Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 194

Archive 190

←

Archive 192

Archive 193

Archive 194

Archive 195

Archive 196

→

Archive 200

Periodic table

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Double sharp on 08:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Periodic table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Double sharp (talk · contribs) Sandbh (talk · contribs) Droog Andrey (talk · contribs) YBG (talk · contribs) ComplexRational (talk · contribs) R8R (talk · contribs) Дрейгорич (talk · contribs) Michael D. Turnbull (talk · contribs) Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) DePiep (talk · contribs) Officer781 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some authors think group 3 contains Sc, Y, La, and Ac (short: the La form); others Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr (the Lu form); and some give a compromise form where all 30 lanthanides and actinides are put under yttrium (the * form). WP currently shows La as a default. This has been argued about for a while this year. On WP, all significant options in reliable sources must be considered. But putting 3 different periodic table templates everywhere is awkward. University textbooks from the 2010s gives percentages of 48% La, 18% Lu, 33% *, Google shows 2/3 majority for * and equal 1/6 for La and Lu, and most articles arguing about the issue (since 1921) conclude in favour of Lu. Complicating matters is that we currently show both 18 column (e.g. {{Periodic table}} [1]) and 32 column (e.g. {{Periodic table (navbox)}} [2]) periodic tables. I believe this impasse can be resolved by appealing to the relevant organisation: the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). They currently show a compromise form of * under Y on their website, although they do not endorse it. In the 2005 Red Book this is the only form presented, in 18 column. In the 1990 form the same 18 column form appear, but also a 32 column form is presented which shows Lu under Y instead. IUPAC currently has a project looking at this since 2015, but we have no information about when they'll be done, and we need something in the meantime. The chair of this project (Eric Scerri) called this 1988 statement in a IUPAC report an endorsement of the Lu form. “ The Elements of the Scandium Group In the "Red Book" which will appear in 1988 the same arrangement was chosen for the elements of the scandium group as in the periodic table as originally proposed by CNIC and subsequently published by VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim. It is a compromise. According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements Sc, Y, Lu, Lr. This was pointed out as early as 1959 by L.D. Landau (ref. 20) and later by other authors (ref. 13, 14, 20 to 25). Most periodic tables in textbooks and classrooms, however, list Sc, Y, La, and Ac as elements of the scandium group and designate the elements Ce to Lu and Th to Lr as lanthanides and actinides, respectively. The historical background for this arrangement is given in a paper by W.B. Jensen (ref. 21). Based upon their electronic configurations and their chemical and physical properties, the elements La to Yb and Ac to No should be inserted between barium and lutetium and between radium and lawrencium or for practical reasons be listed at the bottom of the table. The series La to Yb and Ac to No then, however, cannot be named correctly as lanthanides and actinides since they contain the elements lanthanum and actinium and not only elements similar to lanthanum and actinium as is purported by the ending -ide (or -oid according to an earlier IUPAC recommendation). ” There is some unclarity, because despite talking about Lu under Y, justifying it with sources and from properties of the elements, and explaining how to contract the form to 18 column by taking about La-Yb and Ac-No, the arrangement referred to in the Weinheim table is * under Y. However, Scerri is on the current IUPAC project and calls it an endorsement of Lu under Y, and it is very possible that he has access to some documents we do not that leads him to this conclusion. As such, either Lu under Y or * under Y would seem acceptable for 18-column tables. For 32-column tables, such as the one in {{Periodic table (navbox)}}, the 1990 Red Book shows Lu under Y. So any of three solutions as default seem justifiable by referring to IUPAC. Placeholder * under Y in 18 column, and avoid 32 column completely (internally consistent, and not against the 1990 or 2005 Red Books); Placeholder * under Y in 18 column, Lu under Y in 32 column (exactly following the 1990 Red Book, albeit kind of inconsistent, and not against the 2005 Red Book); Lu under Y in both 18 and 32 column form (consistency with Scerri's interpretation of the 1988 report). I would prefer #3 for some other reasons (mostly because that is what most articles in the literature focusing on this issue support, and it avoids contradicting ourselves when it comes to explaining the Madelung rule; the latter would especially improve the periodic table article when it explains chemical periodicity), but in the interest of compromise and getting back to something more productive I am more than happy to support #1 or #2. Of course, when the current IUPAC project makes a decision, we can relook at it. In previous discussions the majority of users involved either supported changing WP to default Lu on this or other bases (me, DA, CR, Dreigorich, Officer781, YBG) or, even if they opposed Lu, seem at least fine with the * compromise (Michael D. Turnbull and Graeme Bartlett). As mentioned above I would be fine with any of the three options above. Sandbh has so far been unwilling to compromise on anything but the La form. I was directed at WP:ANI to bring the issue here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements (archives 42, 44, 46, and 48): initially about an article Sandbh was writing externally about this issue (which he asked for a peer review of by members of our project), but then spiralled into considering what should be done on WP Latest discussion at Talk:Periodic table. First RFC was started by me and then closed to try to resolve the issue with Sandbh first, as I did go overboard, and I didn't yet know that IUPAC had endorsed the Lu under Y form in 1988. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? More perspectives and building towards a consensus. Summary of dispute by Sandbh Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don’t understand why we are here. Our Periodic table article shows La in Group 3. This is the most popular form of table in the literature. A few members of our small WP:ELEMENTS project would like to change the table so that Group 3 has Lu in it. I don’t. An rfc was called by Double sharp. It was withdrawn by him the next day after being strongly opposed by a member of WP:CHEMISTRY and myself (I described the rfc as illegitimate). Like all people who contribute to Wikipedia talk pages, I express my opinions. Sometimes others agree; sometimes they don’t. So it goes. Now then, why are we here? Sandbh (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Objection: @Robert McClenon and Double sharp: I object to Double sharp's multiple (biased and out of context) postings in this forum, as he seeks to successively refine his arguments. Sandbh (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC) And I strongly object to your non-stop biased misrepresentation of reliable sources too, but again: we have been advised that DRN is not the place for conduct disputes but rather for content disputes. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Incivil behaviour: @Robert McClenon: Another example of incivil behaviour by Double Sharp, posting to my comments section. One more for WP:ANI. Acknowledgement: I thank other contributors here for their concise and interesting perspectives. Sandbh (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC) IUPAC: Noting the calibre of the folk on the IUPAC Group 3 Project (including Scerri, Jensen, Lavelle, Restrepo, Ball) I will very likely accept their recommendation, whether La or Lu. I understand Double sharp will do this too, although he has said he will grumble about an La outcome. Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Droog Andrey Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm sure that was a sad mistake to change Sc-Y-Lu-Lr to Sc-Y-La-Ac here on WP. The periodic table is not a chart to describe elements, but a system where they are naturally organized. The literature that focus on the point confirms that Sc-Y-La-Ac was just a historical misunderstanding. Double sharp is honestly trying to fix the consequences of his own fault. He collated a heavy lot of primary and secondary sources and presented a deep and transparent analysis of the problem. His approach looks elegant since it is based on consistence, verifiability and logic. The key points of disagreement with Sandbh are explained here. As a chemist and high-school chemistry teacher, I strongly support Double sharp's position here. Droog Andrey (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by YBG Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ComplexRational Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by R8R Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The discussion is about whether the periodic table used in English Wikipedia should change its composition or not. There are different proposals in the scientific community what element group 3 of the periodic table should be made of. None of them is right or wrong; it's more about more or less fit for purpose, and the purpose can vary. It appears most chemists don't really care whether it is one way or another; this is a rather niche dispute in itself, though it is sometimes seen as a part of a larger important topic. Most editors, including myself, have a preference for the -Lu-Lr layout. Sandbh has a preference for the -La-Ac layout. However, he also notes that most sources also use this format. I think this is the decisive argument for the English Wikipedia. This could be countered if this version was wrong but as I said, there is no right or wrong here; it boils down to preference of what you want to emphasize. This problem has been discussed in enormous length at WT:ELEM. Like Sandbh, I see no strong case for a change in the English Wikipedia. One potential turning point in the future may be a decision by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) to recommend a specific composition of group 3; IUPAC is often seen as the ultimate body governing chemical nomenclature. IUPAC is currently tackling the problem. I am not sure whether we should automatically accept whatever they propose but their recommendation will certainly have a great value in a future discussion.--R8R (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Дрейгорич Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The periodic table as it is usually presented has eighteen columns, or groups, numbered from left to right. The composition of the third of these groups, or Group 3, is the subject of intense debate. Directly below yttrium (Y), the thirty-ninth element, which elements should be slotted in? Lanthanum and actinium below (the La form)? Or lutetium and lawrencium (the Lu form)? The periodic table has been drawn both ways over the decades and the issue is still unresolved to this day. IUPAC has no position on the issue at present (they draw it as a * table with 30 elements removed from the main table and not 28, which both Double sharp and I consider unacceptable - why must only one group terminate early? Double sharp wrote to me to correct this. He said he would accept it as a compromise. I would reluctantly accept if it came to that, but it wouldn't be my first choice.). Wikipedia currently presents the La form, and the question is whether this should stand or be edited to the Lu form of the table. The discussion, primarily on the talk page of WP:ELEM (I will not even attempt to summarize it as it was spread out over the course of seven months and multiple archives!), led to overwhelming support of the Lu form (7-1 if I remember correctly 5-1 for the change, 7-1 for the arguments of the lone person against the change as being unconvincing). This prompted the RFC between the members that was quickly withdrawn as "illegitimate" and eventually resulted in the same points being repeated bordering into ad hominem territory. As for me, I'm one of the seven five who fall into team Lu, supporting pretty much what Double sharp has previously said. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 09:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Michael D. Turnbull Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was unaware of the Group 3 dispute either in the chemistry literature or on Wikipedia until late July this year, when Sandbh raised a question on a page I was watching, WT:WikiProject Chemistry and subsequently Double sharp commented at length in that thread. I then read some of their extensive discussion at WT:ELEM and responded by saying I thought it was "Enough already!". My analysis was "that you both think that you are discussing the periodic table whereas in fact you are each discussing a periodic table: unfortunately not the same one! Your only focus should be "how can we improve the periodic table article?" (on Wikipedia there is only one)". In fact, the participants all agree that the periodic table article should discuss the various historic forms of the periodic table and the Group 3 debate, using reliable sources, in a WP:NPOV way and I think this is already done well. The problem is that Wikipedia has to settle on a single consistent version of the table for its various templates, such as {{periodic table}}, {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)}} and {{Periodic table (18 columns, micro)}} which are widely used in chemistry articles about the elements. This is partly what has caused the dispute and has been difficult to resolve despite months of discussion. My own position is neutral on which version should be adopted, but the continuing bickering has meant it has become more difficult to proceed with other suggestions to improve the encyclopaedia, such as my idea in a thread "here". which became so entangled in multiple issues that it has had to be closed. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Graeme Bartlett Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I also don't think it needs discussion here, as not enough time has been given for a discussion on the talk pages. More discussion about what to do can take place at the same venue. I think that we need to describe the differences in point of view in the article, but that we use traditional tables with * and ** (or the like) to have lanthanides and actinides in the drop down rows. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DePiep Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. #DePiep01: Please cut the 18-vs-32-column-issue out of the question. By all means. -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Officer781 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am part of team Lu, Lr to be included into Group 3. To be honest I understand that this is controversial and that is precisely why there is an IUPAC committee drawn up to decide on this. The key question in this I feel is which elements use their f-orbitals in bonding. La and Ac, with their f-orbitals being empty, would probably be more likely to use them in bonding (be it in molecules, the pure metal, semiconductor compounds, etc) than Lu, Lr since the latter have full f-orbitals (but these orbitals would also have to be sufficiently lowered in energy; compare the situation with zinc, cadmium and mercury with their core-like d-orbitals. I'm not sure if Lu, Lr use their f-orbitals, someone can help to clarify this). I agree that Lu, Lr should nonetheless still be considered Lanthanides and Actinides (which span 15 elements each and also includes Lanthanum and Actinium). I am actually an experimental materials scientist so I am not very informed about the pure chemistry stuff pertaining to this. Other than the main argument above I defer to Eric Scerri.--Officer781 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Periodic table discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Extended inappropriate content Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Why we are here, since Sandbh asked. Misuse of sources by Sandbh Just one example. I feel that if sources are being misrepresented this way, outside dispute resolution is needed. What Landau and Lifshitz give What Sandbh in his own analysis calls a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" Sources discussing the topic Here is a table of all sources in the literature I'm aware of that give some arguments about the issue. I consider them to have some weight, since for issues like this textbooks may not be up-to-date with the latest knowledge, just as they are not with hypervalent molecules: the literature is well aware that there is no d orbital participation on phosphorus in PCl5, but many textbooks will tell you that there is. Supports Lu Supports La Supports * Bury (1921) Shemyakin (1932) Zh. Obshch. Khim. 2, 62 (1932) (Russian) Landau and Lifshitz (1958) Seel (1961) Hamilton and Jensen (1963), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.205 Hamilton (1965), doi:10.1119/1.1972042 Luder (1967) "The Electron Repulsion Theory of the Chemical Bond", Chapter 2 Matthias et al. (1967) Merz and Ulmer (1967), doi:10.1016/0375-9601(67)90527-0 Chistyakov (1968) Zh. Obshch. Khim. 38, 209 (1968) (Russian) Seel (1969) Chistyakov (1970) Luder (1970) Wittig (1973), doi:10.1007/BFb0108579 Jensen (1982) Holden (1985) Fluck and Rumpf (1986): doi:10.1002/ciuz.19860200403 (German) Seel (1987) Kulsha (1999?): available on the author's website, pages 1, 2, 3, 4 (Russian) Fang et al. (2000) Wulfsberg (2000) Horovitz and Sârbu (2005), doi:10.1021/ed082p473 Wulfsberg (2006) Ouyang et al. (2008), doi:10.1063/1.2831506 Jensen (2008) Scerri (2009) Scerri (2011) Scerri (2012) Nelson (2013) Settouti and Aourag (2014), doi:10.1007/s11837-014-1247-x Imyanitov (2014) Jensen (2015) Scerri and Parsons (2018) Tsimmerman (2018) Scerri (2019) Tsimmerman and Boyce (2019) Alvárez (2020) Scerri (2020) Smith (1927) Trifonov (1970) Shchukarev (1974) Atkins (2006) Lavelle (2008) Restrepo (2017), doi:10.1021/bk-2017-1263.ch005 Cao et al. (2020) Xu and Pyykkö (2016) Note that Andrey Kulsha is our User:Droog Andrey. I will add links and doi's gradually. I have tried to give fulltext links where possible. I encourage additions. ^_^ As you can see: when it comes to the literature that focuses on the issue, the support of the Lu form becomes extremely strong. P.S. I am not any of the authors listed above. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Comment - I have a few preliminary comments. First, this dispute appears to have eleven editors. As such, it is really better suited for a Request for Comments than for moderated discussion. I haven't yet read why the RFC that was advanced briefly was then closed. Perhaps, after I read the background discussion in more detail, I might be able to help formulate the RFC properly. Second, it isn't obvious to me why the issue has generated so much controversy, when any chemist should know that which form of the table is used is a matter of convention, and if all of the forms are described, that is what an encyclopedia should do, but that is only my opinion. (Some things in the physical sciences are matters of conventional representation, including how you list the elements.) Third, I have collapsed much of the above for two reasons. It is far too long to be informative, and besides it comments on contributors rather than on content. Fourth, is there a reason why an RFC is not appropriate? Fifth, is there a reason why it makes a difference which form is used? Sixth, do you want help with an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC) An RFC was attempted earlier by Double sharp (pro-Lu), but was quickly declared as an illegitimate, non-neutral RFC by Sandbh (pro-La, who I suspect viewed it more as an ad hominem attack against them) and thus was quickly closed. After the issue was escalated, it was recommended to post here on the DRN. The issue is how to present the periodic table, e.g. on an article on neon describing its position in the table. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 19:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Impartial comment: Thank you User:Дрейгорич. For the record, I did not interpret the RFC as an ad hominen attack. Sandbh (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Rewrote a shorter response below. Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: The first RFC was closed because I wanted to de-escalate the situation at Sandbh's suggestion, and because I thought there wasn't a chance it could go through. However, now that I relook at it, it seems that IUPAC's position actually does give some argument in favour of Lu, and it seems to me now that the mass of reliable sources spanning a century arguing for Lu under Y is actually a good argument. (I thought it wasn't on the grounds that most sources arguing about helium ask for it to be moved over beryllium, but that is mostly significantly newer, and never got any IUPAC usage as far as I am aware.) So, I think there is actually a case that can be argued for WP now. I am looking for any way in which this issue can be discussed properly based on reliable sources. If that means a second RFC, yes, I would like help with that indeed. ^_^ Now, let me answer your questions. There is much controversy on Wikipedia just because, although most periodic tables in the textbook literature show La under Y, a huge number of sources spanning almost a century have been arguing that it should be Lu under Y (see the collapsed content above for a list of many; there are more). That is certainly a controversy: IUPAC has a project looking at it since 2015 (but we don't know when they'll be done and will need to show something in the meantime), and one of its members (Philip Ball) referred to "the fury that has been incited in arguments over group 3." Evidently, the fact that there is a controversy is completely verifiable and with this many articles for it, it would be a correct reflection of the sources to put Lu under Y instead. Some textbooks have followed and put Lu under Y (18% as of the 2010s), but others have not (33% show *, 48% still show La). This is not really unprecedented, since many textbooks continue to claim that molecules like PCl5 expand their octet with d orbitals, when it has been known for decades that it is not true (quite a few journal articles have demonstrated it); not to mention that most such textbooks do not really cover these heavy elements in detail. Moreover, IUPAC does not show La under Y in any form of the periodic table: when they show 18-column tables they compromise and put a placeholder * under Y, but in 32-column form when this is impossible they do show Lu under Y (1990 Red Book, p. 283). Indeed, when the form of the periodic table is the issue being described, all three forms should appear (La, Lu, compromise placeholder *). But it seems rather silly to show all three forms when that's not the issue, e.g. the article on neon. That element is nowhere near the disputed region, and it's irrelevant to discuss the dispute on its article. Yet we still need to show where it is on the periodic table to describe what that means for its physical and chemical properties (very inert gas at room temperature, etc.). So we need to show one, and there needs to be a default. Now, why does it matter? Because it's more than a matter of convention. The La form makes a statement about the elements in question: that lanthanum is a d block element and that lutetium is an f block element. But doing so actually does not improve the Wikipedia article because it forces us into some contradictions: The Madelung rule. This is well-known to give us the basis for the periodic table's layout, and would have to be explained on the periodic table article. But it says 4f comes before 5d. With a Lu table, there isn't a contradiction, as that's exactly what is shown. If we show a La table, we have to go into a tangent explaining why the Madelung rule says 4f comes before 5d but the table we show gives one 5d electron first. It ends up looking like what I had to write at Electron configuration#Periodic table. And then it ends up contradicting reliable sources that note that lanthanum already has the involvement of the 4f orbitals characteristic of f block elements, but lutetium doesn't have it. I tried to be neutral there, but the fact remains that with a Lu table the reader would not have to face an internal contradiction. The significance of gas-phase ground-state electron configurations for the d and f block elements. Reliable sources agree this isn't very important because such elements have very many different configurations very close in energy, and in chemical environments their configuration can be different. But this is a large part of the basis for the La table in the first place, as noted already in the periodic table article. Even sources that show a La table often make generalisations that contradict it. Examples can be found when looking at what the lanthanide contraction means for the succeeding elements. Zumdahl and Zumdahl's Chemistry (2006 edition, p. 959), for example, says "This lanthanide contraction just offsets the normal increase in size due to going from one principal quantum level to another. Thus the 5d elements, instead of being significantly larger than the 4d elements, are almost identical to them in size. This leads to a great similarity in the chemistry of the 4d and 5d elements in a given vertical group." Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements (1997 edition, p. 1234) says something similar: "The interpolation of the lanthanides in fact almost exactly cancels this anticipated increase with the result, noted in previous chapters, that in each group of transition elements the second and third elements have very similar sizes and properties." Both sources show a La table. But the problem is that what they said is only true with a Lu table (they give a La one): Y is indeed very similar to Lu in size and properties (see The Heavy Transition Elements), but not to La. So I think it is rather an important thing because the La form actually makes it difficult to improve the article on the periodic table with the general understandings of chemical periodicity found in reliable sources. Does that help? If it is too long I can try to shorten it. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: 1. The "dispute"/difference of opinion has been discussed or raised in WP:ELEMENTS (four separate occasions IIRC); the Periodic table talk page; an RFC (not by me); WP:ANI (twice; not by me); and now here. 2. There is no controversy in the literature. In a 2020 Nature article on "The periodic table and the physics that drives it", the authors note that, "Fuzzy concepts like chemical similarity often lead to unnecessary disputes concerning the PTE." This is one of those disputes. You are on message, in my opinion, when you said any chemist should know that which form of the table is used is a matter of convention. Scerri, who is chair of the IUPAC project looking at Group 3, said effectively the same thing: "We should accept that a degree of convention must be used in selecting a periodic table that can be presented as perhaps the best possible table that combines objective factors as well as interest dependence." In 100 years there have been, say, 20 authors who suggested Lu should go in Group 3 rather than Lu. Jensen had a red hot go in 1983 by gathering together many of the previous arguments. His effort did not gain traction. Scerri referred to Jensen's argument as being too selective. 3. Thank you. 4. There is no reason why an rfc would be inappropriate if the relevant WP policies are observed including WP:NPOV; WP:VERIFY; WP:NOR and WP:CIVIL 5. Yes, we have to choose a form to show in the lead of our periodic table article, and in its main body. As an encyclopedia, we show the form that is most popular in the literature. We discuss the other variants in the main body of the article, and we go into a lot more detail in the Group 3 article. 6. I personally see no need for an RFC. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Here's my take. I responded above, but here's a more thorough answer. 1. Answered above. It was done a bit too hastily and a bit in an ad hominem manner. 2. There should be a neutral option for describing the position of, e.g. neon in the periodic table as Double sharp put it, or more controversially, something like lutetium. When referencing the periodic table, we don't need to draw out multiple forms each time unnecessarily. 3. Yes. 4. I would not be against a second attempt at a more neutrally-worded RFC. 5. I explained above in 2. This is a surprisingly controversial issue among chemists. 6. I'd be open to getting some help in formulating an RFC. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Extended content @Robert McClenon: In keeping with Sandbh's and Dreigorich's answers, here is an attempt to shorten mine. 1. The first RFC was closed because I wanted to de-escalate the situation at Sandbh's suggestion, and because I thought there wasn't a chance it could go through. However, reanalysis of it on my part suggests that there is instead a strong policy-based and source-based case for the change. 2. The issue is very controversial, and it is not just a matter of convention but a big deal for understanding. Some people do think there is right and wrong here, as seen in an article from UCLA, and most famously this video from The Periodic Table of Videos. And some authors do think there is a definitive answer. In an article by Eric Scerri published in IUPAC in 2012 he calls the group 3 problem "a remaining issue that continues to confuse seasoned practitioners and novices alike". See 5. 3. I feel that the now collapsed list of reliable sources, spanning 1921 to 2020, is needed to show the vast amount of support there is for the change to Lu under Y. The sources focusing on the matter give what seems to me to be a strong case. IUPAC shows a compromise form, but even while justifying it in an 1988 report admitted that there were many arguments in favour of Lu, and show in their 1990 Red Book both the compromise * form (8 and 18 column) and the Lu form (32 column), but never La as we do now. While they do currently have a project relooking at this to make a ruling, we will need to show something while they still have not decided. While most general chemistry textbooks haven't followed, a significant number have, and anyway they mostly only superficially cover the heavy elements that are in question: there are multiple other things that textbooks get wrong in the face of authors in the journal literature having known better for decades (e.g. we've known there's no d involvement in hypervalent main group molecules since 1990, people have had the right explanation since the 1920s, yet it stubbornly persists in textbooks). I also feel that a productive discussion must involve accurate representation of sources without original research. 4. I certainly don't mind a neutrally-worded RFC and have begun drafting one at User:Double sharp/RFC (containing a draft of the question and my proposed !vote). I am willing to go through any standard process to get a clear consensus. 5. The periodic law is not only about just grouping similar elements together. It must also match the fundamental basis of chemistry. That is electronic structure and the valence orbitals involved. We have known since the 1960s and 1970s that the bases for the La form are against the facts. Keeping on with it requires self-contradiction about the Madelung rule that gives the structure of the periodic table (La table forces one 5d electron to fill before 4f, contradicting the standard Madelung rule that tells us 4f comes before 5d), prioritising ground-state configuration anomalies that reliable sources know are completely irrelevant for d and f block elements over valence orbitals, and in general makes it a lot more difficult to explain the periodic law. With the Lu form, none of this happens. 6. I would definitely like help constructing a neutrally-worded RFC, if it is decided that that is the best way to go. See 4. Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Because I have real-life commitments, and because it is increasingly clear that the issues between myself and Sandbh are impossible to resolve: I withdraw the request for dispute resolution and the proposition for a new RFC. Although I still believe that the change I propose would be a good one, and I still absolutely disagree with Sandbh's views and interpretations, I think it is not worth arguing when it just makes me unhappy and will take time away from things I would much rather be doing. So, I apologised to Sandbh on his talk page for going overboard again, and I leave the project instead. This should be resolved unless others want to follow up. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Although the guy who bought it up decided to withdraw it due to real-life commitments, I'd still like for us to continue and hopefully get the situation resolved between all of us. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 14:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Third or So Statement by Volunteer I don't think that I am moderating so much as trying to wrap this up. However, read the usual rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Do the remaining editors want an RFC? If so, we will have an RFC. Otherwise, we will close this discussion. Third or So Statements by Editors Comment: @Дрейгорич: What did you have in mind? As I see it where we seem to be going is to retain the status quo—noting each of us may have differing views on the Group 3 question (which is fine)—and await the outcome of the IUPAC Group 3 project's deliberations. Sandbh (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC) If it comes down to "agree to disagree", I'd be okay with that. I wonder if the most neutral option would be to remove all 15 from La-Lu and render them outside the table. I'd be okay with that, as much as I'd prefer an Lu table. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 03:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC) That suggestion (a Sc-Y-*-** table in the terms we talk about here) seems like a reasonable compromise for now, as it is what both IUPAC and NIST ("here".) currently show on their websites. It is not, however, what WP currently uses (which is Sc-Y-La-Ac). Thus we may still need a WP:RfC, which could be phrased in very limited terms to say that the proposal for WP is to move to Sc-Y-*-** until IUPAC's project comes to a conclusion. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I think we can compromise and prefer moving to a Sc-Y-*-** table. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I feel there is no dispute. The current situation is an outcome of prolonged discussions at WP:ELEMENTS over many years, predating your involvement, Дрейгорич and Michael. Double sharp and I have the deepest knowledge of all the issues, including the history of the form of periodic table appearing on WP. I understand R8R followed our discussions closely. Your involvement is welcome, however. Let us recall the table appearing on the IUAPC site is neither endorsed nor recommended by them. The PTs appearing on the Royal Society of Chemistry site and the German Chemical Society site are the La form. Double sharp sought to change the current situation. There was an RFC. It was withdrawn the next day. Double sharp was considering another RFC. He has now said he will not proceed with it. The IUPAC Group 3 project will make a report. I have a feeling there will not be that long to wait. Double sharp has withdrawn from WP:ELEMENTS. R8R commented above, "Like Sandbh, I see no strong case for a change in the English Wikipedia." I don't always agree with R8R but I respect, what seems to me, his always well-considered contributions. As a relatively long-standing member of WP:ELEMENTS I've made (perhaps more than) my share of WP:BOLD suggestions for change; some get up; some don't. Scerri recently (2020) acknowledged the La form is the most popular. He is the chair of the IUPAC group 3 project. That said, he personally supports Lu, most importantly noting he distinguishes between his role as the project chair, and his personal views. At this time, I see no imminent need nor sufficient merit in changing the form of PT currently shown in the lead and main body of the our periodic table article. Sandbh (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Perhaps that is so. We might end up following Scerri here. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 16:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC) I don't think I have anything further to say (unless I'm addressed directly for a question), so with that, I think we can agree to disagree and withdraw the dispute? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Personally, I think it would be for the best for the time being.--R8R (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Perhaps so. Nice dealing with this issue and at least for us, deciding on "retain the status quo". ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:41, 10 August 2020 (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.

Greek-Turkish relations

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ahmetlii on 16:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Greek-Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ahmetlii (talk · contribs) Dr.K. (talk · contribs) SilentResident (talk · contribs) Khirurg (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'd like to add a sentence with reliable sources, however it reverted several times by three users becausee of POV and unreliable sources, even I wrote a neutral sentence. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Greek-Turkish_relations#Add_a_new_sentence User talk:SilentResident#About the revert on Greek-Turkish relations User talk:Khirurg#About revert in Greece-Turkey relations How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help from a third person. It will helpful for the discussion, I think. Summary of dispute by Dr.K. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SilentResident Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Khirurg Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Greek-Turkish relations discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chiropractic

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Benjaminfreyart on 16:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Benjaminfreyart (talk · contribs) Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are a few editors on the page that seem to be against the article maintaining a neutral position. These editors seem to be pushing words such as "pseudoscience" into the lede as fact rather than opinion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [3] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It appears that an edit war is underway, and it would be helpful to have outside input. I stumbled on this page and found it to have a biased point of view. I attempted to clarify some wording to make it more balanced without removing the controversy, but at least one editor is determined to undo any of my attempts Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Chiropractic discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Benjaminfreyart. You opened a discussion like 10 minutes ago. You are the one edit warring. In any event, this is way too early to open a dispute resolution procedure. --McSly (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2020 (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.

Laura Loomer

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SamMontana on 04:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Laura Loomer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SamMontana (talk · contribs) GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Laura Loomer is a congressional candidate and public figure. Currently her picture is a YouTube screenshot. I have attempted to suggest an edit with several different photos that would be more appropriate for someone of prominence. But all my requests have been denied by the admin @GorillaWarfare. She claims it is impossible for Wikipedia to find a better picture to use than a blurry screenshot. She said my assertion otherwise was only because I "didn't like the photo." I contend that she is not impartial in the matter, and am requesting oversight on what should be an easy edit. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Loomer&action=edit&section=4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Loomer How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please find a better photo for Ms. Loomer. I find it unbelievable that Wikipedia cannot find anything better than a YouTube screenshot for a congressional candidate. Summary of dispute by GorillaWarfare Going to keep it short, since there's really not much of a "dispute" here. SamMontana is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies around freely-licensed images and fair use, and I have done my best to describe said policies to them at Talk:Laura Loomer#Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020. Per the conversation I see at User talk:SamMontana#Laura Loomer, it appears that the user understands that I have simply been explaining long-standing policy, and so the issue appears to be that the user disagrees with the policy. That is not an issue for dispute resolution. As for the assertion that I am not impartial because I said that they don't like the photo, I don't understand that complaint. What I said was, There is a freely-licensed photo of Loomer available, and the fact that you don't like it does not mean we can use a copyrighted image in its place. I stand by this. It is clear that SamMontana doesn't like the photo, and for totally valid reasons: it is blurry and poorly-lit. I don't particularly like it either. Why does saying that make me "not impartial in the matter"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Laura Loomer discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Miss Teen International

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jeniferliberman on 17:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Miss Teen International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jeniferliberman (talk · contribs) Aayat1998 (talk · contribs) Rodrigomoreira (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute over control of the edits on the Miss Teen International page on Wikipedia. The beauty pageant, which was initially held for more than 20 years in Costa Rica, ceased to be held and two new contests with the same name emerged in Latin America and Asia. However someone from India placed a protection to prevent Wikipedia users editing about Ecuador-based contest, I requested a consensus to edit the page dividing it regionally without any response so far. The international competition held in Ecuador has a valid trademark registration in Ecuador under the Andean Community of Nations - CAN laws, after the resolution issued by the Secretary of Intellectual Rights SENADI https://www.derechosintelectuales.gob.ec/ Intellectual Property Authority of Ecuador . According to Intellectual Property laws at the international level, the ownership of a trademark is territorial. In other words, a trademark registered in a certain country does not enjoy exclusivity over another, each country have theirs own laws of Intellectual Property. In the Miss Teen International page who edited it mentions: In 2016, Enrique González sold the Miss Teen International franchise to Indian businessman Nikhil Anand, we have proceeded to investigate said information discovering that it is totally false. Enrique Gonzalez former beauty pageant organizer afirmed that he never sold your rights. The user Aayat1998 who are making reversions seem to be heavily involved in the beauty pageant held in India and I believe there may be some bias. I however not made these claims in the talk page as I am willing to discuss with them in good faith the basis of their rejections of my content addition. I need the help of an administrator to edit the page of said contest regionally, since the contest that has been held in Ecuador since 2014, is legitimate, has a trademark registration that can be tested in the Dispute resolution noticeboard I attached evidence in the discussion section of the Miss Teen International page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which must continue to offer verified, serious and impartial information. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miss_Teen_International How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I have not removed any content from this page, I am only trying to assist in adding information and keeping the point of view neutral. I appreciate in advance that a consensus is reached taking in account the intellectual property laws. Summary of dispute by Aayat1998 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rodrigomoreira Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Teen_International discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Blue_Star

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ankhi88 on 17:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ankhi88 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have added information with citations from verifiable sources into a few different sections. The edits that I make keep being reverted. I have attempted to talk to the user who is making the reversions on the talk page. The editor will first remove the content, they will only explain why they made the change after I ask in the talk page. The editor has engaged in a cycle where he will make an assertion, remove the content, I will addres the assertion and why its not sufficient, and then the editor will make up a new assertion and remove the content. Furthermore, I do not believe that the editor is acting in good faith. Although the editor seems to consistently have an issue with a specific source, they will remove all of the content even if there are multiple sources for a single sentence. The editor removes all information that I have added, even in those sections where their multiple assertions are not addressed or relevant. There is no discussion or explanation of the removal of content. My edits have also been reverted on August 19, 2020 by a new user. Both the users who are making reversions seem to be heavily involved in editing Indian wikipedia pages and I believe there may be some bias. I however not made these claims in the talk page as I am willing to discuss with them in good faith the basis of their rejections of my content addition. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Blue_Star#June_1 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I have not removed any content from this page, I am only trying to assist in adding information and keeping the point of view neutral. The entire article is littered with questionably sourced content but the editors do not seem to have an issue with information that is tilted towards the Indian government. I would like there to be a clarification that content should not be removed to promote a bias, there should be discussion of edits. Operation Blue_Star discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ideological bias_on_Wikipedia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cwarrior on 16:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Ideological bias on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cwarrior (talk · contribs) Tayi_Arajakate (talk · contribs) Mukt (talk · contribs) Aquillion (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I added a description about new claims of bias on Aug 14, 2020 [4]. These changes were built upon by another user, Mukt, but were promptly reverted by Tayi_Arajakate without starting any discussion. I started a new thread on the Talk page to discuss this issue. While users questioned about the objectivity of the claims, a consensus was reached that we could describe these claims of bias. No further comments were added to the talk page. Earlier today I proceeded to add the relevant content but was hit by multiple reverts again by Tayi_Arajakate. It is only after these reverts some comments were added by Aquillion which I have sufficiently responded to. The content in question is well within the scope of discussion of the article and must be added to the page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#Anti-Hindu_and_Anti-India_bias How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please help resolve whether this claim of bias be discussed or not. Summary of dispute by Tayi_Arajakate Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mukt Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Aquillion Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ideological bias_on_Wikipedia discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors that this thread has been filed, and should do so as soon as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (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.

List of My Hero Academia characters

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Unnamed anon on 21:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The Fat Controller

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mac Dreamstate on 12:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 The Fat Controller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mac Dreamstate (talk · contribs) Horseradishy (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Horseradishy insists that narrators (in this case, Ringo Starr and later Michael Angelis) should not be included as voice actors in the infobox of a TV show character, namely The Fat Controller. His rationale of "Narrators are not relevant to voice acting a specific character" makes no sense to me, nor has he provided any WikiProject guideline on this when asked repeatedly. Instead, all he can come up with is the Thomas Wikia, which is of no relevance to WP. In the TV show (Thomas & Friends, seasons 1–3), Starr and Angelis served as both the narrator and voice of all characters. Therefore, I believe they should be listed under "voiced by" in the Fat Controller's infobox. {{Infobox character}} ("Name of the individuals who voiced the character") makes no mention of omitting narrators. It's self-explanatory—that would be Starr and Angelis. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User talk:Horseradishy#The Fat Controller / voiced by – discussion (largely one-sided) at User:Horseradishy's talk page. I am doubtful of the prospect of a more productive discussion occurring at the article talk page; he should be taking an initiative as well as me, rather than responding through edit summaries. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Convince User:Horseradishy to either show me a WikiProject guideline which says not to include narrators as voice actors, or to back off and let my content stick. Summary of dispute by Horseradishy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The Fat Controller discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armorial of Europe

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fenn-O-maniC on 03:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Armorial of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fenn-O-maniC (talk · contribs) Ping 693 (talk · contribs) Ssolbergj (talk · contribs) Xwejnusgozo (talk · contribs) A.D.Hope (talk · contribs) Dispute overview As discussed on the talk page for the article, an issue has been raised with the quality and neutrality of the article which included rather biased opinions about heraldic practices as well as imaginary versions of some of the national coats of arms used in the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Armorial_of_Europe#Quality_of_this_article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? More opinions on the article's content might hopefully resolve the issue. Summary of dispute by Ping 693 I first asked Ssolbergj not to change the article, nicely at first and then not so nicely. He claimed to me that it's okay to edit since it falls under the "Bold Edit" rules. However, he overhauled this without any prior discussion or approval, and as shown on that article's talk page, it was felt that the extra shields were redundant. My patience was especially thin to begin with as he has a long history of doing this; he overhauled the page on heraldry, again without any prior discussion or approval, and his version was quite frankly less informative. In my view, he's proven to be a frequent problem user who needs to be reigned in. Ping 693 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ssolbergj Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Xwejnusgozo The dispute arose since the article included depictions of versions of coats of arms which are not in regular use, plus the fact that the article did not (and still doesn't) contain a single source. My involvement in this dispute was limited to a comment on the talk page in which I agreed with previous comments made by other editors, and the addition of "unsourced" and "neutrality" tags to the article. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by A.D.Hope Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Armorial of Europe discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Comment I am willing to moderate this discussion but before I open it officially does Ssolbergj agree to participate? And also, is there a reason why A.D.Hope (talk · contribs) was not included when they participated in the discussion? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC) I must have missed their comment on the talk page, my bad. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC) No Worries- go ahead adn add them now- as soon as Ssolbergj (talk · contribs) agrees to participate we'll get started.Nightenbelle (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Comment 2- I put a notice on Ssolbergj (talk · contribs)'s talk page asking him to come and participate.... but if they do not agree in the next couple of days... I'm going to have to close this. :-/ Nightenbelle (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (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 King: Eternal Monarch

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by CherryPie94 on 12:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved CherryPie94 (talk · contribs) Lizzydarcy2008 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is with User:Lizzydarcy2008, who is a fan, repeated removal of any well-source sentences stating that the series received low TV viewership. Though it is against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.), they want to keep the top section as a promotional only-positive paragraph, including irrelevant sentence about the production company "beating the market consensus" and "reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY", and remove any mention of bad ratings and criticism the series received, claiming it is a "smear campaign" and that Wikipedia is a "tabloid article" for mentioning bad ratings. The editor keeps using original research and stating opinions as fact by repeating, "The TV industry in South Korea has conceded that, because of Netflix, local viewership is not anymore a key metric, so even the Ratings section may be obsolete." I tried to explain that pages should have Neutral point of view and also compromised by editing the sentences + wording many times to make it as neutral as possible after reading wikipedia:Criticism and wikipedia:CLAIM but the editor still has an issue understanding. I explained more here, also you could see in the page's history how the user is biased and removes facts they don't like. I’m trying to solve it peacefully here, but not sure if this is a case of conflict of interest, Disruption-only account, or Single-purpose account as this sleeper account did not contribute to Wikipedia for years and now only removes any criticism on the page in question and add puffery. Also, it could be sockpuppetry because one admin already caught 26 other sock puppets on the same page having the same positive-only no negative edits. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#Proposed_updates_to_second_paragraph_of_page User_talk:CherryPie94#Replying_to_your_note_about_The_King_Eternal_Monarch User_talk:CherryPie94#More_changes_to_The_King_Eternal_Monarch User_talk:Explicit#The_King:_Eternal_Monarch How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Explain to User:Lizzydarcy2008 that Wikipedia should not be censored and used for Advertising, marketing or public relations, and should have a Neutral point of view. Also provide feedback to help make the page as neutral as possible. Summary of dispute by Lizzydarcy2008 This page skews negatively and I have been trying to make it neutral. It currently looks like Wikipedia cannot help taunting this series. Most kdramas have one paragraph before the Table of Contents. Other kdramas have second paragraphs highlighting their notable achievements. The second paragraph of this drama contains stones detractors love to throw at it - high production costs and lower-than-expected ratings. This drama has borne the brunt of the surge of popularity of Netflix in South Korea. While it was airing, nobody could fully understand why the ratings were lower than expected. Only when the same thing happened to kdramas that aired later in the year did local TV industry realize what had happened. As streaming services became more popular in South Korea, Nielsen ratings have become inadequate in measuring a kdrama’s performance. One thing to note, the Nielsen ratings of this drama are solid, not low. The reason they are said to be lower-than-expected is because of high expectations due to the big production budget and the popularity of the writer, director and actors. But since the ratings have been explained by the Netflix effect, the high production budget has become a non-issue. The stunning profit report of the production company has also justified it. Yet detractors of this drama keep pointing out its high production budget and lower-than-expected ratings. Knowing these, anybody with a sense of justice would see why highlighting the high production budget and lower-than-expected ratings in the second paragraph of the page is ignorant, unfair, malicious and deceptive. The production budget is already mentioned at the right side of the page as well as in the Production section. The ratings are in the Ratings section. Why cherry-pick them outside those sections? It is bad enough that the Ratings section contains inaccurate representation of the drama’s performance. Regarding the allegations about me being an obsessed fan and a sockpuppet, it seems, like this drama, I have to endure taunting and a smear campaign. But outing my IP address, after I forgot, one time, to log in before editing a Talk page, is going too far. It’s time to ask, does this drama have an obsessed detractor? There is more information in “Proposed updates to second paragraph of page” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch##.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC) I am not volunteering to take on this dispute because I"m already mediating a pretty involved one- but I will say- this explanation is WAY to long and needs to be condensed under the 2000 word limit. I understand you are passionate about this issue- but this wall of text indicates to potential volunteers that you will not be able to follow other rules/recomendations while mediating and will make them less likely to want to volunteer. Remember- not every detail needs to be expressed here. During the discussion there will be time to make sure every point is covered. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC) I saw other summaries exceeding the limit, so I thought it was ok to exceed a little. In any case, I updated the summary to observe the limit. Thanks! Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC) The King: Eternal Monarch discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First Statement by Moderator I will try to moderate this dispute. I don't know anything about the subject matter except that it appears to be a Korean TV series, and I expect that the participants will provide any background information that is needed. Read and follow the rules. If you are not sure about the rules, do not guess that something is permitted. It probably isn't. The rules are quite restrictive, and are meant to be restrictive. Comment on content, not contributors. That means do not talk about the other editors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to improve the other editors. Be civil and concise. I will stress being concise, because in most recent disputes the inability or unwillingness of the editors to follow very strict word limits has made it difficult for an outsider to know exactly what the issues are. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions. If you aren't willing to let me ask the questions, you can go back to discussing the case yourselves, but we know that did not resolve the matter. Now, what the editors may do is to provide a statement consisting of up to three paragraphs, each paragraph of no more than 100 words, each paragraph stating an issue that you want changed or left as it is in the article. Detailed explanations, if in order, can wait until another round. Overly long statements will be collapsed. Back-and-forth discussion will be collapsed. Each editor should provide a statement of not more than three short paragraphs, saying what you want changed (or left unchanged). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC) First Statements by Editors CherryPie94's response @Robert McClenon: Currently on the series's lead section, we have one sentence about the low TV ratings, which is preceded by positive statements. However, Lizzydarcy2008 argues that any negative statements have to be removed and that we have to keep only positive statements on the lead section. Lizzydarcy2008 also wants to add that the the production company "beating the market consensus" and "reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY", which are not even related to the series, and they demand that we remove mention of the budget in the lead section claiming it is a negative statement that should not be there. Personally, I see that the current lead section summaries the article perfectly and needs no changes, but Lizzydarcy2008 keeps edit warring, so we need your help. On the reception section, Lizzydarcy2008 wants to remove well-sources statements (I can get over 20+ articles about it) explaining the ratings (started good, but went down). They also flipped the section's paragraphs structure to keep the criticism first, followed by the series's basic reception info, and then the praise (previously it was series's basic reception info --> praise --> criticism), saying that it shows that the series "prevailed" at the end. The section now is very unorganized to be honest, see the previous version and compare. I think the basic info such as the ratings and series's achievements should come first as that is the most important in that section. Edit: forgot to mention they also want to add that the series was ranked #1 on the daily Netflix charts in XXX countries by using flixpetrol or articles that uses flixpetrol data (deemed unreliable by Wikipedia; flixpetrol disclaimer Ranking points do not represent the actual numbers of viewings. other users also removing those number). I told them that other Netflix originals, Money Heist and Dark, are more popular per flixpetrol data but they don't use such numbers on Wikipedia as it is insignificant, unreliable, and the numbers keep changing daily on flixpetrol (this series was #25, then #19, then #9, and now #12). I already fixed a lot of issues that caused the page not to be neutral, such as wording, by editing the sentences and changing words to neutral words per [[wikipedia:CLAIM] many times. Also after reading wikipedia:Criticism, I further improved it by changing the sub-section title from "Controversy" to "Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warnings" (read discussion here), but that led to more edit warring. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Lizzydarcy2008's response @Robert McClenon: This page is currently negative because we are repeating negative points about the drama. I am not suggesting we remove the negative points. I am suggesting we avoid repeating them. I have been removing the repetitions. The ratings are already in the Ratings section yet we mention them three times more. Other kdramas don't mention them outside the Ratings section. Take, for example, kdrama “Melting Me Softly”. It has much lower ratings than this drama. Yet its ratings are only mentioned in the Ratings section. The production costs are mentioned three times in this page. Most kdramas don’t mention production costs at all. Those that do mention production costs put them at the summary section at the right side of the page. Take, for example, kdrama “Arthdal Chronicles”. It incurred higher production costs, yet they are only mentioned at the right side of the page. I have explained in my dispute summary why the high production costs and ratings are misleading in the first place. And yet we keep repeating them. This repetition not only makes the page negative, it also makes it sloppy. Not all kdramas have second paragraphs before the Table of Contents. Those that do, list their achievements in this paragraph. Examples are kdramas “Crash Landing On You” and “Mr. Sunshine”. Yet, we are repeating negative points that are already mentioned in other parts of the page in the second paragraph of this drama. My suggested text for the second paragraph (please see last suggestion in Talk page of drama) follows that of other kdramas - a straightforward enumeration of achievements. Regarding the title “Historical Inaccuracy and Broadcast Warnings”, “Inaccuracy” is against wp:CSECTION rule not to have titles with negative connotation. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Second Statement by Moderator I see three areas of dispute. The first is the first paragraph of the lede section. The second is whether there should be a second paragraph in the lede section. The third has to do with the Reception section. I am asking whether that is an accurate breakdown of the issues. About the first paragraph of the lede section, does the issue have to do with non-neutral language? My third-party opinion is that the language in the first paragraph of the lede is non-neutral, but we will discuss. What is the issue about the Reception section? Do not refer to the other editor by name. We are not here to discuss editors, but to improve the article. I see references to kdrama. Does that mean Korean drama? Is that a genre that we have an article about? Are kdramas a distinctive aspect of the popular culture of South Korea? If not, but if it makes a difference to the dispute, can someone write a draft providing any general information about the distinctive features of kdrama? I am aware that I am asking you to restate very briefly matters that you may have already stated at length. I have a few reasons for wanting you to make very concise statements. If this moderation fails, we will resolve this with a Request for Comments, which will ask outside editors to state their opinions. You will need to be concise if you are trying to persuade outside editors in an RFC. Have the areas of disagreement been accurately summarized? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors CherryPie94 Yes, those are mainly the three issues causing the dispute. I will reply to each point first: 1. Lead section follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, but if you think it is not neutral, then please suggest a fix. 2. I see no issue with including a second paragraph in the lead section, as this page has more text compared to other k-series pages. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, there should be one or two paragraphs if the page is fewer than 15,000 characters, but the series page has 60,931 character, which is 15,719 characters with no space (18,719 with space) when counting only readers text, not counting the lead, section title, or wiki text (tables and templates), so should have Two or three paragraphs. 3. I have no issue with the text in the Reception section, except that it is not organized properly compared to before. See the previous version and compare with the current version. I think the basic info such as the ratings and series's achievements should come first, as that is the most important in that section, and then praise and criticism. A suggested fix on my sandbox: User:CherryPie94/sandbox Korean drama/k-drama is not a genre, it just means a South Korean TV series. K-series started gaining popular oversees since 2010-2012. There is not really any distinctive features. It is just like if you are American watching another countries TV series, Asian, Arabic, Latin, or Africa TV series. The culture and language are different, but in the end it is a TV series. Only technical difference is that Nielsen Media Research measures US series ratings by the number of watcher see Game_of_Thrones#Viewership, while Korean use percentage (#% of the population of South Korea saw it, for example, 50% means almost half of the Koreans saw the series). Also K-series tend to just be one season (unlike American TV series). My main request is not using unreliable sources and data (flixpetrol data) and not skewing the article in one direction (positive only, removing criticism and mention of bad ratings) by deleting text for no reason. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Lizzydarcy2008 As far as I know, the second paragraph of the lede section is the first area of dispute. It violates the rule about this section maintaining a neutral point of view. It mentions negative information like high production budget, lower-than-expected ratings and criticisms. It also includes the term “hit” which is discouraged per MOS:INTRO. I don’t have objections to removing this paragraph altogether. The second area of dispute is the Reception section. First, the rating numbers that are already listed in the Ratings section are repeated in the Reception section. Second, the structure currently has a chronological order to have a narrative flow. The order is based on the dates of the references. Third, an article about the international success of the drama was rejected because it allegedly cited Flixpatrol as reference. The reference is a magazine published by the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange. The third area of dispute is the section name “Historical Inaccuracies” that has negative connotation, violating wp:CSECTION. Kdramas are featured in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_drama. They are TV series made in South Korea. They used to be mainly watched through domestic or cable TV channels. The surge of popularity of streaming services like Netflix while The King Eternal Monarch was airing exposed the inadequacy of Nielsen ratings in measuring the success of kdramas in the streaming age. That is, the Ratings section of this page is highly misleading. The drama is an international success but the Ratings section which only includes domestic TV viewership numbers does not show this. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator I would like each editor to list a few points as to what they want to do to improve the article. It is important to be specific about what you are asking, because we might have to resolve this with a Request for Comments, and vaguely worded RFCs are a mess, but RFCs with specific wording usually result in a yes or no consensus. My objective is to get proposed wording changes for any specific paragraphs that anyone thinks need to be reworded. Correction: I mistakenly said that I thought the first paragraph of the lede section was non-neutral. Is there any issue about the first paragraph of the lede section? Please identify any such issue as Point 1. As Point 2, will each editor please state whether their first choice about the second paragraph of the lede is to delete it, leave it as is, or rework it. Also indicate the second choice. If you want to rework it, you may provide a draft of the paragraph, but be concise about any discussion of a draft. As Point 3, you may propose a revised wording of the Reception section. As Point 4, you may make any brief suggestions about the Historical Inaccuracies, if you want anything changed. As Point 5, name any other points that you want discussed in more detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Third Statements by Editors CherryPie94 1. I see no issue with it. 2. Leave as is. The current paragraph is neutral and shows both sides, it also summaries all sub-section in the series. Keeping only positive text and achievements is not neutral and seems like an advertisement. Adding only streaming achievement and deliberately removing mention of TV ratings is misleading as it make it seem like the series was only praised, while in reality lots of South Korean media wrote about its failure on TV. See Game of Thrones's lead, they both included mention of praise and criticism. Also, as I said in my previous comment, the second paragraph should not be removed as the page matches the length for 2-3 lead paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Other K-series have second paragraphs too, see Big (TV series), Guardian: The Lonely and Great God and Kingdom. Wikipedia guidelines apply to all pages, K-series do not have their own guidelines, we should compare to good articles like Game_of_Thrones, not half-done K-series pages. 3. My suggestion for the reception section User:CherryPie94/sandbox. I did not add any new text, just rearranged things. 4. (We had a very long discussion + edit warring about here: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#Historical_inaccuracy). Basically, the previous sub-section title was "Controversy", I replaced it with ‎"Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warning". I chose "Historical inaccuracy" because Article #1 and Article #2, as well as other Korean news papers, all refer to it as historical details. Per WP:CSECTION, "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident"." ‎The sub-section title, Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warning, summaries the section perfectly, just like the Game of Thrones controversies Sex and violence and Lighting issues. 5. I have nothing else, just wish for edit warring to stop and for us to go back and contribute like normal without text being removed continuously. My main request is, please do not using unreliable sources and data (flixpetrol data) and please do not skewing the article in one direction (positive only, removing criticism and mention of bad ratings) by deleting text for no reason like it has been done multiple of time now. If this continue, I think we should move the dispute to a different noticeboard as this involves Wikipedia:Advocacy. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Lizzydarcy2008 1. The only issue I see with the first paragraph is that the South Korea OTT provider Wavve which is mentioned in subsequent sections should also be introduced here like SBS and Netflix. My suggestion is to add the following: The series was also shown over the South Korean streaming service, Wavve. 2. I have no objection to removing the second paragraph. Most kdramas I checked have no second paragraph. However, if one is needed, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second_Paragraph for my suggested text. 3. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Reception for my suggested text for the Reception section. Note how much cleaner the first sentence is by not repeating the rating numbers that are already listed in the Ratings section. 4. I put Historical Inaccuracy as a sub-section under Reception section and renamed it Cultural Disputes. Since this is a fantasy drama, a section about "historical inaccuracies" does not make sense (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#Historical_inaccuracy). "Cultural Disputes" might also sound incongruous in a fantasy drama since the writer can make up any culture she wants for her fantasy world, however, it is not as nonsensical as "historical inaccuracy". In addition, the word "inaccuracy" has a negative connotation that is discouraged for section names. I also put the advisory warnings as a separate sub-section under Reception. 5. This page skews negatively mainly because negative points are being mentioned three or four times. Compare this page with those of other kdramas and you will see the stark negativity of this page. That several edit wars had erupted over this page could mean several editors have noticed such negativity and have tried to correct the situation. Contrary to what detractors might think, editors are trying to keep this page fair to heed their sense of justice, not because they are promoters of this series. I want to make sure Wikipedia is not being used as a tool for a smear campaign against this series, just as I had been smeared with allegations of being an obsessed fan and a sock-puppet, not to mention getting a notice of edit warring discussion while I am in the middle of this dispute resolution discussion. It seems harassment of other editors, not just of this drama is the name of the game here. I would also like to talk about the use of Flixpatrol data as reference in Wikipedia. Is this the right forum to discuss this? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Moderator Wait a minute! Did User:CherryPie94 just write: "I have nothing else, just wish for edit warring to stop and for us to go back and contribute like normal without text being removed continuously."? Has Cherrypie been editing the article? What edit-warring are they asking to stop? Did you read the instructions that said not to edit the article? Do I need to revert the article to the last edit made by a non-party? Please explain. I will make a fifth statement later today, which may resume the discussion or may fail the discussion. I expected that you would actually read the rules. Maybe I need to wave them at you or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statements by Editors CherryPie94 1. On the 15th, I changed the sub-section title per WP:CSECTION, which was not part of the dispute to follow, and was prior to your moderation (you came of the 19th August). But that caused edit warring that we tried to disuses separately but it did not work, and I reported it here after being reverted 3 times for no reason Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive414#User: Lizzydarcy2008 reported by User:CherryPie94 (Result: ). 2. When you started moderating, I only done few changes (less than 10 on the page) after seeing your comment. I added the sub-section title "Development" and sources. I used Template:ill to link a person's page. Yesterday, I just added the rating tables for number of viewers in South Korea, which is also not part of the dispute. I fixed a source that was used in the lead and reception section. 3. As you can see, I did not touch anything related to the dispute and I'm sorry, I really did not see Wikipedia:DRN Rule A as the noticeboard did not seem to link it. You can revert my changes if you want, but they are unrelated to the dispute and other people worked on them too (just make sure other people's work is not gone). 4. I did not out anyone's IP and you can see that from the admins response in the investigation. I reported the sock-puppetry because multiple users were having the same edits that never overlapped, which was weird. The page already had 26 other sock-puppets, so I wanted to make sure we are not dealing with more and wasting our time. I'm not harassing anyone, as I said, I want to improve the page but reverts were made every single day because of wp:advocacy and it is the first time I faced an advocate and really don't know what to do or where to report it. Edit: I edited my sandbox replacing "Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warning" with "Stock images and historical costume inaccuracy". Hopefully, Lizzydarcy2008 agrees. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Lizzydarcy2008 @Robert McClenon: After filing this dispute resolution discussion, User:CherryPie94 updated the title of the section "Controversy" to "Historical Inaccuracies...". We edit-warred, with me undoing her changes and she undoing my changes three times, though on different days so did not violate 3RR. She made 27 other changes from the time this dispute resolution discussion was filed. She also filed an edit-warring discussion against me as well as a sock-puppetry investigation on me, outing my IP address, requiring me to have my IP address updated with my ISP. Surely there is a rule against harassment of other editors? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) Fifth Statement by Moderator DRN Rule A isn't mentioned in the noticeboard header because it is an optional rule that many moderators use most of the time. There is also DRN Rule B, which permits back-and-forth discussion. If the moderator says to read the rules, it means to read the rules. Apparently I need to be more forceful in telling editors to read the rules and what the rules are. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, which means we should focus on the article, not on conduct. We will have a Request for Comments on whether to keep the second paragraph of the lede. We will have a Request for Comments on which of two versions of the Reception section. There are rules against harassment and against sockpuppetry. If anyone thinks that there has been harassment, they may report it at WP:ANI. That will close this discussion. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors Lizzydarcy2008 What happened to the Ratings section of this page? Another change had just been made that I've just noticed now. Most kdramas that have rating data have a Ratings section. May we put this section back to be consistent with other kdramas? In the newly updated page, what used to be Ratings section had been put under Reception and renamed to Viewership with new pieces of information that are even incomplete. What is 1.76? In millions? After all my explanations about ratings, this smacks of malice and spitefulness. May I revert these changes? Contrary to what is being alleged, the edits I've made to this page are not to add puffery, but to neutralize the negativity of the page. All positive remarks are backed by sources. Note, there are no references to Flixpatrol. Information about the drama's commercial performance is based off Hallyu Issue magazine of the Korean Foundation for International Culture Exchange (KOFICE). Another thing pointed out was my suggestion to talk about the production company "beating the market consensus" and "reached a record; non-captive revenue skyrocketed 646% YoY". That was to neutralize the discussion about the production budget in the second paragraph. My final suggestion for the second paragraph was to remove mention of the production budget at all since it is already mentioned in two other sections of the page. It appears that mentioning negative points three or more times is allowed yet positive remarks are called puffery? I never suggested we remove negative points. All I've been trying to do is to stop ramming them down readers' throats by repeating them several times, especially since they are misleading in the first place. With the popularity of streaming services like Netflix, TV industry insiders in South Korea have realized that Nielsen ratings are not anymore accurate reflection of a kdrama's performance. Yet currently, we are ramming the Nielsen ratings down readers' throats six times in this page. Even worse-performing kdramas have not been treated this horribly. Note, these ratings are not low - they are solid, though detractors of this drama keep insisting they are low. And now Wikipedia has been made party to this injustice. Regarding the second paragraph, if there is going to be one, I have suggested this text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizzydarcy2008/sandbox#Second_Paragraph which is consistent with the second paragraph of other kdramas, e.g. Crash Landing On You and Mr. Sunshine, that list the kdramas' notable achievements. Regarding the "Historical Inaccuracy" section title, considering the length of the discussion about it in the Talk page of the topic, the allegation that the change was "reverted 3 times FOR NO REASON" is untrue. The problem is that my explanations about my edits to this page have fallen on deaf ears. May I summarize, for the nth time: Please compare this page with those of other kdramas. The negativity and sloppiness of this page should be obvious to any unbiased reader who has read encyclopedias. Those who firmly believe Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for smear campaign should be indignant at the repetition of negative points. Just like this drama, my name had been dragged through the mud, having been repeatedly accused of being an obsessed fan, of adding unsourced puffery, as well as of advocacy and sockpuppetry, probably to harass or intimidate me or to sully my credibility. All I have been trying to do was to preserve Wikipedia's integrity. But I will not file for harassment as I try not to be consumed by malice and spite. All I hope is that whoever comments on the proposed changes would read my explanations with open minds and decide fairly. What is the certainty of the impartiality of those who are going to give comments? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC) CherryPie94 Thanks for all your work and sorry if I violating any rules in regard to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Can we have the link to the Request for Comments on both the second paragraph of the lead and the reception section? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2020 (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.

Principal component analysis

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by AP295 on 18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Principal component analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved AP295 (talk · contribs) Dicklyon (talk · contribs) Gufosowa (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We cannot reach a consensus on the content of the introductory paragraph How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Please see my comments in the article history and on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principal_component_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principal_component_analysis&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Editors who are mathematicians with a background in linear algebra may be able to resolve this dispute. I am new to WP and do not know many editors. Summary of dispute by Dicklyon Note: I also appealed for help already at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. But wikiprojects tend to be in a coma, so I don't expect much. User:AP295 is a new editor who has edited almost nothing but this article. He thinks a major rewrite his way, starting with the lead paragraph, will turn it from a "travesty" into something pretty good. He doesn't have the experience of writing leads, or of collaborating with editors who push back on him. So it's hard going. I jumped in to help when pinged, and tried to incorporate his preferred approach a bit in the lead, but he has taken a nothing-but-revert approach (until I gave him a 3RR warning today). Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Looking back over his edits, I think the article was in much better shape before AP295's first edit in March 2020. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gufosowa A while back, I noticed that the PCA article had a substandard entry paragraph and tried to make the lead more encyclopedic. I think it had a bad lead because 1) the lead introduces trivial concepts that have their own pages in Wikipedia, 2) The lead focuses on the methodology (how) as if an engineering textbook rather than the definition (what) as an encyclopedia should do. Everyone agrees that the article does not have a standard lead. However, AP295 puts a barrier on the attempts to fix it. The user reverted all the attempts (1(reason) 2 3 4 5) by opposing small details (single keyword) which he could simply modify. --Gufosowa (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Principal component analysis discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note Filing editor has not notified users on their talk page- although they seem to be aware.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC) He let us know at the talk page discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Dicklyon and I have come to a compromise on the talk page. Unless Gufosowa has any complaints this can probably be closed. AP295 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2020 (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.

Who We Are and How We Got Here

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Truth Is King 24 on 14:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Who We Are and How We Got Here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Truth Is King 24 (talk · contribs) Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) Doug Weller (talk · contribs) Snowded (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've tried to add a brief synopsis of what the book says in Chapter 11, which is quite controversial. But the fact that the book says it is not controversial, but indisputable. Most recently Snowded has reverted me with only very terse and conclusory comments. My talk comments have all been based on policy and guidelines, except for one instance where I cited to an essay. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Well, I'm hoping that you will can guide Snowded in particular, back to the guidelines, which I feel are pretty clear. I'm hoping to at least elicit a full response from him, rather than just a terse restatement of a position that I feel is wrong. Summary of dispute by Chiswick Chap Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Doug Weller Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Snowded If the editor diosagrees with a clear consensus of others on the page then an RfC is the correct way forward. No idea why I am being singled out in particular. -----Snowded TALK 21:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Who We Are and How We Got Here discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Is the filing party looking for moderated discussion leading to compromise, or is the filing party interested in inserting a paragraph about Chapter 11 (which they have done and been reverted)? If this is a yes-no question, a Request for Comments may work better. Is the filing party interested in compromising on what is said about Chapter 11? Are the other editors interested in compromising? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC) I guess I would have to say, "yes, yes". Ideally, I'd like to have the paragraph I originally contributed. But, I'm willing to discuss a compromise. My most important issue right now, is to have Snowded give me a reasoned explanation of his position. So far, it has just seemed so terse and conclusory. Please, please explain. I'm all figurative ears. I would also be willing to do an RfC. I was not sure which to do first.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Also, Robert McClenon thank you for your time in this volunteer position of yours. I really appreciate it.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Snowded, Robert McClenon Snowded, I wonder if you could just direct me to a Wikipedia guideline that says that an RfC comes first. I'm not disagreeing, I honestly do not know, and if that is the generally more accepted path, then I will do that. I did not see that, but I certainly could have missed it. As for singling you out, I will say that when someone adds such a terse and conclusory comment to a talk page, and uses it to justify a revert, it leaves the other party with very little guidance regarding how to address the concerns of the terse commentator. If you could explain your rationale a bit more, it would give us a better way of moving forward toward mutual understanding and agreement. wp:consensus states "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." (Emphasis added). So the fact that you had three editors on one side and one on the other did not give you a "clear consensus of others on the page" because the guidelines don't use "consensus" in that sense. But if Request for Comment works better in this case, I'm certainly willing to do that.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note- There is no policy stating its a requirement. However- the DRN is generally used as the last option- its more.... a tradition than a policy at this point. And its kinda common sense- before getting a mediator involved- we ask that you make every effort to solve this on your own- and an RFC is part of trying to solve it on your own. an RFC isn't a vote... its a request for comments- its getting multiple outside uninvolved opinions. And it is easier for multiple people to read over the debate, and make one comment than for a volunteer to take days, sometimes a couple weeks to mediate a dispute. And, those mediators- volunteer so being somewhat argumentative with the first volunteer to comment on your DRN request... does not embolden the rest of us to want to step up and take on this case. If you are already on the defensive.... we know it is going to be difficult to mediate and find a satisfactory conclusion. Just a bit of friendly advise from a volunteer who is opting out of mediating this particular case. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2020 (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.

Dimple Kapadia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Shshshsh on 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Dimple Kapadia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Shshshsh (talk · contribs) Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There has been an ongoing debate about the religion of Kapadia's parents. It started on the article's FAC and never resolved. The sources are quite clear, saying her father comes from a Khoja family who embraced Hinduism while still following some of the tradition, but another user is unsure whether it makes sense, saying once it is "not based in any reality that I am aware of". Based strictly on the sources, the current version reads as: "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had reportedly 'embraced Hinduism' while still regarding Agha Khan as their religious mentor; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and similarly followed Aga Khan." Shahid • Talk2me 16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dimple_Kapadia/archive1#Oppose_from_Fowler&fowler Talk:Dimple_Kapadia#Parents'_religion How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Just opine on whether the current version is acceptable in view of the sources provided. Kindly offer an alternative if it is not. Shahid • Talk2me 16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Shahid I believe in verifiability, not truth. The sources found include: India Today (1985) (link): The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby. Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says (link): ...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby As for her mother, Dimple's daughter Twinkle Khanna was interviewed twice ([6][7]) where it's said that her maternal grandmother (Dimple's mother) was an Ismaili. I was actually initially opposed to mentioning her parents' religion at all, because no source provides this information from the horse's mouth, but insistence on the part of the user on the FAC (including a threat that unless religion was mentioned, they would oppose the nomination) encouraged me to look for something. And I did. But the facts as they appear in sources were not to their liking. The user's main claim was that it doesn't really make sense that an Ismalili Khoja family would embrace Hinduism. I personally don't know, I think anything can happen, and I believe following the sources is the best way to go. WP:OR is the worst pitfall Wikipedians might stumble into, and despite being explained how Wikipedia works, the user kept detailing why it's not plausible ("not based in any reality that I am aware", as they put it), in complete violation of the policy. The nomination was opposed by them on this ground, and the entire FAC turned into a mess as the user started coming by every once in a while with random comments (most of which also went along the same lines - a lot of personal judgement and OR), addressing other reviewers and persuading them to oppose the nomination. The closing coordinator archived the nomination and let the user know the disruption they caused. I could have just adjusted this line according to the user's belief in the first place to spare it all, but I'd never do it - I follow sources and not personal agendas. I believe in Wikipedia, its policy and guidelines, verifiability should guide us all and not likelihood, as it is perceived in the eyes of random users that think that if they are not aware of something, it does exist. Shahid • Talk2me 16:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Fowler&fowler Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I haven't been a part of a dispute resolution discussion in more than ten years. I am an academic. For the first eight years of my career, I taught both undergraduates and graduate students, and thereafter only graduate students, many of whom have graduate students of their own now. I have not divulged this to tip the scales of this resolution in my favor, but to give a sense of the limitations of time, and of self-possessed endurance, I can bring to such discussions (which "RL" is inadequate to explain). The problem as I see it is not whether a source was considered reliable by the Wikipedians that happened to be present for a discussion—it may well have been—but whether that alone make the content plausible. Judgments about plausibility require a feeling for the methodology of arguments (hypotheses, evidence, warrants, and conclusions) and for the use of such arguments in a field of inquiry. To a student, I can very well say, "Please read chapters X and Y of Wayne Booth and others' The Craft of Research and chapters blank and blank of Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India and the student will go away to learn and later to discuss. There is never any sense of a dispute. My interlocutor and I got off the wrong foot in the last FAC, and perhaps that has rendered him sensitive to criticism from me. My recent random randomly satirical, but ultimately well-meaning, musings on the talk page, I'm sure, did not help. But I'm reluctant to enter reenter the world of the FAC discussion. He is welcome to judge my reluctance to signify that he is in the right and that the content is plausible. But the responsibility of having judged so will be his. This will be my only post here. The volunteer may close this discussion in the manner in which he or she sees fit, but I hope they will appreciate my point of view. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Corrected in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Procedural note: Per the instructions at the top, the text above constitutes: CHARACTERS 1947 WORDS 336 SENTENCES 18. My interlocutor's text has: CHARACTERS 3075 WORDS 434 SENTENCES 23. He has added text twice, once on August 31, and again on September 3, altering his previous post and adding new text after I had made my post. (See here.) There is no indication of the two posts, no signature after the addition. Moreover, he neglected to inform me about this DRN discussion either before or after he proposed it here, either on the article talk page or on the user talk page. Had he done so before, I would have told him that I would not be a party to it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Dimple Kapadia discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Final Comment from Fowler&fowler: A vague sense of professional integrity prompts me to leave a note here: As my interlocutor has grounded his belief in a Wikipedia essay, may I point to two sections of the same essay Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!" and Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#Social_sciences to be the nub of the issue here (to the extent biography and film history are broadly in history). This is where the methodology of arguments and the history of India I mentioned above are relevant. I have nothing to offer about a precise resolution (of the sort: should we speak in WP's voice or the subject's in this sentence). The issues in that article overspread much more. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC) As always, I see too many final comments here. You said you're not going to come back but that's exactly what you're doing, as you did on the FAC (said you were leaving a final comment and still would be back in a day), and as you will probably do here despite seemingly refusing to be a party to the discussion. I'm happy you're finally reading WP:VNT, but I also cited WP:OR, which should be avoided, and WP:V, which should be followed, among other policies. The history of India has no relevance here at all, Kapadia's family's history does, as it is reported in reliable sources, to which the claims in question are properly referenced. This is exactly what Wikipedia is all about, a fair representation of information based on sources, and not personal opinion of what is likely or not. Shahid • Talk2me 15:54, 3 September 2020 (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.

Jai Shri Ram

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Parassharma1 on 19:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Jai Shri Ram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Parassharma1 (talk · contribs) MelbourneStar☆ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dear admins, According to MOS:LEAD the lead should be neutral. If you just go through the format of lead you could see that it is clearly mentioned how the lead should be descriptive and neutral. Takbir being used by the infamous terrorist group as a war cry is not mentioned in its Lead. Please note that I am not writing it because I want it but because this is a particular format should be followed by your editors too. You people are human too and can have biases (No offense). I have seen one admin here is an atheist, I hope he does not have something personal against Hindus just because of conservative BJP party. One thing I want to state clearly is that I have no problem with criticizing the use in an appropriate column such as Takbir but the description should be neutral without the last lines. Thank you. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MelbourneStar#Removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jai_Shri_Ram#MOS_Clearly_states_that_the_introduction_should_be_nuetral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newslinger#Removal_of_my_Edit How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? First, you could please make the initiative by acknowledging the editors to follow the format of the lead which is set out by Wikipedia. It would be appreciated to put out the use of Jai Shri Ram as war cry on a particular column and not in the description, not only this hurts the value of the sentiments but also totally tear out the neutral approach that is set out by Wikipedia. Please look into it, thank you. Summary of dispute by MelbourneStar☆ Parassharma1 hadn't notified me about this DRN discussion, but nevertheless: to understand MOS:LEAD as only a puffery summary of the article without mentioning significant (even negative) aspects of said article, is to wholly misunderstand MOS:LEAD. The lead, especially the phrase "war cry", is backed by consensus which Parassharma1 should be well aware of. The latter editor has consistently refused to get the point and simply doesn't like what they read, resorting to comparing this article -- to an unrelated one. This has resulted in an IPA topic ban, which they have violated repeatedly. Once Parassharma1 returns, I would encourage them that they drop the stick and conform with their topic ban. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Jai Shri Ram discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I've blocked the filer for a week for violating their IPA topic ban. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 21 August 2020 (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.

Richard Stallman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Daveout on 01:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Richard Stallman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Daveout (talk · contribs) Lazer-kitty (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We have been disputing which version of a section is better in order to be included in an article. By “better”, I mean more "encyclopedic" or "neutral" or "clearer", etc. This began as a NPOV-related dispute, but since both versions have undergone major changes, the dispute is now less about bias, and more about tenuous wording\style preferences. (both versions are ok in my opinion, but one is a little nicer to read). For context: the section deals with controversial statements made by a computer scientist. Let's call them Version "A" and Version "B". Version A can be found HERE. Version B can be found HERE. To make things easier, I'll put both of them, side-by-side in the collapsable table below: Versions A and B A - Resignation from MIT and FSF In September 2019, Stallman resigned from both MIT and the Free Software Foundation following his posts on an internal MIT CSAIL listserv mailing list about Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with deceased MIT professor Marvin Minsky. In response to a post citing an article about Virginia Giuffre's deposition that Epstein had directed her, as a minor, to have sex with Minsky, Stallman criticized the choice of the word "assaulting", which implies the use of force, to describe Minsky's behavior. In the emails, which were published to the public via Medium, Stallman also wrote: Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. […] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. Further down the thread, responding to an argument that the location and time assumed based on the article would make it statutory rape, Stallman added: "It is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17". Stallman's words were perceived by some as an attempt to downplay sexual exploitation and minimize Minsky's alleged involvement. Reports also claimed that Stallman defended Epstein, which he denied: "Headlines say that I defended Epstein. [...] Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned". Criticisms intensified when Stallman's earlier remarks about pedophilia resurfaced: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing". In 2003, when commenting on judge William Pryor's claim, in support of an anti-sodomy law, that a constitutional right to choose one's sexual partner must logically extend to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia," Stallman wrote that those "should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness". He has since disavowed this belief. A joint statement signed by 33 GNU project developers classified Stallman's behavior as being alienating and advocated his departure from the project. Nevertheless, Stallman remains the head of the GNU Project. B - Resignation from MIT and FSF In August and September 2019 it was learned that Jeffrey Epstein had made controversial donations to MIT, and in the wake of this, MIT Media Lab Director's Joi Ito resigned. Students and others users started an internal MIT CSAIL listserv mailing list thread to protest the coverup of MIT's connections to Epstein. In the thread, discussion had turned to deceased MIT professor Marvin Minsky, who was named by Virginia Giuffre, a victim in the underage sex trafficking ring run by Epstein, as one of the people that Epstein had directed her to have sex with as a minor. In response to a comment where one reply stated that Minsky "is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims", Stallman defended Minsky by claiming that "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing", and asserted that the use of "assault" or "rape" in Minsky's case should not apply when further challenged by other members of the mailing list. Stallman remained critical of Epstein and his role, stating "We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex – by Epstein. She was being harmed." Stallman's posts were published to the public via Medium, and Vice published a copy of the email chain to that point on September 13, 2019, drawing attention to Stallman's comments. Many people started to look into Stallman's past writings over the following days to find what were considered troubling statements related to underage sex and laws relating to child pornography from 2013 and earlier. Tied to his comments regarding Minsky, this led to several calling for Stallman's resignation. Stallman acknowledged on September 14 that he had since learned his past writings that there were problems with underage sex, stating on his blog "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm her psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that." On September 16, Stallman announced his resignation from both MIT and FSF, "due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations". In a post on his website, Stallman asserted that his posts to the email lists were not to defend Epstein, stating "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him—and other inaccurate claims—and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding." Stallman remains head of the GNU Project. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? talk page discussion here Two uninvolved editors defined version A as being "carefully written" and "better readable and comprehensible"; Lazer-kitty claims that version A has "noticeable NPOV issues" but refuses to provide proof, when I asked them to explain those NPOV issues, they replied: "I actually do not respond well to people making demands of me" How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Right now we need to select the overall more appropriate version to serve as the base text (or starting point) for future developments. (It has been suggested, by an uninvolved editor, that we should somehow mix aspects of both versions, merging their qualities. We probably are going to work on that after the base text is defined) Summary of dispute by Lazer-kitty I will not be participating in this discussion beyond writing this comment. The ANI that Daveout references fizzled out because he seemed to agree to take a break from editing the article and discussing it with me. If he sticks to that then there is no dispute between us and nothing to be resolved. When he says above that their ANI case against me was completely ignored by admins, due to its utter baselessness and improperness (and pettiness), this is a blatant and obvious lie and unnecessary personal attack against me. It was not ignored by admins, it in fact had the full attention of an admin, who certainly never suggested the ANI request was baseless, improper, or petty; in fact, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. Daveout has a habit of repeatedly misconstruing and/or lying about the circumstances of our discussions in order to attack me; for example, he's very fond of taking my I actually do not respond well to people making demands of me statement out of context to make it appear like I refused to answer a simple request. Furthermore, when Daveout notified me of this new DRN on my talk page, he did so while saying remember to keep it civil and avoid re-dragging unrelated past events (or i'll be encouraged to do the same). Anyone who reads the ANI will note that the only person "re-dragging unrelated past events" was Daveout, so it's unclear to me why he's threatening retribution for something I never did. So, again, I will not be participating in this discussion and instead will explore Arbitration Enforcement per @Robert McClenon's suggestion (although, to be clear, I never had any interest in filing further ANIs or "forum shopping" as you put it until Daveout decided to continue his behavior). For what it's worth, believe me, I am fully aware that the above information is largely outside the scope of a DRN discussion, I just felt like I owed Robert and @Clone commando sev a full explanation. Sorry for wasting your time and thanks for offering your help. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Richard Stallman discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - It appears that User:Lazer-kitty a few days ago reported User:Daveout at WP:ANI a few days ago, and that dispute was archived without resolution. Are these editors forum shopping? Maybe Arbitration Enforcement is another station on this railroad. It usually takes more prisoners than WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I wanted to keep it brief and avoid reviving all that drama. But since you’re interested, the story is this: Lazer-kitty and I were in a dispute. We weren’t able to reach consensus (bc not many ppl were interest in the subject). El_C asked me to come here (DRN) to resolve that dispute, but I didn’t do that and continued edit warring along with lazer kitty (because I had misunderstood his instructions). So El_c blocked me from editing that page for a month. Now I’m following their advice, which was also supported by LK. But Lazer-kitty wanted my one-month partial block to be extended, but they didn’t present any new misconduct on my part to justify that, so their ANI case against me was completely ignored by admins, due to its utter baselessness and improperness (and pettiness). I’m not forbidden to engage in discussions, so there is no sanction being violated here. Furthermore, our behaviors are being supervised by 2 admins, if there were anything wrong, they would have intervened already. — Daveout (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note At the ANI- user Daveout said he would not be editing this page any further and admins strongly encouraged him to take a break.... Nightenbelle (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry, I didn't know that discussing an article was the same thing as editing it. In fact, both El_C and LK encouraged me to take this step before. NO ADMIN encouraged me to "take a break". I decided that myself. But the discussion continues and other editors criticized the current version of the article. As far as I'm aware I'm not doing anything wrong. If I am, please correct me. — Daveout (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC) I read the ANI... several admins suggested you taking a break was a good idea after you said you were going to- they said it was a good idea. And Generally the word editing on WP means working on it... discussing it is working on it.. .so instead of getting snippy- WP:AGF. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Nightenbelle several admins? -Could you name just one of those? I read the ANI -Actually, it looks like you misread the ANI. Get to known the diff between admins and common editors before commenting on a situation. — Daveout (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) hmmm. thought i closed this discussion....Clone commando sev (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Clone commando, The previous dispute was closed bc LK decided to open an ANI case against me instead of discussing it in here - LK asked admins to topic-ban me (that failed). It would be nice to have you as a moderator in this dispute. — Daveout (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC) sure i can moderate again. Clone commando sev (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Great. Right, it's really not that complicated. For me, it's simply a question of style. but Lazer-kitty claims that version A has "significant NPOV issues" too, so here is my proposal to lazzer-kitty: correct the perceived npov issues in version A (as you see fit) and let's implement that version in the article?..... I think it's a fair compromise for us to make — Daveout (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2020 (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.