he has refused to do so.

I should add here that this isn't one of those abstract philosophical disputes involving shades of gray or it-depends-on-your-paradigm kind of problem. This is a rather simple factual dispute that should be resolved fairly easily if both parties can discuss it, the way Wikipedia's policies require editors to do.

Please note that that my edit was done as IP 209.179.86.123, and my IP address was subsequently changed to 209.179.22.107. To avoid any more possible confusion, I am using my account name of Camino 2-1-2 for the rest of this DRN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Since Rklawton has refused to engage in a meaningful discussion there hasn't really been anything i could do.

How do you think we can help?

Get RKLawton to discuss the matter. Since this is a fairly basic question it shouldn't be that hard to reach a consensus, if he is willing to listen to the other side.

Summary of dispute by Rklawton

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

As noted in my edit summary, the IP provided several bad translations and I reverted them. The IP then demanded an explanation regardless of the fact that his/her edits and my edit summary made the problem self evident. I then left town for a week (and noted so accordingly) for a family funeral. The IP continues to make demands and behave belligerently rather than collegially. Rklawton (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gorthian

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

Erwin Rommel happened to be listed on Articles with edits awaiting review, which I monitor infrequently; the latest edit had been "pending" for several hours, so I checked it out. From the edit summaries, it was clear there was a dispute between two editors. 209.179.86.123 had added material, Rklawton reverted it, then 209.179.86.123 had reverted it back. I saw it this way: 209.179.86.123 had been bold and added material, then had been reverted, so the next step was to discuss. I reverted 209.179.86.123, citing WP:BRD, and said "take it to the talk page".

I know almost nothing about the article or its subject, and I have no opinion on the material added. I don't think I'll be any use in a content dispute. But there's my bit of involvement.— Gorthian (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction discussion

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

• Volunteer note - The filing party (an unregistered editor) has not listed themselves as a party to the case, and has not notified the other two editors. There has been discussion on the talk page. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors (and also to list themselves). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  To DRN volunteers: I encouraged the filing party to create an account, so they could follow the case easier.--In veritas (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

•   Volunteer note: Does anyone know if we can bring in a third opinion about the above mentioned German translations? In veritas (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•   Volunteer note: Filing IP has talked to me about creating an account soon, once that happens I will open this case. In veritas (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•   Volunteer note: Moderation may start. The filing IP is now registered account Camino 2-1-2. Let's keep this civil and focused on the content. Since this seems to boil down to a difference in translation opinions, would each editor explain to me and each other, hopefully word by word, why they disagree with the other's translation? In veritas (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

First Statement by Camino 2-1-2 (formerly IP 209.179.86.123)

First off, I can't help but point out that in my request I wrote, "Hello, Rklawton, could you please explain...," and if that is to be considered demanding and belligerent, then I apologize. I had no idea anyone could consider it as such but I guess you learn something new every day. Since RKLawton even now refuses to explain what his objections are I guess I'll have to go through every one, starting at the bottom of my original edit and working my way up. (I assume that since he said nothing about the footnote I included he has no objections to that, but if he does, I hope he'll say something.)

I changed "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; German High Command)," to, "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; Army High Command)," as I thought including "German" was rather redundant, since no one would assume it was the French High Command (although, considering how ineptly the French conducted themselves, it does look like the German were directing the French forces.). But the High Command of what? The Navy? The Luftwaffe? Oh yes, it does include, "des Heeres," so I feel perfectly confident in translating that as "Army High Command". (Do you see how it's done RKLawton? You state exactly what you think is wrong and then explain why and how it should be changed.) If he challenges the veracity of that I hope he'll explain why.

Next we come to "Generalleutnant Heinz Guderian," which I changed to, "General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian". I hope RKLawton doesn't think this was a translation as I was simply correcting a factual mistake. Guderian was promoted to the higher rank in 1938 (October, I believe), which is in fact before the war even started.

My next change involved Erich von Manstein but that is now irrelevant. A subsequent rewrite of that paragraph sent Manstein to the cornfield and any issue with that one is now moot. This brings me to the last, and certainly not the least of these translation issues. Here I changed, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor on..." to, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor (Brigadier General) on..." In order to explain this one I would like to ask RKLaton to fill in the chart below, which will be instrumental in determining in what way we disagree on this point. All he need to do is copy the wikitable text (the part from "{| class=wikitable" and "|}", inclusive) to his answer space and fill in the empty boxes. I think doing that will be instrumental in resolving this remaining translation question.

US / German Officer Comparison Chart

Off. Desig	U.S.Rank	German Rank	Notes
O-6
O-7
O-8
O-9
O-10
O-11

Please let me know if there are any problems. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Rommel's article is not the place for pedantics or lessons in German military rank. The correct and only translation for Generalmajor is Major General. The equivalent rank may be interesting for some readers and they can follow the link to the Generalmajor article if they want more information. Oddly enough, the Generalmajor article states that the US Army equivalent is also Major General. Rklawton (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Start of Second Round

•   Volunteer note: Discussion has made progress. Camino 2-1-2 does the above comment satisfy your questions? Rklawton are you feeling that this discussion is proceeding in a good direction for you? In veritas (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
•   Volunteer note: Pinging them to remind them of the case @Camino 2-1-2 and Rklawton: In veritas (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to keep everyone waiting. I need to make some points about translating.

The first thing is to not literally parse the term instead of translating it as a concept-to-concept, which is the real trick of translating. Since RKLawton never actually explained what he was thinking, I can only presume that his thought process ran something like this: Generalmajor = General major = Major General. "Translating" it this way is wrong since you are not translating one concept to another. This reminds of the first attempts to use crude computers as translation machines decades ago. They would translate a common English expression into a foreign language and then translate the result back into English. One failed example was the the expression, "Out of sight, out of mind," which when translated into Chinese and then back into English came out as, "Invisible idiot." That's an example of something literally parsed instead of translating a concept.

That is why I suggested the chart as a way to help make the point easier to understand. He didn't fill it out (he may not have known the correct answers) so I'll do it to help make my point.

US / German Officer Comparison Chart

Off. Desig	U.S.Rank	German Rank	Notes
O-6	Colonel	Oberst
O-7	Brigadier General	Generalmajor
O-8	Major General	Generalleutnant
O-9	Lieutenant General	General der Waffengattung (Service Arm)	An honorific title depending on service arm, thus General der Infantrie, General der Artillerie, etc.
O-10	General	Generaloberst
O-11	General of the Army	Generalfeldmarschall

From this chart we can see why it's incorrect to translate Generalmajor to Major General. When you translate the ranks you go from position to position (left to right), not name to name. After all, the U.S. Army and Navy both have a rank called Captain - would anyone claim that the two are the same position and hold the same amount of authority? Of course not; even though they're both Captains, that doesn't make them the same thing.

Look at it this way. Suppose the article had the following factually correct sentence: "On 23 Aug 1939, Rommel was promoted from Oberst to Generalmajor." Now if that statement were written entirely in English as RKLawton would have it, it would read like this: "On 23 Aug 1939 Rommel was promoted from Colonel to Major General." For the average English speaking reader this would make it look like he was promoted from Colonel to the two star General rank with him completely bypassing the one star General rank. (Refer to the chart above if necessary.) Would that be acceptable? Is it the purpose of Wikipedia to mislead readers or confuse them? I should hope not. Why not put factually accurate information in the article? I'm pretty sure Wikipedia policy expects editors to do that.

But to recap, let me address RKLawton's response point by point. He wrote:

• "Rommel's article is not the place for pedantic or lessons in German military rank." I agree wholeheartedly. However, it is the place to put factually accurate information that does not unnecessarily mislead the reader.
• "The correct and only translation for Generalmajor is Major General." That is absolutely incorrect as I have shown above.
• "The equivalent rank may be interesting for some readers and they can follow the link to the Generalmajor article if they want more information." Wikipedia policy is to not unnecessarily require readers to follow links if the correct information can be given on the spot. For example, when the word "Blitzkrieg" is used it is often followed by "(lightning warfare)". While it's certainly appropriate to make it a wikilink so that readers can go to the related article for more information, it is also appropriate to give a quick translation so that the reader is not FORCED to go to another page just to find out what it means.
• "Oddly enough, the Generalmajor article states that the US Army equivalent is also Major General." Well, a proper reading of that article would show that it doesn't apply to Rommel. That article applies to the modern West German Army which was reformed after 1955 when it joined NATO and adopted the NATO command structure, which is almost identical to the traditional U.S. Army command structure. So sending the reader to that article actually misleads the reader, as RKLawton as already experienced.

Hopefully I haven' made this too confusing. I simply had no way of knowing how much detail I needed to go into to explain my position. Thanks again. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

•   Volunteer note: @Rklawton: Rklawton, it has been two days since Camino 2-1-2 has responded, and the DRN board likes to keep responses every 2 days. Regards, In veritas (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
•   Volunteer note: @Rklawton: Please respond, this case was archived, and I had to save it. In veritas (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Awaiting Camino 2-1-2's response. No rush. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Translating the link as Camino did would be both confusing and misleading. Providing a lesson in German ranks on Rommel's page would also be inappropriate as the article is about Rommel. Lastly, comparing Rommel's German rank to U.S. military rank would make the article America-centric, and that is most definitely not appropriate. It would be more appropriate to use Rommels' actual rank and let readers click on the link if they want more information about it. Rklawton (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Start of Third Round

•   Volunteer note: With responses in from the last round, we can now move into the third round of moderated discussion.
•   Volunteer note: Pinging @Camino 2-1-2: to tell him or her that we are ready for his or hers response to Rklawton's response.
•   Volunteer note: It seems like we are nearing a stalemate, hopefully a solution will be appearing soon.

In veritas (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he meant when he wrote, "Translating the link as Camino did would be both confusing and misleading," I don't understand what he meant by "link." What link? I don't remember doing anything of the sort. If he really meant "rank" instead of link, then no, I have already shown this isn't right.

I could take RKLawton's own argument and and show why he's wrong by his own actions. If we leave it his way then it "would be both confusing and misleading," (his words) because readers would incorrectly assume (as he did) that a Generalmajor is the same thing as a Major General. That's what makes this whole thing so bizarre: RKLawton is the living embodiment of the necessity of what I tried to do. He is proof that readers get confused by NOT translating it on the spot! And yet he insists on continuing the confusion. Why?

"Providing a lesson in German ranks on Rommel's page would also be inappropriate as the article is about Rommel." I honestly have no idea of what he's talking about. No one is trying to teach anything of the sort. This is like saying that if someone writes, "Blitzkrieg (lightning warfare)" they are guilty of trying to teach readers German vocabulary. Complete and utter nonsense.

As for the American-centric rank, I guess I'm guilty of assuming too much. Since RKLawton and I are both veterans of the U.S. Army, I used U.S. as a simple frame of reference. I had assumed that RKLawton knew that NATO and her allies around the globe use the same system. I'm dead certain that any English reader in the UK, Canada, Jamaica, Australia, and all parts in between would not scratch their head in bewilderment trying to figure out what the heck a Brigadier General is. As far as I can see, any question about being American-centric is just utter nonsense.

Last, and certainly least, we come to his last point about clicking on the link to get more information. I have already explained about that up above where I noted that Wikipedia's policy is to not force readers to unnecessarily chase links when it can be provided on the spot. Oh, and I also pointed out that the linked article does not apply. Let me repeat that: the linked article does not apply. Do you understand that??? __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to teach a lesson on Nazi era military ranks, do it in an article dedicated to the subject. If it's linking to the "wrong" article, then fix it. However, it is entirely inappropriate to use Rommel's article to try to explain how Nazi era military ranks equated to modern U.S. military ranks. And there's an important distinction that Camino keeps conflating - translation v. equivalency. For the purposes of this article, we need neither (though a link is a good idea). However, if we're going to provide a translation at all, it should be literal. If we don't we're going to have readers saying "WTF?" and trying to change it. Our articles need to be clear and concise. Providing an equivalence is not clear. Explaining the equivalency in the article violates coatrack and is trivial to the article's subject. The only suitable solution is to skip the translation entirely and provide a link. All things considered, I'd recommend Camino to write the appropriate article if one doesn't exist. Rklawton (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Start of Fourth Round

•   Volunteer note: It seems like we are nearing a solution, and that most of the dispute revolves around what needs to appear on Rommel's page. For a third opinion, most articles describe a non-English person's rank in their language, with a link to what that rank would be equivalent to. In veritas (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the solution I've proposed. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - I'll put in a fuller statement a little later, I just wanted to keep the bot from automatically closing this. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an old expression that goes something like, "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you." I have consistently refuted everything RKLawton has said by showing either its factual or logical errors. So far as I can see he has not done anything remotely close to that, preferring instead to simply issue pronouncements and not supporting them with facts or logic. In all honesty I have never been so perplexed by anyone like this. It's like trying to convince someone a square actually has four sides and not five.

I have trouble writing a response to RKLawton because the points he brings up are just so laughably ridiculous I find it difficult to make a response. No, I am not advocating teaching "Nazi era military ranks," anymore than writing "blitzkrieg (lightning warfare)," is an attempt to teach German vocabulary.

As for confusing 'translation v. equivalency," no, RKLawton has got it wrong again. Remember the example I gave above, of how the English proverb got mistranslated as "Invisible idiot"? Incredibly, RKLawton would have have agreed with this and said it was the proper translation! Unbelievable. That is why a literal translation would in fact mislead the reader, and be anything but clear and concise. Maybe he wants Wikipedia's article to include factually incorrect info but I don't. And I don't think any one else does either.

And once again I'll point out (maybe the third time will be charm) that forcing readers to chase links instead of providing information on the spot is against Wikipedia policy. As for, "Explaining the equivalency in the article," I never suggested that. And as for, "The only suitable solution is to skip the translation entirely and provide a link," there are a million Wikipedia editors who know that doesn't make sense either. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of mocking me, why not focus on the fact that your proposal simply isn't how it's done. See above. Rklawton (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not not trying to mock you. I was simply trying to point out that your arguments had no merit, a point anyone reading this "discussion" would agree with. The simple fact of the matter is that a Generalmajor is the same thing as a Brigadier General. That is not an opinion, it is an absolutely uncontroverted fact, something I proved above. Back when this all started I was 99.99% sure that you had made a simple, common mistake, (something we all (including myself) have done from time to time) and that once I explained the error to you, you would realize the mistake and we would be done. But instead of this, you continued with it and for what reason I cannot fathom. I challenge any intelligent person to read the above and see if they agree with you. The other problem with your responses is that you never support any of your assertions with facts or logic - you simply made statements and expect everyone to just agree with you. Your complete unwillingness to construct a logical argument makes it impossible to take your position seriously. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear to me that Camino isn't participating in good faith. He wants Wikipedia to work his way and only his way. An RfC is the way to go if Camino remains obstinate with further sanctions if necessary. Rklawton (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Start of 5th Round

•   Volunteer note: It seems like we are at a stalemate. I will have to close this as failed soon if something does not change. I cannot take sides because I am the moderator, but once again I will reiterate it is common practice for people's military ranks to be in their native language with that military rank hyperlinked to an article about equivalency and the such. If Camino 2-1-2 wants to change this, an RfC might be an option. In veritas (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
•   Volunteer note: If I may: I have read through this case and the relevant article, and I would like to propose a compromise. If both editors agree to it then perhaps we can move on. I see both points - that the literal translation of Generalmajor is Major General, and the conceptual translation of Generalmajor is Brigadier General. The core issue is that the modern one-star rank of Brigadegeneral did not exist at that time, and instead, Generalmajor, which is now 2-star, was 1-star in WWII Nazi Germany. Perhaps if you emphasize this - that Generalmajor was equivalent to the current Brigadegeneral, it will resolve the concern. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Or, to be more clear:

US Off. Desig	NATO Off. Desig	U.S.Rank	Nazi German Rank	Modern German Rank
O-6	OF-5	Colonel	Oberst	Oberst
O-7	OF-6	Brigadier General	Generalmajor	Brigadegeneral
O-8	OF-7	Major General	Generalleutnant	Generalmajor
O-9	OF-8	Lieutenant General	General der Waffengattung (Service Arm)	Generalleutnant
O-10	OF-9	General	Generaloberst	General
O-11	OF-10	General of the Army	Generalfeldmarschall	(abolished 1945)

Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. That's what Camino wants to do - turn Rommel's article into a lesson in Nazi era Army ranks. However, as noted above, what we do here on Wikipedia is provide actual military ranks along with a link in case anyone is curious. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Since we may have gotten so deep in the weeds that we've lost sight of the forest for the trees (uhhh, a kind of mixed metaphor - sorry), let me reiterate the salient points of the matter:

• Was my translation factually correct and clear up a potential misinterpretation by the reader? YES.

• Is it the policy of Wikipedia that readers should not be forced to chase links for information that can provided on the spot? YES.

• Is there a relevant article in Wikpedia that does provide the information to readers? NO.

• Does what I propose unnecessarily burden the reader? NO.

Everything I have written reflects the reality of these points. Everything that RKLawton has written has not. If I have not understood something please let me know as I really want to understand where I might be wrong. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The reality is that we do not translate military ranks - instead we provide a link. That's the reality. That's what we do - and you haven't suggested otherwise. What you propose is an unnecessary distraction from the subject of the article. Readers visit the article to learn about Rommel and not get a lesson in Nazi-era Army rank equivalents to modern NATO ranks. Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Proton (automobile)#Youngman sales data reputability (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Samhu (talk · contribs)
• Aero777 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor is disputing figures as shown in Proton's Global Operation on these basis

1)Youngman's China-manufactured cars sold as Lian-Hua have little to do with Proton so should they be included in the bar chart and tables in that same section at all?

2) Youngman car sales figures are discredited so should they be quoted as they have been at all?

Other editor is standing by entries as they are.

Summation of discussion between the two editors involved is at

1. Talk:Proton_(automobile)#Youngman_sales_data_reputability

Complete discussion is at

1. User talk:Aero777/Archive 1#Proton automobiles, Youngman controversy

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Fully discussed already, without any resolution between authors here User_talk:Aero777#Proton_automobiles.2C_Youngman_controversy

Third opinion requested on 13 March 2016 ; went stale on 19 March 2018

How do you think we can help?

1)Give your opinion whether including Youngman Automotive's Lian-Hua nameplate China-manufactured cars is relevant at all in the Proton Global Operations bar chart, section text and tables.

2)Advice whether now-defunct Youngman Automobile Groups sale's figures meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion there. (May not be required if Youngman sales deemed irrelevant for inclusion in Proton Global Operations altogether)

Samhu Samhu (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aero777

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

# Talk:Proton (automobile)#Youngman_sales_data_reputability discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other party of the filing. This case will be ready for acceptance after the filing party notifies the other party and the other party responds. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Aero777 has been informed via his talk page. Samhu (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Chaharshanbe Suri#Title (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rye-96 (talk · contribs)
• Pahlevun (talk · contribs)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is on the name of the festival. And this is the edition which I had provided and was opposed to.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I suggest, if we're not to use Charshanbe Suri at the first of the introduction, use it as a bold title after Chaharshanbe Suri.

How do you think we can help?

Participate in the discussion, and show if there's any chance to change the current introduction which I consider unprofessional (with regard to my explanations).

Summary of dispute by Pahlevun

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

Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran

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

Talk:Chaharshanbe Suri#Title discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. If the other editors reply to agree that they are willing to discuss here, since discussion is voluntary, a volunteer can open a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:J. Ralph (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Karst (talk · contribs)
• Eldorado74 (talk · contribs)
• Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been in a content dispute over J.Ralph page with its creator Eldorado74 since December 2015. As another editor (Moonriddengirl) on the talk page pointed out, there is an issue of WP:OWN about the content, but assuming Good Faith I have tried to steer the editor away from the promotional language used in the article. This has resulted in a number of mutual reverts in the past three months. Last week I tried to establish a neutral tone to the article but this was met with further accusations of vandalism. After a number of attempts to seek out consensus, I request mediation to solve the issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to outline the issues with the page and give clear examples of why and how they needed to be addressed. Both on the article Talk page and the Talk page of the article creator.

How do you think we can help?

Assuming good faith I have tried to find a consensus over the past three months, but have to concede that I have failed and perhaps have become too entrenched in the issue. I intend to take a step away and hope that a third party can help with finding a common ground that will benefit the article.

Summary of dispute by Eldorado74

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

Summary of dispute by Moonriddengirl

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

Talk:J. Ralph discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the talk page. Eldorado74 has been properly notified. Administrator Moonriddengirl has not edited the article in two years. Other editors who have not been listed have edited the article or its talk page recently. The filing party must notify the other editors who have edited the article or its talk page recently. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Notified those who have edited the page in the past year; with the exception of one (blocked sockpuppet).Karst (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recent editor note - A quick glance over the page clearly reads like a biased resume. The article clearly lacks a neutral tone. MetropolisHearts (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vatasura (talk · contribs)
• 117.192.218.39 (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Copperchloride (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Vatasura claim Tamils as a nation and as whole a stateless nation, but 117.192.218.39 claim Tamils in India are not stateless nation and Tamils in Sri Lanka are stateless nation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

So far only discussed, no other steps made.

How do you think we can help?

Volunteers with experience in nationalism, ethnic or history can certainly enlighten us.

Summary of dispute by 117.192.218.39

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

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

I am not confident that this is issue is ripe for DRN. I have been mostly a bystander in that dispute, asking for reliable sources for the claim that Tamils in general form a stateless nation. I haven't yet seen one. It is possible that what constitutes a reliable source for the claim is itself disputed. If so, this dispute might just focus on pinning down what is required of a reliable source. For example, does the presence of a section on "Tamils" in the [Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations] imply that Tamils as a whole form a stateless nation? Personally, I think it would come as a rude shock to most Tamils in India if Wikipedia were to declare that they now form a stateless nation. This seems to me to be WP:OR of the highest order. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Copperchloride

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

Talk:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils? discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the unregistered editor at any of the IP addresses that they have used. The filing party has the responsibility to notify the other editor. This case can be opened after proper notice has been given. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Two other registered editors have been discussing at the article talk page and should be invited as parties to this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

All involved users are listed here and informed on their talk page. IP user was informed on 117.192.218.39. Vatasura (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am opening this case. Here are the usual ground rules. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. Discussion should be here rather than on the article talk page. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution, and overly long posts do not clarify issues. Everyone must check the status of this page at least every 48 hours. (There are no exceptions to the 48-hour rule.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I expect every editor to provide a brief restatement of their case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My question has to do with the statement that Sri Lankan Tamils are a stateless nation, but Indian Tamils are not. How can that be? Are Sir Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils two different nationalities? If not, is there a question about the existence of Tamil-majority Indian states, which are not sovereign states because they are federated states? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Regarding the question, why are only Sri Lankan Tamils a stateless nation, why not Indian Tamils?, modern scholarship doesn't treat "nationhood" as being defined in textbooks. Rather it is defined on the ground, under the pushes and pulls of political and ideological pressures. India is a large multi-ethnic country with 20+ large ethnic groups, and myriads of smaller ones. It has been so for millennia. So the idea of ethnic nationalism simply doesn't work for India. Rather it is territorial nationalism, way back from 300 BC if we are to judge by Megasthenes's descriptions, that shapes India. Sri Lanka could have gone the same way. But it didn't. It has two major ethnic groups. The Tamils, who are a minority most of whom were recent arrivals, were "disenfranchised," according to this source.^[1] This gave rise to Tamil nationalism within Sri Lanka. So the comparison between Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils is like comparing apples and oranges. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has raised good questions, to understand this, we have to look back at history. Tamils are a nation with a history of over 2000 years. Originally, Tamils ruled as an independent nation in Tamilakam and parts of Sri Lanka. During the colonial period, Tamils were defeated by the British and Tamil homeland was absorbed in British India and British Ceylon. This situation completely eradicated the sovereignty of Tamils and reduced them to a minority status under political model implemented by British. Since independence, Tamil separatist movements are suppressed in Sri Lanka and India^[1]

 

Today, 77 million Tamils live around the world, but there is no sovereigne Tamil state that represents the interests of the Tamils, this situation makes Tamils as a whole a stateless nation. Tamils in India are called Indian Tamils, in Sri Lanka as Sri Lankan Tamils, in Britain as British Tamils, in Malaysia as Malaysian Tamils, that does not mean that they are different ethnic groups. Vatasura 03:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

In general, articles in Wikipedia should be consistent with each other. That is, contradictions between articles should usually be resolved. The article on stateless nation defines a stateless nation as a people that are seen as a nation that do not have a sovereign state. Is there is agreement that the Sir Lankan Tamils and the Indian Tamils are a single nation? If so, how can a subgroup of this nation be stateless according to the current definition? If modern scholarship does not treat "nationhood" as defined in textbooks, then what reliable sources should we use to define it? Alternatively, if the definition of stateless nation is too rigid, then should stateless nation be redefined to have a standard that includes the Sri Lankan Tamils and not the Indian Tamils? If so, how should the stateless nation article be reworked? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

I think the page stateless nation needs to be improved and linked to other Wikipedia pages. It explains well, what is a stateless nation and also mentions different situations. A nation without a sovereign state is a stateless nation, that is the bitter truth. Why should we hide the truth, just because its too rigid? There was even a poll to delete the page sateless nation, but it was kept because of its unique concept. There is no doubt that Tamils in mainland and island are ethnically, linguistically, culturally, traditionally a single nation. I think most sources on Wikipedia comes from text books, we should not make it complicated.Vatasura 21:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The article on stateless nation is a stub-class article that has been templated for citations for 2 years. What exists is full of WP:OR and poor-quality writing. It can't be a standard bearer for anything. It should certainly not trump the standard Wikipedia requirements of Verifiability. To call something a "stateless nation" there should be reliable sources that call it so along with a thorough discussion of why it is a stateless nation. We can't use "stateless nation" as if it were a standard term with a dictionary meaning. "Nation" is a loaded term in the current day terminology, and we can't willy nilly call every ethnic group a "nation," without support from reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer moderator

The purpose of dispute resolution should be improving the article. The article states, with two sources, that Tamils are one of the largest national groups without a state. What does any editor who wants to change the article want it to say, and what reliable sources will they provide? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

In the first place, the statement occurs as a self-assured assertion in the lead, without any discussion or elaboration in the body. There is no in-line attribution either. So it is being presented as if it were a universal fact, on the basis of two weak sources. The first source, a WP:TERTIARY one, essentially describes the ethnic community of Tamils without making any particular claim to them forming a `stateless nation'. The second source doesn't have the term `stateless nation' in it at all, as far as Google Books can tell. I have no idea what the editor found in the second source.

• On the other hand, if you do search for "Tamils stateless nation" on Google Books, you get tons of sources describing quite explicitly Sri Lankan Tamils forming a `stateless nation'. Apparently, the editor is not interested in any of these sources.
• There are also plenty of sources that indicate that the whole enterprise of `stateless nations' is a red herring, especially for South Asia. One source says: South Asia, in this sense, offers yet another advance in the study of nationalism, and this pertains to the flawed assumption regarding conjugality between state and nation.^[1] According to the source, the South Asian model where multi-ethnic groups coexist within a federal polity is an advance over the European nation-state model.
• Another source, actually used in the Stateless nations article, says: Whatever the numbers one might wish to use, nations that have states are only a small fraction of all nations, but we insist in associating nations with states and in regarding the majority of nations that are stateless as problematic or lacking something.^[2] This source says, in the content of the Kurdish question, one should avoid the ambiguous use of such terms as `proto-nation' and `stateless nation' . ^[3]

For me, there are three options:

• We can state that the Sri Lankan Tamils have been described as a `stateless nation' for which reliable sources are easy to find.
• If the issue is to be discussed for all Tamils, then a section needs to be added in the body describing all points of view and then the lead can summarise them in a sentence or two.
• Or, we omit it altogether. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Stateless nation is not a made-up word but a political term. This question can only be answered by neutrality, because it is a national question. Indian nationalists would argue that Indian Tamils are not a stateless nation. Sri Lankan nationalists would argue that Sri Lankan Tamils are not a stateless nation. Tamil nationalists would argue that Tamils are a stateless nation. To claim that Indian Tamils are not stateless nation and Sri Lankan Tamils are stateless nation makes no sense. A nation is born by the national consciousness. Tamils consider themselves a nation otherwise there would be no Tamil nationalism. Tamils can not be compared with other ethnic groups in India. Not all ethnic groups in India have a national consciousness or consider themselves to be a nation. On Wikipedia we find not even a page about Telugu nationalism, Gujarati nationalism or Oriya nationalism. The Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations by James Minahan which one of the sources, list Tamils as a single stateless nation. The statement "That Tamils are one of the largest national groups without a state" is since 2014 on the page Tamils. It was neither removed immediately or opposed by most users. Tamils is an active wiki page and when someone writes something absurd, it will be removed immediately.Vatasura (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Tamils consider themselves a nation otherwise there would be no Tamil nationalism. That seems like backward reasoning. And it is false. "Nationalism" is a much weaker term than "nation." It means basically ethnic politics or identity politics. On the other hand, "nation" means a group that is laying claim to be a sovereign state (as in being a member of "United Nations"). So the idea of "Tamil nationalism" says nothing about a "Tamil nation." - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer moderator

I forgot to state one of the usual rules, which is that editors should not engage in threaded discussion or reply to each other's posts. This results in going back-and-forth and is unproductive. Respond only to the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on contributors. Referring to "the editor" doesn't avoid commenting on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

One editor is satisfied with the current version of the lede sentence, which describes Tamils as a nationality that does not have a national state, which has two sources. The other editor has proposed three alternatives. The first is describing only Sri Lankan Tamils as a stateless nation. Is there a reliable source that states that Sri Lankan Tamils are a stateless nation and Indian Tamils are not? (If there is no reliable source, that position is original research.) If so, how can part of one nationality be stateless and another one not be stateless? The second is presenting a discussion of all views in the body of the article. The third is omitting the issue altogether. Is the other editor agreeable to any of these approaches? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

I think it should remain unchanged, but we can limit it only to Tamil nationalists.

We can change it to:

Tamil people with a population of about 77 million living around the world are one of the largest and oldest of the existing ethno-linguistic cultural groups of people. Tamil nationalists claim that Tamils are a Nation without a state of their own.

I think this version is acceptable for Indian nationalists, Sri Lankan nationalists and Tamil nationalists.Vatasura (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that say that the Srilankan Tamils form a stateless nation? Plenty. Here is a sample:

• Put simply, the worlds stateless nations — Kosovan Albanians, Kurds from Turkey and Iraq, Tamils from Sri Lanka, Chechens from Russia, Ibos and Ogoni from Nigeria, and hundreds of other tribes and ethnic groups...^[1]
• A stateless nation exists whenever or wherever an imagined political culture that functions in ways that permit a people to conceive of themselves as a nation finds itself lacking its own sovereign, independent state.... Modern examples abound: the Palestinians in Israel and Occupied Territories as well as Gaza; ... the Tamils in Sri Lanka; the Chechens in Chechnya; ...^[2]
• In order to escape persecution from the Sri Lankan government, which has suspended the Tamil population's rights as citizens, a large number of Tamils have fled the island... These far-flung Tamils, together with their compatriots in Sri Lanka, constitute the stateless nation of Tamil Eelam, which is reflected in these scattered groups' presence on the World Wide Web.^[3]
• Tamils in Sri Lanka have no state and are seeking to create their own sovereign state of Eelam based on their right of self-determination. They are a stateless nation oppressed by alien Sinhalese colonialism and domination.^[4]

On the other hand, Robert, your question "If so, how can part of one nationality be stateless and another one not be stateless?" is a prime example of WP:OR. It is not our job to either ask or answer such questions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer moderator

The suggestion has been made that we state, with reliable sources, that Tamil nationalists say that the Tamils, of whom there are 77 million, are a stateless nation. Is that statement, which recognizes that nationalism is a matter of opinion, acceptable to both parties? If so, can this discussion be closed as Resolved?

Fifth statements by editors

I think we can close it. Further discussion on this will brings us nowhere. Discuss on this is like an atheist and believer discuss on existence of God, it will never end. Robert, I am grateful that you asked this question. "If so, how can part of one nationality be stateless and another one not be stateless?", but I think you'll like me get no answer for this question. As I said, we can leave it unchanged as since 2014 or we can add the part with Tamil Nationlist and finish this dispute.

• Put simply, the worlds stateless nations — Kosovan Albanians, Kurds from Turkey and Iraq, Tamils from Sri Lanka, Chechens from Russia, Ibos and Ogoni from Nigeria, and hundreds of other tribes and ethnic groups...^[1]

According to this source, are Kurds in Syria or Iran not stateless nations?:) Vatasura (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources saying such a thing, I would have no objection. But there aren't. The other editor has not yet produced a single reliable source stating anything. Without sources, we are simply going around in circles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Leaving it as it is, is not an option. What exists in the lead is WP:OR not supported by RS. It is also not discussed in the article body, as it should be. Once this DRN case closes, I intend to delete it. The other editor needs to produce alternative wording supported by reliable sources, preferably right here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Frog Skin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• IQ125 (talk · contribs)
• Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello, there is a military camouflage pattern called Frog Skin, it was the first to use this type of pattern. It was created for the US Marine Corps in 1942. Other similar patterns were used by other militaries over time. These are mentioned under the subcategory of the article called Frog_Skin#Similar_battledress_patterns. An editor called User:Chiswick Chap keeps adding a different camouflage pattern called Duck Hunter, which was created after Frog Skin, it is not Frog Skin. These are two completely separate camouflages created by different people at different times. It seems User:Chiswick Chap wants to include a significant amount of information about Duck Hunter in the Frog Skin article and he keeps reverting and adding even more information. I suggested he just add one sentence and write a separate article about Duck Hunter camouflage pattern and interwiki-link the articles. He refuses and is edit warring. Would you please intervene and stop this nonsense. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC) User:IQ125

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried a discussion on Chiswick Chap talk page and I tried on the articles talk page. He is not willing to listen to my suggestions.

How do you think we can help?

Hi, one sentence should be added to the subsection "Similar battledress patterns" for the camouflage Duck Hunter pattern. If User:Chiswick Chap wants more information in Wikipedia about Duck Hunter pattern, he should write a separate article about that pattern. You can see that other camouflage patterns are included in the subsection "Similar battledress patterns" each with one sentence and they are interwiki-linked. Thank you and I look forward to resolving this matter quickly. IQ125 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chiswick Chap

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

Talk:Frog Skin discussion

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

Volunteer note: IQ125 claims that Duck Hunter "is just another variation of the original Frog Skin", and Chiswick Chap claims that "Duck Hunter was the commercial original, and Frog Skin was the nickname for the US military's take up of the pattern". It seems that this dispute is just about a fact. That can be resolved by finding a reliable source to support one side or the other, not by discussion here; a discussion with no sources won't resolve a dispute about a fact, but if either of you can find a source for your claim, it can be included. I am not opening or closing this case right now. KSFT^C 17:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Jim Chappell#Use of Scaruffi web site (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NewYorkActuary (talk · contribs)
• Woovee (talk · contribs)
• Chubbles (talk · contribs)
• Sergecross73 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a slow-motion edit war, the topic of dispute being an external link used in the article's "Further Reading" section. The section (and link) was added by the filing party, but has been persistently removed by the non-filing party. In doing so, the non-filing party cites a one-day discussion on the talk page of a project which is not a "sponsor" of the instant article (i.e., the article does not lie within the scope of that project). Furthermore, the purported consensus reached during that one-day discussion was seriously flawed, for reasons both procedural and factual. The filing party asserts that the only operative requirements for the instant article are those found in WP:EL, and that the particular link in question meets those requirements.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third-opinion request led to the fashioning of a compromise, which was rejected by the non-filing party. The filing party also offered to engage in mediation, but this offer was not accepted.

How do you think we can help?

A moderated discussion will provide a necessary basis for clarifying and resolving the issues in dispute.

Summary of dispute by Woovee

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

Summary of dispute by Chubbles

The debate concerns the inclusion of referencing material written by Piero Scaruffi, whose status as a reliable source was rejected by a consensus of Wikipedians a few years ago because he was self-published in the area of music. NewYorkActuary wished to include, on the Jim Chappell page, a link to Scaruffi's website where Chappell's work was discussed. This was reverted by Woovee, who pointed to the consensus that Scaruffi was not a reliable source. NewYorkActuary was able to demonstrate that the consensus had overlooked a crucial piece of evidence: Scaruffi had, indeed, been published in music, by a major Italian publishing house, Arcana Editrice. According to the link on Scaruffi's site, the material NewYorkActuary wished to include was published (with slight revisions) in one of those Arcana publications. Woovee maintained that the inclusion of any link to Scaruffi's website violated the consensus, even if it were just a convenience link to the content that had been published elsewhere by a peer-reviewed print publisher.

I ordered the Scaruffi book from an interlibrary loan service, to confirm that it was editorially reviewed and that the Chappell article was in the book; it was, but there were slight differences in wording between the published version and the online mirror on Scaruffi's website. NewYorkActuary wishes to include the convenience link for the use of readers who want to verify the content of the book reference; Woovee has allowed for the print publication to be included on the article, but reverts all inclusion of the convenience link. For me, the debate hinges on whether the additions on Scaruffi's website are de minimis or not; I see no good reason to exclude a convenience link if the text is exactly the same as in a reliable print publication, but there are some minor differences between what's in the print version and the version on Scaruffi's website, which do not appreciably affect the content of what the sourcing was meant to cover. Lastly, this new evidence indicates that the consensus that Scaruffi is an unreliable author on music needs reexamination. Since he has been published, more than once, by a major music publisher, I'd argue that this may make his website "fair game" for sourcing once again, as a recognized authority in the field. Chubbles (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73

After a series of disputes regarding the use of Piero Scaruffi work as a source in in music articles, I facilitated a discussion at WP:ALBUMS, which unanimously decided that he was not an authority on music unless his work was published by a third party publisher. Over 10 editors participated at this discussion held at the WikiProject level, many of them long-term and experienced editors. The current consensus is to only use his published work on Wikipedia, a consensus no one has attempted to change in these discussions, so its rather bizarre they didn't go there before coming to DRN.

Regardless, linking to PS's personal blog as an external link not only violates the consensus, and WP:SPS in general, but conceptually adds very little to the article anyways, as its written entirely in Italian, something not readable by a vast majority of English readers anyways. Its inclusion creates virtually no benefit to the reader. Its truly baffling how he's still arguing over such a minor thing, or that he even refuses the compromise I proposed, which was adding a book that published PS's work about the subject in a "Further Reading" section, which at least wouldn't violate the active consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Chappell#Use of Scaruffi web site discussion

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

DRN coordinator's note: I've added a couple of parties who have been involved in the recent discussion and will notify them. Let me note that there's been plenty of discussion and the other editor, Woovee, has already been notified. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement by volunteer

My name is thehistorian10, and I am the volunteer who will be mediating this case. I see that the parties have attempted to discuss this matter, and have not yet resolved their dispute through previous efforts.

Let me just begin by setting out the ground rules. Please do not edit the article in dispute during this process - it means we are all working with the same material. Second, please respect that some of us come from differing time zones, and may not be able to respond immeidately, so please give it a day or two after your posting, if you are expecting a response. Thirdly, this is meant to be an informal mediation. It is not designed to be another forum for your self-described "slow edit war". Therefore, I will not tolerate any attacks of any kind against me, or another participant. See my comments about civility below. This is because I am trying to help everyone here - and there are multiple parties to this case - reach a solution that they can agree on. I should say that if there is any uncivil behaviour (which, based on the talk page, there hasn't been so far), I might have to collapse the uncivil spats into an archive box, so they can be out of the way. I also expect a degree of cooperation from parties, because solutions to these debates can only come around through compromise and cooperation. If there is no obvious cooperation or discussion, I may close this as a failed case.

As I understand the debate, this centres around the validity of a certain proposed source, authored by someone who has apparently been discredited by the Wikipedia community. I'm not going to question that decision, but I would like to know what information the filing party seeks to get from the source? The Historian (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Response from NewYorkActuary to moderator's questions

When I checked in here yesterday, this topic had disappeared from the page. But everything seems to have been corrected since then.

The material in question is a critical assessment of a particular musician's recorded output. As such, it provides appropriate "Further Reading" in an article about that musician. Although it might have been possible to incorporate that material into the article itself, I had two concerns about doing so. First, the amount of material in the reading's assessment was much greater than the amount of material that could be gleaned from other sources. Using it in the "Critical Reception" section of the article might have given the appearance of placing undue weight on the opinion of this one expert. And second, bringing in enough of that material to fill in the gaps left by the other sources might have raised questions of copyright violations (based on the amount of imported material compared to the total amount in the reading). For these reasons, listing it as a "Further Reading" was the best use of the material and was justified under criterion #3 of WP:ELYES.

I have two comments on procedural matters. First, Woovee (the editor I described as the "non-filing party") has not yet appeared in this discussion. We have had opening statements from the two additional editors who were added to the list by this page's coordinator. Although I believe that useful discussion can take place amongst the three of us, I note that neither of the additional editors was the one who was engaged in the persistent reverting of edits.

Second, I am concerned about your statement that you will not "question the decision" regarding prior discussion of the author. The scope and validity of that talk-page discussion back in 2014 is the central issue here today, and not examining that discussion is tantamount to pre-judging the merits of the case. I pray that you reconsider your position on this. The 2014 talk-page discussion is here.

Thank you for your volunteer efforts. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

volunteer's further statement

In my view, the debate over whether to use that particular source has already been an gone, and I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate to reopen it here, given that it was concretely decided by the Community that it should not be used on Wikipedia. What I'm getting at is this - is it possible to get at the underlying information, from another source? Remember, I am attempting to find a solution that all partie will agree on, and I assume that whilst everyone agrees that the information should go in somehow, the main dispute is about the sources used, so it is sensible to suggest that contributors look to other sources or that same information. Now, I am willing to reconsider that position if it turns out that the source under dispute is the one and only source where we can get this information from.

Having said that, if none of the others participate within a day or so, I am thinking of closing thi, because mediation, and dispute resolution is ineffective when there is only one active party.

Thank you for your response.

My position in this dispute is partly based on the assertion that opinions formed on the talk page of any particular WikiProject are not binding on articles outside the scope of that WikiProject. SergeCross disagrees. One of the benefits of moderated discussion is that both sides will have an opportunity to present arguments in support of their positions, and to do so with a degree of structure that we were not able to achieve on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, your response indicates that you have indeed pre-judged the merits of the case, by stating that the one-day discussion held in 2014 on the Albums project talk page resulted in a guideline that (to use your words) "was concretely decided by the Community that it should not be used on Wikipedia". I respect your opinion on this and do not seek to change it. Instead, I invoke my right to object to your continued participation in this dispute and ask that you withdraw from it.

Thank you again for your volunteer efforts. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, this isn't a court trial where you call a mistrial or something. Its a volunteer that tries to settle a dispute. You may not like the suggestion, but its not invalid or out of line. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I fully support this request's closure. Its very simple. I started up a discussion at the WikiProject level to stop disputes like this. A clear, strong consensus was formed. We have a person or two who aren't happy with this consensus. That's fine, they don't have to be, and hey, sometimes, consensus can change even. But the way to changing that would be to start a new discussion at the same WikiProject, not jumping over to DRN. In short, they haven't even attempted to solve this at the appropriate venue. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my statement.

SergeCross, I truly do wish to engage in structured discussion of the issues that bring us here. And that discussion can be fruitful. If you present convincing reasons as to why opinions stated on the talk page of a WikiProject are binding on articles outside the scope of that project, then we will have taken a big step towards resolving this dispute. If you can present arguments that convince us that the opinions stated during that one-day discussion back in 2014 remain valid even after their underlying premise has been discredited, we will have moved another step forward. And if you can offer a convincing argument as to why WP:ALBUMS is (to use your phrase) the "appropriate venue" for resolving a dispute arising in an article subject not to WP:ALBUMS, but to WP:MUSICIANS, then we will have taken yet another step towards resolving this matter.

But we are faced with a moderator who has, twice now, declared that he has no intention of fostering this discussion. And his reason for not doing so is that he has already decided that your position is the correct one. Furthermore, he states that decision prior to hearing any arguments and without citing any policy or guidelines. No, SergeCross, the moderator's statement was not a suggestion—it was a declaration of bias. Although I salute the moderator's candor on this point, I still believe that a fair and fruitful discussion can not take place if it is moderated by someone who has pre-judged the issues.

It is also relevant to point out that, after receiving my response to his initial clarifying question, the moderator then disappeared for seven days. I recognize, of course, that 'real life' takes precedence over Wikipedia. I am also not overly concerned by the moderator's failure to apologize for making the three of us wait for his return. But I am very much concerned that the moderator did not acknowledge that the lack of progress here was due to his disappearance, let alone offer any assurances that another lengthy hiatus will not occur after the discussion has begun. In this regard, I note that in the two years prior to volunteering to moderate, the volunteer made only 5 edits on Wikipedia, 3 of them to his own user pages. I question whether the moderator has truly made a commitment to see this process through to its conclusion.

I maintain my objection to the continued participation of this volunteer. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was held at WP:ALBUMS, but the concept discussed was entirely about using Scaruffi's work in general, nothing about the actual message of the discussion would render it only relevant to albums. It was held at WP:ALBUMS because his work was being used more frequently at album articles. There is no conceptual reason in the discussions as to why it wouldn't be held towards musicians - if anything WP:BLPs are held to an even higher standard than album articles, making your proposal have even more hurdles to overcome. All in all - you're missing the point, which is that you skipped discussing at any relevant WikiProjects, or WP:RFCs, or any of the venues you'd usually go to prior to DRN. (Ironically, probably only to have it be thrown out due to your bad-faith assumptions on the moderator and hangup on semantics in the end anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: Under our rules here at DRN, "If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute." At this point it is incumbent upon Thehistorian10 to do one or the other of those. Having said that, let me comment that it is fixed policy that a consensus formed at a Wikiproject cannot bind the result over a range or class of articles unless the steps needed to create a policy or guideline are followed. The reason for that belief is, first, CONLIMITED which is part of the consensus policy, which says in pertinent part,

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay."

This is, second, confirmed by the PROJPAGE guideline which is part of the WikiProject Council Guideline, which says in pertinent part:

"Many large WikiProjects eventually collect some advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and essays to their specific subject area. This advice, sometimes in a separate advice page, sometimes in a section of the WikiProject's main page, is often excellent, and may helpfully consolidate and explain the specific details of many site-wide policies and guidelines, the application of which to a particular context might otherwise be a source of confusion among editors. ... However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a 'consensus' within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a 'local consensus' that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."

(Emphasis added.) Both CONLIMITED and PROJPAGE existed prior to the RfCs referenced in this dispute. However, having said that, while that consensus cannot be cited as a formal guideline or policy to decide this dispute, that doesn't mean that the reasoning for it coming out the way that it did should not prove persuasive in resolving this dispute as well unless something has changed to improve Scaruffi's reliability in the nearly two years since end of the second RfC. My recommendation would be that the discussion return to the article talk page to proceed in that light and that those who wish for the consensus decision to control over a group or range of articles to file a new RFC to turn it into a formal policy or guideline, following the methods recommended at WP:PROPOSAL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC) PS: Let me also note that as a local consensus which decides whether or not a particular source is reliable, anything other than a guideline or policy expressly interpreting or modifying the verifiability policy is particularly doubtful since local consensuses may not supersede that policy per this Arbcom ruling and, somewhat indirectly, this formal guideline. For a local consensus to hold that a particular source is reliable when it is not, or vice versa, would seem to be expressly in violation of those authorities. — TransporterMan (TALK) 05:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and recommendation. Although the structure of a moderated discussion continues to be attractive, I do see your point about how we might be able to move forward on the article's talk page. And SergeCross' earlier posting indicates that he would not object to my withdrawing the request. But before making a formal withdrawal, I'd like to hear from the third participant here (@Chubbles:). If we don't hear from Chubbles by tomorrow, I'll come back to make a formal withdrawal. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Uhh...this has reached a rather dizzying level of bureaucracy that I have trouble cutting through. I guess all I have to say is that I have no objection to a change of venue for revisting the consensus on Scaruffi's reliability, and that the consensus that he is unreliable is also a local consensus (even if our determination that his published works are probably reliable is perhaps even local-er). Chubbles (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, bureaucracy is a good thing. Imagine where we'd be without it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• As the filing party, I withdraw my request for dispute resolution. My thanks to everyone here at DRN for their volunteer efforts. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Seth Rollins#The Sting quote is MISLEADING as hell (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 62.19.63.157 (talk · contribs)
• 93.44.152.168 (talk · contribs)
• LM2000 (talk · contribs)
• B. Mastino (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An old, veteran wrestler has described another young colleague as "the most talented he has ever seen or worked with" in an interview. This has been reported in the intro of aforementioned young wrestler. My friend and I tried to point out what we feel to be some issues inherent to reporting that statement per se and removing its supposed contextualization. Moreover, we are questioning the validity of the source (the veteran wrestler spoke as such in an interview made by the young wrestler's own employing company) and the true meaning behind the words "most talented". If you read the interview in its entirety, it becomes apparent - at least to us - that the "talent" the old wrestler is mentioning is just the young wrestler's ability to keep doing quality work with a higher working schedule than normal during the time they had worked together (in other words: being resourceful professionally and consistent in his work); a wrestling fan would probably take a broader, decontextualized, "the most talented" as in "the most charismatic, the best in the ring" or a combination of both. Both my friend and I think that reporting a stray interview to introduce a concept like "being the best ever" - when there would't even a general consensus about it - it's not really encyclopedic per se; that, and we find the act of removing the context questionable from a journalistic point of view. In addition, there are a lot of other interviews about this or that wrestler that are not reported on Wikipedia; rightly so, in our opinion, because if someone started to report every time a wrestler speaks about someone else biographies of living people would get arguably cluttered. We can't edit the page and we have been invited to desist.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We proposed to either remove the stray interview for keeping a concise, objective intro, or to at least add another interview of another veteran to reinforce the claim, rewording it in what we would feel to be a more sober fashion: "Seth Rollins' work has been praised by industry veterans such as Sting [1] and Triple H [2]" instead of "Industry veteran Sting has described Seth Rollins' as the most talented wrestler he's ever seen, or worked, with". We've been turned down.

How do you think we can help?

It is our belief that the editors are just really passionate about Rollins and probably assumed the interview was undoubtedly worthy of Wikipedia. Both removing the stray interview, added in all likelihood just to give Rollins' intro more "oomph", or expanding the claim in the intro by adding a second opinion (see above) for added credibility while writing it more conservatively seem like reasonable resolutions to us.

Summary by 62.19.63.157: This isn't quite the same IP... but who is writing is, in fact, the same guy who started the discussion in the first place. You are welcome to start an investigation if you wish, the only thing you'll find out is that those are different dynamic IPs always belonging to two different, real Italian internet providers (which by the way should be known to you already, if you bothered to go all the way to double-check) and that only TWO people discussed with you on the matter. So no sock-puppets involved... if you need video proof next, we'll be glad to give it to you. 😊

Now, on-topic: the only counter-argument to everything we've said, before shifting the topic to us, is that "no one made a fuss about it before", "we are just reporting what it's said". I can fully understand that, but let me ask then: does Wikipedia, or media in general, report everything just because "it has been said"?

Besides being "recent", a journal reports something if it's truthful, unequivocal and of interest. That's why in Hulk Hogan's intro you don't report "Hogan has been known in recent times for his racial slurs". Or why you don't report every single time a wrestler compliments one another: why THIS wrestler and not THAT wrestler? Just saw recently that, on Kurt Angle's Facebook page, Angle wrote that Rey Mysterio is "legendary". Is it true Angle said so? Yes. Should it appear on Mysterio's page now? Well... hold on. Let's think about it.

The issue, here, is understanding if Sting saying Rollins is all the three things I mentioned above. What emerged is:

• The average reader may reach one conclusion reading the excerpt from Wikipedia and another one reading the entire interview. This means Sting's words may be misleading if not taken in-context. I won't even start with how it may be simple flattery on Sting's part or how the WWE may be doing self-promotion there through Sting.
• While "Sting said Rollins is the best" is true, Sting's statement isn't really reflective of what the "wrestling business" would think as a whole. Excerpts from interviews in Wikipedia, in my experience, are generally instrumental to summarize long pieces of informations reflective of what, to be simple, the majority would agree with. Like "Boxe critics A, B and C all agree that Muhammad Ali is one of the best boxers of all time".

Here the wrestling community, veterans and experts alike, would at most agree that Rollins is "very talented". Sending a message like "Rollins is more talented than Ric Flair because Sting said so" can't really sound fair to what most critics and fans would think.

The quote should be removed. It's as simple as that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_Ziggler doesn't say Jim Ross said Ziggler is the best seller ever in his blog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rey_Mysterio doesn't say that Rey is "legendary" according to Kurt Angle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Guerrero doesn't say that, according to CM Punk, Eddie Guerrero is the "best wrestler ever" and "better than Ric Flair and Stone Cold"... which would be quite less equivocal than our friend Sting's statement taken in-context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bryan won't say he's been labeled as the best wrestler alive by Angle.

I don't think it's really a matter of personal taste about Rollins, here. It's about format and guidelines. 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)5.168.194.198 (talk)

Summary of dispute by 93.44.152.168

The article was clearly written by some Rollins' fan. The simple fact the two users are still remarking it can't/ shouldn't be reworded regardless even if it meant adding more sources, therefore at least trying to be more informative, is confirming this.

Now, I'm pretty darn sure I could just post this on a wrestling forum and most wrestling fans would basically agree on one or more of these four points:

• It's really hard to agree that Seth Rollins is "the most talented wrestler Sting has ever worked with".
• Sting said so because it was an interview with WWE.com, and both himself and Rollins' are employees of the WWE: it's like asking one McDonald's manager what he thinks about McDonald's Big Mac and reporting "top manager of McDonald's said the Big Mac is the best hamburger ever" in the intro of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac.
• There is very little encyclopedic value in the fact "guy A said guy B is the best" when there's not even a general consensus that guy A is the best. In other words, I have a hard time believing that, as of today, you will find that many people in the pro-wrestling industry or wrestling fans saying Rollins' is among the most talented wrestlers ever. Maybe among "the very talented today", but among everyone?
• The actual context and motivations may not even reflect such a broad claim in the eyes' of the reader.

To sum it up, Sting said this in an interview? Cool, but so what? Why is Rollins' even supposed to receive special treatment when intros of other wrestlers entries never mention stray interviews unless there is a general consensus confirming the interview's claims (for the biggest names in the industry, usually)? See Austin and Rock being some of the biggest draws, same for Hogan, same for Thesz?

Wrestler CM Punk (another veteran, 10 year plus of experience) said in an interview that Eddie Guerrero is the best ever. Not reported, and I can see the reason behind that. The opinion of CM Punk, if it isn't reflective of the majority of the wrestling community, is hardly worthy of being reported. Wrestler Kurt Angle (another veteran, 16 years of experience) said in an interview that Daniel Bryan is the best worker alive. Not reported, more or less for the same reasons.

Wikipedia is supposed to be reporting facts of importance to every reader. Ten months and no one will remember "oh, Sting said Rollins is the best" in a semi-obscure interview for WWE.com. A semi-obscure interview which would make 99% of the wrestling world disagree with its content, nevertheless. Wikipedia should be written conservatively. That's why we proposed to at least give the claim a little more credibility by adding another interview reinforcing the generally good reception Rollins' received as a performer... it would be more informative, and it would be more reflective of reality, through informations the average reader would find useful: the information in this case being that Rollins, among fellow wrestlers is generally seen as a talented worker. Not self-serving claims like "Sting said Rollins is the best"... so, hey, you should believe it too.

I want to mention the article has been rated "C" in the quality scale: this may imply some kind of bias or some need for clarity or balance.

---

It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research.

---

The editors are over-protective of the article intro. If they want to make the intro more down-to-earth instead of a celebration of Seth Rollins's incredible abilities just because a veteran happened to praise him, I'm sure a lot of people would be happy to add more sources. And one more thing. Threatening us with investigations to sockpuppetry is rather... unbecoming? We live close to one another and we're supposed to be the same person? Couldn't we be friends who stumbled upon the page together? In any way, you can even open an investigation if you really want to, but the replies have been made from different networks, dynamic IPs (at least in my case) and quite some miles away from one another. That being said, how it's supposed to be relevant in determining if this or that belongs to a Wikipedia article is beyond me.

Update of 03.27.2016: In response to LM2000's latest arguments: I'm afraid that I, at least, had already tried to tell you both we were different people on the talking page. Yet, there you go treating us as sock-puppets here. All right, no problem and no hard feelings. Now, proving that other wrestlers occasionally report interviews' excerpts still won't disprove that the majority of all other wrestlers' article, which most of the times do not report excerpts - reasons being clarity, equity and being synthetical - and when they do almost every time the rationale is that they would reflect the mos maiorum of a significant number of people. Therefore, it stands to reason that if there is a rule, it isn't "if a veteran said so it should absolutely be reported". Even wrestlers who were actually as or more praised than Rollins (and no, The Rock would be more akin to the examples about Wikipedia simply confirming a well-known fact within the industry; I would second-guess the Melina one; besides, may I point out that they are all retired veterans or basically retired veterans while Rollins, 29 years old, is a relatively young worker with decent experience in his prime?) did not receive this special treatment. See: Daniel Bryan's example above. See: Eddie Guerrero's example above. I don't see why Rollins should be favored here.

I vehemently deny the fact it would be obfuscation. It's not "obfuscation" if there are issue with the context and you limit yourself to report the unequivocal part. The other user made a pretty poignant example:

1. Chef A is interviewed about "Chef B". "What do you think about B?". 2. Chef A answers: "He's the best I've ever seen... (because) he makes the best pizzas ever!". 3. Wikipedia reports "Chef A described Chef B as the best". 4. Someone reads it: the best in what? The best chef seems like the most direct interpretation. 5. Reader looks at the article in its entirity: finds out Chef A had simply praised Chef B's pizzas. "But that wasn't what I had thought while reading on Wikipedia". Yep, because the wording in the source is ambiguous while the excerpt itself removes the ambiguity (an arbitrary process).

Being a journalist in real life, I'm very wary of "framing effects"... and this is the epitome of one. You want to cast attention on something to obtain an effect: therefore it's quite the opposite, "obfuscating" would be removing the context, like the article currently does and what you are currently proposing to do by leaving it like it is.

---

The framing effect is an example of cognitive bias, in which people react to a particular choice in different ways depending on how it is presented; e.g. as a loss or as a gain"

---

... In this case whoever introduced that quote in the first place wanted to send the across the point "Rollins may be considered the most talented wrestler ever". Is this reflective of reality? I'll just say it would be quite a controversial statement. Not in-line with Wikipedia being written conservatively.

Let's look at the possible alternatives to fix this:

• "While praising Rollins' ability to do this and that, industry veteran Sting described Rollins as the most talented he's ever worked with: -> informative, truthful and relatively clear. Although doubts remain whether stray, anecdotal interviews not reflective of the thoughts a significant number of people belong to Wikipedia, like explained above.

• "Seth Rollins' in-ring work has been praised by industry veterans such as Sting and Triple H" -> informative, truthful and relatively clear. It's not specific, but since there are issue with the contextualization of one of the claims, it's a prudent way to put it. Notice:

• [See Chris Benoit's article for comparison, which reports journalist Dave Meltzer words about the man himself] "Seth Rollins in-ring work has been praised by industry veterans such as Sting, Triple H [2] and wrestling-related publications [3]", same as above. Not specific, but with more sources and prudent.

• "Sting described Rollins as the most talented wrestler he's ever seen or worked with" -> truthful, but more markedly anecdotal than the other options and incomplete. You can get quite a different impression when you read the source.

The point here is: to LM2000 and B.Mastino, first and second are third are without a doubt worse than the fourth. Moreover, I feel the need to point out it's been indirectly implied, again, that we shouldn't even touch the intro or the Sting bit because it arguably can't be made better than that.

Summary of dispute by LM2000

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

There is no dispute, the issue was brought to the talk page where no less than seven different IPs traced to Naples, Italy made the same argument, in excruciatingly verbose detail. Mastino and I disagreed with their novel interpretations. When sockpuppetry is taken into consideration, there is a 2-1 consensus against changing the quote. Should they not WP:DROPTHESTICK I will take this to WP:SPI. I don't intend to make any further comments here.LM2000 (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm softly recanting the position above. Prior to the IP's posting here they did not explain why multiple IP's with similar behavior were flocking to this thread. I still think there are better ways of handling this than DR, such as WP:RfC or asking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling for guidance. I am still naturally skeptical of their behavior but do think they deserve better explanation of my position regardless.

• Saying the quote shouldn't be used because other articles don't use quotes is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it can be refuted with OTHERSTUFF. Dwayne Johnson, Chyna and Melina Perez all have various quotes in their WP:LEAD.The Melina quote is remarkably similar.
  • The three examples posted above are all WP:GA status... so much for the Rollins' quote dragging the quality down.
  • The article was rated C class in September 2014, a year before Sting's quote.
  • Chyna and Melina's quotes use the same source in dispute here. If you do consider it WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY sources such as Philly.com and The Denver Post covered it.
• It's really hard to agree that Seth Rollins is "the most talented wrestler Sting has ever worked with" Doesn't matter whether you, wrestling messageboards, or the wrestling community as a whole agree with what he said, you don't have to (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT).
• That's really the crux of the dispute. On the talk page we heard various theories about how Sting didn't really mean it, he was just talking about how Rollins was talented (but not THAT talented) and the later elaboration proved us wrong. Mastino's quote below shows otherwise, and statements above like: While "Sting said Rollins is the best" is true... show they seem to acknowledge this. The context is fine, we're not claiming Sting is speaking for the entire wrestling industry here, we're using his own words. The IPs' proposals would actually offer less context than what we currently have.LM2000 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by B. Mastino.

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

Here is the comment made by Sting, about Seth Rollins:

After 30 years and working with some of the best and some of the greatest, [Rollins] is, I’m telling you, he’s got to be the best I’ve ever worked with. I mean, this guy has it. And I think he’s just scratching the surface on what he will do. I’ve never seen somebody as talented. He’s working two [matches] on Raw, two [matches] on the pay-per-view, he’s involved in every other segment and it’s physical. He’s got guys coming from every angle. There’s a lot on his plate. He’s carrying a lot, and he’s handling it. He’s proven he can do it. I’m just glad I had a chance to work with him. He’s the kind of guy who could be in there with a broomstick and make something very interesting happen, a match that people would love somehow.[1]

This has been used to cite the following line in the lede of Seth Rollins:

Industry veteran Steve "Sting" Borden described Rollins as the most talented wrestler he has ever seen, or worked with.

The various IPs (all traceable to Italy and likely the same person) have taken exception to this line, and would like to modify it. I see no grounds for doing so, given that Sting unequivocally called Rollins the best wrestler he's worked with, and the most talented he's seen. The IP basically says my contextual reading isn't up to par, while I say he's bringing his subjective reader interpretation into the mix. Besides the IP-hopping, I suspect there's also an account in existence with a watchlist, given his speedy responses on Talk:Seth Rollins. B. Mastino (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Seth Rollins#The_Sting_quote_is_MISLEADING_as_hell discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors. It is not important that other editors have seen the filing. The filing party is still responsible for notifying the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer question - The registered editors have made statements. Does that mean that they are willing to engage in moderated discussion? Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Proton (automobile)#Youngman sales data reputability (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Samhu (talk · contribs)
• Aero777 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a refile here. The other user opted to reappear in Proton:talk after the original DNR went stale, and has already unilaterally edited relevant sections of the article. The dispute ended up here intially for good reason; for an outsider's view, and so as not to continue/repeat user-to-user conflict on quite specific issues, and to avoid an edit war. The latest talk entry Talk:Proton (automobile)#Proposed resolution and article edits by Aero777 makes it clear he does not accept one of the two issues I specifically objected to, simply moving the dispute information to another section within the article. Issues I objected to in the Proton Global Operation section were

1) Youngman's China-manufactured cars sold as Lian-Hua have little to do with Proton so should they be included in the bar chart and tables in that same section at all?

The dispute about relevancy of this information has been satisfactorily resolved by its removal from the Global Operations section during the "unilateral" edit by Aero777.

But the same information has now appeared in the text in the Youngman section within the same article still implying that Youngman Lian-Hua cars, "between mid-2009 and February 2015" are strongly associated in some way with Proton. This totally ignores the fact that the Youngman venture is listed as dormant in Proton;s own Annual Reports from mid-2011 and that Youngman Lian Hua cars were locally re-engineered and manufactured, with a Mitsubishi engines in 2012 (http://www.carnewschina.com/2012/11/23/youngman-lotus-l5-gt-launched-on-the-guangzhou-auto-show/)

Continued inclusion of such figures for "between mid-2009 and February 2015" in their new location also totally ignores my second point which was

2) Youngman sales figures are discredited (http://autochina.comnews.cn/d/44.html)so should they be quoted as they have been at all?

The reference discrediting sales figures is much more recent than the posted (now discredited) production and sales figures.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk, first on User777's talk page, then Proton (automobile) talk page. Posted on Third Opinion noticeboard, but went stale. Posted on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard but went stale because no response from Aero777 for 6 days. Aero777 then reappeared with this entry Talk:Proton_(automobile)#Proposed resolution and unilateral edits to the article.

How do you think we can help?

Encourage Aero777 to respond directly to remaining open issue ignored in his unilateral edit - How can Youngman Lian-Hua cars have anything to do with Proton right through 2015 when Proton's venture with Youngman is listed as dormant in Proton's own Annual Reports (https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=9782E38D5AEECF8E!121&authkey=!ACkLKiB1lSOroTk&it) covering August 2011 onwards. If no satisfactory explanation, remove mention of Youngman's discredited sales figures within the Proton context.

Summary of dispute by Aero777

Samhu (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC) I believe all issues except one have been cleared up. I still don't understand how, when Proton in its official Annual Reports lists it's Youngman venture as dormant covering the period from mid-2011 onwards, that Youngman activites from then on are relevant to Proton? Just try fitting this undisputable fact in the Youngman entry as it currently stands in Proton (automobiles) and it'll be obvious that there is a serious data conflict that needs to be resolved if that section is to remain credible and relevant. Samhu (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection of the 'Dormant' statement, I found that once again, a huge misunderstanding has occurred. 'Lotus Youngman UK Automotive Company Limited', listed as 'Dormant' in Proton's 2012 annual report is merely a shell company that was registered on January 13th, 2012. The true nature or purpose of this shell company was not revealed, but it was speculated that former Group Lotus boss Dany Bahar and another executive had set it up as "a vehicle to facilitate the purchase of Lotus assets in an eventual sale". This is directly quoted from this article here, dated April 17th, 2012. As you may or may not know, Dany Bahar was fired in mid-2012 from Group Lotus by Proton's parent company, DRB-HICOM for a whole host of reasons, chiefly gross misuse of funds. Since then, Group Lotus has managed to cut down their losses under the current boss, Jean-Marc Gales. Lotus may break even this year, as 2015 had been a good year for the company.

The division of Lotus responsible for the design of the Lianhua L5 is Lotus Engineering, not Lotus Youngman UK Automotive. This fact is corroborated by both Lotus and Youngman, it even says so in the article you provided. And Lotus Engineering (both Shanghai and England) are NOT 'Dormant', even up to Proton's 2015 annual report, they are listed as 'Engineering consultancy services'. Meanwhile, the shell company Lotus Youngman UK Automotive did not even exist prior to Proton's 2012 annual report. It is not there in their 2011, 2010, 2009 reports... simply non-existent. Only Lotus Engineering and Lotus Engineering (Shanghai) are consistently listed, from 2009 to 2015.

I have decisively resolved your concerns, again. Thrice now, you haven't properly researched your claims before passing judgement; first, by not realizing that all Chinese new car sales figures are self-reported and verified by CAAM/CPCA, second, by not being able to distinguish the fact that the Youngman Lotus L3 is by all accounts a rebadged Proton GEN-2/ Persona, and that the L5 is not, and lastly, by picking out the wrong company without double-checking who or what they really are. I doubt other users will take your allegations seriously at this point, by continuing this pointless argument, you have only worn down your credibility in the last few weeks. This is the last I will iterate; we must wait for a more decisive and explicit explanation behind Youngman Lotus' disappearance and sales reputability. Until an official statement is issued by either Youngman, Lotus, or Proton in the future, or until a reputable site can publish a piece on Youngman Lotus' story, there is really no point dragging this argument on any further. I will keep an eye out for Youngman news in the future. Until then, this whole Youngman matter will be treated as 'closed' or 'unresolvable'.

Regards, Aero777 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Proton (automobile)#Youngman sales_data_reputability discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Drmies (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Johnjohnston (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User has repeatedly removed my requests for a discussion on my edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tour_de_Trump&redirect=no

User is clearly politically motivated

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to talk with user on talk page, my request was repeatedly removed.

How do you think we can help?

Facilitate the discussion.

Summary of dispute by

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

User talk:Drmies discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Cryonics#Analysis of Wikipedia policy in context of the .22Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nome77 (talk · contribs)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs)
• Cryobiologist (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs) aka Guy
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm trying to include the core (premise/point of view) of cryonicists (as a group) in the cryonics article. This point of view is most clearly and reputably represented by the "Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics". Even though the inclusion of this open letter easily meets NPOV and RS guidelines, one editor who is a critic of cryonics is blocking the inclusion of this content. At least two editors agree that the content should be included, especially considering all the critical opinions which are already there. The editor who is blocking the content has provided very little discussion on the topic, while I have pursued discussion extensively and in good faith. The "scientists open letter" in question is referenced multiple places, including on the national Institute of health website, a few printed books, and several news sources. It should be noted that this point of view, and -any- point of view held by cryonicists, is certainly a minority point of view (because they are a minority group). It is easy to make sure that this minority status is represented with the discussed content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to talk with the objecting editor on the talk page. They write very little in response, mostly making claims that none of the provided sources are reputable. (Regardless of their reputability).

How do you think we can help?

Read through the arguments I have made on the talk page. Especially my references and interpretations of Wikipedia policy on these matters. Let any other editors know if you think that my representation of Wikipedia policy on this matter is correct, or incorrect. I believe that comments from an authoritative third-party on whether the discussed policies are accurate, or inaccurate, could help resolve this dispute.

Summary of dispute by David Gerard

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

There is no justification, within Wikipedia rules and ArbCom statements on fringe science and pseudoscience, to mention the letter at all, without severe disclaimers as to the quality of evidence it constitutes.

As detailed by others here and on the talk page:

• the letter is barely of note
• a petition of a few individuals attempting to use the personal authority of the title "scientist" is a standard form of synthesised evidence for a pseudoscientific position (c.f. creationism, as already noted)
• most of the scientists listed have no expertise in neuroscience
• most of the references do not show it as a notable letter in itself and only mention it at all because cryonics advocates use it as publicity material
• it is regularly trotted out by cryonics organisations as sales material to evidence scientific support for the viability of cryonics

Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience summarises why such material in advocacy of severely fringe science or pseudoscience is considered problematic and unencyclopedic.

It would be actively deceptive to the general readership to have it in the article text as it if were indeed strong support of the mainstream scientific position.

I must note also that cryonics advocate editors have in the recent past put the letter forward as evidence that cryonics should be described as scientifically supported; I suggest that this should not be encouraged - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cryobiologist

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

Nome77 (talk · contribs) has proposed adding an entire new section to the Cryonics article solely devoted to discussion of a document called The Scientists' Open Letter on Cryonics. I believe brief mention of this Letter is warranted, but not an entire section devoted to it.

The Cryonics article in question already contains quotes from scientists critical of cryonics sourced from single newspaper stories. Since the existence of the Scientists' Open Letter on Cryonics is mentioned in multiple newspaper articles, books, and journal articles, it is legitimate to mention the existence of the Letter in the article about cryonics. Mention in just one mainstream media source, such as the China Daily newspaper article^[5] should give the Letter the same standing as a single-article quote of an individual scientist. The Letter exists (not in dispute), and was deemed worthy of mention in newspapers and books, including books not about cryonics by neutral authors, just as criticisms of cryonics have been deemed newsworthy in various newspaper stories.

JzG (talk · contribs) noted that the organization currently hosting the Open Letter is insignificant and has a vested interest in topic of cryonics, but agrees that the conclusion can be drawn from reliable sources that the Letter does in fact exist. JzG further said that the purported sources citing the letter appear at first glance to be churnalism of a press release. The only source I can see that did this is the Canadian Medical Association Journal,^[6] a mainstream medical journal that deemed a press release referencing the Letter worthy of mention, as did an Australian newspaper story.

Rather than an entire section worded as though it was an extension of the Letter website, I proposed adding the following neutral paragraph to the existing Reception section of the article. Nome77 (talk · contribs) deleted this paragraph, and took the proposal for adding a whole section about the Letter to dispute resolution before other editors could comment on the below paragraph.

With the adoption of ice-free preservation methods (vitrification) in cryonics at the beginning of the 21st Century, several dozen scientists began signing an open letter expressing a minority view that there is "a credible possibility" that cryonics performed with contemporary technology under ideal conditions might preseve enough brain information to allow future revival..^{[7][8][9][10]} The letter disclaims endorsement of any particular cryonics organization or its practices. As of 2016, the letter had 69 signatories.^[11] Cryobiologist (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JzG

One editor with no other interests wants to include a substantial paragraph, in fact an entire section, on an "open letter" (essentially an online petition) signed by a small number of scientists who support the statement that cryonics is a legitimate field of inquiry. Others have noted some issues with this:

1. The petition is run by a group with a vested interest in promoting cryonics.
2. The group is of no objectively provable significance.
3. The most that can be drawn from reliable independent sources is that it exists, the balance is based on the letter itself and promotion of it on the sponsoring organisation (this group and its website fail WP:RS).
4. When you look into the purported sources, they turn out to be very brief and at first glance appear to be churnalism, based entirely on press release material.

So, the "dispute" is between one newly registered SPA who likely thinks we are "suppressing information" and a group of long-standing editors with very large numbers of edits across multiple subjects.

We would need, I think, a categorical assurance from the OP that they would accept a result that went against them, otherwise any DR process would be a complete waste of time. Long experience suggests to me that this is one of those users who only accepts the answer they want. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants

The issue I see here is one of balancing weight between POVs. On the one hand, we have reliable sources stating one thing. On the other, we have unreliable sources stating something else. On top of that, we have a new user interpreting various sources to support the claims of the unreliable source. This seems pretty clear cut to me. We don't give undue weight to fringe POVs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nome77

I opened the dispute, so my summary is started in the "Dispute overview". Below are my comments on the issues mentioned by other editors. If this is not the correct place for my thoughts on dispute issues, please let me know where they should go rather than reverting my dispute comments. (Looking at you, JzG). This will be my final input in the header of this dispute, unless additions are requested. Thank you.

(Re Cryobiologists summary): I believe the proposal offered by Cryobiologist is an equitable resolution, and I would support that proposal. The only thing I would add to his text is to change "scientists" to "prominent scientists" or "respected scientists". Several secondary sources refer to them as such, and a lookup of any of the signatories names makes their distinction within their fields fairly obvious.

(Re JzG point 1a) The open letter is not a petition, a petition is defined by the dictionary as a "request for action", and no action is requested by the letter. The letter is better described as a consensus statement for the group of 69 signatories, about their point of view on cryonics from their scientific perspective. The open letter is more specifically an attempt to make their voice and opinion heard. (Which is also the goal of this dispute). (Re JzG point 1b) Yes, the open letter is currently hosted by group with an interest in cryonics, but the letter is not "run" by them. The open letter was originally created in 2004, about six years before the domain on which it is currently hosted existed (domain was created in 2010). This can be verified by looking at the signatory dates and looking at history of the "evidencebasedcryonics.org" domain name as reported by archive.org. (Re JzG Point 2) The word "significance" is always subjective, not objective unless the criteria for significance is clearly specified. Each signatory is a prominent name within their listed scientific or medical field, which means that the group is not significant, but the individuals are significant. (Re JzG Point 3) The fact that the hosting site has an interest and cryonics does not make the hosting site fail WP:RS. The WP:RS policy states about biased sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.". As you mentioned, the open letter is also referenced by multiple independent sources, which certainly do not fail WP:RS. The references include the National Institute of Health. Several of the references do discuss some aspects of the letter beyond its existence. Most mention a key point that the letter has been signed by prominent scientists. Several of them also describe the content of the letter. There is little further in-depth discussion of letter in the references, because the letter is mostly used for its intended purpose, which is to present the viewpoint of the signatories as it is written. (Re JzG Point 4) I agree with CryoBiologist that the sources are not churnalism, and neither are all the sources brief. The "St. John's Law Review" article is 33 pages long, with 2 pages dedicated to discussing the feasibility of cryonics. (Re JzG ending points) More than one editor supports the goal of this dispute. See CryoBiologists dispute summary. Yes, I will accept the conclusion of the dispute resolution process, including one that goes against my preferences. However, as Robert McClenon notes, this dispute resolution process may or may not require and include Formal Mediation.

(Re MjolnirPants Summary) While the opinion of leading scientists who are interested in cryonics is certainly a minority opinion (and should be stated as such), it is certainly a common viewpoint -within the population of people who are interested in Cryonics-. Cryonicists (who, as documented, number in the thousands) would certainly not participate in cryonics unless they held some belief that there was a nonzero possibility that cryonics could work.

(Unrelated addition) I should note that every editor who opposes this content, has a long-standing list of edits in the page history that mostly change the article in such a way as to be negative toward cryonics (anti-cryonics). Therefore, while I generally try to assume good intent towards NPOV, I do think it's a possibility that the individual beliefs of the opposing editors is fueling their passion in excluding this viewpoint, in the same way that my own beliefs fuel my desire to include this viewpoint. However, I don't want the article to become one-sided, I only wanted to follow the policies specified in NPOV, specifically regarding including all minority viewpoints, and describing debates rather than participating in them. -- Nome77 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cryonics#Analysis of_Wikipedia_policy_in_context_of_the_.22Scientists_Open_Letter_on_Cryonics.22 discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been considerable discussion on the article talk page, in several sections. Most of the editors have been notified of this filing, but one has not. When that one is notified, and if other parties agree, this case can be opened for moderated discussion. If this case is opened for moderated discussion, it may include all of the recent cryonics-related issues on the talk page, not just one issue. I will note that, with this number of parties, DRN is likely to be feasible, but may not be conclusive, in which case it may result in a referral to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked each editor talk page, and it appears that each listed editor has now either been notified of the dispute or has commented on the dispute. (including David Gerard). Thanks. -- Nome77 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. First, comment on content, not contributors. Second, and related, be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Third, do not engage in back-and-forth threaded discussion. In my experience, this goes on and on and accomplishes nothing. Respond only to the moderator, not to each other. Fourth, every editor is expected to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond to all questions. I will check at least every 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Now: Will each editor please again summarize briefly what the issues are? In particular, if it is whether to include the statement by the scientists, please state concisely either why the statement is appropriate or why it would be inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• Any mention of the letter should be short and restricted to what is supported from reliable independent sources, the website should not be linked as it is (a) primary and (b) not a reliable source. I would say it should not be included at all, per WP:UNDUE. There is precedent for this idea of getting a few scientists to sign a letter, the canonical example is one by the Discovery Institute that in turn led to Project Steve. In short, some scientists signed a letter. So what? In science ideas are validated through publications in reliable peer-reviewed journals, not by activists websites asserting legitimacy. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The dispute seems to have trifurcated into (1) Can the cryonics article briefly mention the existence of the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics? (2) If the Open Letter is briefly mentioned, can the list of secondary sources end with a link to the letter hosting page? (3) Can the article feature the statement of the Open Letter itself? I don't believe the text of the letter should be included in the article because that would be a disproportionate consumption of space relative to what the fact of the Letter existing contributes to the article. The informational value of briefly mentioning the Letter is simply to communicate that even though cryonics is a fringe field, that fringe is not entirely bereft of sympathetic scientists. The value of including a link to the Letter among other references is so that readers who are inclined to want to know, can see how specific and qualified the language of the letter actually is. WP:UNDUE draws a distinction between giving undue weight to fringe beliefs in articles about mainstream topics, which is why the Cryobiology article properly contains little mention of cryonics, versus content of articles about fringe beliefs themselves. In an article specifically about a fringe belief (e.g. Homeopathy, AIDS denialism, Moon landing conspiracies, etc.) who the adherents to a fringe belief are is part of the information about the belief. Cryobiologist (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Regarding the letter text:) In consideration of due weight, I don't believe that the full text of the open letter should be included. I support the summarized wording of the text that is proposed (above) by Cryobiologist. (Regarding linking:) If it is decided that the open letter will be mentioned, then linking that text to both the primary and secondary sources seems like common sense to me. Links take up zero extra reading space, but allow the reader to perform any desired research. (The core issue: Why mentioning the letter is appropriate.) Cryonicists wish to be preserved because they believe there is a nonzero probability that future technology will be capable of resuscitating cryopreserved people. This belief (or hypotheses) is fringe. At the same time, this belief is core both to understanding the topic of cryonics, and to understanding the motivational impetus of cryonicists. The individual and collective critics of cryonics are represented throughout the current page. If critical quotes from individuals deserve inclusion, then a supporting quote from several dozen scientists also deserves inclusion. This letter can be mentioned while taking up little space (3 lines), and without overemphasizing the material, to faithfully follow due weight. The only (hypothetical) reason I could imagine for completely excluding the open letter, would be to intentionally give the (false) impression that cryonics is entirely without scientific support. This question frames how I see this issue: Should we exclude an unpopular minority opinion, or should we proportionally include all opinions, and let readers construct their own conclusions? -- Nome77 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• There are a few concerns I have surrounding this letter. The most important however, is simple weight. The letter has been signed by less than a hundred scientists. To put that in context, there are something like 3.5 million scientists working in the US. That's 0.00002% of all scientists. Just for further comparison's sake, judging by the overall odds, there are over 4 times as many scientists who have been struck by lightning. Not counting field meteorologists, of course. Before anyone says that's I've compared a medical science issue to the total number of scientists, note that the letter's signatories include physicists, computer scientists, (graduate level) electrical engineers, psychologists and others. If we were to judge the notability of cryonics by the signatories of this letter, we would have to conclude that it's not even a fringe movement, but something more akin to a bizarre hobby shared by a handful of scientists.

That being said, we have enough RSes to conclude that cryonics is a fringe subject, and even a legitimate one (in that there is not overwhelming evidence that the field is composed primarily of fraud and pseudoscience). So from where I sit, this letter is something like a blip on the radar. Could the article mention it? Of course; it's germane to the topic and would be of interest to anyone trying to learn more about it. Does it warrant any significant attention, a direct link to it, or a summary of its statements? No. From where I sit, this letter warrants no more than a single sentence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Each of us has mentioned how fringe cryonics is, which has guided the decision to give the article a strong critical slant. This made me wonder, "Where is the evidence for this belief? How many scientists actually oppose or support cryonics?". With this question in mind, I searched and compiled a list of scientists, groups of scientists, and scientific organizations, who expressed opposition or support for cryonics in any published work. Here is the resulting list, with citations: List of Scientists Opposing or Supporting Cryonics. I was surprised to find (after almost 7 hours of searching) publications with only 5 scientists opposing cryonics, and 76 scientists supporting cryonics. I would like these lists to be as comprehensive as possible, so feel free to suggest additions or removals. I've been also thinking about what it really means to have a "neutral point of view" about a topic as divided as cryonics. It occurred to me that other large news organizations could provide some inspiration. Cryonics has been getting a lot of major press in the last few years, with dedicated articles coming from the New York Times, National Geographic, BBC future, and New Yorker Magazine. I read each of these articles, and the majority of them are neutral towards cryonics, with no condemning or supporting implications about the future unknowns. Yet each of them is still highly informative. I think that we as editors could learn a lot from these journalists. A list of these articles is here: Recent Nationwide Cryonics Articles. -- Nome77 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

One editor states that the dispute has trifurcated into three parts. First, should the article mention the letter by the 69 scientists? Second, only if so, should there be a link to its secondary sources? Third, should the letter itself be included? I will add that questions one and three can be asked either of the article or the lede of the article. I will also add that the letter itself can be included in a separate article linked from the main article. Are there any other questions about the article, not directly related to the letter? It appears (fortunately) that there is no disagreement as to cryonics being considered a fringe area of research. Is that correct? Are there any other questions to be addressed in this mediation? At this point, it appears that we are still sorting out what the issues are and are making progress in that respect. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• I think your summary is accurate. The issue to decide is whether to include mention of this letter, and if so, to what extent (specifically, should we link it? Should we reproduce its text? Should we list or count the signatories?) To that question, I will repeat what I said earlier: One sentence, linked back to a secondary source covering the letter. If there are other issues, I have no stake in them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the term "Fringe": I think there's an issue in that there seems to be some disagreement on what "Fringe" means. If one checks the Fringe theory article, one can read directly in the lead there there is a fuzzy line between theories held by a minority of experts and theories which are pseudoscientific. I'm not sure if anyone believes cryonics is purely pseudiscientific, but I think it's clear that it is a highly speculative field that stands a very good chance of never producing positive results. I think if we can agree that something being "fringe" isn't always synonymous with being completely worthless as or to science, then we can set this particular question aside. I for one -while I don't believe anything will come of cryonics- have no problems admitting that it's possible I could be wrong. If Nome77 can admit as well that this is a subject which is not a part of mainstream science, or the recipient of major scientific inquiry, then I believe we can focus solely on the issue of this letter and expedite the process. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Answers to moderator questions) "Should the article mention the letter by the 69 scientists?" Yes. "If so, should there be a link to its secondary sources?" Yes, I would add a link to a secondary source. I also believe that the text of the open letter should be "somehow reachable" from the cryonics article. This could be accomplished with a reference, or with a link to the (moderator proposed) Wikipedia article about the open letter on cryonics. "Third, should the letter itself be included?" No, I support the general text proposed by CryoBiologist in his dispute summary. "I will add that questions one and three can be asked either of the article or the lede of the article." I don't believe that any information about the open letter should be in the lede. "I will also add that the letter itself can be included in a separate article linked from the main article." I like this idea. I would support any of the described options, as long as the text of the open letter can be reached (somehow) from the current cryonics article. "Are there any other questions about the article, not directly related to the letter?" Yes, see my following request to add one issue, regarding distinguishing scientific controversy from public opinion in the article. "It appears (fortunately) that there is no disagreement as to cryonics being considered a fringe area of research. Is that correct?" There may or may not be disagreement on some parts of this question. I would like to find out if the other editors agree or disagree with my description of which specific parts of cryonics are controversial, versus which parts are generally accepted, as described in my statement immediately following this paragraph. -- Nome77 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Regarding fringe status) There are some potentially important distinctions involved in this question. Parts of cryonics are generally accepted, and parts are considered fringe or controversial depending on which group of individuals you ask. The act of cryopreservation itself is not fringe, because human beings have been successfully cryopreserved after legal death for about 50 years now, and every patient preserved by the two largest cryonics organizations is still preserved in liquid nitrogen. The theory that cryopreserved people could possibly be resuscitated in the future is completely hypothetical, unproven, and can be controversial. From the search results that I posted in the first statements section, 94% of the 81 scientists who published an opinion on the "likelihood of cryonics resuscitation" support the idea that it is a "credible possibility". The other 6% believe that it is "unlikely or impossible". If you ask a random scientist what they think (or any scientist unfamiliar with cryonics theories), or if you ask a member of the general public, then they are likely to give you a negative opinion (over 90% negative for the general public). I imagine that every editor here would agree with the statements I have written so far in this paragraph. However, the current article does not reflect this information. It lumps the entire topic of cryonics under the label fringe, and it does not specify the distinctions between opinions on cryopreservation versus cryonic resuscitation, or the distinction between known opinions of scientists, and the historic opinion of the general public. I would be willing to update the article to include these distinctions. However, I would fear that without consensus I would probably be blocked or reverted. We may wish to add this issue to this dispute to avoid future arguments. Suggested issue: "Should we include a section that describes the scientific controversy, given that it differs from the public opinion?". My proposal: I would add a section for "Scientific Controversy" below "Public Reception", which would describe the number of supporting and opposing published opinions regarding the possibility of cryonic resuscitation. It would not comment on the validity of the scientific opinions. I would also create a separate, linked Wikipedia page that is a cleaned up version of the current "List of Scientists Opposing or Supporting Cryonics". This separate page would list (with sources) which scientists support the idea of cryonic resuscitation, and which oppose it, in any currently known published work. -- Nome77 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I know that that replies to each other should be avoided, but I've been asked my opinion on two questions by another editor. My answers: "#1 <Is cryonics> a highly speculative field that stands a very good chance of never producing positive results?" Yes. In my experience, even people who "believe in cryonics", say they think it only has anywhere from a 2% to 50% chance of "working". They just think that any positive probability is a big upgrade from the 0% resuscitation odds for burial or cremation. "#2 <Is cryonics> a part of mainstream science, or the recipient of major scientific inquiry?" In my opinion; Yes, but not directly. Google Scholar only shows a couple thousand articles in search results for the word "cryonics". Many scientists know that topic could damage their reputability because cryonics is currently speculative. Still, most existing mainstream medical research builds our collective "toolbox" of knowledge and medical technologies. These new tools, and more, would be required to perform a cryonic resuscitation. Allow me to present an analogy. Before the 1920's, making a computer would have been considered very speculative. You cannot build a computer without all the knowledge and inventions that came beforehand. Electrical generators, the transistor, the integrated circuit, programming languages, LCD screens, etc. Hypothetical cryonic resuscitation would be similar, in requiring many types of present and future medical technology. Examples of applicable current research avenues would be areas like spinal cord injury regeneration, individual organ cryopreservation, manipulation of the organic chemistry of individual cells and tissues, tissue regeneration, laboratory synthesis of human organs, nanotechnology, advanced computation, the functioning of neuron pathways, and the physical basis for human memory. Much of the medical research that is happening today indirectly brings the possibility of cryonic resuscitation a few (small) steps closer, with each passing year. -- Nome77 (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since it appears that Nome77 would now be satisfied with mention of the letter rather than copying text of the letter into the cryonics article, the remaining questions would seem to be whether it's permissible to mention the letter in the article, whether mentioning the number of signatories is permissible, and whether supporting references could include a link to the letter. MjolnirPants has proposed mentioning the letter in a single sentence with a secondary source link, with no link to the letter. I am currently proposing:

Including a link to the letter should remove any need for the suggested stand-alone Wikipedia article about the letter, which I strongly believe is unwarranted at the present time. The letter has far too little notability in secondary sources. I'm not aware of any newspaper or other articles devoted to the topic of just the letter. The letter is worthy of minor mention in an article about cryonics, but IMHO the letter is not worthy of its own encyclopedia article. Nome77 suggests that the much larger number of scientists on record supporting cryonics than opposing it is relevant to the question of how fringe cryonics is. However when a field is so small that it's regarded mostly as a social curiosity rather than an important public policy issue, few scientists will bother going on record unless they have something iconoclastic to say. Iconoclasts are therefore disproportionately represented. In a similar vein, I believe there are more published papers with positive findings about cold fusion than negative ones. What's really relevant is not comparative numbers, but that there are some highly credentialed iconoclasts who support the theoretical idea of cryonics as defined in the open letter. Several of the signatories are so accomplished in their own field that they have biographies on Wikipedia. Three of them (Drexler, Merkle, West) have testified before U.S. Congressional Committees. One of them is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I'll wager that no signatory of the creationism letter previously mentioned is an NAS member. If nothing else, that such erstwhile clever people can have sympathy for a practice as fringe as cryonics is sociologically interesting. Hence my earlier comment on who "believers" are being relevant to articles about beliefs. This can be communicated while still preserving clarity that cryonics is far outside mainstream views. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

We seem to be nearly in agreement on a lot. I will make a few statements and ask whether there is agreement on them. First, the letter should not be discussed at length in this article, but should either be the subject of its own article with a link to the actual text, or should be mentioned in passing in this article with an external link. Is there agreement? If so, should it have its own article? Second, a list of scientists who are positive about and negative about cryonics has been proposed. Do the editors want such a list, in its own article, with a link from this article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My assessment of the fringe status of cryonics is that the fringe character has to do entirely with the most important aspect of the enterprise, and that is the ability to revive the humans who have been frozen. It is a fact that bodies and heads can be preserved in liquid nitrogen. They cannot, at this time, be revived, brought back to a state of life that resembles life to twenty-first century humans, and many people think that they never will be capable of being revived, and some hope with great enthusiasm that they can be revived. I would like to know whether the editors agree that that is an accurate summary of the fringe nature of cryogenics, not whether freezing is possible but whether unfreezing (typically after diagnosed clinical death) and revival will be feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

• I agree with your assessment of the fringe nature of cryonics. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Answers to moderator questions) "First, the letter should not be discussed at length in this article, but should either be the subject of its own article with a link to the actual text, or should be mentioned in passing in this article with an external link." Yes. "Should <the open letter> have its own article?" I think any of the mentioned options are fine. "Do the editors want <a list of the opinions of scientists>, in its own article, with a link from this article?" Yes, I imagine that this would be useful to some people, not only as a reference for readers, but also as a reference for present and future editors. It is possible that the acceptability of cryonics could change over time. Such a reference list would likely help interested individuals and editors stay up-to-date with current and future trends, in the level of acceptance, emergence, or decline, of cryonics among scientists.

• (Fringe question) The moderators description of cryonics is accurate, but it is (possibly inaccurate) to categorize the supplied description as fringe science. (Incidentally I would replace the word "hope" in the description with "hypothesize" or "educated guess"). If you look up "fringe science" on Google, you get this definition: "Fringe science is any field of scientific inquiry which represents a significant departure from orthodox theories or bodies of work". Let's examine this. What does orthodox science say about the revival of organisms from liquid nitrogen temperatures? Various tissues and organisms have been frozen to liquid nitrogen temperature, and brought back to life in the laboratory by human beings. These successful cryogenic revivals include human embryos, caenorhabditis elegans (with conditioning memories intact), and rabbit kidneys (with long-term transplant survival). In other words, the basic concept of cryogenic revival of living tissues and organisms is commonly known to be possible with some subjects, but it is not yet technologically possible with humans. The central challenge of cryonics is not the theory of cryogenic revival itself, it is repairing tissues at the cellular and system levels which have suffered various types of damage. Repairing or replacing damaged human tissues (as appropriate) is an engineering problem, it is a problem of medical technology. The problems and theories of cryonics do not represent any conflicts with orthodox scientific theory, of which I am currently aware. The simplest statement on this topic is that; The future feasibility of human revival cannot be answered right now. None of us have enough information. We don't know (and cannot know) the limits of future medical technology in repairing damaged tissues. All that any individual can offer on this topic, (even the smartest of scientists), is an educated guess. Possibly not even that, because our contemporary educations could be outdated towards obsolescence in 30, 60, or 90 years. I personally resist a blanket label of "fringe" on cryonics. In the context of Wikipedia, I would be concerned for any effects that the label might have on the "editing policy" of the present and future editors. On a "spectrum of fringe and orthodox", I would place cryonics very far above creationism, and a (noteworthy) conceptual distance above cold fusion, but well below any current medical procedure. Here is my reasoning. The basic concept of revival of living tissues and organisms is well known to be possible with some living subjects, but is not yet technologically possible with humans. In contrast, the fusion of low temperature (and low speed) nuclear fuel has -never- been repeatedly demonstrated with -any- subject. I think the word fringe goes a ways too far in describing cryonics, because that word strongly implies "not respectable" or "not scientific" in both common definitions and Wikipedia definitions. Cryonics is an experiment that will take a (very) long time to show any positive or negative results. If a label for cryonics is needed before those results are in, then may I suggest these (potentially more accurate) words: speculative, unknown, unproven, controversial, currently unpopular in general populations, and "may or may not work". To bluntly categorize cryonics into the same disreputable region as creationism or cold fusion would be both unwarranted by current scientific knowledge, and incidentally unnecessary for our collective purpose of writing an intellectually honest and informative article. -- Nome77 (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the moderator's statement of how the Open Letter should be handled, although my preference would that it be "mentioned in passing in this article with an external link" rather than in a dedicated article for reasons I previously gave. I agree with the moderator's explanation that cryonics is "fringe" in the sense that "many people think that they (cryonics patients) never will be capable of being revived." That is if anything an understatement. I think everyone can agree that irrespective of how good they think the scientific case for cryonics is or isn't, most scientists don't think cryonics as currently practiced will work. Cryonics advocates should be able to acknowledge this fact without feeling defensive, and cryonics skeptics should be able to acknowledge that such a preponderance of opinion does not in itself establish that cryonics is a pseudoscience or impossibility in the sense of homeopathy or perpetual motion. I think that trying to make a list of scientists "positive" or "negative" toward cryonics is a very bad idea. Consider the Open Letter itself, which is a very specific, qualified statement. There are signatories of that letter who have made some harsh public statements against current cryonics practice and cryonics organizations, while still favoring the theoretical possibility of cryonics working under certain conditions with certain technologies. How would such a signatory feel about being classified as "positive" about cryonics, and how that might be misinterpreted? A Wikipedia "list of scientists positive toward cryonics" would be as ill-defined and potentially misleading as a Wikipedia "list of doctors who are pro-abortion." The topic of cryonics is complex enough that scientists should be allowed to speak with their own words, or words they've decided to endorse, rather than being simplistically and unfairly called "positive" or "negative" toward something. Cryobiologist (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• The point which was made by Cryobiologist regarding the proposed list of scientists is well taken. It could be considered ill-defined to specify that a scientist is for or against cryonics based on one document, written at one point in time. Therefore, such a list should not be published in the previously proposed form. I'm considering options for salvaging the general purpose of the idea by instead listing "documents" that comment on cryonics (with authors listed), rather than listing "scientists". A list of "documents commenting on cryonics" could be conceptually better defined, and would be less susceptible to misinterpretations or assumptions. -- Nome77 (talk)

Fourth statement by moderator

First, is there agreement that the letter by the scientists in support of cryogenics can be mentioned in the article, with an external link? If so, we have agreement on that.

Second, are there any other issues that need to be resolved? Do we need to go into further detail about why cryonics is (or is not) considered fringe, or is the article satisfactory as it is?

Third, are there any other questions that need to be raised?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

• (Moderator questions) "First, is there agreement that the letter by the scientists in support of cryogenics can be mentioned in the article, with an external link?" Yes. "Second, are there any other issues that need to be resolved?" I don't think so. If no one strongly objects, I will also create a separate article with the proposed list of documents commenting on cryonics. "Do we need to go into further detail about why cryonics is (or is not) considered fringe, or is the article satisfactory as it is?" I think we have explored this question enough. Perhaps we can all agree that cryonics has elements of science, and elements of speculation. My goal for the future of the article is this: I would personally hope that the scientific side of the article could be expanded by interested editors without any categorical objections, while still making it clear (including in the lede) that the final goal of cryonics is speculative. -- Nome77 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't agree at all, and none of my stated concerns have been addressed in any manner. This discussion is presently headed towards an attempt to reach an agreement to violate Wikipedia content rules, and surely that's not what this board is for - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• I don't agree to linking the letter on the page. It lends more weight than is appropriate to the letter. I'm fine with mentioning it briefly and linking to a secondary source that describes it, but I can't see how an external link directly to it would accomplish anything beyond giving the wrong impression and creating an unnecessary exemption to WP policy. As has been mentioned many times before, it consists of only about 70 signatures, many of which are from scientists who lack any expertise in relevant fields. It's worse evidence than A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and far, far less notable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• The comparison to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism isn't a perfect fit because the future reversibility of present or future cryopreservation methods involves complicated neuroscience and engineering questions, none of which require suspending laws of physics as "Dissent from Darwinism" does. In more colloquial terms, believing memories could be retrieved from, or repairs made to, cryopreserved brain tissue is not as nuts as outright rejection of methodological naturalism. It's more like believing that biological immortality or manned interstellar travel will be achieved within the lifetime of people now living; unlikely, but not barred by physical law. This is why I doubt you'll find a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "one of the highest honors in U.S. science," on the Dissent from Darwinism letter, whereas on the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics, you will. It's not just "a few individuals attempting to use the title 'scientist.'" Nevertheless, to the extent that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is regarded as analogous to the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics, it mitigates in favor of mentioning the Open Letter on Cryonics in the cryonics article because A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on Intelligent Design and Intelligent design movement. To not be misleading, the mentions are not in the lede, but in the Reaction/Reception parts of the articles along with information about overwhelming negative response to ID among scientists. As to whether a link to the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics should be included along with secondary source references, and whether this would violate Wikipedia policy, the Intelligent design movement article has a direct link to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism on the Discovery Institute website (ref 71) in support of a signatory count in the text of the article. In response to the Moderator's question, I don't think we need further discussion of the fringe status of cryonics unless in the context of a specific dispute. Concerning another issue, I think there has been ongoing confusion between the truth of whether cryonicists believe something versus whether what they believe is true, and the reliability of sources for those two distinct questions. For example, despite multiple discussions on the cryonics Talk page, I suspect we may still not have consensus regarding the permissibility of including references to writings of cryonicists to support statements about what cryonicists believe (irrespective of the truth of the beliefs). However that also may not be possible to resolve here absent a specific context. Cryobiologist (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer moderator

It had appeared that we were getting closer to agreement. It appears that we are not. If there is disagreement as to whether to link to the letter, is there agreement that it should be mentioned in passing and that a secondary source should describe it? If not, the most likely way forward is a Request for Comments. Will editors please state what they think that the choices in the RFC should be about the letter, and what other issues there are that should be addressed by an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comparison between cryonics and other fringe areas does not appear to be relevant to this content dispute, so I think that should be left alone (or discussed on the article talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

• Personally, I feel like this dispute has continued long enough, without us continuing to additional types of dispute resolution. The method by which the currently agreed text links to the primary source, (links to the open letter URL) seems like a minor detail to me. It doesn't seem worth continuing this debate for that point. Proposed solution: The moderator is a neutral third-party, and he is familiar with all of our statements. Would the other editors be willing to accept his vote on this particular part of the issue as final? It sounds like all editors who have participated in all steps of the dispute feel reasonably okay with Cryobiologist's proposed text. The question the moderator would be deciding is: "Assuming we use the text supplied by Cryobiologist: Should be open letter be referenced as a text link, referenced as a citation, referenced as a small wikipedia page, or not referenced at all?" I would be willing to accept his decision on this matter as likely to be fair and reasonable. Should we let him decide this part of the issue for us? -- Nome77 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• The moderator thinks punting it to RFC is appropriate, and whether or not that may work I concur it's not going to get resolved here - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If the opinion of David Gerard is counted with equal weight, then I agree that we are not likely to reach a unanimous agreement (in any venue). However, giving his opinion equal weight at this point seems to me like a betrayal of the previously described process. The ground rules stated that "every editor is expected to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond to all questions", and David Gerard clearly failed to do this. He joined this dispute a week later than the rest of us started discussions, and he did not answer three out of the five statement sections. His contribution since that point has mostly been a short statement that "I don't agree at all", and a claim that "His concerns have not been addressed". His personal opinion is now functioning as a blockade to the agreement that the rest of us worked in good faith to build. If David Gerard's late participation is appropriately ignored, then we could still reach an agreement here. -- Nome77 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If it is decided that the opinion of David Gerard should be counted, then we would need to move on to other forms of dispute resolution. If we move to other formats, then perhaps it would be best if any nonunanimous issues are agreed to be decided by a neutral third party who takes the time to understand all claims. (This way one dissenting vote could not block resolution). At this time, I don't imagine that a number of casual participants in a request for comments are likely to take the time required to understand this complex dispute. If that was true, then I would not wish to follow the preponderance of opinion given in a request for comments. Instead of an RFC, I might propose Formal Mediation with Agreement To Be Binding. I would also suggest requesting Robert McClenon to be our neutral third-party (even if in another process). Why repeat all the work that we just did, in explaining these issues to a new person? -- Nome77 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• A discussion can't enforce agreement to violate Wikipedia content rules, which this one was getting close to - particularly as it seems to have turned into a substitute for talk page discussion complete with detailed arguments about the actual disputed content, which is the specific thing this board isn't supposed to be - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reference 71 of the Intelligent design movement article is a direct link to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism letter on the Discovery Institute website. This is permissible by Wikipedia rules because unlike the Evolution article, the Intelligent design movement article is an article describing the fringe belief and its adherents, not the established science of evolution. If the Darwinism letter reference has been allowed to stand, then a direct reference to the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics within the cryonics article should also stand. The cryonics article is an article about a notable peculiar belief, not an article about cryobiology, therefore the truth or "reliability" of beliefs attested to in the Letter is not relevant to inclusion of the letter reference. The letter is notable by virtue of mention in secondary sources, the signatories of the letter are notable by virtue of 25 of them (36%) having their own articles on Wikipedia unrelated to cryonics, and referencing the letter appears permissible by both Wikipedia rules and precedent provided that the cryonics article remains clear that the beliefs of cryonics reside far outside mainstream views. If moderator discretion cannot resolve this dispute in this venue, I would welcome whatever other process may be required to illuminate why reversion of this type of letter mention and reference is justified for the cryonics article, but not elsewhere. Cryobiologist (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

First, as a matter of policy, I don't see a provision having to do with DRN that permits me to act as a decision-maker. If all of the parties, or all of the parties who have responded in a timely manner, want me to be a decision-maker rather than a mediator, I will consider that, but provide no assurances. I will not be giving weight to the unspecified objection by an editor who waited for a week to reply and then didn't say what they objected to, but they have the right to comment (as would a previously uninvolved editor). The two possible ways forward at this point are formal mediation, or a Request for Comments, since it appears that there is no agreement about how to list the letter. Do the parties want to request formal mediation, or do the parties want a Request for Comments? In the latter case, what do they think the choices should be? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

• My votes: For the primary issue: It seems that all fully participating editors, (Cryobiologist, MjolnirPants, and Nome77), have agreed to a brief mention of the letter. The current proposed solution is the text written by Cryobiologist. If the moderator declares that this is the outcome, and if the text is not reverted (or reduced or damaged), then I would agree and abide by this solution. If that does not hold, I would wish to continue to formal mediation. For all other issues (all secondary issues), including how or if the primary source is referenced: I vote yes to Robert McClenon to act as a decision-maker, and I would abide by any decisions he makes on those issues. If the dispute is not fully resolved here, then I would wish for formal mediation as the continuation method. I also wish to thank everyone who participated or helped with this discussion. -- Nome77 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• For the record, and noting that I have had limited time to participate in this, I strongly disagree with inclusion of the letter as it is purely a marketing tool for cryonics believers. It has no objectively established significance. The Discovery Institute letter is relevant because of the quantity of independent coverage and the existence of an entire notable project, Project Steve, devoted to ridiculing it. Creationism is also a vastly larger movement than cryonics. The objections to inclusion are well articulated above. 69 scientists support further study? Big fat hairy deal. That is an incredibly tiny proportion of the relevant scientific community - and actually the proportion of the relevant community that supports this is smaller still since several of those listed are just random people who happen to do some kind of science. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• With respect to the question of whether brief mention of the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics in the cryonics article as outlined is permissible, if the moderator declares the outcome of this discussion to be "yes," and if editors of the cryonics page abide by this decision, I will consider the matter closed with gratitude to discussants and the moderator for their participation. If the moderator declares this primary question unresolved, or if reversion of letter inclusion on the cryonics page continues, I wish further discussion by formal mediation. With respect to the question of whether inclusion of a reference that links directly to the letter is permissible, I will abide by any decision of the moderator with the proviso that the direct reference issue might be revisited in future years if notability or secondary source treatment of the letter significantly changes. Cryobiologist (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator

It appears that one editor wants me to cast a supervote and act as a decision-maker. The dispute resolution policy doesn't have a provision for me to do that. (I thought that I had said that, but maybe I need to say it over and over.) This discussion has gone on about as long as discussion should go at this forum, and I am about to close it. The two possible next steps are a request for formal mediation or a Request for Comments. Please indicate whether you will agree to formal mediation, in which case I will file the request but will be filing as a neutral party. In that case, mediation will require that a majority of the parties agree to participate in the mediation. If there seems to be support for mediation, I will request mediation. Otherwise there will be a Request for Comments. Again, please indicate what options you want reflected in an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors

• I would agreed to formal mediation. If a request for comments is used, I would offer these options: "Should the Scientists' Open Letter on Cryonics be briefly mentioned on the Cryonics page (Briefly means 4 or less sentences, and not in the lede)? (Yes/No)", "If the open letter is mentioned, how should the primary source be referenced? (A) No reference to the letter should be included. (B) A reference should be included but the link method doesn't matter. (C) A text link should be used. (D) A citation should be used." -- Nome77 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree to formal mediation. If there is to be an RFC, I believe the questions should be (A) whether brief mention mention of the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics should be permitted in the cryonics article outside the lede as a counterpoint to obligatory negative reactions of scientists, and (B) whether in addition to secondary source references to the Letter, a direct reference to the Letter can be included. I don't understand the suggestion of a "text link" that keeps coming up. If this means an external link from within the body of the article, this is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia policy per WP:EL. Separately, the content of the Letter has been downplayed by an assertion that signatories of the Letter merely support further study of cryonics. There is no such statement in the letter. Cryobiologist (talk)

• Posting this link here for convenience: Robert McClenon opened a Request for Formal Mediation for us. -- Nome77 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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