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:Conspiracy theory#"Without credible evidence" (edit | subject | history | links | "Without_credible_evidence" watch | logs)

Users involved

• Autonova (talk · contribs)
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article's first sentence defines a conspiracy theory as "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence". I am disputing the last three words, "without credible evidence", arguing that they should not be included in the definition. I have five reliable sources (four dictionaries and an academic journal) which explicitly give the definition, and none of them include the statement "without credible evidence" or equivalent.

As it is, the statement is not supported by any reliable source. The only source being referred to, allegedly in support of it, is in the body, A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun which reads "no matter how much evidence their adherents accumulate, belief in a conspiracy theory ultimately becomes a matter of faith rather than proof." I argue that this does not support the statement that all CTs are, by definition, "without credible evidence". The first part of the source's statement actually supports the opposite.

I also have an academic paper by Dr Charles Pigden ([1]), which states, "we are rationally entitled to believe in conspiracy theories, if that is what the evidence suggests."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dicussed on the talk page. I've also offered to compromise with the phrase "with or without credible evidence", but this was refused and the user I was offering it to said he's done talking to me.

How do you think we can help?

Providing an outside opinion on the issue.

The contested line is a paraphrase of the fact that Conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence (indeed the opposite, they are based upon faith, not evidence). However I can see also that the use of the word " credible" is problematic, as it is far to subjective. I have suggested we change it to "without consistent standards of evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We can put this on hold until MP can comment, no issue with that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sue an RFC will work, but we can give it a go.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The definitional difference between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy, is that a conspiracy theory is not supported by evidence. The current definition has been strenuously opposed by proponents of conspiracy theories for a long time, but is a completely accurate lay summary of the sources. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished delusions.

Prior discussion at Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 19. There was solid consensus there for the current version, but conspiracy believers (of which the OP is one) have never liked it. Their long term goal appears to me to be to water down the definition of conspiracy theory in Wikipedia to the point that it does not cause them cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a need for dispute resolution, since there is a consensus on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• MjolnirPants cannot participate until his current block expires. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Ditto Beyond My Ken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The editors have been notified. If multiple editors want a moderator to facilitate discussion, a moderator will be requested. However, the number of editors may be larger than is practical for moderated discussion. The editors are asked whether a Request for Comments might be more workable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I considered RfC but decided on dispute resolution. I think the type of discussion is one which is more nuanced than a support/oppose decision, and there may be room for compromise. Also I have many reliable sources which support my position which aren't currently in the article, which editors have prevented me from adding. I would prefer a moderator to assist. Autonova (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am thinking that an RfC might have been a better course of action before coming here. No opinion at the moment on the issue at hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is more appropriate then I'm happy to close this request down and set up an RfC. Autonova (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's my thinking at the moment. I don't want to short circuit the process now underway with any precipitous action. But my gut says an RfC is the best way to handle this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken above says that a dispute resolution is not necessary because consensus has been reached - this is completely false. My argument and the sources backing it have been completely ignored in this entire discussion. They have simply edited the article without any agreement or compromise. Autonova (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been agreed that an RfC would be more appropriate for this issue. Autonova (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2019 (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

• Raiffeisen Zentralbank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Matthew hk (talk · contribs)
• Josephintechnicolor (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user introduced controversial and may be defamation material to the article Raiffeisen Zentralbank and content forked to its successor Raiffeisen Bank International, which some of the controversial material is happened in WWII, which Raiffeisen Bank International did not even founded.

The so called citation was a bare url without page number and only one citation per claim. Which, per WP:UNDUE (or DUE?), such controversial material should be cited by wide variety (three is borderline "wide") of source to keep NPOV . But the user still reinserted the material without really participating the article talk page or responding to the request of adding more source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Open a thread in talk page, participated in Wikipedia:Teahouse thread started by Josephintechnicolor. Message the user at User talk:Josephintechnicolor

How do you think we can help?

Sorting out the policy of wikipedia and current status of the controversial material

I am addressing Matthew HK points below: 1) Matthew HK: "A user introduced controversial and may be defamation material to the article Raiffeisen Zentralbank"

RESPONSE: There is nothing controversial or defamatory about this issue. Controversial means the sources or story are disputed and defamatory means they have no substance grounded in fact and are meant to destroy ones reputation without cause. The holocaust is not controversial or defamatory, they are truths with specific timelines and locations supported by eyewitnesses and testimony. Raiffeisen's participation in events leading up to and during the Holocaust were confirmed by these and many other web links below. https://www.saiten.ch/raiffeisen-der-bankier-der-barmherzigkeit-als-antisemit/ https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1153156.html https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1212&context=bjil https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=BiygDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Holocaust+and+European+Societies:+Social+Processes+and+Social+Dynamics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvjeOz2ILfAhXLvrwKHbP2BJwQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Holocaust%20and%20European%20Societies%3A%20Social%20Processes%20and%20Social%20Dynamics&f=true

2) Matthew HK: "and content forked to its successor Raiffeisen Bank International, which some of the controversial material is happened in WWII, which Raiffeisen Bank International did not even founded."

Originally, the Holocaust news events were on the Raiffeisen Zentral bank page and I added them to Raiffeisen Bank International page because Raiffeisen Bank International's parent company is Raiffeisen Zentralbank, it is the same entity. An investor should not be able to hide behind a corporate veil. That is what Raiffeisen is doing and Matthew HK is helping them achieve that goal. Wikipedia needs to pierce that veil and let the truth be known which it has done with so many other wikipedia articles (See below).

3) Matthew HK: "The so called citation was a bare url without page number and only one citation per claim. Which, per WP:UNDUE (or DUE?), such controversial material should be cited by wide variety (three is borderline "wide") of source to keep NPOV . But the user still reinserted the material without really participating the article talk page or responding to the request of adding more source."

Why is a URL a "so called URL". It is either a URL or it is not. The tone that Matthew HK is taking is one of defense, not truth, and Wikipedia is about Honesty and Truth. I DID participate many times and I see my participation still in many places BUT one was removed (I could not find it anymore, but I now see it was closed) from the Tea Room and Shay was the one who answered our questions. I gave many reasons for my edits and I supported them all, I even told matthew HK I would revert your removals. Matthew HK you are NOT being honest saying that I did not participate.

In closing: I find that Matthew HK is not a neutral party and he seems to be tempered by anger and bias and/or other reasons. Where my participation is merely attaching the sources/fact to the participants of those facts. If Nuremburg did not happen or if not one concentration camp was found or all the other various holocaust events were never proven then my posts would be defamatory and controversial but the holocaust and the events and people / corporations who helped bring it all about are REAL PEOPLE and REAL EVENTS and REAL FACTS proven by many governments and organizations and those facts must be attributed to the culprits.

Lastly, this is one example and there are many many more but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer which is technically considered a new company (Post WWII) is still complicit in the holocaust (and states so on their wiki) due to being a subsidiary of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben who made Zyklon B, that killed over one million people in gas chambers during the Holocaust. IG FArben was split into 3 companies below.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoechst_AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer

And each one of these 3 wikipedia articles above make reference to their involvement in WW II and the Holocaust via the IG Farben connection. So if Matthew HK wants to remove the WW II and Holocaust events from Raiffeisen International Bank wikipedia article then MANY MORE wikipedias need to be edited for the same situation. So effectively Matthew HK is opening up Pandora's box. If Bayer, BASF and Hoechst and many others can deal with the affiliation to WWII and the Holocaust on their wikipedia pages so can Raiffeisen Bank International, Raiffeisen Zentral bank and all its subsidiaries where Raiffeisen Zentral Bank parent company has affiliation. 02:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

• Volunteer Note - Although there has been discussion at the article talk page, it has not been extensive. It should continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, here is the link of teahouse thread i forgot to add Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 910 (RZB Securities | Raiffeisen Zentralbank | Raiffeisen_Bank_International). The closer in specific kick the ball to WP:DR. Matthew hk (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon, and I appreciate the teahouse link. Many other wikipedia articles have included news citations by affiliation. Raiffeisen (which includes the Founder, Zentral Bank and its many Subsidiaries) and its link to WWII, Holocaust and Raiffesen Bank International should be one in the same and share the same news that is relevant to them all. If a person cannot change or hide from their previous affiliations neither should a company.02:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

---

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:Young Living/Archives/2020#Prohibited marketing claims (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bilby (talk · contribs)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)
• Alweth (talk · contribs)
• Grayfell (talk · contribs)
• CircularReason (talk · contribs)
• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The subject of the article, Young Living, a company that sells essential oils via multi-level marketing, was warned by the FDA for marketing some of their products in a way that would categorize them as drugs by the FDA. One editor, Bilby, wants to include the detail in the section on the controversy that it was some of Young Living's "consultants" (ie. members of their multi-level marketing program) that were identified by the FDA as making some of the relevant claims. Another editor, Rhode Island Red, is rejecting all proposals and reverting all changes to that effect, for a variety of reasons, ultimately arguing that it "diffuses responsibility." I, Alweth think some of Bilby's proposals have enough merit for inclusion, but have not been able to build any consensus.

Rhode Island Red accuses Bilby and I of variously being product advocates, sockpuppet accounts, or single topic editors. On the other hand, Rhode Island Red's arguments seem to me have devolved into a need to push a specific agenda even in the face of the relevant sources. In short, both sides seem biased to the other side and assumptions of good faith have been significantly strained.

I hope you will take the time to read the whole discussion. For more context, you should also probably look at the New structure subsection of the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

So far, I have only tried talk-page discussion, but there has been a lot of it.

A couple other editors piped in briefly, but none have stuck around for the continuing discussion to help establish consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Because both sides seem biased to the other side, I hope the opinions and arguments of a disinterested party or two could help one or both sides to compromise more. Ideally, the disinterested party would stick around to push for a consensus.

This dispute began when CircularReason (talk · contribs) (arguably an WP:SPA), appeared on the TPG making sweeping assertions that the article was biased against Young Living. The editor posted what appeared to be a COI disclosure, [2] Upon discussion on the TPG, the suggestion that the article was biased amounted to nothing. Curiously, Alweth (talk · contribs), a WP:SLEEPER, awoke from a 5-year slumber[3] and appeared on the TPG with the purpose of “addressing CircularReason's concerns about negative bias”.[4] Despite extensive discussion, this too amounted to nothing. Suddenly, Bilby (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere on the TPG (neither Alweth, CircularReason, or Bilby had any history editing the article, while 3 other opposing veteran editors -- Zefr (talk · contribs), Grayfell (talk · contribs), and me -- all had a considerable editing history on it) and Bilby proceeded to argue for inclusion of qualifiers (weasel wording) based on his/her reinterpretation about the company’s FDA violations based on a WP:PRIMARY source.[5]

The original text in the article about the FDA Warning (cited in full below in the discussion section of this DR) was entirely consistent with what a plethora of secondary sources wrote about the event (see details below in discussion section of this DR). Despite that fact (pointed out repeatedly on TPG), Alweth and Bilby, through WP:EXHAUST continued to argue that the original text was misleading. They argued that the text should be modified so as to state, essentially, that the FDA notification was directed at the company’s distributors rather than the company itself, which is untrue in law and fact, as well as inconsistent with what the sources stated. The original text was accurate, POV balanced, and in no way inconsistent with the sources. It was neutral and unobjectionable. As a side note, the multi-level marketing MLM business model has been widely criticized for precisely the fact that MLM companies (like Young Living) purposely use their vast distributor networks to make illegal//unauthorized marketing claims from which the company can attempt to distance itself by denying direct culpability (which is a clear dodge and a distinction that the FDA does not recognize) Bilby went so far as to argue that the article’s coverage of the FDA notification was “misleading”[6] and “incorrect”[7] because it didn’t sufficiently shift the focus/blame to the actions of the distributors rather than the company’s responsibility. However, these assertions were proven to be off-base, as multiple sources back up the original text (quotes below in the discussion section of this DR):

After losing their main argument, the two editors in question retreated to arguing that the company’s response to the FDA warning had to be included. At this point, after backsliding to this much smaller quibble, their relentless arguing was starting to become WP:TE. Their complaints were not ignored but were simply proven invalid. But the explanations fell on deaf ears.

In the interest of reaching a fair resolution, I proposed including a line of text indicating that the company had agreed to take the remedial action ordered by the FDA. However, I was lukewarm on the idea given that the company had no real choice but to comply, and saying that they did so seemed rather like a statement that’s not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, Alweth agreed with the proposed inclusion and, essentially, Bilby did as well. Subsequently a line of text along the lines of what I proposed was added by Bilby (since modified slightly for more balanced POV and consistency with sources), which should have put an end to the dispute. Despite all of this, Alweth inexplicably launched this DR, eating up even more resources through WP:EXHAUST. For now, the dispute seems to be non-existent, but concerns about WP:SPA, WP:SLEEPER, WP:TAGTEAM, and WP:COI linger. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem we are having is that the FDA letter sent to Young Living made two claims. One was that young Living were mislabeling their products, while the other was that Young Living's consultants (their marketers, or distributors) were advertising their products as being able to cure diseases such as Ebola. Some sources, like the Inquistr and the Wall Street Journal, are clear about this distinction. However, some sources don't make the distinction, and accuse Young living of both. So we ended up with different claims in secondary sources.

The FDA letter leads with the statement "This is to advise you that in August 2014 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed websites and social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest) for several Young Living essential oil consultants that your firm refers to as 'Young Living distributors'", and then states, later in the letter, "Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners" [8]. Young Living responded by saying that they would be working with their consultants to fix the issue.

The distinction became important for two reasons. First, a second company, doTerra, who received warnings from the FDA at the same time. (doTerra were also warned for not preventing their consultants from marketing their products as cures for Ebola and other diseases). This action by the FDA placed an additional responsibility on the two companies, as it made them responsible for the actions of their (thousands) of distributors, and there have been articles discussing this impact in regard to doTerra, just not as much in regard to Young Living. The second reason is what caught my initial attention, because very rarely do companies of this size make the mistake of claiming that their products can cure disease, as their legal teams prevent errors of that scale. They are well aware of the need to post disclaimers and avoid making specific untested health claims.

At the moment, Rhode Island Red wants to use sources that place all the blame on Young Living, while I would like to use the sources that appear to me to be more consistent with the FDA letter. It is possible to produce sources to make either claim. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the accurate and succinct statement by Rhode Isalnd Red above, I'd note the content of the FDA letter:

You market your Young Living Essential Oil products through paid consultants; your compensation plan for your consultants is explained on your website www.youngliving.com/en_US/opportunity/compensation-plan. Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners. Consumers interested in your Young Living Essential Oil products are then redirected by your consultants to your website, http://www.youngliving.com, to purchase your products and/or register as members (i.e., consultants).[1]

The FDA absolutely and explicitly makes the link between the fraudulent claims, and the company.

There is relevant case law, for example:

• Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch. Div. 1972) – Manufacturer, operating a multi-level distribution system, could not avoid liability for misrepresentations made by distributors by arguing that distributors were independent agents.
• Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Equinox Int’l Corp., CV-S-990969JBR(RLH), 1999 WL 1425373 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 1999) – Defendant could not “shield itself from liability merely by arguing that current misrepresentations are made by independent contractors.”

Of course we don't rely on our own reading of the facts, we follow the secondary sources, which are as RIR says, but underlying that is the legal position which seems pretty clearly to support the statements the sources are making. We are under no obligation to be deferential to representatives of these pyramid schemes, Guy (Help!) 00:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The filing party has notified one of the editors, but not all of the editors, and needs to notify the other listed editors. Any further discussion before the case is opened should be carried on inside the curtains. Overly long posts often serve no purpose other than to make the poster feel better. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not quite true. I filed this request and notified both parties (beside myself) that I listed as being involved. Someone else added two more people who I did not include because they seemed to have dropped out of the discussion. Alweth (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

But I've gone ahead and notified the other members. Alweth (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @DRN volunteers: - A moderator is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read and follow the rules. If you have any questions about the rules, please ask rather than guessing. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better but do not usually clarify. Comment on content, not contributors. Personal comments will be collapsed.

Is Young Living a Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) arrangement? Is that agreed on? Was there a cease-and-desist order by the FDA? Is the dispute about what was in the order, or is the dispute about how much weight to give to the order and its content? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe are the issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Bilby's statement: There's no issue regarding describing Young Living as an MLM, nor is there a concern about whether or not there was a warning letter sent by the FDA. The dispute concerns the specifics of the letter. Reading the letter, available here, it seems to me that the letter is stating that Young living is guilty of marketing their products as if they were drugs, and that in addition Young Living's consultants (aka distributors or members) were guilty of marketing Young Living's products as cures for specific diseases such as Ebola. Some secondary sources describe it this way; some secondary sources are ambiguous; some just claim that Young Living was the one doing both; and some incorrectly state that the Ebola claims were on Young Living's website. Although Young Living is ultimately responsible, the distinction has become relevant in the case of doTerra who received a similar warning from the FDA at the same time, as it places different requirements on the company depending on whether the problem is from their own marketing or that created by distributors. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Alweth's statement: The disagreement is over whether to include the fact that Young Living was warned against allowing its "consultants" to claim that some of their oils cure Ebola (and other diseases), or simply keep the current version that doesn't make clear who was making the claim. The short version of the arguments against inclusion seem to be that it is a distinction without a difference and that it deflects blame away from Young Living. The short version of the argument for is that it's simply a more accurate presentation of the event. Alweth (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

We are in agreement that Young Living is a multi-level marketing scheme, and that the FDA issued a cease-and-desist order about the claims. The issue appears to be exactly how to word the description of what the order said, with respect to whether the fraudulent claims were made by Young Living or by their distributors. Is it true that the only matter in dispute is whether the claims were being made by Young Living, or only by their distributors? We have heard from two of the editors. We haven't heard concise responses, since I requested concise responses, from User:Rhode Island Red or User:Greyfell. Is the only real issue that Young Living is claiming that they didn't make the fraudulent claims because their distributors did? Is that the issue? That seems troubling enough. Will each editor also please tell me exactly what paragraph of the article the dispute is about?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Bilby's Statement You are correct, in that the issue is whether or not Young living made the statements that their products can cure Ebola and other diseases. Currently the wording is:

'In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."'

Some of Young Living's consultants/distributors did make these claims, and the FDA provided a number of quotes from distributor's material to support this. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Would a compromise be to state that the FDA found that the claim had been made that the products cured Ebola, cancer, etc., and that the FDA forbid making such claims, without stating who had made the claims? That states what the claims were, and that they were forbidden, without actual attribution. Is that a possible compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bilby's Statement: Compromise is fine, but my concern is that if we compromise and just reword the first line it would technically be accurate but misleading by omission, as the reader would naturally assume that the advertising was by Young Living - especially when followed by the rest of the paragraph. It would now read something like:

In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that some Young Living products were being marketed as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." In a warning letter they named specific essential oil products that were promoted under "conditions that cause them to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease." The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs without FDA approval are violations of the Act. Young Living subsequently agreed to address the violations cited by the FDA.

That would technically be correct, but if I was reading it I'd still assume it was Young Living doing the promotion (especially with the last line), not their consultants as the FDA identified. I did try including Young Living's response, "Young Living responded by stating that they had been in contact with the consultants raised in the letter to help them correct their materials", which clarifies at least their view of the situation, but ran into opposition, and without that or at least some mention of consultants we're stuck with a problem. - Bilby (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new moderator, because perhaps I am no longer neutral. However, it seems that the objection to the compromise that I proposed is that it doesn't fully exonerate Young Living of the fraudulent claims, and that it is important to put the blame on the so-called consultants. An argument can be made that some of the blame for those claims should be on Young Living for the conduct of its distributors under the rule of respondeat superior. I thought that I had proposed a compromise. If it is important to the advocates for Young Living to state that Young Living was not responsible for the rogue distributors, then perhaps a Request for Comments is the way to resolve this, or perhaps someone should ask for another moderator.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bilby's Statement: I guess I didn't explain correctly. The change I originally proposed was to match that of the FDA letter - specifically, to say either that:

In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living about their consultants marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus ...

Or the more specific:

In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living for failing to ensure that their consultants did not illegally market Young Living products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus ...

Either way, the FDA letter places the responsibility on Young Living, but I'd like to be clear about what the fault was, rather than leading the reader to believe that they failed to do something different. In addition, the FDA also noted that Young Living incorrectly labelled their products, so I would leave the rest of the paragraph as is.

The problem with a compromise wording is that we really have two choices - mention that Young Living consultants were illegally marketing their products as a cure for diseases, or leave it as suggesting that Young Living were illegally marketing the products in this way. A compromise which makes it slightly more ambiguous but still leads the reader to believe that Young Living were directly making illegal claims about their products, as opposed for failing in their responsibility to ensure that their consultants do not make illegal claims about their products, doesn't really address the issue. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am about to close this case with an agreement to provide wording that I personally consider incredible, that is, meaning not worthy of belief by a rational H. sapiens, that Young Living was completely uninvolved in the fraudulent claims made by their distributors, but because only Bilby has responded, that will be the agreement of this noticeboard. Agreement at this noticeboard is not binding on the community and can be overridden by a Request for Comments. However, without any participation by Rhode Island Red or Greyfell, this thread is about to be concluded with a statement to the effect that Young Living did not know of the fraudulent claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bilby's Statement: I have no reason to believe that Young Living were ignorant of the actions of their distributors. I certainly would not like to say or imply that they were ignorant of what was happening. - Bilby (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Either Young Living knew of the statements by the distributors, or they did not know of the statements by their distributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Alweth's Response to Comment: Certainly either Young Living knew or they didn't know. But, as far as I am aware, there are no secondary sources telling us whether they knew, and I don't think it's relevant to determining their responsibility. As Bilby has pointed out, the issue is not whether they are responsible, but how what they are responsible for should be described. They failed to prevent their consultants from claiming that their oils cure Ebola, etc.--that's what seems clear from the primary sources (the FDA letter) and the secondary sources. Rhode Island Red seems to object to language including the fact that it was distributors making the claim, even though the proposed edits remain clear about the fact that this is a failure on Young Living's part. Alweth (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2019 (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

• Template talk:Largest urban centers of the European Union#Functional Urban Areas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk · contribs)
• Subtropical-man (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It seems there is a case of article ownership by the user Subtropical-man who created this template (used in the European Union article) in 2012. Immediate reverts followed by threatening language. I've tried to engage in a discussion with him/her on the talk page of the template, but it feels like talking to a wall. All my points are already on the talk page, so I won't repeat them here. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Adult discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps asking him/her to cool down and allow other people to edit the template which doesn't belong to him/her even though he/she created it?

You insult me by writing that I have appropriated the template. Yes, I created this template but I allow others to edit this template. Your changes have been reverted because your changes are disputed and introduce some disadvantages to template. I suggested a discussion and waiting for a consensus but you came here to complain about me?!? I noticed that you think: you can change something on Wikipedia, if someone reverted your changes, you will lead an editing war, you stopped just when you were threatened with a blockade and.... you came here to complain about other user because he did not agree with your point of view. This is completely immature behavior. I understand that you are a user with a small contribution (total 182 edits), you may not know it - not everyone has to agree with your point of view, sorry; your changes will not always be applied in Wikipedia, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the template talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2019 (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:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deisenbe (talk · contribs)
• Qwirkle (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a dispute with Qwirkle. He put an template on the article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson. I have made extensive changes to this article subsequently, increasing sources from 5 to 46 and the size from 3,454 bytes to 16,950 bytes. He has put the Accuracy template back on it and added POV. He has made no reply to my defense of the article's accuracy on the Talk page, just puts these templates on it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have multiplied the size of the article by 5 and the sources by 7.

How do you think we can help?

Evaluate the content and documentation and advise whether these two templates are appropriate or not.

Before going further, perhaps @Deisenbe: can explain how expanding an article would address a problem of undue POV. If the problem is, as it is here, advocacy, adding more isn’t necessarily going to help that. Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It seems unlikely that discussion here will result in compromise, especially since the issue is not a matter of the wording of the lede sentence so much as a tagging issue. This is a dispute that might be able to be addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have posted the dispute on that board as recommended (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson). deisenbe (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • My apologies, the correct link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tagging_as_not_neutral_of_article_Lynching_of_Shedrick_Thompson deisenbe (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (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:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Whats new? (talk · contribs)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs)
• Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Whether this redirect page should be classified as being a redirect from a long name, or a redirect from an incorrect name. The article title in question is used in the program's title card, reliable sources and until removed the article it redirects to. The contrary opinion is that a greater number of sources do not use this title, and there is a lack of sources close enough to the program producers using the longer title, and it is therefore used incorrectly elsewhere. User:IJBall attempted to change to the R from long name designation previously, as have I, and have been reverted by Netoholic each time. After stalled discussions, I requested a third opinion, which was given by Wallyfromdilbert who suggested the long name designation was correct, but too was reverted by Netoholic, who continues to oppose the long name redirect classification.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After discussions with Netoholic on the talk page stalled, I requested a third opinion, which was given, however Netoholic continues to disagree with this opinion as well.

How do you think we can help?

Through determining which redirect classification is most appropriate. Whether this is based either on applying the consensus of three editors who disagree with the opposing editor, or determining that Netoholic's argument is valid on policy grounds, or indeed making a determination by citing other reasons entirely. For such a small issue, one would hope it could be determined fairly simply.

Use of {{R from long name}} is for a title that is a complete, more complete or longer version of the topic's name. This is typically used when an official title is not the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, there is no evidence from the producers or writers of the documentary that any such "long title" was used. The other user is basing his viewpoint on his own interpretation of the main title graphics and on a very small minority of sources which seem to have made the same misinterpretation - whereas the vast majority of secondary sources which fail to use such a "long title". In particular, we have sources very closely connected to the producers/writers (written by them, or interviews with them which cover the specific topic of how the documentary got its title) which likewise do not make any mention of a "long title". This lack of verification of a "long title" is the reason it is not mentioned in the target article, and should be evidence that it is indeed not "complete, more complete", but instead should be considered an {{R from incorrect name}} as an erroneous name – either an incorrect name or a title. -- Netoholic @ 04:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

At least a dozen published newspapers and books can be easily found online using the longer version and explicitly describing it as the title. Most were already provided on the talk page. Not sure where the additional requirement that the sources be "close to the producers" comes from when it's easily verified by reliable secondary sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, and notice to the other editors. If there has already been a Third Opinion and one of the editors has declined to accept it (because both Third Opinion and this noticeboard are voluntary), the question is whether this dispute will be resolved by discussion or whether a Request for Comments is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2019 (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:Detransition (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs)
• Mooeena (talk · contribs)
• Equivamp (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Users Mooeena and Equivamp are doxxing other users, making false accusations on Talk pages, User pages, and edit logs. Mooeena is openly trans, and I believe they see the Detransition article as a threat to their political identity. I want what's best for detrans folk, but not at the expense of trans folk.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried talking with them. Mooeena just made another false accusation and told me to come here.

How do you think we can help?

Tell those two to cool it, please. Take some time off. Step away from the keyboard. Stop being disruptive. Stop trying to destroy the article. Stop accusing and doxxing users.

This isn't an accurate representation of the situation at all. I have already communicated with A145GI15I95 that I

1. Am not trans,
2. Did not dox them,
3. Am not making false accusations of any kind.

This user is upset with Equivamp for noticing that she was stealth canvassing and upset at me for putting a canvassing warning on their talk page. That's all.

•  Note to participants: All participants have been informed of this dispute resolution request via their talkpage by me. Discussion will start only after all involved editors have given a summary of the dispute. MrClog (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (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:Tartary (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Midnight-Blue766 (talk · contribs)
• Mountain157 (talk · contribs)
• Jingiby (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Mountain157 made a revision of the article on Tartary, citing 17th, 18th and 19th century atlases, dictionaries and encyclopedias to assert that "Tartary" was a single country rather than a region. I reverted the article, believing the information in the new revision to be outdated (though cited, unlike previous revisions). This was re-reverted, and instead of it becoming an edit war, we began discussion on the talk page in earnest.

I argued that my understanding of the region was that it was a general term for a geographical region, and that Tartary was never a single country, and that the sources used to argue that Tartary was a country, were if not overuse of primary sources, were obsolete and not reflective of the current understanding of the term, while Mountain157 claimed that the sources chosen were not primary sources, and were otherwise legitimate uses of sources.

I also wish to add that Mountain157 perceives my behaviour as constructing vandalism and other forms of misconduct in reverting the article to the previous revision and making arguments for it, while I believe all my edits were in good faith, being made to correct what as reverting what I saw as an improperly-sourced revision. (As per Robert McClenon's comment, I will drop all discussion of conduct here)

This user mass reverted sourced information and gave an edit summary claiming,"These recent edits seem to be based off early modern rumours that claimed "Tartary" was a country rather than a region"[[23]]. On the talk page I went over things such as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:WINARS with him. I even pointed out a book named Jacob Abbot Cummings' 1815 Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geography which he tried to use and claim that it "shows Tartary as a region".This is not true because the book mentions Tartary as a country among others(such as Turkey, Arabia, Persia, India,Japan,etc).Mountain157 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempts to revert changes, which were re-reverted back, followed by discussion on the talk page. Although the discussion has been relatively brief so far, I opened this discussion due to Mountain157 making a number of statements in the above process that I construe as being inflammatory and unproductive to civil discussion almost immediately after the dispute began, which I believe made it extremely difficult for civil resolution to be possible without outside, (quasi-)formal arbitration.

How do you think we can help?

By determining whether the sources cited in the article legitimises the description of Tartary as a unified country as opposed to a geographical region as indicated in previous (albeit uncited) revisions, and whether my actions count as misconduct or not.

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. There has been proper notice. This noticeboard is for article content disputes only, not for conduct disputes. If there is too much talk about conduct, this dispute may have to be closed and referred to WP:ANI, but that doesn't help anyone, so focus on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Although I would normally refrain from adding discussions before the dispute was formally opened, Mountain157 has alleged that "Tartar history was to be re-written --let us be frank, was to be falsified==[sic] in order to eliminate references to Great Russian aggressions and to hide the facts of the real course of Tatar-Russian relation". This clearly passes his thesis into the territory of fringe theory, and passing them off as fact are prohibited. As such, I believe the dispute this article to have ceased surrounding article content and is a matter of user conduct, and I request that this dispute be closed. I am open to neutral discussion of the Tartary conspiracy theory. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a place for fringe and/or conspirative theories like the fictional story on the great Tartarian Empire. The prevailing Academic consensus among historians is that Tartary was a historical region with uncertain boundaries and not a separate state.It is Better to discuss the issue on talk till reaching consensus, despite edit-warring and pushing POV-like statements into the article's content. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2019 (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:Tihomir Orešković#Ordinal numbering, yes or no? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CroGamer 1 (talk · contribs)
• Mewulwe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute regarding the ordinal numbering of former PM Tihomir Orešković. I and another editor, Mewulwe, only agree that this information should be posted on the article but can't reach an agreement on where should it be located on the wiki page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have filed a request for WP:3 but the stalemate remains in effect. There has also been extensive talk on Mewulwe's talk page but negligible progress has been made.

How do you think we can help?

I would request a mediator so that the article expansion can continue.

This concerns the wider issue of numbering of officeholders in infoboxes. CroGamer 1 does not seem to want to follow the policy that has stood since 2017, in which case he should propose an alternative policy. Mewulwe (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: This resolution request is currently being discussed at the requester's talk page. MrClog (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: I hereby open this discussion. I feel like it would be best to give my view on this issue and continue from there on. The Manual of Style on infoboxes states: "Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used." The documentation on the infobox template states: "This should only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources." Note that 'sources' is plural, and therefore implies that there must be a well established use of ordinal numbering in multiple reliable sources. @CroGamer 1: Based on this information, I would say that you should be able to proof its established usage by linking to more than the one source I was able to find of you. If you have them, please link them under the new subheading I created. Additionally, both you and @Mewulwe: can use this discussion area to further discuss the topic (and/or my comment). --MrClog (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mewulwe's stance that the numbering isn't common in Croatia. I seem to have failed to notice the policy because Mewulwe mentioned the link only once. After reading our conversation again I noticed that I interpreted his words differently. Personally speaking, I believe that this policy needs changing which I intend to initiate here after completing this reply. Official documents should also count as a source on Wikipedia but I'm fully aware that this noticeboard isn't meant for this type of discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused. CroGamer 1 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll close this dispute. @Mewulwe: (ping) FYI, see the above. MrClog (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2019 (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

• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 5.21.227.218 (talk · contribs)
• Mountain157 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is ongoing dispute on allies of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province page. There is user Mountain157 who keeps on adding Pakistan under the ally section of ISIS K. The sources he/she uses to supports his/her edits, are mere 'allegations' made by one country (Afghanistan) and that country has not provided any information to back their claims.

Isn't this against Wikipedia NPOV rules? The user is clearly taking sides here. He is giving claims made by Afghanistan more importance then claims made by Pakistan. It is not just me, there are many others editors who have also told him that allegations from country (especially the one which is currently at conflict with accused country) can't be used as credible source.

Pakistan has declared ISIS-K as its enemy. Before the user Mountain157 came, there was a general consensus on the matter of allies. Previous editors labelled Pakistan as enemy of ISIS-K.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started the discussion on the talk page regarding the issue but the user paid not attention to it and proceeded with reverting my edit.

How do you think we can help?

I would like someone to look into this matter and provide their opinion regarding it.

---

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:Curcumin#Curcumin page edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DNA0089 (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Zefr (talk · contribs)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

(also, please note the history of this page, which starts with my proposed Dec 22 edits). I would like to make edits to the current Curcumin page on Wikipedia, which I believe contains inaccuracies and misstatements. This is my first ever time trying to edit Wilki, so I am no doubt making mistakes but am genuinely doing my best to be detailed, accurate, and compromising in my arguments - and in avoiding continual direct edits to the page. After a half dozen or so postings in response to editor concerns, however, I seem no closer to resolution than before. I feel that I am (1) getting criticized even after visiting the hyperlinked sections referred to me by other authors and trying to respond to the issues raised, and (2) that those criticizing seem to be ignoring or perhaps not even reading my posts as I still see the same criticisms without even referencing or acknowledging what I just posted. Please note that I am deliberate in writing these posts, taking at least an hour to carefully word each one. My general concern and recommended edit, as stated several times, is “that a cautious tone regarding curcumin human benefit is preferential and more accurate that the dismissive one now present.” My specific objections are to the statements that (1) curcumin “has no medical uses” (and along the same line, the misleading "Curcumin has no confirmed medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research."), and that (2) “curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial”. Examples of issues I feel I have addressed or that are being ignored include (1) criticism that I have not met the criteria for literature citations, (2) one editor criticizing my focus, which I don’t see, and so asked for specific examples but never heard back from this person, (3) criticism for citing in vitro and rodent studies. Here I agreed with this general policy but carefully explained why I feel it’s different in my case, again with no response.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No other steps other than moving the discussion to the Talk:Curcumin page

How do you think we can help?

1.Acknowledgement by these editors that I have addressed issues where appropriate as listed above (e.g., my edited reference list) or where they agree with my argument (e.g., if agree on in vitro study inclusion or my paragraph that includes "dismissing curcumin benefits is critical of the decisions of a very large number of scientists...") would help and seem to represent tangible steps forward, and (2) short of this, resolution of our disagreements; I don't know how Wiki usually addresses this

Decline resolution. Case has no merit. Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2019 (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 the article talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Joey Allaham#BLP violations (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BhasSpeak (talk · contribs)
• Shannya Sabru (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Shannya Sabru has been disruptively adding contentious material to a BLP (Joey Allaham) without providing appropriate sources to back the claim. At the same time, the user has also been removing well-sourced information without any justification. I will discuss these two issues briefly below:

• The user has been adding the statement "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits" to the lead of the article without providing a source that verfies this. As I have pointed out on the article talk page already, one of the sources says "critics claim... has been involved in numerous lawsuits". Note that it is just a claim made by unknown "critics" and does not become a fact. The other sources he provided simply point to the same lawsuit filed three times by Elliott Broidy in which Allaham was one of multiple people named. Note that the lawsuit has been dismissed twice already and the third attempt is still in court. The sources simply state that Allaham was involved in this lawsuit and do not back the claim of "multiple lawsuits". The user has been combining the information from these sources and drawing a presumption (WP:SYNTH). I have already mentioned this point on the talk page but the user continues to ignore policy-based argument and keeps re-adding the sentence.

• The user has been removing two well-sourced paragraphs without any reasoning. A few hours ago, his removal of these two paragraphs was reverted by an administrator (User:Oshwah) as no proper justification was given.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried engaging the user on the talk page by making policy-based argument but the user keeps disruptively reverting the edits without any valid argument. I sense CIR issues.

How do you think we can help?

I need you to take a look at the recent page history and the latest thread on the article talk page and provide a solution to this deadlock.

This is what USER:BhasSpeak is fighting to have removed from the article:

"Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits."^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Because I've added this to the article, BhasSpeak has accused me of making violations and being a meatpuppet. WP:ASPERSIONS?

• Volunteer Note - As filed, this appears to be a conduct dispute, alleging violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. Also, there does not appear to have been an actual attempt by either party to discuss their issues, as opposed to just restating their positions, so that there doe snot appear to be discussion of article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (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:British Empire#Suez crisis and its aftermath (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Diablo del Oeste (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Hzh (talk · contribs)
• Snowded (talk · contribs)
• Wee_Curry_Monster (talk · contribs)
• Wiki-Ed (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A topic-relevant, sourced, brief addition to the article's lede talking about the Suez crisis and its importance in the decline of the British Empire, was objected by a sock (AlbionJack). The content-dispute went to the Talk section, where a long debate ensued. After some days the sock was banned. However, the dispute carried on with 3 supporting the inclusion of the content (Diablo del Oeste, Slatersteven, Hzh), and 3 objecting (Snowded, Wee_Curry_Monster, Wiki-Ed). Even though I always presented references to back up my affirmations, the objecting party never gave one and based its arguments on unsourced, original research. One by one the arguments thrown by the objecting party were nullified, some of them had glaring contradictions, for example: first they objected because the addition was unsourced, after I gathered the references they said ledes don't need citations, which comes at odds with the widely employed practice in Wikipedia of putting citations in the ledes. Although the supporting party showed will to follow the course of Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolution, the objecting party in numerous occasions voiced explicitly their lack of interest in following those policies, with comments like "No one is interesting" (sic) and repeatedly focusing on contributors instead of content, with aggressive comments like "someone with a bee in their bonnet" and "you who is deliberately trying to discourage discussion". The supporting party continued showing its will to debate, and we could have continued discussing in the Talk section for more time, after all Wikipedia's policies allude to turning the other cheek in the face of personal attacks. However, the objecting party started trying to use force to eliminate dissent, calling a sockuppet investigation, and that's the moment the debate in the Talk section was ended.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Like I said above, I was always willing to follow the normal protocol of discussing in the Talk section for as long is necessary, but the use of aggressive measures by the objection party made me bring the case here.

How do you think we can help?

I request a mediator, after a long discussion in the Talk section it is the involvement of an uninvolved third party what is needed to reach consensus over this content dispute.

I supported a brief (one sentence) statement. Since then the debate has continued and I have got a bit bored with it to be honest. It is clear from much of what I have read that Suez was seen as a a watershed that signaled Britain's decline as a world power [[38]], I could find a lot more. But at the same time it was not a cause, but rather a symptom.

Since my agreement the discussion has rambled on (and NO ONE USER IS TO BLAME), with (frankly) a degree of tendentiousness from both sides. I still support a one one mention, I would just like ONE to vote on.08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really an active participant in the discussion, I will note however that there are really two different issues here - one is the inclusion of a summary in the lead, the other is the wording. I think a short summary in the lead is acceptable given that Suez is the content of a section. As for the use of word "superpower", I take no position on that. It is unfortunate that the discussion has descended into accusations including sock-puppetry, which appears to be unfounded - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. Hzh (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement is misleading. The disputant did get a brief agreement to a one sentence insertion but since the wording was challenged those editors have not provided any further support. This is a tendentious editor as a brief review of the talk page will show, in effect in a minority of one. Currently subject to an SPI report so I don't see any current need for dispute resolution -----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As noted by Snowded & Wiki-Ed the dispute overview is very misleading, there is some support for a brief sentence but not the convoluted sentence this editor wants. This editor is also fixated on introducing a problematic term to describe the British Empire - Superpower. It's a term that has been used by an author but is problematic as it is never had academic consensus or widespread use. [39] As can be seen from a cursory search of the archives, the use of the word "superpower" has never gained consensus. This is really one tendentious editor with a bee in their bonnet. I think they see mediation as the next step in getting their way in a content dispute.

What we are seeing is a problem of editor conduct, one editor who refuses to acknowledge previous dicussions, simply repeats the same comment and is personalising the content dispute in a manner which is raising tensions. His final comment in the current talk page discussion is most telling [40] If you didn't object to my contribution in the first place, everything would had run smooth. They're approaching this with a battlefield mentality and anyone whose comments disagree with them is treated like an enemy. WCM_email 08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The dispute summary is unhelpful. In short: the editor wants to insert the word "superpower" in a new sentence in the introduction to the article on the British Empire. The rest of us do not.

So how did we get here?

The user proposed new wording for inclusion in the introduction, increasing the word count by almost 10%. While not factually wrong, it was awkwardly phrased and placed undue emphasis on a single episode in a 500-year historical account. Comments from others persuaded the editor to shorten this, although his updated version introduced new errors. I counter-proposed an even shorter version which reflected the consensus established in earlier talk page discussions, including an RfC in Jan 2016. Since then the editor has been fixated on the use of the term "superpower". There are some sources which use this, but most historians avoid it. Given that the majority of reliable sources do not employ this terminology, doing so in WP places undue weight on the term and is misleading to readers.

I would observe that if the editor had settled for the earlier compromise this entire dispute would be unnecessary, but he seems to be more concerned with wikilawyering. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I will see whether acting as a moderator can resolve this. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the dispute is about?

Be civil and concise. Overly long posts make the poster feel better but do not persuade. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective here is to improve the article. I expect every editor to reply to my posts at least every 48 hours. Do not reply to each other. Address your comments to the moderator.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Per current consensus, as shown by talk page history, [41] the use of the term "superpower" is problematic and should be avoided.
• Small concise sentence may be appropriate, equally zero coverage in the lead may be appropriate per WP:WEIGHT compared with other significant events in the lead. 10% of the lead dedicated to this incident is WP:UNDUE coverage. WCM_email 13:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• The proposed addition is about a relevant topic, sources can be provided per WP:V, also the proposed addition has been already synthesized to a single sentence.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I said to be concise, and I thank the editors for being concise. However, the statements were too concise to clarify what the scope of the issue is. Does the issue have to do with the use of the word "superpower"? Will each editor please state in one paragraph, but more than one sentence, what they think is the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• The original sentence that I put was longer, it said: "The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's limitations to assert its dominance in the post-war scenario, and it was seen by the international community as a huge blow to British aspirations of restoring its empire to pre-World War II status; it was clear by then that it would be the United States and the Soviet Union that would emerge as the only two superpowers with the leading roles in the world concert". After much discussion in the article's Talk, I came to synthesize the sentence to just: "The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's decline in the post-World War II scene with USA and USSR now as the only two superpowers". It is worth noting that my addition wasn't something that was unsourced or an original creation, as it was copied textually from a sentence from the article's section British_Empire#Suez_and_its_aftermath, which in turn had plenty of references. And about the "superpower" topic, it has been already established by authors for more than 70 years that the term "superpower" is perfectly applied to USA and USSR.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• This dispute is partly about the use of "superpower" and partly about the relative weighting of any sentence on this subject in the introduction. Contrary to what has been said above, User:Diablo del Oeste did not copy text from the article; he has seemingly cobbled something together - also known as synthesis - and asserted it is verifiable. The closest line to the one proposed is "The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage and its end as a superpower." This is currently supported by three sources. However, two of them definitely do not corroborate the line in the existing text (or, by extension, the wording he has proposed). The third appears to be a book, but it is not properly cited so it is not clear who wrote it or whether it is reliable for the purposes of this article. It is unfortunate we haven't spotted this previously - that line needs to be updated as it is contentious and not supported by RS. We can look at that when this discussion has concluded. In the meantime, seeing that his proposal was original research which placed undue weight on a particular event, I proposed an alternative formulation: "The Suez Crisis confirmed Britain's decline as a global power". This is much simpler and supported by existing sources. Also, it doesn't introduce contentious words like "superpower" which have only been used by a few commentators/historians in relation to the British Empire. User:Diablo del Oeste has not felt able to comment on the merits of the compromise and has resorted, ironically, to accusing other editors of original research. And that's why we are where we are. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• [42] Yes it's partly about the use of "superpower". As noted above [[43]] it has been considered regularly on the talk page. Each time it's come up, the consensus has been not to use it, some historians do use it but it is not a view that has significant weight in the literature. Per Wiki-Ed it is also a matter of weight [44] since the text gives an over prominence to this event; for example the Falklands War which is supposed to have had a significant opposite effect to that of Suez isn't even mentioned. I could also comment on the WP:OR and WP:SYN in the text but Wiki-Ed covered that just fine for me. I would be happy to support the compromise suggested by Wiki-Ed. WCM_email 11:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

First, Wiki-ed has proposed a compromise sentence, 'The Suez Crisis confirmed Britain's decline as a global power'. Are the editors willing to agree on that?

Second, will each editor, regardless of whether they accept or do not accept the compromise, propose a wording for the sentence in question?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

1. I am happy with what Wiki-Ed has proposed as a compromise sentence.
2. My personal view is that it does not need to be in the lead of the article, I would propose to stick with the status quo. WCM_email 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I agree with the inclusion of a compromise sentence. If we can also add the context whereby USA and USSR became the sole superpowers, better, but this is good enough. After all, Wikipedia is not written in stone and there's not such a thing as status quo, Wikipedia encourages its contributors to be bold and enrich the site with their additions.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If no statements to the contrary are made within 36 hours, this thread will be closed as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not so sure it is resolved, he is still insisting on an expanded sentence not the compromise offered. WCM_email 12:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I reaffirm that I agree with the compromise sentence.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2019 (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:Colonial history of the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RJensen and  Rmhermen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are two other editors on this page that are attempting to exclude an entire ethnic group (Irish) based on religious identity. I reminded them that Wikipedia is not a platform for ethnic and religious tribalism, and I cited two sources which support the claim that, yes, the Irish were in America prior to the 19th Century, and there is no reason to exclude them from this page overtly, or do so by applying ridiculous monikers like 'Scotch-Irish' in an attempt to strip their ethnicity away from them. I would prefer a third party to weigh in.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Resolving this on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Apply encyclopedic standards to editing, not ethnic/religious tribalism.

---

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:Answers in Genesis#And (thus) rejects vs (thus) rejecting (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oldstone James (talk · contribs)
• 1990'sguy (talk · contribs)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)
• Nick Thorne (talk · contribs)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs)
• Rhododendrites (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is that the second sentence of the lead section of the article Answers in Genesis states that Answers in Genesis reject those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, but it isn't stated clearly why they do so. My proposal is to make the basis for rejection of the scienctific consensus clearer.

Edit added by Oldstone James→ Here is my take on where the discussion is at in the way of consensus: there are currently 2 'support' !votes (me and user:1990'sguy) and 3 'oppose' !votes. However, all three 'oppose' voters have either not stated any issue with my proposal, instead arguing that it is not an improvement over the current version (like user:Doug Weller and user:Nick Thorne) or have explicitly stated that they are 'OK' with the proposed version (like user:Guy Macon). As per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which says that "consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change", that should imply that there is a consensus to implement the proposal. The only objection (meaning issue with my proposal) made against the proposal is by user:Rhododendrites, but these issues appear to me to be easily fixable ([45]), and the user hasn't explicitly stated that they oppose the general proposal. Either way, even if we count their comment as an 'oppose' !vote, we still have a 2 against 1 in favour of the proposal.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have proposed and tried to implement at least several compromises, which took into account issues proposed by opponents of the initial proposal. I have started two other discussions, but they did not lead to a consensus.
How do you think we can help? You can either help propose a new compromise or, more likely, establish whether there is a consensus on the current discussion, which I believe there is.

Yet another forum where James is attempting to get their way despitea lack of consensus on the talk page of the article concerned. They've tried bludgeoning the talk page, tthen the EW noticeboard, AN/I and now here. Classic Forum shopping. James's proposals have simply not gained consensus, they seem unable to grasp that fact They need to drop the stick, I'm over it. - Nick Thorne ^talk

Clarify where James has addded text to his summary. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I was an active DRN volunteer until health issues made it clear to me that at times I would not always be able to finish a case.)

In my opinion, this case should be closed and Oldstone James should be instructed to stop making changes to the article that any reasonable person would know will be opposed, and instead should post his proposed changes on the article talk page and try to reach a consensus there. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Exhausting is a good description. I've got nothing to add that Guy, Rhododendrites and Nick haven't already said. I'm tired of being pinged by him, and now this. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd also support a topic ban. Note that User:Black Kite has just blocked him for a week. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This is getting exhausting. The problem, to me, is that James has not sufficiently made a case for the very premise of this dispute: that the lead doesn't say why AiG rejects science when it doesn't conform to its belief system. Others, including myself, disagree. Where it gets more complicated is that -- I'll just speak for myself -- I don't see how James's various proposals make it any clearer, without creating other problems. They seem like a step backwards for overall clarity/accuracy. I don't intend to devote much more text to this, as it's frankly hard to keep talking about the problems with the various proposals when it's not at all clear that the problem they purport to solve exists -- or that they solve it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggest topic banning User:Oldstone James for tendentious POV pushing. jps (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2019 (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:Sholom Dovber Schneersohn#Treatment in Vienna (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mk17b (talk · contribs)
• AddMore-III (talk · contribs)
• Zsero (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is regarding a rabbi from the early 20th century. It was posited in recent book that he was molested at young age by a sibling. This is brought as fact with little regard for the recentness of the theory, the veracity of the sources etc. I've tried to initiate discussion on talk page with little success. Only outcome has simply been editor reinserting the data if ever removed or edited.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried discussing on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help facilitate discussion on talk page, resolve if deserving of due weight, if should be presented as one researchers theory and/or if should be presented at all.

---

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

• Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Radu Ana Maria (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I noticed with my friends that in Google search results as first shown image comes from your website. The picture does NOT show Comarnic City but a street old sign and the blue sky ONLY without any nice streets, buildings, people, trees....city life in few words. Could you please be more accurate in showing a good looking town picture of Comarnic CITY, my lovely town? By showing default odd images under our city name on Google search, you do not make us a favor but breach on a huge scale the reputation of our people and places. Please promote my town this time. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I wrote a message to the publisher here on Wikipedia TALK section.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to have a non super complex way of uploading a nice Comarnic City picture that will represent the city and not an ex cement factory ruin street sign as it is now. Thank you. Ondin Dinescu

---

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

• Right Left Wrong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ss112 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user in question keeps reverting changes anyone makes on this page for the band Three Days Grace on their single 'Right Left Wrong'. The band charted number 1 on the mainstream rock charts for this song and like 14 other number 1 hits of theirs, their singles pages dedicated to each track they released on radio should show all charted areas. However, this user won't let any charts other than the two he has listed be there which is absurd. A page dedicated to a single is supposed to give all the information for that song yet they only want to list some of the facts. Every Three Days Grace single page lists their mainstream rock performance yet Ss112 refuses to listen to reasoning.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've explained why his edits make no sense for the band in question, a single page can have a list of all charted areas and Ss112 refuses to leave mainstream up on their single page. The band carries the record for most mainstream rock hits yet refuses to leave that chart up despite every other single page for the band showing mainstream chart listings. I and another user have added the charts back in but keep linking to a page which has no rules against mainstream rock tracks being there

How do you think we can help?

I would like for others besides this user to add charts to this page which is adding onto the chart history for this song rather than having said user remove it because he thinks because on page lists some charts it means that mainstream rock can't be on it. When if this was breaking the rules all the other songs wouldn't have mainstream listed.

---

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:Ayanda Patosi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Shervin27 (talk · contribs)
• GiantSnowman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have added new details on Ayanda Patosi however they were deleted by a user for non-sense reasons. The user was claiming that the details were not significant, however, according to their own words on the article talk page, what I have added is actually significant. I have reverted their edits and the user claimed that I have entered in an edit war with them while they were the one who reverted my edits for nonsense reasons.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained my reasons on both the user's talk page and article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Judge who is right.

---

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.