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

• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are two main issues: first, whether the polls in the public opinion sections are "single-payer" polls (as opposed to polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare") and second, whether or not to use the table for the polls. (Here's the table in question.)

I'm of the opinion that they are single-payer polls as illustrated by six different sources (among them The Washington Post and NPR) that say as much, and I think a chart would be the best layout for the polls.

We went to DRN previously and there is a NPOV dispute currently that's related but about a different issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page. Previous discussion.

How do you think we can help?

By deciding whether: (1) These are single-payer polls (2) A chart should be used for the section(s).

This is premature as it's already at the NPOV noticeboard awaiting comment. Forum shopping is what it is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not even gone to (much less edited or discussed at or been in a dispute at) 2 of the 3 listed articles. The "opinion on" article has severe POV problems (doesn't even have poll data on the main law concerning this) but my total involvement in this "dispute" has been one edit, changing format from table back to prose. But it has been a case of extremely bad behavior. This has included someone (because of my one edit) launching a found-100% baseless (and beyond-ridiculous) sock puppet accusation against me. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a need for dispute resolution at this point. I think WP:3O and WP:RFC are earlier steps we have yet to pass through. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Per related issue discussed in NPOV noticeboard that was moved:

We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article ([1] [2]) as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo ([3]). Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" ([4]) and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table ([5]), creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.

Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling it a push poll on article talk pages and edit summaries because it is a push poll. It is obvious from the wording, and implicitly obvious because of the skewed result it yielded at the time (almost all other polls in the field have yielded results that are more or less the opposite of this one). I have not referred to it as a push poll in any actual article and I have not removed it from any article. There is no NPOV issue with my editing. In contrast (to use the same original research neutral wording as Thargor does in the article), Thargor Orlando acts as an SPA using Wikipedia to push a US-centric, right-wing agenda - something that is more for the auspices of WP:RFC/U than this noticeboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is the NPOV pushing, really. It requires no request for comment, just for the editors in question to follow basic policies and stop POV pushing. Rasmussen does not push poll, and few other polls have yielded an opposite result. This is a fact that you're unwilling to concede, which is why we're here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I am not pushing anything except neutrality. You are trying to take certain articles and impose your personal point-of-view upon them. In this particular case, you are inflating the importance of a single poll that asks a question about single-payer healthcare (after a bunch of other questions asking about Occupy Wall Street protests) and attempting to give it equivalence ("in contrast") with the scores of polls that say the complete opposite. That's as pure an example of POV pushing as I've ever seen, and sadly reflects the bulk of your Wikipedia contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not neutral to mischaracterize a reputable poll as a "push poll," to claim that polls say something they don't. Two questions about Occupy does not make a 9 question poll about it, sorry. You couldn't be more wrong on this, and I look forward to the noticeboard volunteers to look at this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not I am "neutral" (by your definition) on talk pages is irrelevant and of no interest to this noticeboard. All that matters is editing performed in actual articles. In this respect, my actions are beyond question and your own lack of neutrality borders on shocking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well a few things: there is criticism of Rasmussen's polling methods but not in that particular poll. If we used criticism in general and applied it to the one example I think it would be synth since there is no RS criticizing that poll. Personally I think it probably is skewed since it's the only one with a majority opposed but that's not really a basis for removing or commenting on the poll.

That aside, there is another issue in those articles regarding the polling sections. For what seem like obvious POV reasons, North8000 and Thargor Orlando reverted the charts to the earlier prose that they originally disagreed with. I think its obvious the charts were both easier to read and gave more information. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a uninvolved editor that volunteers on the noticeboard. No comment yet on the actual dispute, but as a reminder, the discussion should occur either on DRN or on NPOV/N, not both. One of the two discussions should be closed.--SGCM (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither venue is necessary. There's barely been any attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's months of attempts to solve it. As one user involved here doesn't understand the use of DRN and since this is a NPOV dispute, this really should remain over there where people versed in NPOV and who spend time with the issue can help sort it out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the NPOV noticeboard discussion, since I don't frequent the noticeboard, but there is a general consensus that this DRN case should be closed, for the reasons listed above. Unless there are further objections, it will be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not an NPOV issue either. It's an RFC/U issue, because it concerns the behavior of an SPA pushing a POV. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your personal attacks aside, the issue comes down to the polling and the weight of tables. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2012 (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:Christianity#.22Eastern Catholic.22 is not a denomination (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lipsio (talk · contribs)
• Elizium23 (talk · contribs)
• tahc (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Yes. In the template's section "Denominations" I deleted something that is not, in fact (or so I believe I demonstrated) a denomination, causing several exchanges on the Talk page. I posted a verbose explanation to justify my view and finally, after waiting three days and seeing no reply, reverted to my version with this explanation on the Talk page, "Seeing no reply in three days to my above comment, I'm reverting to my edit and, should that cause dysphoria, I'll seek outside conflict resolution." At that point, a third party reverted my change and posted on the Talk page something that I honestly don't understand the logic of; therefore, I replied on the Talk page but I have *not* yet reverted my edit, fearing escalation to an editing war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outsiders' opinion of the logic in the exchanges on the Talk page and, if at all possible, make a final decision on the matter.

I thank you.

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:Sigmund Freud#Science section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Esterson (talk · contribs)
• Almanacer (talk · contribs)
• Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs)
• Bus stop (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two editors, namely me [Esterson] and Polisher of Cobwebs, believe the Freud page is already over-extensive [some 13,000 words, compared with, e.g., Einstein 8000 words], and PoC has proposed that the lengthy "Legacy" section (mostly posted by himself in the past) should be reduced in size (at the moment the debate has concentrated on the Science section). In contrast Almanacer argues for the article/Science section to be "improved" (begging the question of what constitutes improvement), and over recent weeks has posted or proposed some extra items, all conducive to his own strongly-held viewpoint on Freud. When I pointed out that for every item he has posted/proposed I can reference a viewpoint contrary to the one he is keen to promote (and indeed could do the same in relation to some items already on the Freud page), he has responded by saying there is no objection to my doing that. My view is that this process can only lead to an already overlong page increasing almost indefinitely, and that the increased posting of contrary views in this way only cancel each other out. This dispute has been going on for many weeks as the Science section on the Freud Talk page indicates (now separated into five subsections to keep it manageable!). The latest stage can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigmund_Freud#Science_section - though I strongly advise any editor who wants to gen up on the dispute while remaining sane to skip entirely the first four sections, and skim over section 5 down to the last half a dozen or so postings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None other than weeks of exchanges on the Freud Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By getting the views of other editors

Although, as Esterson says, the Freud article's Legacy section is largely my work, I believe myself that it is too long. At present there is no agreement on whether or how the legacy section should be cut back. This, although frustrating, is not a surprising or a very unusual situation. I am not sure that it is going to be resolved soon, and I am not sure either that this discussion is going to be much help, frankly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There is not a big issue here. It doesn't matter if Freud's work was "scientific" or not. The reader deserves to know the variety of positions on that question. This isn't primarily an NPOV issue. If the article is getting lengthy it should be trimmed back in places where editorial objection is not encountered and where your own inclinations lead you to believe that less text would not overly harm the article. I would rather see a lively and jostling exchange from prominent commentators on this question than to read a supposedly "neutral" view. I don't think there is a final answer to the question this dispute supposedly revolves around. I am not sure if there is a dominant opinion. I think it makes for more interesting reading to see the arguments put forth by those who address this question. These are not simple yes or no answers. The individuals addressing this question support their conclusions with reasoning and that is potentially of interest to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(I hope it is appropriate to have a separate section to respond to the above, rather than mix such comments in with the general discussion below.)

Response to Bus stop: I am not objecting to there being a variety of positions given on the question of Freud's "scientific" credentials. In order to accommodate Almanacer's concerns I myself contributed three sentences referencing three pro-Freud authors arguing that psychoanalysis is a science. But as I have pointed out several times now, one should not expect there to be anything like equal representation for positions on this specific issue, as there have been far more anti-Freud authors writing on this than pro-Freud. On the one hand anti-Freud authors (with major exceptions, such as Grunbaum) tend to place great emphasis on arguing that psychoanalysis is not scientific, whereas this is far less of an issue with pro-Freud authors, many of whom either do not believe psychoanalysis is, in essence, a scientific discipline (and is none the worse for that) or do not regard the issue as of any great importance. Some major supporters of Freud/psychoanalysis have argued that it is wrong to regard psychoanalysis as a science. One such is Louis Breger, professor of psychoanalytic studies at CalTech and founding President of the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis. Notable academics such as Habermas and Ricoeur have argued that psychoanalysis should be regarded as within the field of hermeneutics, i.e., it is an explanatory discourse, not a scientific discipline. The prominent psychoanalytic authors George Klein, Roy Schafer, and Donald Spence have taken an essentially similar approach, arguing that psychoanalysis seeks not "historical truth" but "narrative truth", and they urge the abandonment of claims that psychoanalysis offers objective explanations of human behaviour – rather that its goals are interpretative. Esterson (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to Polisher of Cobwebs: I agree that the dispute over "pruning" the Freud "Legacy" section is not likely to find resolution on this Dispute page, but I think there is a more immediate issue of greater importance. This is Alamancer's determination to remove/add items is accord with his own views on Freud, and to ignore opposition to his specific changes from two editors as expressed on the Talk page. See my comments on this in the general discussion section below. Esterson (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment in general: It seems like you're complaining that the article is too big as it currently stands and makes it unreadable/un-maintainable. It seems like this really isn't a dispute, but looking for advice. My suggestion would be to consider spliting 2 sections off the article (Ideas of Sigmund Freud, Legacy of Sigmund Freud) into their own articles so they can be elaborated upon. Obviously leaving a very high level summary paragraph with a "Main Article" that is typical of split out sections. Obviously we'll see if there are any "disputes" in this, but this way we can let each of the sections expand as appropriate. HasteurMobile (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the actual dispute, but to expand on what Hasteur has said, as per WP:SIZERULE, the general rule of thumb is that articles with over 50 kB of readable prose may need to be divided. These are the current statistics of the page, as of today:

• Prose size (with HTML code): 111 kB
• Wiki markup size: 144 kB
• Prose size (text only): 79 kB

--SGCM (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. It's a bit more than a dispute about excessive length, though I agree with PoC that the Legacy section could do with some pruning. Almanacer is in the process of adding/proposing material (always suppportive of Freud) which increases the length even more, while I have pointed out that for every one of his postings/proposals there are authors who take a different view, and these have every bit as much right to be referenced as his preferred authors. The problem with that, as I see it, is that it is a process that can only lead to more and more expansion of the Freud page virtually indefinitely. (I have also pointed out some other items favourable to Freud in regard to which I could post references to differing views but have previously refrained from doing so because of not wanting to increase the length of the Science section even more.) Esterson (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is also worth pointing out, to understand why PoC and I have concerns over Alamancer's current propensity to post items forwarding his own strong views, that for weeks there was a dispute over his posting a paragraph consisting of five sentences giving details of the views of a favoured author. (No other author's views on the Science page are given more than one sentence, at most.) This was only eventually resolved after I brought it to this Dispute page and with not a single editor supporting his position he finally agreed to relinquish the five sentences for a single one (followed by three other references to authors taking a similar viewpoint that I provided). Esterson (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. To summarise your argument, without commenting on it just yet, your main concern is that too much weight is being given to authors defending Freud's scientific credentials. Although the length of the article is problematic, the length is a consequence of the neutrality dispute. Just so that there are no misunderstandings, is that assessment correct? --SGCM (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite! I think it would be more accurate to say that PoC and I believe that the current balance in the Science section is roughly representative of the balance of views in the literature on the issue of whether psychoanalysis is a science, but Almanacer has argued for what he considers to be more balance. But it would be best, of course, if Almanacer and PoC would express it in their own terms. Esterson (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. So your objections are not to the article as it is, but to Almanacer's proposals to change the article. And you're completely right, it would be best to wait for PoC and Almanacer to comment.--SGCM (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On the Freud Talk Page Almanacer wrote he did not agree with this issue going to the Dispute noticeboard, and evidently has decided not to take part, despite the differing viewpoints being the subject of a huge number of exchanges over several weeks with no resolution in sight. This may reflect the fact that (as already mentioned) when his insistence on maintaining five sentences summarising the views of a favoured author on the Freud page was previously referred to this Dispute page he received no support from other editors.

Since Polisher of Cobwebs has mostly opposed Alamancer's recent postings/proposals, the dispute on the Talk page is unlikely to end. This leaves us with the situation, as he has made clear on the Talk page, that Almanacer is determined to add items to the Freud page in line with his strongly-held views. My position has been that since virtually every issue in relation to Freud is the subject of pro and contra responses in the literature, I shall regard it as legitimate to add references to authors expressing views contrary to those he posts. As these effectively cancel each other out, my view is that it is best not to have an editor actively seeking to pursue the posting of fresh items conducive to his viewpoint on an already very extensive page. However, it seems evident from his Talk page contributions that Almanacer is determined to continue with his current plans, so I shall feel free, where appropriate, to post references to authors taking a different viewpoint to those he cites. Esterson (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Because DRN participation is informal and not mandatory, there's not much that can be done on DRN at this point. If you want to attract more outside editors to the Freud talk page, there are multiple options to consider. You could notify the WP:FT/N and the Psychology Wikiproject. The regulars at FTN are experienced at handling subjects where the scientific basis is disputed, like psychoanalysis. Starting a Wikipedia:Request for comment on the talk page is another alternative.--SGCM (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bus stop. Welcome to DRN. The amount of coverage given to each position in an article is a NPOV issue. There may be a variety of opinions on a topic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should all be represented.--SGCM (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the Science subsection of legacy is the one that needs the most cuts. It is roughly twice as long as it should be. Much of the material is about Adolf Grünbaum, and in my view ought to be transferred to the Grunbaum article. I have proposed adding the relevant material to the Grünbaum article on its talk page (which can be found here, but have had no responses so far. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Response: Polisher of Cobwebs—you say "Although, as Esterson says, the Freud article's Legacy section is largely my work, I believe myself that it is too long"[6] and you say "I believe that the Science subsection of legacy is the one that needs the most cuts. It is roughly twice as long as it should be."[7] How do you reach the conclusion that it is too long? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not, like Esterson, a Freud scholar, I have made some effort to familiarize myself with debates over the scientific value of psychoanalysis, and I consider that I know something about the subject. Based on what I know, I believe that the main pro and con points of view can and should be summarized more briefly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As I anticipated, Almanacer has resumed removing items and adding items in accord with his views on Freud. These changes have already been opposed by me and by Polisher of Cobwebs on the Talk page, and for the moment PoC has reverted them. Judging by previous experience, Alamancer will no doubt revert these reversions, in other words, something like an edit war is in progress, with one editor determined to make changes conducive to his views on Freud. Since Almanacer has stated he did not want the issue to be taken to this Dispute noticeboard, and has thus far taken no part in this discussion, all I can do is ask advice as to the next stage (if any). Esterson (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I only just noticed SGCM's suggestions above, and I shall investigate following them up. Esterson (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Esterson—you say above:

"My view is that this process can only lead to an already overlong page increasing almost indefinitely, and that the increased posting of contrary views in this way only cancel each other out."

and:

"As these effectively cancel each other out, my view is that it is best not to have an editor actively seeking to pursue the posting of fresh items conducive to his viewpoint on an already very extensive page."

I don't think the various observations found in the Science/Legacy section cancel one another out. There are many facets of Freud's work addressed in that section and I don't think they refute one another but rather provide perspectives or opinions on various aspects of Freud's work. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop: I was not talking about what you have written, namely, the "various observations in the Science/Legacy section". As can be seen in my words that you quoted, I was alluding to Almanacer's evident determination to add fresh items to the Science section conducive to his strongly held views. For instance, I pointed out that if he insists (as he did until I took the issue to the Dispute resolution noticeboard) on adding an excessive passage citing his favoured author Donald Levy, I could add references to authors who take a critical view of Levy's position that he cites. Again, Almanacer added (now reverted) an initial paragraph in the Science section starting "Freud’s rigorous scientific training in neurophysiology…", although the rest of the section is about the controversy over the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis. I noted that if he maintains that proposed first paragraph, I could add references to authors who point out that once Freud started to develop psychoanalysis in the late 1890s he ceased to adhere to scientific modes of practice, e.g., the philosopher Clark Glymour's article "How Freud Left Science". In other words, these added proposed passages of Almancer's, followed by legitimate citations of contrary views, only have the effect of enlarging a section that already covers the issues adequately.

The point I'm making is purely in regard to someone who is determined to add material to promote his own views on Freud. Esterson (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This DRN case is currently at the eight day mark. As Almanacer has declined to participate, there's not much that can be done on DRN at this point. The request will be closed within 24 hours, and I recommend notifying WP:NPOV/N, WP:FT/N, the Psychology Wikiproject, or starting a WP:RFC if the dispute continues.--SGCM (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (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

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#2nd Discussion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Lionel Messi#a seperate page for statistics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Proposed template (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Adnan n2 (talk · contribs)
• Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)
• Ftj1357 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

few people is messi's page fit some people own opinion and idea something big as that needs people own impression over that . because wikipedia is a collective work.. so its one source for many references not just an own idea of the editors if needed or not . there is a section at messi career and statistics a guy called Mattythewhite tried to remove additional infos before the removal has been over turned by Ftj1357 and had discussion at messi's page and the issue resolved..

but Mattythewhite decided to discuss it away from talk page without mentioning it or inviting people to discuss it, and decided with other 5 people its not needed and decided in next section to change the whole table shape entries (which has been edited by millions as that not just now) which means they are accepting it this way and need this kind of information ... but 5 people voted over it and decided its not suitable without even inviting other people or discussing it in somewhere so people can give their impression and opinion over it .

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i contacted wikipedia customer service & chatted with them and they advised me to go into it here .

How do you think we can help?

leave the referenced tables or make other people vote for it and not like for 1 day give the sometime to over turn and give their opinion at 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

• Jessica Biel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lady Lotus (talk · contribs)
• Zac (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I want to put (2012-present) under Justin Timberlakes name in the infobox for 'spouse'. It has been reverted several times to have just (m. 2012) there instead. When I quote the Template:Infobox_person about following format for spouses, it was ignored

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking about it via the article talk page and our user talk pages

How do you think we can help?

Which format is the proper one to use

Are you f**king serious? Zac (talk · contribs) 03:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The user left a message on the talk page, and then stated that it doesn't need to be discussed because they are right. I tried to explain to them that you can't write "2012-present" (about a million times) because 2012 IS the present. They ignored me, and then cited the infobox format, with "1950-present" as an example, as being the reason why. They don't wish to discuss this on the talk, yet they bring it on DRN? Zac (talk · contribs) 03:40, 20 October 2012 (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

• Men's Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CSDarrow (talk · contribs)
• Memotype (talk · contribs)
• Memills (talk · contribs)
• Perpetualization (talk · contribs)
• Cailil (talk · contribs)
• Slp1 (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An impasse has been reached at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Allegations_of_Rape_2

as to whether the statement,(which atm is),

"Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime".

The argument is over whether this statement is reliably sourced and/or of undue weight.

The section being

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Rape.

Discussion has been lengthy and has clearly reached an impasse. There is a need for some impartial eyes. If anyone could help it would be appreciated. This page is under probation and deals with a controversial topic.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from very lengthy debate, nothing else. This is the first appeal for help.

How do you think we can help?

Atm I feel an experienced neural editor could aid the discussion in reaching a consensus.

Inclusion of the statement that men's right groups support marital rape is clearly WP:UNDUE.

By analogy it is as if statement by one feminist that "All men are rapists, and that is all that they are" should be included in the article on the feminist movement because it represents an important platform of the movement.

In both cases, these are outlier statements that fall under WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE Memills (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In my mind the issue is simple. The statement is: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." WP:UNDUE gives us three scenarios:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

This viewpoint is not held in the majority. CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

"Some men's rights activists" is sentence that does not name adherents.

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The last option is does not belong in wikipedia.

WP:UNDUE therefore calls for us to remove the statement. If another editor wished to add the statement again, with specific "prominent adherents" named, as required by WP:UNDUE, I would not object to that. Without named adherents, the statement is certainly given undue weight.

Editing/Extending:

I will add that it appears that the statement may be true outside of the United States. Still, the use of the word "some" is necessarily prejudicial and the article is generally US focused (and reads as such). Perhaps naming countries where the viewpoint is mainstream, noting that it is not mainstream within the United States, and providing prominent adherents from the minority within the United States.

I also vigorously object to dated sources in the discussion. The Mens Rights movement in the United States is leaps and bounds from where it was 20-30 years ago. A history section noting view that were formerly mainstream would be a welcome addition to the article, but the article would be prejudicial to conflate current advocacy with advocacy of the late 80s and early 90s (as Cailil has done).

Lastly, I note that there are several variations on this viewpoint, not all of which are identical and which are easily misstated from sources:

• men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws
• men's rights groups feel that marital rape laws are often used for false claims as a weapon in divorce cases
• men's group opposes marital rape laws because they feel that accusations of marital rape are fundamentally irrefutable (as |Slp1 found a source for).

If the sources indicate that different men's rights groups hold varied opinions on marital rape, then we can state that, and provide a brief summary of the prominent adherents and their viewpoints. It seems slanderous to cover such a wide range of viewpoints for such different rationales with "some men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws"

Perpetualization (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Very simply, sources state that there have been (and are) attempts by Men's Rights groups to campaign against Marital Rape legislation. I listed the academic peer-reviewed sources and the relevant text from them (with page numbers) on the talk page[8]. Kaldari listed the material about current action by groups in India[9] related to this.
The interpretation by CSDarrow & Perpetualization of NPOV makes no sense. The point about "adherents to a POV" in that policy refers to sources. The construction being placed upon it is that we should find individual Men's rights activists who hold these views to prove the sources correct - that's original research.
As it stands the point about marital rape is sourced, and accorded the weight of one sentence in an appropriate section in the article. It is not being given undue prominent in the article itself or relative to the sources. I'll also note that this area is under probation and edits removing sourced content as well as tendentious argument are sanctionable.
I've stated on the page, as has, to the best of my knowledge, Kevin that we agree with the removal of the "marriage contract" piece but the sentence about campaigns about marital rape law is appropriate WRT to this site's policies. I've already suggested alternative wording ("scholars contend") to resolve the "some" issue.--Cailil ^talk 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

CSDarrow and Perpetualization appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of various V, NPOV and RS policies. The same arguments keep getting repeated, and then the goalposts moved.

• First, WP's NPOV policy and Jimbo's cited comments do not support the deletion of this well-cited information. In fact WP:UNDUE says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." As has been pointed out over and over again, multiple highly reliable academic sources include this information, so it actually would be undue NOT to include it. Jimbo's (cherrypicked) requirements have actually been more than achieved as for this possibly minority opinion (at least in the West), it is actually very "easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".
• Nevertheless, when these editors asked for prominent adherents, other editors provided several examples of notable men's rights organizations and their officials who have made opposed marital rape (see Kaldari's comments).
• Attempts have been made to dispute what the reliable sources say by doing original research to prove them "wrong". The research was actually faulty since there are at least two of the websites listed that do oppose spousal rape laws (Kaldari mentions one, and here is another[10]). And in any case, original research by editors to "disprove" reliable sources, is simply not how we write an encyclopedia article.
• But now the goalpost has changed...We now have arguments that the sources about the US are out of date (20-30 years is mentioned), when the reality is that the US-based sources were published in 2005, 2003 and 1994. Not one is even 20 years old, and most are quite recent.
• We also now have arguments that the statement may refer only outside of the US. However, the key point is that's not what the sources say; and once again examples of the website of current US-based men's rights activists have been provided to show that this is false.(See Kaldari's comments)
• And now we have claims that this material might be libellous and slanderous. Well, if that is the case you might want to warn the scholarly presses that published the material in the first place. Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not been arguing this point. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I would like to respond to a misleading argument above by Perpetualization:

• "CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it."
  • This is simply false. At least one of the pages linked to from CSDarrow's list does actually list decriminalizing marital rape as an agenda item: "Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and pardon all men who have been arrested for "statutory rape," "date rape," "spousal rape," "pornography," "soliciting a prostitute," and other weasel worded versions thereof. A woman's hurt feelings do not turn a man into a criminal."[11]
  • Secondly, CSDarrow's list doesn't include any Indian men's rights organizations, such as SIFF which successfully campaigned against criminalizing marital rape only 2 years ago.

The statement under contention has met every criteria that has been offered. First of all, there are numerous reliable 3rd party academic sources that back up the claim (can't include quotations due to 2000 char limit):

• Current Controversies on Family Violence[12]
• American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia[13]
• Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure[14]

Despite this, some editors have insisted that WP:UNDUE requires that prominent adherents be named. Here are some prominent adherents (in their own words):

• Tom Williamson, founder of the National Coalition of Free Men: [CNN Interview] "First off, I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws."
• Virag Dhulia, Public Relations Officer of SIFF: [Speaking to the press about a proposal to remove the marriage exemption from the Indian rape law] "This means that the government wants police to enter bedrooms now, which is a sure shot way to break a marriage as no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."[15]

I'm open to revising the wording to address concerns, but I don't think there's adequate reason to remove the statement entirely.

I've been, unfortunately, too busy irl lately to involve myself in this article as much as I would like. I view this as a relatively minor issue compared to those the article as a whole suffers from. I have not studied this dispute in depth; I've reviewed the posted on-wiki sources and most of people's on-wiki posts, though. From what I've seen no one has made, so far, a convincing argument as to why this information shouldn't be included. Slp and Kaldari have found a pretty significant number of RS'es that contain this information. Some of them I would describe as high quality, some of them have recently been published, and most of them have been published recently enough that their age shouldn't cast doubt on their accuracy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Please note Men's rights movement is under probation; please let me or another uninvolved admin know if there are any sanctionable actions which occur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Right now I am waiting for more of the comment sections above to be filled in. In the meantime, I would encourage everyone involved to read the "Guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am another DRN volunteer and will be assisting Guy Macon in resolving this dispute. The participants should also be aware of WP: BRD. After all of the users involved make opening statements, a DRN volunteer will open up this discussion. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

While we are waiting for the opening statements, I would like to point out that This article has been placed on article probation. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it, I actually pointed that out in this section[16] above before you accepted this case so that anyone considering accepting it would be prepared, and so they would know to notify me or another uninvolved admin if sanctions were indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Read right past it without it registering. Sorry about that. (Note to self: Next time, edit Wikipedia after smoking crack...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Timing. It's all about the timing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist and will also be assisting where needed in this DR/N but to a lesser extent as the first two volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:INFLUENCE covers editing while in a altered state of consciousness. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding waiting for opening statements, Binksternet has been actively editing other pages but has not responded here, Memills last edited Wikipedia on 30 September, and Memotype last edited Wikipedia on 14 September. How long should we wait? I want everyone involved to weigh in, but i also don't want to frustrate people with undue delays. Opinions? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As both sides of dispute are here, the discussion may be opened IMO. The others may jump in later if they become active and/or willing to participate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. This thread is now open for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - [from uninvolved editor] I looked at the sources that are listed above to support inclusion of the material. They look satisfactory to me. The Segal source in particular, p 276, is conclusive (describing a campaign against laws which define marital rape). That source is published by the University of California. So, the essence of the sentence should be included. Can it be wordsmithed? Sure ... in situations like this it is always better if the specific advocates are named in the sentence. But WP:UNDUE does not exclude this sentence. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea of including specific advocates or groups so that it doesn't sound like a sweeping statement about the movement in general. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to discuss for a moment the citations for the current article's statement "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.[74][80][83][84][85]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=515903480 in case it changes).

When examining something like this, I start with the question "does the source say what we say it says" and I look at the quality of the sources.

For Ref [74], the source supports the statement. It says that http://www.ejfi.org "demands .. to eliminate laws defining marital rape as a crime". I could not find evidence supporting that claim on the ejfi.org website. That's a typical problem when a source is more of an advocacy source that an academic source -- they don't say where to look on ejfi.org and they don't give the exact wording.

For Ref [80], Google books gave me this error: "Restricted Page: You have reached your viewing limit for this book." Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref [83], The section before it says "The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia" does not support the claim. The "free one day trial" asks for a credit card number. Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref [84], the source supports the statement. Again, an obvious advocacy publication, not academic research or unbiased reporting, and the source only says that some unnamed men's groups campaigned against the legal recognition of marital rape in 1994. That's 18 years ago.

For Ref [85], The source supports the statement. The mens group is named; it is the Save Indian Family Foundation ( http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ and a person is qouted: Virag Dhulia. Furthermore, it appears to be from a legitimate news source rather than an obvious advocacy book and is less than 5 years old If it were me, this is the only cite I would use for this statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Without commenting on the issue, some of the editors seems to not be aware of WP:PAYWALL. Unfortunately, not all sources are available for free. Indeed, many high-quality sources are only available either by buying a book or article, or using an academic library. Wikipedia explicitly endorses the use of such sources. If you have trouble getting them, WP:REX can often help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:PAYWALL. My philosophy is this: if you recently added a citation or you are vigorously defending a citation, then I can only assume that you have access, and it seems quite reasonable to ask you to look at the source that you can presumably access and give us an exact quote that supports the statement in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have access to all the sources and listed all the quotes on the talkpage of the article quite a while ago [17]. So did Cailil here. I disagree with the contention that books published by highly reliable academic sources can or should be marginalized as "advocacy" books, and I don't know of any policy or guideline that would support this. On the contrary, they are precisely the books that have the highest reputation for fact-checking etc (e.g. published by University presses) that we are supposed to privilege per the verifiability policy and Identifying reliable sources Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Guy you've made some rather extreme comments above. You've inferred that nobody bothered to list sources and quotes when in fact, as Slp1 said, both she and I had done so - and I linked above to it above. You've dismissed a number of sources' reliability in a way that has no basis in policy.
In relation to your readings: Re ref 80 - try this link[18]; regarding ref 74 are we looking at the same source Current Controversies on Family Violence written by 3 academics and published by Sage? Furthermore a search using google of EJFI site for "spousal rape"[19][20] and "marital rape"[21] does indeed generate a number of hits. It is this source's opinion that this site is advocating something. It's not our job to go outside policy and do original research to prove OR attempt to disprove a source.
Regarding ref84 you've claimed that Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure is NOT an academic piece. It may be a feminist text but last time I checked that doesn't disqualify a source's as academic, or make it advocacy. That is your opinion and NPOV does not requires that sources are neutral - merely that they are reliable. Your conflation of these core policy concepts and dismissal of these sources is frankly incredible and raises questions about the ability of this board to handle topics under probation (which need extreme care and precision) - I will ping KC about this--Cailil ^talk 23:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cailil, please refrain from making accusations against the volunteers here. I do not see Guy's comments as extreme or suggesting anything of the sort. Remember this is where you show your sources and the article talkpage is seperate. We will not be jumping back and forth so please be prepared to share all sources here. If there is a paywall and sources are unavailable someone will need to provide the text and we, of course, will trust the good faith of the editors. Please do the same with the volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist my above is not an attack on Guy - it's criticism. It's also quite fair. I'm taking the matter to the talk page. AFAIK there are no paywall issues - the relevant sources were listed and quoted from, albeit in a diff I presented in my statement - perhaps this was missed by you & guy--Cailil ^talk 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cailil. You may call your comments what you choose of course, but please do not overstate comments by myself or other volunteers. I did not say you attacked anyone.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with Cailil that it is inappropriate both in policy and practice to seek marginalize sources based "I can't confirm it"-type statements, (most especially when we are talking about websites that may have changed a good deal), in the spirit of good faith, here is Charles Corry, the longtime president of Edfiin a 2007 ejfi article, mentioning the introduction of "the crime of marital rape in many localities" as one of the "false flags...used to insure that any action by a man can be used against him.". It can't be the original source for the book because of the date, but it shows the way the wind blows in that organization. Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As a dispute resolution volunteer, I choose which cases to help with based upon the basic principle of having no opinion one way or the other about the topic of the dispute. And indeed, the actual question of what some men's group did or did not say bores me. I am just here to help you to resolve your dispute.

Attacking one of the volunteers who is working on your case accomplishes nothing (it doesn't hurt you either, BTW; we are all committed to be fair and impartial despite such behavior.) Please write about article content, not about user conduct. If you have s serious accusation concerning a volunteer's competence or impartiality, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, not here in the middle of a dispute.

I have inferred nothing, and if anyone thinks that I have they need to go back and read the guide for participants at the top of this page again. All I am doing is confirming that the sources say what we say they say. I fully expect that they will, but I am still going to check. I have to start somewhere, but be assured that I will verify any claims made any party to this dispute. In the following, I may seem to be challenging one side of the dispute and not the other, but rest assured that this is just an artifact of my having to start somewhere. I will look at the claims of the other side of the dispute very soon. Also note that I have purposely avoided checking to see who wrote the text and added the citations I am examining. I don't want that to affect my evaluation.

I have not "dismissed" any sources' reliability. I have every intention of questioning every sources' reliability, which is not the same thing. In particular, in the above I am asking which of the following claims the citation to Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure supports:

"Some men's rights activists^[who?] assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.[84]"

or

"Lynne Segal, author of Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure, claims that 1n 1994 certain unnamed men's rights activists in Kansas City asserted that marital rape should not be considered a crime.[84]"

When I see a source that says

"Their [men's rights groups] agenda suggests that the origins of these middle-class men's fears in women's growing readiness to abandon marriages with men who make them miserable, once they have some means of economic independence. They may be miserable because of men's emotional illiteracy..."

I am reluctant to accept that source as being reliable on the topic of the positions of those same men's rights groups. If you want Wikipedia to report that this source made that claim, the source is reliable for that. If you want us to use Wikipedia's voice to present that claim as an established fact, you need a reliable source for that, and this simply isn't one.

I am also concerned by the overall nature of that string of citations. Normally, we want to find a reliable source and report what the source says. When I see citation to a book criticizing a 1994 event in Kansas City followed by a 2010 news report from India, it makes me suspect that the conclusion came first and then someone started looking for citations to support it.

Again, I have every intention of giving any claims made by the other parties in this dispute the same level of scrutiny. This is just where I happened to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you see my criticism above as an attack on you - it's not, it's a (very serious) note, not primarily about you Guy but, about this board. I will take that aspect of the issue to the talk page as you suggest, but for the record I do understand that you are acting in good faith and with very good intentions (but I'll remind you that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions")...
Guy perhaps you read past the part in my openning statements where I stated above that I already made a suggestion regarding the "some" issue and regarding the necessary attribution on the article's talk page. I agree sentence needs to read along the lines of:

Scholars argue/contend that men's rights groups have campaigned against "marital rape" legislation.

Scholars may need clarification etc, but that's fine, and your suggests are good - however I'm not sure that listing all the individual cases is wp:due, whereas the overall point that different actions at different times have criticized/campaigned against marital rape is definitely due. However as you see below the actual dispute is not about wording but inclusion - and as we have all outlined in our statements above this rests on CSDarrow's novel interpretations of policy--Cailil ^talk 16:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I would argue the use of 'Scholars' here violates WP:IMPARTIAL , WP:WEASEL, in fact 'Scholars ' is prominently highlighted as a weasel word.

Secondly the opinions of scholars are of little note unless they are indulging in scholarship. I am sure some scholars also think broccoli is revolting or that basketball is boring. Scholarship involves the use of a scholarly methodology Scholarly_method. Unsubstantiated opinions, on a matter of verifiable fact, concerning those you at ideological odds with is not scholarship. There is another word for it. CSDarrow (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to wordsmith scholars but the rest of your point doesn't make sense CSDarrow. What your comments above and below do is attempt to disparage the work of academics that have opinions you seem not to like. The essence of NPOV is thus: wikipedia records all notable POVs neutrally (i.e we don't put our spin on them), according them appropriate weight as per how widely held they are in the mainstream (see WP:YESPOV). Your constructions on site policy are both tendentious and unreflective of those policies--Cailil ^talk 16:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad we are in agreement on the use of the word "Scholar". As to the rest of your response, I am at a loss what to say. CSDarrow (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No apology needed. There is a huge difference between claiming that a group has campaigned against marital rape legislation and claiming that a group says that marital rape should not be considered a crime. A cursory look at the websites of various men's groups shows a lot of talk about false accusations and the problem with accepting the word of the accuser without collaborating evidence, complaints about the name of the accused being revealed while the name of the accuser is kept secret, etc. I think those positions should be cited and put in the article, along with common counterarguments like the problem of requiring witnesses or physical evidence of a crime that by definition does not leave witnesses or physical evidence. That would be quite easy to document. So far, nobody has come up with a citation to a reliable source for the entirely different claim that some unnamed men's groups say that marital rape should not be considered a crime. All evidence suggests that there are no men's groups in any western country that hold that position. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the distinction between the words crime and legislation is important and agree that "legislation" is the more sourcable one. However the "crime" construction is also sourced - did you get to read the Encyclopaedia of Masculinities entry that you couldn't access days ago, here's the link again[22] - this one uses the "crime" construction: "the status of marital rape as a crime" p.167. I can transcribe the whole paragraph if you can't get to read it--Cailil ^talk 12:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I have to say that I continue to strongly disagree with several of your comments here. WP doesn't use opinions about bias as determinant in determining reliability. Let's take another example. If an academic text or journal article came out against homeopathy would you really be "reluctant to accept that source as being reliable on the topic of [homeopathy]"? Assuming no, why is this different here?

Please note that the disputed text talks about "men's rights activists" opposing the legislation, not "men's rights groups". While I strongly disagree that we should be trying to prove reliable sources "right" (or "wrong") with our own original research on websites etc, editors have already presented on this page direct, primary evidence from multiple sources that there is evidence that men's rights activists and groups in the west and elsewhere have and do opposed marital rape legislation. I linked above to a 2007 post from the president of EJFI above, an [23], Kaldari above linked to a list of men's rights objectives on the anti-misandry.com [24], and also above quoted the President of the National Coalition of Free Men who appeared on CNN stating that marital rape laws shouldn't exist. (For the record, CNN's introduction to the interview says "and we're going to meet the attorney who wrote the recent proposal to strengthen California's spousal rape law. And we'll meet the president of a men's rights group [Williamson] who believes that such laws should not exist.") (CNN transcript on Lexis-Nexis). I'm on a very slow internet connection, and can't do more at present, but it is indisputable from primary sources that (some) men's rights activists do oppose marital rape legislation and much more importantly from the point of view of inclusion, that this has been noted in reliable secondary sources, with four of them stating it in the particular format that they oppose marital rape as a crime " Other men's rights advocates have used family conflict research to justify demands [..] to eliminate marital rape as a crime (www.ejfi.org); "...some emphasized such issues as child support, the status of marital rape as a crime and....";this source has the founding of "International Men's Day by the men's rights groups, celebrated in Kansas City in 1994 as a day for campaigning against the legal recognition of 'marital rape'";"Much of [Hetherington's] support has come from men's rights organizations and conservative Christian groups, which tend to argue that a crime such as marital rape should not be on the books because consent to sex is part of the marriage covenant" --Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

spl1, Concerning National Coalition of Free Men and the CNN interview, did Williamson state he opposed Marital Rape laws in a manner that suggested he felt a man should be able to rape his wife and be immune from prosecution? If so could you post the quote? I believe you have the transcript. CSDarrow (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Setting up a strawman argument is unhelpful. Neither I nor anyone else has ever claimed that Williamson said anything close to this. You can oppose the specific crimimalization of marital rape, while still recognizing that rape within marriage can happen. See [this 2002 commentary by yet another prominent men's rights activist who has opposed such legislation. Stuart A. Miller, the founder of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, argues that "while there may be legitimate cases of marital rape" these are covered under existing laws and that additional marital rape legislation likely does more harm than good. (BTW this formulation seems eerily familiar, doesn't it?!)--Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So Williamson does not support a husband's right to rape his wife, thank you for confirming that. I would argue that most people understand word marital rape as the raping of a woman by her husband. In fact the Wiki page Marital_rape in essence defines it as that; Kaldari has been a content contributor to that page and a contributor to this discussion. Also since I merely asked you a question I fail to see how I could have been attempting to strawman you. CSDarrow (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, because you have (and are) seeking to refute positions that nobody has ever held.

This was the original formulation of the disputed sentence "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape....". This is what it is currently: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." In my view, both are eminently sourceable from secondary sources (with confirmation from primary sources too). But if your concern is that the sentences confuses views about the legal situation regarding marital rape with attitudes towards an actual act of a violent marital rape, then let's put the emphasis more on the former (which is how it was originally, actually). How about "Some men's rights activists have opposed legislation criminalizing marital rape."? Slp1 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the legal systems of the UK, Canada and the USA. As far as I am aware there is no such crime designated "Marital Rape", and never has been apart from in 7 States of the USA; it is a legal oddity. In the West spousal rape is almost exclusively prosecuted under existing legislation for rape or sexual assault. The common definitions of the words in the phrase "decriminalize marital rape" are as follows

• Marital rape:- The raping of one's wife.
• Decriminalize:- To no longer make a crime.

i.e its common meaning is:- to no longer make it a crime for a man to rape his wife. It beggars belief to suggest in an encyclopedic setting, in absence of other context or clarification, that it actually means:- to remove the legal oddity "Marital Rape " from the books and to prosecute the raping of one's wife with existing legislation. Up until I you asked for clarification, the only reference you provided that explicitly defined the term was from SIFF. SIFF's definition is immunity from raping one's wife. I am smelling equivocation in the air.

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom" - Confucius

CSDarrow (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me, I am sorry to say. Where are you getting the idea that anybody is suggesting including stuff about "decrimimalizing" marital rape? It seems another strawman to me.

For years and years, rape laws in the US and elsewhere in the West contained a marital rape exception which meant that husbands could not be charged under rape laws. Rape of a wife was simply not a crime a man could be convicted of. Between the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s, all US states and the federal government moved towards criminalizing that act: most did it by removing the marital rape exemption from their original rape laws, some eliminated marriage as a defense to the charge of rape, while others introduced separate marital rape legislation. Depending on the method used, there remain some exemptions or increased evidence requirements in cases of alleged marital rape as compared to rape of others. [25][26][27][28]. Some men's rights activists, including prominent leaders, have opposed these changes in legislation which have had the overall effect of criminalizing marital rape, and some of which have been incremental in nature, and we have multiple high quality sources for it. I really don't know how you can continue to deny it. Even the antimisandry.com site, which you yourself described as a "significant Mens Rights Organization" on the talkpage of the article, lists as one of their objectives |List to "End the criminalization of normal men's sexual behavior. Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim" and advocates the freeing of all men convicted of spousal rape. Since at this point I am just saying the same things over and over again, this is going to be my final post, until we hear from Steven. Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because you edit reverted my removal of and vigorously defended the statement

• "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of Marital Rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant."

The statement we are now discussing in DRN is the next version of the above and being 'supported' by the same references. That's why Slp1.

CSDarrow (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Firstly I would like to thank all those participating in this discussion, in particular the volunteers for the giving of their time. My arguments are based on WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY . Sorry if this is a bit long, I have tried to be succinct.

(1) Undue Weight

My argument that the statement

• Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.

is undue-weight is based Jimbo Wales' paraphrased statement from WP:UNDUE, I see nothing overriding this statement.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In essence if a minority hold the view than you should be able to easily name prominent adherents, and imo the spirit of the statement is that there is an expectation to do so. With the possible exception of someone in India, no one can find any adherents of this view let alone prominent adherents. Despite not being able to demonstrate a significant minority holds this view, Cailil & Spl1 make the argument that the first statement applies and as such the second statement is now moot, (I am trying not to Strawman here). They absolve themselves of considering the 'significant minority' case by saying it requires original research even though it is patently not satisfied. If a minority do not hold a view I fail to see how a majority can hold it. Their stance imo is not in the spirit of WP:UNDUE. The first rule of Wikipedia is that there are no rules, a statement designed precisely for this sort case and for common sense to prevail.

In short if a majority or even a significant minority supposedly hold this view and hardly anyone can be found with this view, then a common sense test has been failed.

Furthermore claiming a group or individual campaigns for the decriminalization of marital rape, ie. impunity from the law for raping one's spouse, is a significant claim. Before any group is impugned with this view on Wikipedia, the burden of proof that the claim satisfies wp:Undue, wp:Reliable and wp:Verifiability should also be significant. Wikipedia also has a moral and legal obligation not to libel any individual or group. Atm all we have supporting this statement is the unsupported opinions of some who think Men Right's groups hold this view. This is entirely inadequate.

(2) Reliability of the Sources.

The claim is made here that because a source is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' that its reliability is beyond reproach, even if it fails any common sense test. There are many media through which academics publish their work such as:-

• Rigorously peer reviewed journals involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations

• Reviewed conference publications which are generally checked for appropriateness of subject matter, glaring errors , format and suitable citations.

• Unreviewed conference publications, the work is generally only returned if it is patently absurd.

• Journals and essay collections serving an ideologically based community eg, Journal of Marxism.

• Collections of papers or essays published by an Academic press, sometimes with a degree of meaningful peer review and sometimes none at all..

• Books by a single 'scholarly' author published by an Academic press, which usually have no meaningful review at all.

There is nothing wrong with opinionated work and limited peer review. Diversity of opinions are essential to debate and the life blood of new ideas. With the exception of sometimes the hard sciences, academics are not automatons deterministically sifting through evidence and logically coming to conclusions like Data from Star Trek. They play with ideas; try and say seeming absurd things; sometimes have strong ideological bases and are sometimes deliberately provocactive. Fully rigorous peer review is very time consuming and requires a lot of resources, having other less rigorous outlets of publication allows work to enter the melting pot of ideas that is Academia, Ultimately it is from this melting pot that we get :-

• Rigorously peer reviewed work involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations.

Which in general can be accepted as reliable without reservation. Other forms of academic publication require more scrutiny. A glaring example of scholarship gone awry being the Sokol affair.

In short just because a work is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' does not necessarily make it a reliable source. This very point is addressed in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

• Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

The notion that if the adjectives 'Scholarly' or 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' can be attached to a piece of work then the source is reliable, is prevalent in certain parts of Wikipedia and is causing enormous damage imo. The notion is based on a lack of understanding of the way Academic publishing works. The sources cited here are not reliable and are the unsupported opinions of those the authors are at ideological odds with. Guy Macon has summarized my thoughts on these works succinctly.

Ultimately the reliability of these sources, or not, is largely an argument of opinion. If we can not reach consensus then I feel the matter should go to experts at RSN to adjudicate, the result of which I think will have a profound effect on Wikipedia. This is a serious precedent setting matter.

Thanks again CSDarrow (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"With any claims rigorously supported by citations" is not something I have ever encountered. It's an entirely unreasonable claim - the primary aim of scholarly publishing is to present new knowledge, or, in Wikipedia terms, "original research". New claims need to be supported, sure, but not only by citations, but in particular by data and argument. And claims that are widely accepted in a given community are often published without any citations - we know that . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is however an expectation to justify how that new knowledge was obtained with citations where appropriate. My list was a summary not an exhaustive description. CSDarrow (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly seems like the pro-statement side have a number of citations with specific names on their side. Dismissing them because they come the world's largest English-speaking nation (which should have some importance to the English WP) hardly seems fair; and the whole Anti-dowry laws section is all about SIFF, so mentioning them in respect to martial rape laws doesn't seem unreasonable. Nor does it seem that the same standard is being held to other cites; Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements is 12 years old, and used it many, many times in the article. In the section "Military Conscription", it's the newest cite; the next most recent is Redeeming men: religion and masculinities from 1996.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

user:Perpetualization has addressed the issue of the Indian Men's Right movement above. From what I know it is many ways a separate movement from that in the West operating in an environment of different cultural mores and practices. Although there are intersections in the views of both movements there are also vast divides. I feel they should mostly be dealt with in a separate section, else their views could be pejoratively impugned on the Western movement and visa versa.

Also before the SIFF statement is included it should verified that the view is also held by either a majority or significant minority of the Indian Men's Rights Movement, ie that wp:undue is satisfied. I know very little about SIFF and the quote was only recently added during the discussion of this section. Atm all we have is a report of one statement and little to no contextual background. Having someone with more than a passing knowledge of the Indian Men's Rights Movement would be helpful here.CSDarrow (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

From hereon in, I'll be handling this dispute. I have some more reading to do, so please bear with me. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: taking over the dispute, I strongly approve. Re: SIFF, can we all agree that a citation that refers to the Indian Men's Rights Movement should not be used as a source supporting a statement that simply says "Some men's rights activists assert that..." without any mention of India? I would say the same if a reference was specific to men's rights activists in Saudi Arabia; some countries have cultural and legal frameworks that are different enough from the rest of the world that they really should not be lumped together with the rest of the world. When I read in Wikipedia that "Some men's rights activists assert X", that seems to imply that there is at least one men's rights group in the US, EU or Australia/New Zealand that asserts such a thing. Sort of like saying "some political organizations support a ban on women driving." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Guy I missed what you were saying here, but yes...you are correct. Just because a source says that the Men's rights group in India believes something, is not supportive of the statement unless it says the group is the India group itself. Otherwise this is original research and synthesis. Now I will comment no further...--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also strongly approve of Zhang taking this DR filing and will not be making further comment on the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"When I read in Wikipedia that "Some men's rights activists assert X", that seems to imply that there is at least one men's rights group in the US, EU or Australia/New Zealand that asserts such a thing." Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus specifically addresses this and says it's a violation of NPOV. An Anglo-American bias is something to be avoided. There are one thousand crore people in the English speaking nation of India; that's more then in all the nations you mention combined. By all rights, the nations you list are the outliers and India should be the norm. In practice, instead of handling this in an ethnocentric way, we should take care to make it clearer which groups assert what; if there is a sufficiently clear distinction, US/Canadian groups (or whatever division) could be handled on a different page from Indian groups, otherwise an attempt should be made to make clear who's holding what positions in the single page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody is trying to suggest that only the India reference be used to support the phrase. As has been pointed out over and over again, there are multiple reliable secondary sources pointing out that MRs activists and groups from the US and elsewhere have opposed such legislation. Recent primary sources from Western based Men's rights groups, activists and their leaders have also been presented. At this point, I am not going to relist them all yet again, but they are to be found here and on the talkpage of the article. Slp1 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If I see a Wikipedia page that says X with ten citations, and I point out that one of the citations does not support the statement, I don't care whether the others support it and neither should you. If indeed they do, that simply means that there should have been nine citations, not ten. If someone is able to knock down nine out of the ten as not being reliable sources, not supporting the statement, etc., that just means that it should be a statement with one citation. Each citation needs to stand by itself. Other nearby citations are completely irrelevant. --Guy Macon (talk)

I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. But I'm really not sure of its point, as the other references have not been "knocked down" (as you put it) by most of the independent commentators here, have they? And here, for the record, are a couple more citations, this time from the UK.

• A Guardian article from January 24, 1994 available on Lexis-Nexis called "Women: who's afraid of the big bad women" notes the 1993 keynote speech by Roger Whitcomb at an International Men's rights conference, in which "he reserves particular venom for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape [which removed the spousal exemption in the UK] in 1991 ("A long-standing feminist dream")".
• A second, related article, also in Guardian on the same day, entitled "Men's rights" and listing the key features of the movement. Among the listed "anti-heroes" are "the law lords (for their decision on marital rape)" Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• And the material about Whitcomb, who was the chairman of the UK Men's Movement[29] and his opposition the House of Lords marital rape ruling is retold in this 2000 Edinburgh University Press book. Not sure why it didn't show up on prior searches. Slp1 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Roger Whitcomb and the UKMM

• The House of Lords decision on marital rape was with respect to a husbands immunity from prosecution for raping his wife. You have claimed in very enfatic terms that that was not what you have been talking about. Also your source is clearly an advocacy book.

• I see no other commentary by Whitcombe on this issue or any evidence of he or the UKMM 'campaigning', regardless of how you define the term.

• Roger Whitcomb was apparently active in the 1990's, ie 20yrs ago. He is described by the Independent newspaper http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/men-who-moan-too-much-1575321.html as from ".... the more extreme end of the men's movement".

• From what I can tell the UKMM is in fact an organization started by Whitcomb who simply chose the name 'UK Men's Movement'. Suggesting the UKMM represents Mens Rights views in the UK is simply untrue. The Mens Rights Movement is a grass roots movement which by definition has no central leadership.

• UKMM's web domain UKMM.org.uk is vacant.

CSDarrow (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea where you get the idea that I haven't been talking about immunity from prosecution for rape of a wife. Of course I am. That legal decision by the House of Lords was what ended the marital rape exemption, permitting people to be criminally convicted of raping their spouse. It's the way the UK got rid of the marital law exemption, and that's what Whitcomb etc opposed. There are indeed other sources about Whitcomb and the organization available. In fact, when he died in the late 90s he left 150K pounds to the organization to continue legal battles through the European courts of Human Rights, according to various newspaper reports. All the sources aren't on line, however. Once again, a scholarly book from a University Press is not to be dismissed as an "advocacy book" per policy and guidelines. If you want these rules to change, you need to do the work on the policy and guideline pages, not here. I totally agree that the UKMM does not represent all men's rights views, but it clearly represents some of them, and given the extensive evidence of primary and secondary sources that these views in multiple men's rights groups and activists, it is amazing that you continue to try to try to marginalize source after source after source. But see below and the article for a new proposal.Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment To my mind the discussion is becoming exhausted and losing focus. The stance is now being taken by some that the statement, (and it variants), is not infering that men should have impunity from the law for raping their wives. I feel the statement at hand, ie

• "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.",

in the absence of clarifying comments or context, would leave the majority of readers with the impression that the Men's Right movement supports impunity from the law for raping one's wife. This is not the case apart from possibly a very extreme fringe. Variants such as "..have campaigned against marital rape legislation" are also not sufficiently clear imo. If others feel the Mens Rights Movement has campaigned for the removal of "Marital Rape Legislation ", with marital rape covered by existing laws, it is for them to present an entirely unambiguous statement supported by reliable sources that does not violate undue-weight. The "Scholarly/Academic" sources presented here are entirely inadequate by any measure, they are shocking examples of "Scholarship" that if need be should go to RSN. My sense is that the Mens Rights Movement has had little to say on the issue. My stance is still that the statement should simply be removed.

CSDarrow (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to all, I have been fairly absent from the discussion. A good comment was made about not being anglo focused, which I agree upon. However, that does not prevent two sentences

• "In India, men's rights groups generally oppose marital rape. In the United States, [whatever is true in the US]"

with appropriate citations for each. I cannot say that I am in complete agreement with CSDarrow in all of his arguments though I do agree with many of them. I think the material on the British house of lords would make a great inclusion to the article written as you wrote it above rather than in a weasel worded statement (as currently). The unfortunate odor of finding cites for a claim rather than building a claim from citations lingers over this entire discussion. We don't have a word limit for articles and shouldn't shy from writing as much as a paragraph detailing the different opinions of mens rights movements in different countries (india, britain, us) and times (now, 20 years ago, 40 years ago). I would be disturbed to see sections upon sections for such a claim but there is to not have a few sentences (US, Britain, SIFF?), each somewhat more specific and sourced appropriately.

Lastly, I wanted to bring back the rationale point (as it has been absent to the discussion). If the consensus is that mens rights groups oppose marital rape laws, the claim still seems insufficient on its own. Advocacy positions are formed in reasons and unfamiliar positions (like this one) should have their reasons stated. "some mens rights groups advocate against marital rape laws because they feel [feeling]." If that task seems impossible, I suggest it is the result of weak sourcing. A strong source would always spend enough detail to explain a position rather than just simply stating it. Perpetualization (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm yet another DRN volunteer and I would like to probe for disputants' opinions on the following statements:

1. US Men's Rights group used to oppose marital rape laws, though it is not the case now.
2. UK Men's Rights group opposes marital rape laws.
3. From the worldwide perspective opposition to marital rape laws among Men's Rights groups is currently not as prominent as the acceptance of such laws.

May we assume that these statements are supported by all disputants? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help Dimitrij. I really appreciate it!

1. US Men's Rights group used to oppose marital rape laws, though it is not the case now.- Not agreed. Men's rights activists in the US have written lately as 2007 [30], 2008 [31] and currently [32] that they oppose them.
2. UK Men's Rights group opposes marital rape laws.- Not agreed from a technical standpoint as the particular m men's right group (and activist) mentioned in the reliable sources is now defunct. Also see below.
3. From the worldwide perspective opposition to marital rape laws among Men's Rights groups is currently not as prominent as the acceptance of such laws.- Impossible to say as none of them actually say "yes, we support and accept marital laws". In any case, this is the sort of analysis and interpretation of primary sources that is outside the scope of WP editors, and classified as original research. I think this discussion really needs to focus on the secondary sources, which should be the basis of the article.

A suggestion to guide future discussions: note that the current disputed wording talks about "men's rights activists" not "groups". Nobody has suggested using the term "men's rights groups" (even though many of the activists who have made pronouncements on this subject have been leaders of prominent groups). Let's discuss something that is actually on the table.

A final note of clarification for those who state "the unfortunate odor of finding cites for a claim rather than building a claim from citations". I added the original information in February while rewriting the "allegations of rape" section. I did general searches for "men's rights" and "rape" and the topic of "marital rape" came up several times in reliable secondary sources.e.g [33]. So I included a short sentence about it. As to the extra sources that have been found since: it's an inevitable artifact of people arguing the reliability sources that additional searches get done to confirm the original ones. --Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment from an uninvolved editor. I've looked at these last few sources you've provided and it's clear from all of them that the criticism of these laws is related to false accusations. When you say things like "Men's rights activists oppose marital rape laws" it makes it sound like they want to be allowed to rape their wives, when in fact their concern is mostly about being falsely accused of doing that. It's a gross misrepresentation, and the sources do not support it. Reyk _YO! 21:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple statement of fact; it makes it sound as if MRAs don't believe that people should have legal recourse if they're raped by their spouses, which happens to be entirely true. Giving their justification is okay, though the fact that they oppose rape victims from having legal recourse should not be missed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the three sources I read say anything even remotely like "rape victims should not have legal recourse". That is entirely your own interpretation. Reyk _YO! 02:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You claim that "When you say things like "Men's rights activists oppose marital rape laws" it makes it sound like they want to be allowed to rape their wives" with no source, but when I say that removing martial rape laws will mean that people raped by their spouses won't be protected by them, it's WP:SYNTH?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between making a claim in an article, and relating my impressions of an article. The former requires sources, the latter does not. The difference really isn't that hard to understand. I also think you're attaching implicit moral judgments to your interpretation of the sources and presenting those as fact. To take your statement "they oppose rape victims from having legal recourse" as an example, it's as if I reasoned this way: "Mr Jones wants a Fribblitude Law because of reasons A, B, C. In my opinion, this law will also have adverse consequence X. Therefore, I will claim that Mr Jones supports X and word that claim in a way that suggests X is the reason Mr Jones wants the law." That's exactly what you're doing when you leap from "MRAs criticise marital rape laws" to "they oppose rape victims from having legal recourse". Your silly "silence implies consent" statement from earlier suggests to me that you're perfectly happy to cast aspersions on Men's rights advocates based on nothing whatsoever and you should have a think about whether you're being fair. Reyk _YO! 13:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no "In my opinion, this law will also have adverse consequence X." MRAs who oppose marital rape laws are saying that the state should not have laws that criminalize martial rape. That is the logical meaning of what they're saying. The fact that you attack me does not change that. The fact that I think groups that stand for X, when other groups who stand for X also stand for Y, need to say "We don't stand for Y" or implicitly let the whole movement including them be seen as standing for Y, does not change that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not attacked you. That is yet another false accusation. I am done with this conversation and with you. Reyk _YO! 11:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm happy to support changes to the sentence, in part because of these concerns of ambiguity. I don't agree, however, that the sources present all speak about the opposition being based on concerns of false allegations. In fact none of the original sources sources do, and in fact one talks about something completely different - that sex is part of the marriage contract/relationship. That reasoning is echoed in part here here [34] and here [35] (and here are less reliable ones [36][37][38][39][40]). Indeed Warren Farrell in his The Myth of Male Power book, when writing about spousal rape says "But in a relationship this is especially true: Both sexes engage in "mercy sex". And that's the difference between having a relationship and not having a relationship - all good relationships require "giving in," especially when our partner feels strongly. The Ms. survey can call it a rape; a relationships counselor will call it a relationship". However, based on finding the Farrell source, I have a new version to propose, and I think I will do it directly into the article. I think nobody is terribly satisfied with the current version, and this way I can easily provide the quotes from non-online sources.Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Giving their justification is more than simply ok, it should ABSOLUTELY be part of the article. The alternative is a very negative and untrue implication Perpetualization (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dimitrij, thank you for entering the discussion. Your questions on the face of it seems straight forward and one would think lead us to to some consensus. However I feel trying to answer them we will lead to a nightmare of an argument over semantics and definition of terms. The questions are far more complex than they initially seem. Frankly I don't know the answer to the questions, and I am not trying to be obtuse here. Personally I don't think the Mens Rights Movement has had very much to say on "marital rape" regardless of how you define that term, and certainly not to an extent that satisfies Jimbo Wales criteria. But it not me who is making any claims here, it is others who in particular are making the claim

• Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.

which in my mind is ambiguous and does not satisfy wp:undue, (the suggested variants are no better imo). Which is why I have brought it to DRN. If others can come up with a variant that satisfies wp:undue then that is fine, in fact Jimbo Wales suggests this should be easy to do so if true. It is not for me to do research for others though I would, and to some extent have, if I thought it would resolve matters; however I don't think it will. This is clearly a contentious and complex discussion that will not be resolved unless it stays focused.

CSDarrow (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any cites from groups that explicitly support marital rape laws? They would help balance it. If not, well, silence is easily interpreted as consent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's putting words in their mouths and is unjustifiable. Reyk _YO! 02:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is semantic. By "rape" most people think of forced sex, or sex under threat of physical violence. Virtually no one in the MRM endorses that (and a few outliers who might are just that -- outliers, and fall under WP:UNDUE).

Rather, as noted several times by CSDarrow, this is a very complex topic that involves understanding context and other considerations. As noted by Warren Farrell (above), "mercy sex" happens all the time, but it is not rape; neither is having sex for non-sexual motives (which both sexes sometimes do). If the term "rape" is to be used it really should be defined as most folks think of it -- as physically coerced sex with a partner who has given a clear "no." Again, I don't see the MRM as supporting rape; those who do represent a outlier, fringe position -- and thus this falls under WP:UNDUE. Memills (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not part of the problem here. I think everybody knows what "marital rape laws" refers to. The question is, do people in the MRM endorse repealing them and not passing them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And much more importantly, the evidence according to multiple reliable sources is that some have and do oppose them, including some prominent names. That's what key here. The personal opinions of editors about what the MRM supports (most especially strawmen about "supporting rape"), or how most people would define "rape" are simply irrelevant. Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Strawman? Then explain to me why you vigorously objected to my removal of "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant", ie here [41]. My removal of this phrase started the whole debate.

CSDarrow (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss. I objected to the removal because removing well-sourced material for no good reason is not how we build an encyclopedia. And, surely that you can see that there is a huge difference between "questioning the criminal status of marital rape" and "supporting rape"? Try this parallel. Someone who questions the criminal status of marijuana possession, for example, isn't automatically a supporter of people possessing marijuana. Surely you can see that. Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

'I think everybody knows what "marital rape laws" refers to.' - I don't. CSDarrow (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. I have no idea how "marital rape laws" differ from "rape laws." A better term would be "marital rape exemption" laws. In some [countries] the forcible rape of a spouse is not a legal offense. However, a perusal of this list of countries is revealing: these are not countries with active MRM groups who have pushed or supported such legislation. And, in countries where forcible rape of a spouse is already illegal, I don't see evidence that MRM groups are actively supporting legislation to make forcible rape legal (again, perhaps with the exception of a few fringe outliers).

Also, the comment above that "some have and do oppose them [marital rape laws] , including some prominent names." Are you referring to Warren Farrell? If so, that is a real stretch -- he most certainly opposes any form of forcible rape.

Some may have concerns about what implications Implied_consent has with respect to marital rape, or the expansion of the definition of rape to include more ambiguous cases of post-sex regret, "mercy sex," or where consent was ambiguous. But who specifically supports decriminalizing the forcible rape of a spouse? No one that I am aware of.

Let me propose revising the sentence in question from

"Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant"

to this:

"While virtually no MRM activists question the criminal status of forcible rape, some have expressed concerns about the expansion of the definition of rape to include more ambiguous cases that may involve post-copulatory regret, "mercy sex," or where consent was ambiguous or implied (which may be especially relevant in cases of allegations of non-forced marital rape)." Memills (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cites, please. This is not what the cites shown say. The cites say MRM activists have opposed women in marriage being protected under the law from rape by their husbands, rape of any type. Full stop. Bringing in the entire issue of the MRM movements attitudes towards rape in general seems off point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the "rape of any type" or "full stop" claims in any cite shown. Would you be so kind as to tell us exactly where you read that? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not quote a sentence to be added to the article. But yes, for future reference, in English, when someone says they oppose marital rape laws, they're not saying they oppose marital rape laws of a certain type. To limit the type of marital rape they're talking about is to put words in their mouths.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Evasion noted. No, you are not excused from the requirement to provide evidence backing up your claims. If someone opposes a law, they are opposing whatever that law specifically says. Any marital rape law must differentiate itself in some way from the general rape laws in that country. If you have a law that specifies a $10 fine for stealing fruit, you don't pass a law that specifies a $10 fine for stealing apples. Just as any apple theft law must specify wow it differs from the existing fruit theft law, likewise any marital rape law must specify wow it differs from the existing rape laws. Thus it is fair to ask about the details of the law that they are opposing, and it is fair to ask you for evidence when you make specific claims about the law they are opposing. As a DRN volunteer I don't care what is in the article. All I care about is that whatever is in the article is supported by citations to reliable sources. You are not allowed to claim "The cites say..." and then wave your hands and evade the question when asked where in the cites it says that. ---Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

General rape laws historically didn't protect people from rape by their spouses. [42] explains exactly what marital rape laws are; they're laws that protect women from rape by their spouses, and provides a quote from a MRM person say that they're bad. (This is a cite that was brought up at the start.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The above is a prime example of what I am talking about. I asked you where in the cite you saw what you say is in the cite, and you ignored my request, provided a link, and claimed the page at the other end of the link says something that it does not say.

Your claim: "[The cite] explains exactly what marital rape laws are; they're laws that protect women from rape by their spouses"

What the page actually says: "redefining rape by including sexual assault in any form in its definition [...] the proposed new law, besides terming sexual relationship of a man with a wife under the age of 18 as rape, also specifies ... that if a man commits sexual assault even on his wife, who is above 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment"

Somewhat related, but not the same thing. Your cite doesn't say what you claimed it says.

Given the fact that we know that at times you claim that a citation says something that it does not say, I am going to have to insist that, from now on, when someone asks you "where in the cite does it say that?" that you respond by quoting the exact wording where you believe the cite says what you claim it says. This is not an unreasonable request. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Which I notice is not a requirement you put on User:Memills, who has never provided cites for anything I asked for cites for above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Refusal noted. So it is your position that if someone else violates Wikipedia guidelines then you are free to do so as well? That's not how it works. You are required to follow Wikipedia policies (like not claiming that sources say things that they don't actually say) no matter what Prosfilaes does. That being said, if you can point to a specific example of Prosfilaes violating Wikipedia's policies, I will give it my full attention. And if I find that he has misrepresented sources, as you have done, he too will be required to quote the exact wording showing that the cite says what he claims it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I do not think Slp1 should be editing, as we speak, the phrase in Men's rights that's under consideration here. CSDarrow (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We are waiting for feedback here. Memills (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed in principal though I note that his edits have been moving the sentence in a productive way. I have also made a small number which I do not feel change the dynamic of this discussion. Perpetualization (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment:- This discussion has been going on for over a week. To mind it is going round in circles, losing focus and has become unproductive. It has become a discussion about the subject as opposed to the resolution of the conflict that was brought here. Spl1 has to stop changing the statement in Men's Rights so then we can decide the following:-

• Do the sources support the statement?
• Are the sources reliable?
• Is wp:UNDUE satisfied?

To mind in all its incarnations the statement fails all of the above. Unless we can move forward I feel the sources should be taken to wp:RSN for evaluation.

CSDarrow (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes -- time to wrap this up. Memills (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Save Indian Family Foundation help block a proposal to remove a marital rape exception from the law of the largest nation in the world, home to 1/5 the world's people. Even if that were the only evidence brought up here--and it's not--that would over whelm WP:UNDUE massively.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"It seems like" doesn't cut it as a reliable reference. Memills (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

SIFF successfully campaigned against criminalizing martial rape in India.[43] The argument (further up) that the PR spokesman for SIFF was only speaking for himself when discussing the issue with the media is the most absurd argument I've heard in a while. Regardless, the opinion is not limited to India. Antimisandry.com, which both sides of this argument have listed as a prominent Western men's rights group, lists decriminalizing martial rape as part of the men's rights agenda. I don't believe that it is the majority view in the West, but it is more significant than a fringe viewpoint. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

SIFF link you provided is apparently broken. Also, please give cite link for your claim re Antimisandry.com. Memills (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not modify the article itself on this topic until there is some resolution to this issue. Feel free to add to discussion here, first. Memills (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Source Check I was checking some sources and had a question about source 88, which references the south china morning post quoting the "All India Harassed Husbands Association." I copied the name of the organization from the news article to attribute it to a specific group. However, I realized that I can't find the All India Harassed Husbands Association with a simple google search. I didn't look very thoroughly but does this organization actually exist? Perpetualization (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Searching Google for "All-India Harassed Husbands Association" (with the quotes) shows about 30 references, all from 2006. Every reference appears to be from someone with an axe to grind saying how evil this group is. There is no evidence that the organization was ever notable or even that it actually existed. (Who is the founder? Where is the headquarters? Can anyone name four members?)

Alas, this is the state of a bunch of statements in this article: It is full of statements that are not supported by sources, and we have multiple editors who falsely claim that sources say things that they don't actually say. Often there is a long string of citations, none of which support the statement. Someone who is uninvolved in the current dispute with no strong opinions about the topic needs to go through the entire article, removing every statement that is not supported be the sources that are attached to it. Then the editors of the page need to decide that they will not allow any unsourced material back in. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely - CSDarrow (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Further, much of the information presented in the article presumably about the MRM cite sources that are hostile to the MRM, rather than from sources from MRM writers/activists themselves. Memills (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Right; that's why it's called WP:NPOV, and not Sympathetic Point of View. That we do cite all sides is a distinction between Wikipedia and some of its competitors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, not "all sides" are adequately presented or cited in the article. Most of the cites are from those critical of the MRM. MRM folks should be allowed to themselves identify what their objectives are, not have those hostile to it define (or mis-define) them for them.

This is the very issue under discussion here. Critics of the MRM are cited here suggesting that MRM folks are advocating things (like forcible marital rape) that in fact the MRM does not (a few fringe, outliers excepted). Memills (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And the solution to that is something that we here at Wikipedia have a lot of experience dealing with. Step one: make it so that every controversial statement is supported by a citation to a reliable source. If any editors are not willing to follow that basic principle, warn them and then apply a series of longer and longer blocks. Step two (only after step one is accomplished), work toward consensus about WP:WEIGHT.

Note that as a dispute resolution volunteer, I have no position on the actual dispute, which I find rather boring, and I am not willing to devote a bunch of time to doing the above. If, however, someone who is interested (even if previously involved) is willing to put in the time and willing to set aside any personal opinions and make sure all statements are sourced, not just the ones from the other side, I am willing to spend a reasonable amount of effort advising and guiding that person or persons. She/He/they must be willing to take this in whatever direction the sources lead and to try really hard to be unbiased. Any takers? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We have issues of fact not of opinion here, WP:NPOV has nothing to do with it. These semantic gymnastics are getting tedious. CSDarrow (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we have a problem with WP:V and with WP:NPOV. First we have to fix the obvious problem of sources that don't support the statements they are attached to (WP:V, then we need to look at the remaining good sources and assign them the proper WP:WEIGHT, which I remind you is a part of WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding hostile sources Memills's complaint, my solution is only: find better sources. There is no rule against critical sources. In fact, both critical and supporting sources can be cited. It is the responsibility of editors adding content to ensure that the sources are adequate. The things that need to happen are the following: (1) sources checked and poor sources and incorrectly quoted sources removed (2) questionable/disputed sources discussed on the talk page - I'm not sure how WP:BOLD and article probation interact, but there will surely be arguments (3) Find new, quality sources that are pro-MRM (the POV that is sorely lacking from the current sources). Perpetualization (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, assuming (and I am pretty sure this is the case here) that the lack of pro-MRM sources are a result of editors pushing their POV and not an actual lack of sources. As for how WP:BOLD and article probation interact, WP:BOLD still applies, as does WP:BRD. (Actually the policy pages it summarizes apply, including WP:BOLD.) It is important to realize that BRD is for edits where you have no idea whether anyone objects to them -- to find out you BOLDly make the edit, and if anyone disagrees they will REVERT it and then you can DISCUSS it. BRD is not for cases where you know that someone will object. In those cases the basic rule is to discuss before editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(Uninvolved volunteer comment - sticking my nose in) I thought I should mention that the BRD cycle is actualy for this very issue. When to use: Editing a particular page has many editors discussing with little to no progress being made. Editor's concerns are not addressed on the talkpage after a reasonable amount of effort. and "Your view differs significantly from a rough consensus on an emotionally loaded subject". Basicly, there is never a rule to discuss first and edit second, although it can be common sense not to poke a mad tiger. But the basic reasoning of BRD is to kickstart discussion. So if you feel that a BOLD edit is something you know for sure will be disagreed with but it is your true good faith opinion, it can be done....just very carefully and not something a new editor should attempt.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist is entirely correct; I expressed myself poorly. What I was getting at is the common situation where there is a clear consensus against an editor's preferred version and a long history of him inserting it and being reverted (but not in the last 24 hours -- see WP:3RR). sometimes in such cases the editor with the minority opinion keeps trying to get it into the article again and again, each time arguing -- again -- for inclusion on the talk page and seeing -- again -- everyone else disagreeing. That's the sort of situation where WP:BRD isn't much help. WP:STICK may be of help, though... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a single editor who cannot live with the consensus risks a good deal by attemting to edit the contribution back into the article after a clear consensus disagrees with their interpretation. Edit warring can be seen as a single edit if the editor is not listening to the legitimate arguments of others. It is true that Wikipedia does not recognize a majority rule, however if you cannot convince others then it can be a problem on the side of the individual who can't accept what everyone else has stated. Sadly, this is seen very often.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2012 (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

• Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)
• Andrewman327 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• HtownCat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A paragraph in the Frank L. VanderSloot article stated:

In 1997, Vandersloot received a warning letter from the FDA to stop marketing Melaleuca dietary supplements ProVex, ProVex-Plus, and Replenex as drugs for the treatment of disease conditions in contravention of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[38][39] The warning, issued subsequent to an FDA inspection of a Melaleuca manufacturing facility, noted that the products carried claims that their use resulted in "halting and possibly reversing the process of articular cartilage degeneration" and that they were "an alternative in the treatment of degenerative joint disease or common osteoarthritis." Melaleuca subsequently announced that the claims would no longer be used for marketing the products.

This paragraph was separated out into a subsection marked as WP:Undue at 23:33, 5 October 2012. The separation, subheader and Undue note were reverted at 16:10, 6 October 2012‎. A Discussion was begun on the Talk Page. The crux of the debate is: Should the paragraph be deleted or not?

One editor believes: "There is only one Source given for this item, in a trade website. (The other Source is the letter itself, which is not good enough in Wikipedia's eyes to use as a Source alone.) This factoid about Melaleuca was never the object of scrutiny in any other Reliable Source, nor reported on elsewhere. It is therefore de minimis. It is, given the thousands of products made by Melaleuca, just not worth trifling about. Nor, given the fact that this article is about a Living Person and not a company, does it warrant even a mention in the biography of this man.

A second editor has responded: "I disagree that it is unduly weighted. It has been mentioned by secondary sources and is described succinctly in the article and only in as much detail as is necessary to convey the gist. Suggesting that FDA warnings are analogous to a speeding ticket is nothing more than a personal opinion (c.f. WP:OR) and it demonstrates a lack of understating of their significance. It's especially relevant given that VS had a serious run-in with the FDA for similar issues while running Oil of Melaleuca. . . . FDA warning letters are indeed significant and highly notable."

A third editor has said: "FDA has a 21 page manual explaining what warning letters are and I stand by what I said about it being too wonky to be able to describe without either making it sound worse than it was or giving the section undue weight. As far as I can tell, FDA has never taken an administrative action against the company. Even the letter they sent 15 years ago did not apply to the company writ large. . . . I certainly agree that it should be removed."

A fourth editor has said: "The letter is just talking about wording on a product label. Doesn't seem notable."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this on the Talk Page.

How do you think we can help?

One of the editors suggested taking this to Dispute Resolution before going any farther. You can suggest a next step for us to follow.

VanderSloot is the CEO and owner of a multilevel marketing company called Melaleuca. The FDA sent a warning letter to FrankVanderSloot regarding illegal marketing of his company’s nutritional products – i.e. making claims that the products can treat, prevent or cure diseases, which positions them as drugs in violation of DSHEA. Such infractions are considered a very serious matter, and warning letters are used as the FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs’ first line of defense; the next step being heavy fines and/or closure. When it comes to such warnings, the FDA has final authority (i.e. the warning letter is not a mere suggestion nor is it open to debate – it is a final opinion). The statement in the article is backed up by two WP:RS and there is ample precedence for both the importance of such warning letters and their inclusion in WP articles. The objections to inclusion of this information raised by the disputant are vague and without merit, and collusion/vote-stacking is an additional concern. I have addressed the issue in detail under the discussion section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My position is that there is no way to include this letter without either using original research or giving it undue weight due to the complex nature of administrative rulemaking.

First off, warning letters are common. FDA has issued 11,224 warning letters since the letter in question (admittedly original research from here). That works out to an average of roughly 3.5 of them per business day over 15 years.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was passed in 1994 and applied to the company after it went into effect. In 1997, FDA sent the company a letter stating that it should change the wording used on the packaging of three of its products because they contained health claims that had not been approved by FDA. I can’t find any response, either from the company or FDA, but it appears that the company subsequently changed the wording on its packaging.

In 2001, Pearson v. Thompson found that FDA overstepped its constitutional authority in regulating health claims of dietary supplements. Although DSHEA is still in effect, the nature of FDA’s enforcement has grown less strict and it is difficult to say how the company’s claims would be treated in the modern regulatory environment. What is clear is that the company was never the target of any official action by FDA. The letter itself states that it was not a reflection of the company writ large. Even the FDA guide to sending warning letters states that they are a tool for voluntary compliance, "not a regulatory action" (PDF)..

WP:FORUMSHOPPING applies here as the overwhelming consensus of all but one editor has been clear on the article talk page. DRN is not a place to forumshop where such a clear consensus exists. The person suggesting that it be posted here is the one I refer to, not the good faith poster of this section. Collect (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the ongoing discussions on the article talk page and consensus arrived thereat render DRN usage moot. Collect (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My position is that one FDA warning letter issued 15 years ago to a company that has since marketed hundreds (possibly thousands) of products since is not notable, especially on a BLP. The warning letter was for a claim on the label, which the company changed, and there aren't any sources saying that they've had problems with the FDA since. Also, I'm not a member of the Conservatism Project, if that matters at all.HtownCat (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a DRN volunteer and I would like to ask Collect to replace his statement with his position on the dispute. Not only comments on others' conduct are discouraged on DRN, but the filing editor asserts the conflict between local and global consensus, so the case may have a potential per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. P.S.: please, disregard the template stating that the case is opened and comments may be made in this section – we are still waiting for other parties' comments and won't proceed unless anybody from another side of the dispute would indicate their readiness to participate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In assessing the FDA warning with respect to VanderSloot, I considered various factors.

1. WP:RS: The statement in the article is backed up by a high-quality secondary WP:RS (i.e., The Tan Sheet). The Tan Sheet is not some insignificant trade rag as one editor implied. It is in fact a highly reputable publication, and is considered a definitive source on such matters, albeit not a publication that’s widely familiar to laypeople. The statement is also backed up by the primary source itself; i.e., the FDA letter. Thus, the statement easily passes WP:RS and WP:VER, which stands in stark contradiction to the implication by the other disputant that the source is not reliable; clearly this implication is baseless.
2. Relevance: The FDA warning letter has special relevance in VanderSloot’s bio because Vandersloots previous MLM company (at which he also served as CEO and co-owner) prior to forming “Melaleuca Inc” was shut down for exactly the same type of violative marketing (i.e., his previous company “Oil of Melaleuca Inc” also made curative claims about their nutritional products). This fact about Oil of Melaleuca’s demise was mentioned by VanderSloot himself and by other WP:RS; the detail is currently mentioned in the article[44] and is not being contested. Thus, the FDA warning letter, which is relevant in its own right, is especially so given the connection to the marketing practices of VanderSloots’s previous company.
3. Importance/notability: Two of the disputants argued that FDA warning letters are (a) insignificant, and (b) analogous to a speeding ticket, neither of which is remotely true. It was also argued that such warnings are given to thousands of products. This is also untrue. In fact, the FDA hands out only a handful of such warnings annually to nutritional supplement companies, and when they do, it is a big deal. In general, FDA warning letters, exactly like the one that VanderSloot received, are highly noteworthy as indicated by numerous high-quality sources that have reported on such events with other companies[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] FDA warning letters are also commonly included in WP articles about nutritional supplements (several of he following examples are also MLM companies)[54][55][56][57][58] There are also dozens of examples WP articles that mention FDA warning letters issued to makers of pharmaceutical products.

One of the disputants issued the claim that “"FDA has a 21 page manual explaining what warning letters are and I stand by what I said about it being too wonky”. I’m not sure of which document the editor is referring to, because he never provided the name or a link, but the claim about FDA warning letters being “wonky” is purely speculative opinion (baseless to boot) and constitutes WP:OR.

Although I don’t want to get into the matter of user conduct issues, a brief note is warranted. There has been a long history of partisan editing on the article by a couple of the disputants here, who belong to WP Project Conservatism, which is currently under fire for potential POV violations. In my experience, the group is used in a partisan manner for POV pushing and vote stacking. In practice, this has a very destructive effect on the integrity of WP and it makes neutral discussion about editorial matters next to impossible. VanderSloot is a controversial and polarizing figure, and he is a major financier of conservative political candidates; hence the WP project group’s tendency to whitewash articles that contain criticism of conservative figures seems to be at play here. Because Melaleuca is MLM, the company’s legions of thousands of distributors (along the lines of Amway) also have an interest in whitewashing article critical of MLM, and having edited several such articles in the past, I ca n safely say that this is a chronic occurrence here on WP.

Given these background factors at play, it’s next to impossible to have a reasonable balanced discussion on the talk page or achieve a legitimate consensus on even the simplest of issues. Edit warring and incivility are often the result. It is imperative that editorial issues under discussion get input from uninvolved parties that are not part of the WP project conservatism bloc, and hence DR seems like the best means to solicit reliable unbiased input from the community. I do not by any stretch believe that my opinions are the final word on this editorial issue, but it’s simply not possible at this point to have a an unbiased discussion about it given the current crop of editors who are opining, and instead it would be nice if we could get input on this from at least half a dozen or so editors for guidance. I’m open to hearing what the entire community thinks; not just the one-sided opinions of a particular COI conservative group or MLM voting bloc that marches in lockstep on every issue. Going forward, it would help things go much more smoothly if there were more impartial editors watching the page and weighing in on any editorial disputes that arise. We need more eyes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Another uninvolved volunteer here. DRN does not deal with conduct disputes, and conducts disputes should not be brought up on this noticeboard, no matter how brief. The wider dispute between American liberals and conservatives, especially during election season, is not something that DRN can resolve.--SGCM (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, understood. My bad. Main point is just that it would be really nice to have more impartial eyes on the article so that these sort of disputes can be avoided. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to Andrewman

• “My position is that there is no way to include this letter without either using original research or giving it undue weight due to the complex nature of administrative rulemaking.”

I don’t see how that position can be defended. The current text describing the letter uses no original research. It cites a reliable secondary source and a reliable primary source, and the event described is unambiguous. The statement about the “complex nature of administrative rulemaking” is so vague and nebulous that I don’t see any way to apply it here. It’s that assertion that sounds like WP:OR to me. It’s a red herring to suggest that the text should be deleted because the entire matter of FDA warning letters is simply too complex; it’s simply not true.

As for the frequency of FDA warning letters, they do issue them for various types of violations, but not that many letters are issued to supplement manufacturers for violative advertising claims (and even less often after having conducted a facilities inspection). I’ve already supplied sufficient evidence that the letters are noteworthy in general, as indicated by the significant coverage they have received in the past. That notwithstanding, the argument about frequency is weak. It matters not whether the FDA sent out 10 or 100. The fact remains that VanderSloot was the subject of regulatory action for misleading advertising claims suggesting that his products have curative properties (i.e., illegally positioning them as drugs), and this followed similar FDA action against VanderSloot for similarly illegal claims made about his “Oil of Melaleuca” products (claims which at least in part responsible for the company being shut down).

• "In 1997, FDA sent the company a letter stating that it should change the wording used on the packaging of three of its products because they contained health claims that had not been approved by FDA. I can’t find any response, either from the company or FDA, but it appears that the company subsequently changed the wording on its packaging."

It wasn't the “packaging”, it was product “promotional materials” – the terms are not synonymous. Furthermore, when the FDA refers to “product labeling” it applies to any and all claims used in product marketing and promotion, whether it appears on the product label, a brochure, or a website. Additionally, I don’t see why it would matter whether this editor was able to find the company’s response. The secondary source says that VanderSloot complied with the warning (stopped illegally marketing those products as drugs).

• "What is clear is that the company was never the target of any official action by FDA. The letter itself states that it was not a reflection of the company writ large. Even the FDA guide to sending warning letters states that they are a tool for voluntary compliance, not a regulatory action PDF."

What is clear to me is (a) your statement is incorrect, and (b) you seem overly eager to use incorrect assertions in order to have this detail whitewashed from the article. The FDA’s position was unambiguous and Meleleuca was in fact the target of an “official regulatory action” by the FDA. The FDA asserts that such letters are significant and are issues only in the case of clear-cut violations of legal statutes:[59]

“The agency position is that Warning Letters are issued only for violations of regulatory significance. Significant violations are those violations that may lead to enforcement action if not promptly and adequately corrected." A Warning Letter is the agency's principal means of achieving prompt voluntary compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The Warning Letter was developed to correct violations of the statutes or regulations. Also available to the agency are enforcement strategies which are based on the particular set of circumstances at hand and may include sequential or concurrent FDA enforcement actions such as recall, seizure, injunction, administrative detention, civil money penalties and/or prosecution to achieve correction. Despite the significance of the violations, there are some circumstances that may preclude the agency from taking any further enforcement action following the issuance of a Warning Letter. For example, the violation may be serious enough to warrant a Warning Letter and subsequent seizure; however, if the seizable quantity fails to meet the agency's threshold value for seizures, the agency may choose not to pursue a seizure. In this instance, the Warning Letter would document prior warning if adequate corrections are not made and enforcement action is warranted at a later time.” Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. I have to weigh in on this one on the side of removing the paragraph. If this was an article about the company, the inclusion of this material might or might not be justifiable, but this is a BLP article about the person, not about the company. Yes, the letter was addressed to him, but it was sent to him in is role as an officer of the company, not as an individual, and had nothing to do with him as an individual. The most information this conveys about him as an individual was that it happened "on his watch" as CEO and with a company of this size that's simply not enough on a matter as minor and routine as this warning, in my opinion, to avoid having this provision constitute undue weight in a BLP article. By the way, I am not a participant at the Conservative Project (and, indeed, am both a political liberal and a skeptic as to things like health claims made by supplement manufacturers), but this paragraph doesn't belong in this article purely on Wikipedia principles. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the first reasonable argument I've heard so far. Thanks for weighing in. Hopefully we can get a few more editors to comment too. If there is general agreement with your point, that will be good enough for me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue back that, in practical terms, the differentiation between VanderSloot and the company he owns -- Melaleuca -- is murky. The article portrays events sponsored by Melaleuca (e.g. the Freedom Celebration) as acts of philanthropy on VanderSloot’s part; and it attributes awards for Melaleuca to VanderSloot personally, because of his role as the company’s CEO. Therefore, if awards and philanthropy related to Melaleuca are attributed to VanderSloot personally, it wouldn't seem rational to exclude the FDA warning on the basis that it was related to Vandersloot’s role as CEO, rather than VanderSloot as private individual. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if we have a dispute resolution volunteer ???? Is Dmitrij our volunteer of record? Or is it TransporterMan? This is the first step in a dispute resolution process, so it would be nice if we could have a recommendation as to what to do with this paragraph, or anyway what to do to forward the process. Thanks very much. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What would be nice is what I had originally requested -- i.e., that we get multiple sets of independent eyes on the article for guidance. If we don't, then we'll have to refile the DR request.

Response to HTownCat

• Comment 1: "My position is that one FDA warning letter issued 15 years ago to a company that has since marketed hundreds (possibly thousands) of products since is not notable, especially on a BLP."

Reply: The date has no bearing on notability. The article currently mentions many details that happened 15 years ago. Had it been a more recent entry, then presumably this editor would have argued about WP:RECENT or WP:NOTNEWS. There is no WP policy or guideline concerning notability that excludes information merely because it's 15 years old. In addition, the number of products the company has is irrelevant (and obviously they aren't going to get FDA warnings for misleading health claims about laundry detergent, toothpaste, etc).

• Comment 2: "The warning letter was for a claim on the label, which the company changed, and there aren't any sources saying that they've had problems with the FDA since."

Reply: First, it is disingenuous to repeat arguments that have been discounted. It was not the product label that carried the violative claims; it was the product marketing materials.[60] Secondly, where the claims were made (label or other promotional materials) has no bearing on the notability of the information or the seriousness of the violation. Third, it matters not whether the company continued to violate the law; the entry in the WP article makes no allegations about ongoing illegal claims, and in fact it accurately discloses that the company complied with the order (had they not, they would have likely been heavily fined or shut down, as these are the next steps in the FDAs process). Lastly, the fact that the company complied with the order doesn't make the initial infraction or the FDAs warning any less significant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument with the most consensus at this point is to not include the paragraph on the grounds of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. If there are no further objections, this case should be closed as resolved. @Rhode Island Red. While I understand your concerns, bringing in more editors to a talk page is not something that DRN can always accomplish. Consider notifying a WikiProject or using Wikipedia:Request for comment. A word of caution, disputes between American conservatives and liberals on Wikipedia have been ongoing since the site was founded and are especially heated during the election season (just take a look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log and this discussion on ANI). @GeorgeLouis. The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal, there are no assigned volunteers. It's a venue for establishing consensus with the input of uninvolved editors. Cases can be closed when a consensus has been reached. --SGCM (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely object. No one has elaborated on their initial arguments and the counterarguments are simply being ignored without response. The discussion has barely advanced an inch since coming here. This isn't about a straight up or down vote. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. DRN is an informal noticeboard, and participation is not mandatory. Consensus is about the quality of arguments, and so far, the strongest argument has been TransporterMan's point about BLP. BLP policy does apply here, particularly Wikipedia:BLP#Due weight, regardless of the subject's actual role in the company..--SGCM (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ten bad arguments don't add up to a good argument. Wikipedia:BLP#Due weight states: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." In this case, criticism (the FDA action) was sourced to a reliable secondary source (and the primary source) and presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. It was not given disproportionate space, nor was it a "viewpoint" (it was a fact) of a minority, tiny or otherwise. It was also logically/thematically connected to an identical FDA action against VanderSloot's previous company, which has is mentioned in the article and has never been contested. The article also includes relatively trivial details about Melaleuca's awards and philanthropy, which are attributed to VanderSloot personally. Including these details without the FDA letter would be a violation of undue weight. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments failed to get support at the article talk page, and failed to get any backing at BLP/N. They have not attracted support here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would concur in closing this discussion as "Resolved. Consensus for removal of the paragraph." Being part of that consensus, however, I would prefer that SGCM or some other uninvolved volunteer make an independent evaluation of whether that is the right thing to do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has no interest in American politics, this is my opinion so far: BLP policy requires that controversies must be widely covered by the media. For public figures, "if you cannot find multiple [emphasis not mine, from the original text] reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Unlike the incident that was covered by the Idaho Statesman article, the warning letter has been mentioned in only a single source so far (a Google News search indicates that there are unlikely to be others). The source, based from what I've read of the available summary, does not seem to focus on VanderSloot's involvement, unlike the Idaho Statesman article. I understand Rhode Island Red's argument that VlanderSloot is a controversial figure because of his involvement in Mitt Romney's campaign, but as an uninvolved editor and based on BLP, I concur with TransporterMan's assessment.--SGCM (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have found several more references that refer to the FDA's actions. I'll have those posted by the end of day. BTW, what I said previously was merely that he is "a controversial and polarizing" figure, not that he is a controversial figure "because of his involvement in Mitt Romney's campaign". The reason he's a controversial figure is because of the attack ads he bought against political foes, his actions regarding hot-button LGBT issues (like prop 8, billboards against a TV program about homosexuality in the schools, and outing of a gay reporter), and his involvement in questionable business practices that have landed him in hot water with the FDA and FTC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I'm not familiar with American politics, but my point is that the subject, known for his conservative stances, is controversial, and as a BLP about a controversial public figure, caution is required when handling the page. This applies to controversial liberal public figures as well, and indeed, all public figures. Providing more references may help, and the incident must be demonstrated as noteworthy, otherwise BLP discourages its inclusion.--SGCM (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument for removal now rests solely on the charge that the information about the FDA is given undue weight; i.e.:

• “The warning letter has been mentioned in only a single source so far (a Google News search indicates that there are unlikely to be others).”

That cursory Google search attempt (i.e., restricted to articles from 1997-2000 and not including the term “FDA”) does not prove absence of evidence, and furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The underlying argument, however, is easily addressed. There are in fact several additional reliable sources that refer to VanderSloot’s run-ins with the FDA, so the charge about undue weight and lack of multiple sources does not hold up. The following reliable sources all referred to VanderSloot’s run-in with the FDA during the Melaleuca Inc-era (and note that these were not general articles about his company but were about VanderSloot specifically).

• ”Not everyone has been so admiring of Melaleuca's business practices: The "wellness company" has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations.”[61]
• “The Food and Drug Administration previously accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements.”[62]

• ”The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid."[63]

• “Dickinson claims that what VanderSloot specifically seeks are, “Fewer consumer protections. The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making ‘false and misleading’ claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to ‘not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[64]

In addition, as I mentioned before, the details about VanderSloot’s run-ins with the FDA over misleading advertising during the Melaleuca, Inc. era are especially significant given that this is exactly the same thing that led to the closure of VanderSloot’s previous company Oil of Melaleuca, Inc. Immediately following the closure, the company was reincarnated as Melaleuca, Inc., and VanderSloot again had the same problems with the FDA over illegal/misleading advertising. The following are relevant quotes from WP:RS:

• “VanderSloot says the company was a mess. A supposed 80 percent corner on the tea tree market turned out to be 5 percent. The FDA came knocking, because salespeople were exaggerating medical claims.”[65]
• ”On his first day as president and CEO at Oil of Melaleuca, Frank VanderSloot told salespeople to stop distributing a tape about company products because the tape had too many false claims. On his third day, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration agent showed up at VanderSloot's Idaho Falls office. The agent said he planned to shut down the company for false advertising, and would seize the building.”[66]

• (Quoting VanderSloot indirectly referring to run-ins over misleading advertising claims with Oil of Melaleuca): “We had all kinds of other problems as well. A lot of our distributors were making claims in regard to what melaleuca oil could do that were not substantiated with good science."[67]

VanderSloot’s FDA run-ins with Oil of Melaleuca are also described in detail in this puff-piece autobiography (heavily skewed POV mind you).[68][69]

It also bears repeating that the key phrase about VanderSloot’s FDA run-in mentioned in the WP bio is not “contentious” in any way – it is an indisputable fact, as indicated by the primary source (the FDAs warning itself) and a rock-solid secondary source (The Tan Sheet).

The documentation provided above easily satisfies WP policy on public figures (WP:WELLKNOWN), which states:

“In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.”

The FDA issues are just the tip of the iceberg too. There are also numerous reliable sources that have provided in-depth coverage questioning the legitimacy of VanderSloot's business practices in other areas, charging that it is essentially a pyramid scheme. We can save that discussion for another day, but just be advised that there are several other significant controversies about VanderSloot's business practices that have been covered by multiple sources and would therefore also satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The topic at hand is the 1997 letter, hence the restrictiveness of the cursory Google search. A more general statement on VanderSloot and Melaleuca's business practices may be warranted as per BLP, but that doesn't address the inclusion of the letter. I have no comment on the other controversies that the subject has been involved in, other than to say that, like you, I'm personally sceptical of supplement claims and MLM (see my stance on the Monavie DRN). A discussion on replacing the current paragraph with something more general could work as a compromise between the involved parties. Hopefully, more fellow volunteers will weigh in.--SGCM (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we're headed in the right direction. I appreciate your effort and patience. I too think that some sort of a compromise could be reached, and more input from outside editors would be helpful. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

[70] is typical - the FDA sends out far more than 500 "warning letters" each year. The Melaleuca letter falls into the lowest class as it is specifically about "labeling" of products. [71] and absolutely no further action occurred. In short - a routine FDA letter about labelling, and of zero import to VanderSloot personally at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is a stellar example of refusing to get the point. FDA warning letters are a very serious matter -- that has already been well established by the evidence presented in my posts above. As I said before when you first raised this tangential WP:OR observation of yours about the volume of warnings, the FDA sends out relatively few warnings to supplement companies for misleading health claims in their advertising (not to mention that its irrelevant whether they send out 5 or 500 a year).

You are also still repeating a falsehood that was already addressed – the FDA warning was not for “labeling” per se but rather for misleading “promotional materials”– i.e., product “brochures” (FDA/FTC uses the broad term “labeling” to refer to all product advertising and product claims, regardless of whether the claims appear on the package, a brochure, the internet, etc.) – this fact was explicitly stated by both the primary and secondary sources.

The fact that VanderSloot chose to comply with the warning and amend the product brochures does not impact the relevance of the initial infraction that was reported – he essentially had no choice but to comply because the consequences of noncompliance could have included heavy fines, confiscation of inventory, and closure of the company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that refer to VanderSloot’s run-ins; thus the relevancy of the information has been well established. Trying to pretend that FDA warning letters are trivial and innocuous, at this stage in our discussion, looks unmistakably like POV pushing and whitewashing. Let’s move on now shall we. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Collect. It's true that the 1997 letter is undue for a BLP, and that there is a general consensus to remove or replace it. @Rhode Island Red. A more general statement about Melaleuca's business practices and run-ins with the government is open for discussion, and I have no opinion on the topic, other than that it must be presented impartially and in adherence to BLP. However, as far as this case is concerned, the original issue that was brought to DRN, the 1997 letter, is resolved. Discussion over a more general statement is a separate issue and should be reserved for the article talk page.--SGCM (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that violation of WP:UNDUE has been demonstrated. Any proposals for changes in the wording should be discussed in order to resolve the dispute. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The source used to cite the Oil of Melaleuca incident clearly shows that VanderSloot found the company to "be a mess" after he started working there, and then the FDA showed up on his third day. So, any FDA issues occurred before he even got there and shouldn't be used in any verbiage about his "general business practices," nor help determine whether or not the 1997 FDA letter is notable.HtownCat (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be VanderSloot's version of the story but that's hardly NPOV. Various secondary sources have referred to VanderSloot's run-ins with the FDA while at Oil of Melaleuca and with the FDA/FTC while at Melaleuca Inc. The details needs to be included in a balanced manner. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM can we close out the topic now that we have consensus? This feels like it's gone on forever. Andrewman327 (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The DRN case is at the eight day mark, so it should be closed soon. Eight days is not atypical for a case (there's a 15 day case listed above this one). The case is still open for any final remarks or third party opinions.--SGCM (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we use this opportunity to discuss revised wording so as to resolve the dispute once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Only one person has any problem with not having the "stuff" in the BLP. At this point, I would daresay that since no one else has backed the single editor, that it is unlikely that further discussion here will make any difference. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a constructive approach. No one if forcing you take part in DR or to discuss alternate text for the FDA issue if you are not inclined to do so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The case has gone on for ten days and should be closed by now, as partially resolved. There is a rough consensus not to include the paragraph on the 1997 warning letter, which was the original issue that was brought to DRN. The Rolling Stone and Slate articles don't explicitly mention the 1997 letter, but do refer to the controversy over Melaleuca's supplements. Inclusion of a more general statement describing the controversy will have to be discussed on the article's talk page, as DRN is not a substitute for talk page discussion. I have no opinion on its inclusion, other than that it must be presented impartially and in adherence with WP:BLP.--SGCM (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2012 (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.