Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	25 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours	Modun (t)	1 days, 10 hours
Wudu	In Progress	Nasserb786 (t)	16 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	6 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 hours	Thought 1915 (t)	2 hours
Hypnosis	Closed	Skalidrisalba (t)	5 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours
Talk:Karima Gouit	Closed	TahaKahi (t)	3 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours
Asian fetish	Closed	ShinyAlbatross (t)	3 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
Algeria	New	Monsieur Patillo (t)	2 days, 10 hours	None	n/a	Monsieur Patillo (t)	1 days, 14 hours
2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence	Closed	AmitKumarDatta180 (t)	2 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 hours
Tuner (radio)	New	Andrevan (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Kvng (t)	4 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 21:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Lists of tropical cyclone names

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by 174.226.4.31 on 20:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Lists of tropical cyclone names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)
• Jason Rees (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Every six years the national weather service uses the same names for hurricanes and typhoons with a few exceptions. We've attempted to turn over the 2012 list a few times given 2012 season has officially ended. But two users have been persisantly disputing the changes claiming it was original research. In addition they keep intentially spelling the names wrong. Each time we correct they keep reverting to the version with many names poorly spelled

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've explained the 2012 season is over but they've insisted their changes are right and that every year anew set of names is created each year.

How do you think we can help?

Come up with a compromise

Opening comments by Hurricanehink

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

[1] - the National Hurricane Center has not updated the list for 2018 yet, and the names that were there are correct. I protected the page since the anon kept changin be names incorrectly (like Bret to Brett). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jason Rees

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Our list of tropical cyclone names is imo the most accurate list of tropical cyclone names around as it trumps the WMO list of names and we do not add the list of names until we have a source telling us what the names are. While it is true that the names for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons rotate every six years, it could be that the WMO decides to add a new list of names or completely change the naming scheme like they did in 2008 with the Australian region list of names. It is also worth noting that the IP is changing the names to what they think is the correct spelling of the name rather than what is the official spelling of the name. I oppose any addition of the names for 2018 until the lists are put out by the NHC/WMO due to the rules on Original Research.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of tropical cyclone names discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Who filed this?

Who is 174.226.4.31? — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Would you consider adding the rotated 2012 names for 2018, under a description stating something like "The following names are predicted based on WMO's system of repeating hurricane names every 6 years". The description probable needs some clean up, but would either of you be ok with that? — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see the reason, since the same could be said for 2019, 2020, etc. Not to mention, the NHC still lists only the 2012 list (not 2018). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont personally see the need to include the predicted 2018 names just yet since it is Original Research and due to the fact that we are not here to predict which names will be removed at this years Hurricane Committee in April. Personally i dont see the need to remove the 2012 names just yet and add in the 2018 names as some people might be curious to see what names were used last year still and it would lead to more problems with people marking Sandy as retired since we have the outside chance of it becoming like Gordon 1994 and not being retired.Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Carrie; I'm a DRN volunteer. This doesn't mean I have any special privileges or the power to enforce any decisions, but I will try and help you come to an agreement. I have a couple of questions:

• What has been the usual practice in the past when a season ends but the names for six years on haven't been released? (NB: I'm not saying that it must be done as it has been in the past, but if there is an accepted 'usual' practice, we should do that unless consensus emerges for a change.)
• Can we find a source for the prediction of the 2018 names, or is it a prediction by editors based on the 2012 names and the fact that they are usually repeated? CarrieVS (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • From what i can tell we have generally waited until the lists have been released (with the retired names) before updating it, however there will be some random websites out there that will have the 2018 names on them even though they are not available yet based on the fact that the list of names will be used again in 2018.Jason Rees (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see we have three options:

1. Leave the 2012 names up until the 2018 list is released.
2. Remove the 2012 names and add the predicted 2018 list.
3. Remove the 2012 names but do not add the predicted 2018 list.

• 3 has a big disadvantage in that it removes the sixth list of names entirely.
• 2 would be WP:synthesis unless we have a reliable source for the prediction. If someone finds one, then we could discuss whether or not to do this.
• I would suggest 1, but with the addition of a sentence (either below the table or perhaps in a seventh row headed '2018') saying that the 2018 names have not yet been released. The paragraph immediately above the table says that the names are rotated, so readers may deduce for themselves that the 2018 names will probably be the same as the 2012 list. If we can source it, we could potentially include a mention of names which are expected to be retired.

How does that sound? CarrieVS (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• remove the 2O12 names and add the 2018 list without the predicted names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.206 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no 2018 list without predicted names. The entire 2018 list is only a prediction. (Have edited my above comment to clarify). CarrieVS (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is true. They could very well issue a totally different set of names for 2018. I agree with #1. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2013

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Codename Lisa on 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Microsoft Office 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs)
• Sonicdrewdriver (talk · contribs)
• Greglovern (talk · contribs)
• FormerIP (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Recently, magazines have started dedicating coverage to an issue of Microsoft Office 2013: Apparently, the retail versions may only be installed on one computer only. Purchasing a replacement computer means purchasing a new Office.

But how much coverage should we dedicate to this issue? Does WP:SYNTH allow us to say "this might not be legal in Europe" from a source that neither mentions Microsoft, nor Office 2013? (let alone the issue at hand). In addition, there are a lot of unreferenced info. (e.g "Microsoft publicly stated that this change was meant to reduce (or, even eliminate) the pirating of Office that has been rampant for years" fails to be verified against its source.) Should they be kept just because one editor keeps reverting their removal? What about speculations? Is keeping them not against WP:NOT?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This issue has been discussed twice in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013. There are two separate discussion threads. All mentioned involved users have participated except User:Dogmaticeclectic, who prefers reverting instead of talking.

How do you think we can help?

As Max Payne says "a millions of dollars question I didn't have the answer for."

Opening comments by Dogmaticeclectic

First of all, WP:CON has already been established at the article's talk page, with all essentially agreeing except for User:Codename Lisa (who at first attempted to ignore it altogether while simultaneously pretending that the issue had already been addressed, and later added the content to the lead as discussed but did so in a manner that made it quite difficult for the average reader to spot). Second, this sentence on that talk page (not by me) - combined with WP:WEIGHT - summarizes my opinion quite well: "From the perspective of news coverage by reliable sources, *the* most discussed new attribute of the retail version of Office 2013 is that it is locked to one machine forever." Third, this dispute is not about the content (WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.) - since there exist numerous WP:RS for that, including the original Microsoft EULA itself - but about the currently-existing content's visibility (User:Codename Lisa is trying to change the subject again). (Fourth, to quote myself this time: "My responses to you were included in my edit summaries. In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion.") Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sonicdrewdriver

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be included too heavily, simply because straight answers are hard to find. We have sources that back up the currently-included point, but there are other sources available that contradict it. I understand that it's a major issue, not something small, that's why I believe some coverage is good, but we shouldn't be alarmist when Microsoft themselves have been known to contradict our summary of their terms. They've failed to respond to direct questioning when I've put it to them (so far) as an organisation, but technical support staff from the company have made statements that muddy the water significantly, if not completely contradict us. drewmunn talk 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Greglovern

My opinion is that this is very important information that should be briefly stated in the lead and then stated in more detail in the body. For people who have been buying retail editions of Office for many years, this is a very surprising change, and one which can lead to an expensive ($400 for retail Office Pro) mistake.

When we read very surprising information that is mentioned only in passing, it is human nature to assume that the source must be mistaken. To state very surprising information only in passing is to do a disservice to Wikipedia readers. That disservice is compounded when the information could have helped readers avoid an expensive mistake. A reader who makes such an expensive mistake after reading the Wikipedia entry would naturally feel betrayed by Wikipedia.

In accordance with the Wikipedia principle of giving "due weight" (see neutral point of view), surprising information should be given the prominence that would be expected by a reasonable reader, so that the reader takes notice instead of assuming that Wikipedia is mistaken. A reasonable reader would expect such a surprising change to be included in the lead and then stated in detail in the body.

Microsoft representatives who have been asked about this change in the license agreement have given wildly varying answers. However, the license agreement itself is very clear, and in previous retail Office versions Microsoft meant exactly what they said in the license agreement. Withholding information because we fear Microsoft might really mean something different is not in accord with Wikipedia policy.

Where Codename Lisa says "consensus was reached" regarding her dispute with my edits in January and early February, I disagree. I had stopped when I felt I'd done as much as I could, given that per Wikipedia policy I could only quote Microsoft's license agreement and could not "interpret" it in any way. I still believed that the information was not given "due weight". Greg (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by FormerIP

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comment by uninvolved editor: FleetCommand

Without naming any name, here is my observation of the article in regard to the current dispute:

• WP:LEAD problem: Lead contains novel info that do not appear in the body
• Content problem: Article contains contents without source and original research, including two instances of improper synthesis of sources, in the disputed area. These must either be deleted or properly referenced. Attempt(s) to reinstate them without direct quotation from a reliable source must cease immediately. Tabloids are not reliable sources and weak/half-hearted statements made by the most reliable sources must not be turned into full-fledged bashful or praising statements in the article. (They must be disregarded.)
• I do not name any names but among the editors, there are those who really seem to be trying to improve the article and communicate with others. At the opposite end of the spectrum are editor(s) whose editing nature is tendentious editing and their communication skills needs a lot of improvements.
• All editors must immediately cease commenting on the contributors and start commenting on the contents. In additions, all editors should refrain from reverting unless there is a clear sign that their contribution will go uncontested. Tags are a semi-exception. Problem tags must remain on the article unless there is a clear sign that the dispute is resolved.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2013 discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Question

I am a little confused about the comment concerning WP:SYNTH and Office '13 in Europe. Could someone please clarify? Thanks. — nerdfighter^(academy) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

WP:SYNTH says that an editor should not advance his own point of view based on material in source, when the said point of view is not in the source. Now, the article says "This may be illegal in the European Union", referring to the new licensing terms but does not provide a source that explicitly confirm it. Existing sources do not directly back this up. One of the sources is about Oracle, not Microsoft. Extending it to Microsoft based on an editors interpretation is WP:SYNTH and not allowed here. An expert must analyze the court ruling to see whether it applies to Microsoft or not, then we can cite him in the article. The other source is The Register which says "European courts tending to lean in favor of consumer rights" but does not specify how much do they lean. There are a couple of other statements about piracy and Trojan Horse-style which have elements of WP:SYNTH in them. There is another problem with this sentence which does not apply to your question.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer's notes

Hello everyone, I will try to help achieve a consensus in this case. I have not been involved, nor heard of this dispute before reading this request. I would appreciate if you would give me some time to go through the dispute before I will proceed with the negotiations. If you have any questions, please ask them below. Zaminamina (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Could we make an agreement that all parties will refrain from editing the article until we have reached a consensus? Zaminamina (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I can only speak for myself but I believe it is safe to agree not to make any major edit to the disputed area. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the volunteer

Hello, Zaminamina. Can I inquire as to what is the cause of all this delay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Pdunbarny on 13:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Steve Jobs#Apple Computer.2C Inc..27s 1997 Financial Rescue (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pdunbarny (talk · contribs)
• BashBrannigan (talk · contribs)
• Dream Focus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Wikipedia article's statement that "Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998." is based on the subject's, Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs, own claims ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") and is not supported by facts other than those referencing the subject's claims thus making the subject the primary source of the statement posed as fact.

In addition the claim has a very high probability of being a false statement based on supporting evidence to the contrary provided in the talk pages linked, including the referenced article and linked US government documents filed by the company, Apple Computer, Inc.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Satisfactory evidence suggesting the article's statement ("Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998.") relies on the claim under dispute that was made by the subject ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") that evidence shows it not likely correct, has been provided on the talk page.

Two other registered editors have provided opinions, one supporting the article's statement by questioning the evidence and the other believing there is adequate evidence provided.

How do you think we can help?

If the evidence provided is satisfactory, the statement under dispute should be either:

a) removed from the article, b) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject, c) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence, or d) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence and is disputed.

Additional evidence can be provided to conclude the dispute.

Opening comments by BashBrannigan

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The argument that Jobs' statement that the company was "90 days from bankruptcy" when he arrived is that the only source is from Jobs himself. I did a quick search and was able to find a New York Times article from March 28, 1996 which discusses Apples grave financial situation, specifically a $700 million loss in it’s second quarter. Here is the link: New York Time 1996/03/28 apple-expects-it-will-lose-700-million.html

From the article: “A former Apple executive, who spoke on the ground that he not be named, said that the company's financial situation was so dire that he believed Apple was likely to be in the hands of its bankers, Citibank and Bank of America, by the end of the year.” As Jobs took over in Dec of 69 this gives independent credence to Jobs “90 days” quote and certainly to the grave situation.

Additionally, in the evidence provided against Apple being near bankruptcy, it appears that the SEC filing is from late 97 and Jobs arrived late 96, so I’m not sure it applies. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dream Focus

Someone who understands all the stuff in the SEC report should comment on whether or not Jobs was just lying to exaggerate his own importance, as everyone that knew him said he often did(see his official biography).

I commented on how the current source referenced in the article is "just what Jobs said in an interview. Thus it comes from a primary source. You need to find a better source to keep it there". Can anyone find any evidence to keep that bit in the article? Dream Focus 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not discuss the dispute prior to a dispute resolution volunteer opening the thread for comments

In response to BashBrannigan's last comment: It was announced Dec 20, 1996 that Apple Computer, Inc. would acquire NeXT Software, Inc. (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193-96-000027.txt) and, following the transaction, the subject was to be a part-time consultant to Apple. The subject was not appointed Interim CEO until Sep 16, 1997. The rebuttal quote from the Mar 28, 1996 article that Apple’s “financial situation was so dire” then is not attributed to any person other than a “former Apple executive” (who could just as well been the subject). In addition, the article also states “And some industry experts contend that while Apple has a serious image problem with customers, the affliction is not necessarily fatal.” and that “Having drifted lately in the $23 range that only weeks ago was deemed an insult when Sun proposed it as a takeover price, Apple's shares gained $1.375 today to close at $25.25.” Moreover, according to US government SEC filings by Apple, referred below as the “Registrant” (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193-96-000023.txt): “The aggregate market value of voting stock held by nonaffiliates of the Registrant was approximately $2,941,155,709 as of November 29, 1996, based upon the closing price on the Nasdaq National Market reported for such date.” A $3bn publicly-traded Silicon Valley stalwart with a loyal following on the edge of insolvency would have gotten more coverage than a single article with a non-attributed quote speculating on the company’s demise. The fact that Apple still had refinanced its debts at 6% with low-grade long-term securities, held about $1bn cash one year later and had a substantial market value even after reporting a large loss indicates that the company was solvent. This article and / or its quote appear to be the common Silicon Valley FUD. Pdunbarny (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, everyone has made a statement. Please give me a little time (less than a day) to read all of the talk page history, check all the references, etc, and then I will open this up for discussion. Thanks for your patience. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am now opening this for comments. I am going to ask you all to try to keep your comments brief and to the point, and to take your time composing and polishing your answers. Also, ask yourself "is this really new, or am I repeating what I wrote before?"

I have read all of the talk page comments and article versions, followed the links, and did a bit of searching myself. For my first run through, I did a little trick I like to do in these cases. I loaded all the comments (here and on the talk page) into my sandbox, deleted all the sigs and any references to names, went away for an hour, and just looked at the arguments without knowing who said what. Later will re-read it with the sigs. From this I came to some preliminary thoughts. Please don't think that these carry any special weight; right now I am seeing what we can all agree on

First, I was glad to see that I am not dealing with a "problem editor" Everyone seems to want the best for the encyclopedia rather than being disruptive. That isn't always true in these DRN cases.

There are a few places where a better understanding of our policies would help.

I would like whoever (don't tell me who!) wrote "Further analysis of the referenced SEC document will indicate..." to carefully read WP:OR (and possibly WP:V and WP:RS if you have time.) These policies can be hard to follow, because sometimes there is something that is true, that everyone agrees is true, and which is glaringly obvious with just a tiny amount of analysis, yet you not only have to not put it in, you have to actively work with the other editors to keep it out as editors come and go.

I would like whoever wrote (again, don't say who!) "The source is just what Jobs said in an interview. Thus it comes from a primary source. You need to find a better source to keep it there" to consider the following: deletion is not the only option. Attribution is an acceptable alternative, Instead of "Apple was X" with the only source being Jobs, you can change it to "In (month) of (year), Steve Jobs said that Apple was X". You can even follow it with a "The SEC said apple was Y", but it has to be a direct conclusion, not something we have to do OR to figure out. (I am pretty sure you all know all of this already, but only deletion was mentioned in the above quote).

OK, have at each other, but take your time and be concise. One strong argument beats a hundred weak ones. Thanks!

One final thing; if anyone for any reason wants, I will be happy to step away, no questions asked, and ask for another volunteer to take over. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to resolve this. The quote challenged, “Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998.” (referred herein as the “Quote”), contains, amongst other complex matters related to attributing the firm’s turnaround in 1998, an affirmative statement with two facts: an event (“bankruptcy”) and its timing (“90 days”) that combined is the focus of discussion. As the Quote is positioned as a fact, the burden of proof should reasonably fall on those making the assertion to prove the Quote true as proving a false statement to be false is near impossible, philosophically. Nonetheless, please review the below and pardon its length.

In order to hold the Quote as a fact, as currently published, it should be verifiable beyond the subject person. The only alternate source thus far provided by the editor supporting the Quote is a New York Times article published Mar 28, 1996 that:

1. Does not attribute the supporting claim that the company “was likely to be in the hands of its bankers, Citibank and Bank of America, by the end of the year” to a person other than an unnamed former employee, who could have been the subject person
2. Was published nearly eight months before the subject person first reengaged with the company as a part-time consultant when the company acquired the subject person’s company for $319mn cash, proving the company still had financial wherewithal,
3. States that Apple “broke off merger talks with Sun Microsystems, which had offered a fire-sale price of $23 a share” indicating the company was not near insolvency, and
4. No other large professional financial, commerce-focused or legal media outlet made a similar statement comporting with the unnamed source of the article’s claim. Indeed, two financial and business publications state the opposite with attribution (see below).

A Wall Street Journal (the “WSJ”) article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB868490956869493000.html) published the same day as the New York Times reference contains the following paragraph supporting the Quote:

“Another troubling question, these executives say, is whether Apple can adequately finance its turnaround amid a worsening cash situation. Apple's cash position had shrunk to $1.1 billion at Dec. 29 from $1.6 billion a year earlier. Much of the cash is tied up overseas, however, and the company had debt of about $800 million at that time, the most recent reported. Apple's financial situation got another jolt yesterday when Standard & Poor's Corp., which already had about $300 million of Apple debt on its CreditWatch, downgraded that debt to ‘negative’ from ‘developing’ after the loss projection was announced.”

Notice the article notes questions about financing the company's reversal rather than its viability. The WSJ article goes on to provide rebuttals to comments of a pending financial crunch; extra information is included for context:

“Apple executives insisted yesterday they see no underlying shift in demand for their products. ‘When you go through a period like this, everything gets batted around a bit,’ said Apple Chief Administrator George Scalese. ‘We still have all the strengths we had a year ago.’ He declined to discuss financial specifics such as Apple's cash situation until the quarter's results are reported next month. But, he added, ‘I am confident we will get the business back on track.’”

A BusinessWeek magazine article (http://www.businessweek.com/1996/07/b346257.htm) published Feb 12, 1996, about a month before the New York Times article, provides a comprehensive valuation from analysts. Quoting many investment professionals, it reports investors had valued the company between $28 and $58 per common share—-far from being an insolvent company.

Though the analysts’ valuations may be deemed subjective, biased and one may argue they are mere optimistic opinions of the company, the company’s equity market value hovered around $2.5 to $3.5bn on either the date of the referenced New York Times article, the period shortly before the subject person’s company was purchased by Apple or dates surrounding the announcement on Sep 20, 1997 of the subject person’s appointment as Interim CEO.

If the overall majority of financial market participants erred, financial media made material miscalculations, there was a massive financial fraud ongoing at the company making it overvalued by investors and a sole unnamed person quoted in the New York Times proved correct in identifying the “true” state of the company, that person should be named.

Though the burden of proof should rest on those agreeing with the Quote, I trust the above is satisfactory in at least dispelling a statement that had gotten currency as a rumor, especially since the subject person repeated it. As a compromise, I can propose that the quote may remain as long as it is qualified as a claim made by the subject and juxtaposed with factual data of the company’s equity market value surrounding any date in question to let users decide which fact is more valid. An example is below.

“Jobs [claimed to have] brought Apple to profitability by 1998 from near bankruptcy [though the company had in excess of $1bn in cash and short-term investments after expending $319mn in cash purchasing NeXT Software in 1997 and an equity market value of approximately $2.5bn to $3bn before the transaction according to US government financial filings by the company.]”

Pdunbarny (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that what I am about to write could be misinterpreted as my supporting one side of this dispute. In reality, I am just applying Wikipedia's policies to the argument that happened to be posted first. Tomorrow I may very well be giving the other side the same treatment.

Qualifying it as a claim made by Jobs seems reasonable. Does anyone disagree?

The "juxtaposed with factual data" to "let users decide which fact is more valid." is WP:SYNTHESIS. You cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. What you can do is to try to find a reliable source that makes the same argument you made. If you find one, we can report that.

Here is a quote that may help to explain the way we do things:

"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is a Good Thing." --WP:FLAT

A good example is where you cite "http://www.businessweek.com/1996/07/b346257.htm" in the passage above. That citation is totally useless for this purpose, because it does not contain the words "Steve", "Jobs" "bankrupt", or "bankruptcy". This means that it cannot be used it to support either side of a content dispute regarding whether Steve Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability Please note that this also implies that those on the other side should not bother arguing against it; it should be ignored as simply not being part of this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It should have been made clear at the outset that the objection being raised regarding the Quote is not to disparage the subject person or detract from his accomplishments. There is more than enough polemic debate over the subject person that adding further controversy would not create much value, if any.

The BusinessWeek article is cited to contrast the only source the editor supporting the Quote has made reference to in the New York Times. Note that neither article includes the four words in the context of this discussion that you suggest they should.

As pointed out earlier, the Quote is affirmative and states a matter as a fact. The Quote is furthermore based on the subject person’s claim as a primary source. The burden of proof should rest on the person supporting the Quote to prove it as fact. To apply the principle from the Flat Earth excerpt, at the fourth century BC, it would have been easily verifiable with numerous authoritative, reliable and named sources during the period stating that Earth is flat. We don’t have similar consideration here with respect to the Quote.

From an internet search, one can conclude that nearly every article from a reputable, non-blog source makes clear that the part of the Quote related to “90 days” and “bankruptcy” is a claim made by the subject person; none, I have read, state it as fact.

It is fair at this point to request that the editor supporting the Quote to supply concordant, verifiable, authoritative, named sources.

Pdunbarny (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That was a well-written argument - just what I was looking for. Now I want to hear from the other parties. Don't be too quick to reply when they do; you might find it worthwhile to see my response first. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a widely accepted viewpoint that Jobs rescued Apple from "oblivion" or "near-death" or "bankruptcy", however you wish to word it. It is incorrect that the statement that Jobs rescued Apple from bankruptcy came solely from Jobs' "90 days" quote. I'm providing just a few "Jobs rescued Apple" quotes and these opinions are not attributed as being from Jobs, but from the writers themselves. If there is a reliable published source that disputes this viewpoint, it could be included, but even then it wouldn't justify removing the "Jobs rescued Apple" statement.

Sources:

The Guardian: “After all, he's the man who rescued Apple from the near-death experience it underwent in the mid-1990s.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/27/steve-jobs-apple-ipod-ipad

Wall Street Journal: “it’s easy to forget what Jobs had to do to rescue Apple (US:AAPL) from its role as a niche player teetering on the brink of existence, as it was in 1997.” http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-09-24/commentary/30779071_1_apple-and-microsoft-apple-developers-software-giant

Globe and Mail: “But Apple's destiny has been closely tied to Jobs, the mercurial and charismatic leader who rescued the computer maker from near-death in 1996.” http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/apple-shareholders-vote-down-succession-proposal/article567891/?service=mobile

CNN: “Some Jobs watchers believe that it is Apple Inc., the company, not Apple's computers ...he must take some pride in the fact that this enterprise he co-founded, lost for a decade, and rescued from bankruptcy” http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/06/15/steve.jobs.legacy.dewitt/index.html

BashBrannigan (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is exactly what I am looking for here. Fact-based with citations we can check. You folks are being too helpful; are you sure that one of you doesn't want to call me a Nazi pedophile bedwetter, as is customary in DRN cases? (smile).

OK, so we have a cite for the bankruptcy claim, and unless someone objects I am going to assume that "near-death" means the same thing. So how about dropping the 90 days claim, picking a phrase from one of the above sources, and putting that phrase in the article with a citation to the source? Does anyone have an objection to doing that? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As before, I would like to get Dream Focus's input before we get into a series of give-and-take rebuttals. Everybody will be given plenty of time to make their points. Quality, not quantity, will win the day. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My input is that the SEC files are all that matters. There is no possible doubt to its accuracy, while the news media just quotes things and doesn't do proper background checks. Maybe it would've gone bankrupt without him, maybe not. Him convincing Bill Gates to invest a large chunk of money into them, really helped quite a lot. According to his official biography, before he became CEO again, he had been brought back there, and had done things to undermine the current CEO, even sold off all the shares of stock he had received, that on the public record, and perhaps that caused other investors to loose faith and thus hurt the company more so. What state were they in when he got back to Apple, and what state when he became CEO? No way to tell if he really did save it from bankruptcy, although he did get them making Ipods, Iphones, and whatnot that made them insanely profitable later on of course. Anyway, no need to put any quote about him saving the company at all, unless its honest such as "while Jobs claims he saved the company from bankruptcy, and some media people have quoted this without checking the facts, the SEC records show otherwise." Dream Focus 13:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That would indeed appear to be desirable, but according to Wikipedia's rules (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS) we can't put in the above "some media people have quoted this without checking the facts" or "the SEC records show otherwise" claims unless we have a citation to a reliable secondary source that came to that same conclusion. If we tried, it would be deleted for violating our policies on verification. Do you have such a citation? If not, can you suggest a wording that we are allowed to put into a Wikipedia article? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Quote discussed relies on a claim made by the subject person around Jun 8, 2010 and stated by the subject person in the video on this linked page around the two-minute mark: http://allthingsd.com/20100607/steve-jobs-at-d8-the-full-uncut-interview/. Since about June 2010, many media have relied on the statement without attributing it. Some, such as this Bloomberg article, make clear the source of the claim “It was 90 days away from bankruptcy, Jobs would later say.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/apple-without-jobs-as-ceo-gives-cook-28-billion-to-make-a-deal-real-m-a.html.

The four sources provided by the editor do not disclose where the claim comes from that the company was “near-bankrupt” (see comment below on definitions). As requested, please have the editor supporting the Quote provide valid attributed sources, preferably before June 2010.

I can in turn provide attributed professional financial analysts opinions or valuations from public published media for any relevant date showing that the company’s value was in the billions of dollars in even the most reasonably pessimistic case. Trumping any single financial analyst or a collection of them, the company’s financial filings with the US government at whatever date belie the Quote that the company was “near-bankrupt” within “90-days” considering its reports to the government state its equity market value of approximately $3bn as determined by thousands of highly-skilled finance professionals.

It should be noted that SEC filings for large companies are arguably more accurate than many peer reviewed academic journals as groups of lawyers, bankers, auditors, accountants and executives amongst other highly trained professionals review every word and figure before they get filed and a larger army of trained finance professionals scrutinize them after they get filed. Errors are seldom made and, when so, amendments get filed promptly. Unlike journals, newspapers and other publications, the legal and financial consequences of intentional or accidental misrepresentation can be very severe including in the former case federal prison sentences. Trillions of dollars literally depend on these documents. It would be a disservice if Wikipedia held these documents on par with or less than mass media publications.

The SEC requires its registrants disclose timely in filings information deemed material, such as a prospective bankruptcy filing or even if there is substantial concern over a registrant's financial state. Reasonably, it does not require registrants to attest they are not expecting to seek bankruptcy. I have however provided references to SEC files documents from the company that attest that the company believed it had adequate financial flexibility. If the opposite were true, the company's auditor would be required to opine so in written form and the company would be compelled to publish it.

This may seem like mere semantics but is central to this discussion. As I’ve noted before, bankruptcy, especially as used by the subject person, is an event and not a state. I don’t think it’s understood what the word “bankrupt” means, especially in the context here. While often used loosely, we should be clear that the word and its derivations have a specific legal meaning. In the US as in most developed countries, it is an event adjudicated and administered more or less by a judiciary, especially when the debtor is a publicly-traded company. This definition for "bankrupt"is also in agreement with that on Wikipedia. Though the vernacular that someone “goes bankrupt” or that person after doing so is “a bankrupt” is legally and commercially incorrect usage.

This is not a discourse in legal definitions. This is however to state that “near-bankrupt” has the colloquial currency of “near-death” or “near-pregnant”. These are largely binary events where one files for bankruptcy or is adjudicated bankrupt. The word “oblivion”, meaning to forget or be forgotten, is often erroneously interchanged with or misused for “obviate”, meaning to do away with a matter or to render it obsolete or useless.

I propose, as requested before, that the person supporting the Quote provide named sources. If that can be done, I will seek to provide one or more professional valuations showing that the company was not bankrupt or “near-bankrupt”. There are at least two dates in question here: Dec 1996, when the subject person sold his venture to the company and became a part-time consultant, and Sep 1997, when the subject person was appointed Interim CEO. Feel free to select the 90-day period starting from one of these two dates (or any other relevant date) it is believed the subject person is referring to. I will first await responses of named sources.

Pdunbarny (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever statement we agree upon, it will have a citation to a reliable source backing it up or it will be deleted. That is our policy. The only question is what the statement should be. I don't care what you decide upon, but I will check the citation and make sure that what the statement says is found in the cite. That's not negotiable.

If you "seek to provide one or more professional valuations showing that the company was not bankrupt or 'near-bankrupt'." you will just be wasting our time, because that information cannot be used. You need a reliable third party that published an analysis of that information. You cannot draw your own conclusions, no matter how obvious they are. Much of what you wrote above, such as discussing whether SEC filings are accurate, is wasting our time because it cannot be used. You really need to take the time to carefully read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY so that you don't waste your time or our time with information that cannot be used on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful to keep in mind as we pose responses that we are all operating under the same pay scale for this effort. I've respectfully invited the two other editors to a civil discussion and they have been so. The professional valuations were going to be cited. If you have constructive comments to make on the discussion, please provide. Not to be thin-skinned but if at anytime you feel your voluntary time is being wasted, feel free to appoint another person.

Pdunbarny (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the above offended you, and for that I apologize, but sometimes you have to be straightforward and tell someone that they are on the wrong path. I would be amiss if I let you or Dream Focus continue down the path of drawing conclusions from SEC filings when you clearly cannot find any reliable third-party sources that have published the same conclusions. Or rather have not so far found any reliable third-party sources that have published the same conclusions. I would be very surprised if those sources did not exist, given the high visibility of the subject. You just have to find them.

I am hoping that the next comment (from anyone) shows that that person has read the policy pages I have been linking to and has some questions about how to interpret and apply specific wording in those policies We won't get anywhere if I just tell you that you are on the wrong path and you refuse to examine the policy for yourself and question that. I could be completely wrong. It could be that the policies allow you to do original research by interpreting primary sources like SEC filings. We will never know if you do not study Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability and tell me where you think I am wrong. Clearly you either think those policies don't apply to you or that I am misinterpreting them. Please explain why you think that. You might very well be right. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Senor Taichi on 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Senor Taichi (talk · contribs)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs)
• Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article is an episode list of a live action TV show. Content dispute is on the summaries of the first four episodes (or the fifth summary) since Favre1fan93 keeps adding his own version even though this episode has not yet aired.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I removed any futures summaries that may be considered "original research" telling Ryulong to act civilly

How do you think we can help?

Users should respect others and not dismiss every edit they don't agree with as "original research"

Opening comments by Ryulong

Jesus christ the summaries for upcoming episodes are based on TV Guide/Zap2it listings. If anything Senor Taichi is the one who is violating WP:OR by posting this content. Senor Taichi is constantly violating WP:OR by adding content that is not stated outright by the television show, and also violating WP:COPYVIO by copying summaries from TV guide websites (such as Zap2it). He is being told by Favre1fan93 and myself that he is incorrect, and reporting on us here in an attempt to get his way, such as claiming that the addition of a one sentence summary for the fifth episode, which has not yet aired but uses Zap2it as the source, is a violation of WP:OR. At this point he should just be blocked for disruption.

Again, no attempt was made at resolving this on the talk page and Senor Taichi is just trying to slog everything through Wikimedia process for no reason (he was the IP who previously posted here concerning a line that I removed from the page).—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Favre1fan93

Ugh. Okay. So basically everything that Ryulong said is what I would have said here in some extent. As Senor Taichi stated above that we should "not dismiss every edit [we] don't agree with as "original research" ", the only reason he was being dismissed so many times, as Ryulong said, was because his edits were OR. Before his edits, I add added new episode titles that were sourced by Zap2It as well as one future episode summary (more on this in a bit). Senor Taichi went on to change a properly sourced title to one that he could not provide a new, valid source for, saying that his version was right and not OR.

As for the future episode summary, the title source (usually from a press release), can be used as a guideline for the short summary. However, you can not copy word-for-word, as Senor Taichi did, less it be WP:COPYVIO. The summary must express what the episode will be about, with out using the exact words from the source. The official short summary is: "[redacted, view here]" while the one added is "The Warstar monster Beezara uses her powers to turn Gia and Emma against each other and the boys into her loyal drones." Just a simple sentence or two to say what the episode will be about before a more lengthy summary can be added after it airs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

View by Nerdfighter

This really shouldn't be on this noticeboard. Adding summaries for shows that have not aired is vandalism. Please warn the user starting at level one, each time he vandalises. If he vandalises past 4 warnings he may be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks. — nerdfighter^(academy) 01:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I got something mixed up.

I am not so sure you are correct about that Nerd. I will look further, but for now we should not be advising editors that this is indeed vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism:"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." This is too soon, could be less than accurate and is possibly innapropriate, but it is not vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that Senior Taichi is currently blocked for 72 hours for issues unrelated to this matter, so if discussion is going to continue, it will have to wait for her/his return. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We should just shut it down he was spurriously bringing this half-dispute here just to get someone on his side because two editors kept telling him he was violating policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I got something mixed up. I was under the impression that a user added summaries for episodes that have never aired. I will be more careful next time I respond to a discussion like this. Please forgive me :) — nerdfighter^(academy) 02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Mendaliv on 13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mendaliv (talk · contribs)
• Golbez (talk · contribs)
• TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Does the phrase "United States" also refer to territories such as Puerto Rico?

Some editors have argued yes, and that the United States article at present does not reflect this in its lede. Others argue no, or at least that the current article does not exclude the possibility. I have argued that the term is ambiguous and the sides should be equally addressed.

One problem that has come up is sourcing. My sources, admittedly, are legal encyclopedias and thus tertiary sources. One editor in favor of explicit inclusion of territories has provided sources that he argues support that contention, but which I believe either independently support the ambiguity of the term, or are primary sources being used to advance a synthetic position.

Another contention has been the appropriate application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Without straying into behavioral issues, it has been repeatedly argued that tertiary sources should not be used at all, that certain sources are or are not secondary/scholarly, that primary sources may be used to support the definition, what constitutes OR, what value judgments we may make about the validity of certain sources, and similar.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I got pulled in via a request at WP:EAR, where I volunteer. I came to Talk:United States and engaged in discussion. Upon realizing this issue had wider implications, I called on members of WP:USA to join, and started a discussion to standardize affected articles and to describe the ambiguity rather than attempting to resolve it. I believe the sheer volume of discussion, both prior to and in response to these attempts at resolution, is preventing participation by uninvolved editors.

How do you think we can help?

Keep things on topic and moving, break the deadlock, and move the participants towards hacking out a consensus.

Opening comments by Golbez

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

My personal stance has been, the incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy has been settled law, and absent a specific statement from Congress, the Executive, or a higher court, that remains how things are done. The U.S. consists of the incorporated territory of the fifty states, federal district, and Palmyra Atoll (so insignificant as to not warrant mention in the introduction).

However, throughout all this my concern has been less about the definition of the country (though I still disagree that we can unilaterally say the territories are now part of the country), and more about what impact that would have on the rest of the article, and other articles. For example, all of the stats in the infobox would have to be changed to accommodate the change in area and population. And all statistics and facts in the article itself would have to be checked: Does this change the population density? The crime rate? Are their unique aspects mentioned in geography and demographics? Furthermore, what impact would this have on Wikipedia at large? Would we have a situation where we are massively inconsistent, with this article reporting one area and other articles reporting another, or other articles talking about Puerto Rico as a possession whereas this one would now talk about it as integrated into the country? Would the articles on incorporated and unincorporated territories be updated to indicate that those terms no longer have meaning? Would the articles on the five territories in question be updated to reflect their "new" status? Has anyone even asked the talk pages of those articles how they feel about this?? Those who are for this change have denied any need to do this, let alone any willingness to perform it. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TheVirginiaHistorian

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The view of a U.S. without territories echoes the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Editor synthesis of tertiary sources should be replaced by secondary scholarly or government sources as quoted. Contribution to the lead sentence sourced from the last twenty years should be admitted describing the U.S. federal republic as including 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories.

The U.S. is an internationally recognized nation-state with a constitutional tradition upholding basic human rights and self-determination in a federal constitutional republic. Scholar and government secondary sources show the U.S. territories of 2013 are “locally autonomous” with rights and privileges “equivalent to states” in the Union. The U.S.G. reports itself as today including 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories.

The constitutional practice of the U.S. since 1805 develops territory from “possession” with military governor to “unincorporated territory” with appointed governor without citizenship-of-the-soil, to “incorporated territory” of citizens with elected governors. Territories admitted as states in 1910 and 1960, AZ, NM, AK, HI as territories are surpassed in privileges for the five organized U.S. territories 2013: N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. As were the territories incorporated before them, they are incorporated in the union of U.S. federal constitutional republic.

There is no secondary source to classify U.S. territories of 2013 as “separate personalities”. WP articles should not source WP. Insular Cases are temporary judicial fiat to administer Spanish regions in 1901. Alaska was held “incorporated” in “Rassmussen”, because congressional intent was manifest with citizenship-of-the-soil, as is the case in all five organized U.S. territories but Samoa. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

There is a dispute about whether "and territories" should be added to the lead which currently says the U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district." It is settled law from the Insular Cases that unincorporated territories of the United States are not part of the republic. It is the position of the U.S. government and congress that these territories are either separate states in free association with the U.S. or non-self governing territories. They are considered separate personalities under international law with the right to self-determination.["Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, pp. 120, 136, 149ff.[2]] TFD (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by RightCowLeftCoast

My summary of the discussion regarding the proposed changed to the lead can be found in this diff. Although there have been a few rough patches along the way during this discussion, it has been more or less cordial, IMHO. That being said, when editors have strong opinions one way or the other sometimes discussions can become contentious; however, compared to political discussions this discussion is rather mild, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

United States discussion

Hello. I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before we get into this too deep I have a question. Why is this not being handled per sources? Is it the belief that no secondary, reliable sources can be found and therefore the material is not verifiable? Or, is it the contention of editors that the limited sources that are being used at the moment are sufficiant?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the sourcing issue a bit better:

• With respect to the camp in favor of including the territories in the opening statement, the dispute has to do with whether the sources presented are (1) reliable sources for that particular claim, and (2) whether they actually do support the claim.
• With respect to maintaining the status quo, it has been argued that the current phrasing excludes the territories from the definition. I'm not sure I really understand the sourcing situation with respect to expressly excluding the territories, but the counter-argument (which I happen to agree with) is that the phrasing does not exclude the territories.
• With respect to using the legal encyclopedias to establish and discuss ambiguity, there have been arguments presented by the other two sides that the sources those encyclopedias rely on are outdated, that accepting their interpretation of those sources is synthesis, or that they fail to take certain nuanced distinctions of those territories' statuses into account.

One overall concern is that, since we're dealing with the lede of a general article, conciseness is a major issue. And as Golbez points out, going definitively one way or another could have implications as to other claims made in the article (e.g., land area, population, GDP), especially where the sources supporting those claims does not make it abundantly clear which sense they're using. Even presuming the current phrasing is sufficient, it's unclear how this particular concern should be resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this may well have come her a bit too early. This seems to be a case for the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard along with a neutrally worded RFC. The noticeboard would establish what the sources are (primary, tertiary or secondary) as well as how they should be used. An RFC would help determine a consensus by seeking broader input by the general community. I will say this much, anyone who claims that the sources are outdated and that editors are required to find current (this year) sources must demonstrate this per policy and guidelines as I don't see this as accurate in the least. They must demonstrate themselves that there is some major change in law of recognition that is different than the past sources show.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The argument to include the territories as part of the republic relies primarily on Sparrow's article, "Empires External and Internal", which is rs:

"Despite the continued existence of the territories and the U.S. government lands, students of federalism and the U.S. political system chronically assume the United States to be a nation of states, operating under federal principles and constituted wholly by the separate states. How, then, did the United States come to encompass these persons and areas outside the sphere of its federal republic.... And at present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia, and, of course, the fifty states.... The reality of the United State' possessions within and without the several states, however, has not been integrated into thinking about the American political system. Rather the consistent premise has been that the United States has a federal system, a national polity consituted in its entirety by its component states. Writers on the U.S. political system ignore how the existence of the territories and U.S. government lands can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state.(pp. 232,240)"[3]

My reading of the source is that first he does not say that the territories are part of the republic, but that both the republic and the territories are part of the United States, which he describes as an "empire". But more importantly, Sparrow is providing an argument against accepted informed opinion.

A second rs is American Jurisprudence which summarizes the judgments in the Insular Cases by saying:

While the boundaries of the United States conform to the external boundaries of the several states, the meaning of "United States" is broader when the issue concerns United States' sovereignty in reference to other nations. In the latter context, the United States includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government wherever located. (77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1)

I do not see that as an argument that territories are part of the republic, merely an observation that the term U.S. can have different meanings. Hence an attack on a U.S. naval vessel is an attack on the U.S., but the geography of the U.S. does not vary as her ships travel across the oceans. Also, there is no reason why we should substitute the primary definition of the U.S. with the "broader" definition that applies "when the issue concerns United States' sovereignty in reference to other nations."

TFD (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am going on a Wikibreak for now. I will be handing this DR/N off to another volunteer.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at WP:DRN, and I'll help out here the best I can. Let me read the material above, and the article & its talk page, and then I can get engaged here. I'm pretty busy in real life now, so it may take me a day or so. --Noleander (talk)

‘’The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories,’’ is a concise expression of the geographic extent, U.S.G. reports nine unorganized places. --- “Include territories” is not based on Sparrow alone; I will bring scholarly and government secondary sources along with U.S.G. primary sources as needed. --- The December RfCs at United States and political science produced no objection. There is no rationale for further delay to adding a sourced contribution.

• Insular cases are not settled law, we have a living Justice quoted to the effect that the rationale of the Insular Cases should not be further extended in American jurisprudence, with no contradiction since in scholarship or case law, but support for "include territories" found in direct quotes from both.
• There is no sourced example of “accepted informed opinion” to the contrary of Sparrow since publication in 2005, in historical context of U.S. territorial incorporation since 1805 at the Louisiana Purchase, the subject of the anthology. Territories are a part of a federal nation-state, “at present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories”.
• The U.S. country article should not be treated as a monarchy, neither the Kingdom of Great Britain nor the Kingdom of Denmark as editors have proposed. France is an example of an republic country-article that reports the official extent of the "Republic of France" in the introduction including its territories of citizens with National Assembly representation. All statistics are reported as “Metropolitan France”, meaning continental France and Corsica only. U.S. census data reports continental U.S. and Hawaii. In neither the case does the inclusion or exclusion of their territories alter the country ranking internationally relative to metrics of population, economy or agriculture. The official U.S.G. "United States of America" is 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories with citizens and representation in the House of Representatives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me present a couple intersting links which support the inclusion of territories as part of the definition of the United States:

• 446.010 Definitions for statutes generally

"United States" includes territories, outlying possessions, and the District of Columbia;

A website hosted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky

• Travel & Geography > The States & Territories

A U.S. Department of States website that lists states, the federal district, and the territories when describing the United States

• Expansion And Growth Of The United States

A government website which lists U.S. territories when elaborating on the territorial growth of the U.S.

• United States

The CIA World Factbook, list the territories as dependent areas of the United Sates

• 15 USC § 1127

The United States includes and embraces all territory which is under its jurisdiction and control.

• Profile of the People and Land of the United States

The United States includes 50 States and one district, as well as several territories and other associated areas that are not States but that are under U.S. jurisdiction.

• 18 USC § 2340

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

I understand that there are other reliable sources that have differing definitions of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In the Talk:United States archives, Buzity previously cited the legal references above. Should he be invited to the discussion. He was active January-February as I remember. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

The more the merrier, IMHO. The more editors involved, the stronger a consensus is once it is formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The first link is to Kentucky legislation that says in their statutes, the term U.S. includes territories. It also says that the territories are states. It is original research to read into this that the U.S. has incorporated its territories, and therefore of no relevance to the discussion. Can you provide any reliable secondary sources that support inclusion? TFD (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions for parties

[edit conflict] Okay, I've read up on everything. A few questions:

1) The scope of this DRN case is primarily focused on the wording of the lead of the United States article, correct? Or do some parties think that a project-wide consensus (applying to multiple articles) is necessary or desirable? Or is the assumption that any change to the lead will trickle-down and impact other US-related articles?

2) The Infobox of the United States article contains several statistics: which of those statistics include the territories and which do not? Do the citations for those statistics say one way or another?

3) I gather that some concepts for the lead wording are:

a) "The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic of fifty states, a federal district, five organized territories and nine uninhabited possessions."

b) Add late in the lead: "In some contexts the term US includes the territories, and in other contexts it does not" (wording very rough ... you get the idea).

c) "The United States of America ... is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.... [gap here] ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean." [this is the status quo]

d) "The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories."

Request: can parties please post additional specific proposals for the lead wording (put your proposals below).

4) I think, no matter what the outcome, we may need a footnote or two in the lead, just to be comprehensive.

--Noleander (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Response by Mendaliv

1) The concern might better be expressed as a "trickling up". Broad articles like these ideally incorporate sub-articles by summary style. Thus, a reader going to a subtopic, may be confronted by inconsistency. That's in part why I tried to solicit a broader consensus from the United States WikiProject.

2) The CIA Factbook is used for the infobox stats, which includes only the 50 states and DC. I believe proponents for the broad inclusion of territories have contended that this source should be discarded in favor of one that does include territories.

3) That about covers it. My personal proposal is roughly 3(b).

4) I can agree to that. One concern, however, has been the level of detail necessary therein, with proponents of the 3(a) wording essentially calling for the arguments for each side be stuffed into the footnote. (see this response, thread archived here). Part of the problem with this is the sourcing for the 3(a) wording is in dispute. Being in favor of 3(b) as I am, I would prefer to paraphrase the legal encyclopedias' discussion in said footnote, but of course those sources have also been the subject of dispute.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Another point I'd like to make: I do support 3(d) as an alternative to 3(b), but I don't consider it optimal. I am concerned that it leaves editorial landmines in the article (the sourced statistics). Say a new editor enters the scene, changes a statistic in the article, and provides a reliable source (just one that differs in terms of the definition of United States used). In all likelihood, we'd have a WP:BALANCE situation: the two (sets of) sources would be of relatively equal prominence and reliability. If we cover both sources/figures for that one statistic, why only do it there? (i.e., why not 3(b)?) The other option is to discuss which source the article should use, and the structure of such a discussion would likely take the form of arguments towards each source's reliability or prominence in the hopes of tipping the scales just enough that we can justify excluding the other source by looking to WP:DUE. And I think that sort of dispute is essentially what's going on here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by RightCowLeftCoast

1)My primary concern is the United States article. However, I can understand that Wikipedia:Consistency (although now archived) comes into play. As Mendaliv has said, the United States article can be seen as a parent article to many other articles. Although by their evolution most of those articles developed independent of the United States article, they can be seen as very closely related.

As I have seen many different sources, and many different stats have used diffiring inclusive/exlusive boundries when creating those stats. And most are not consistent with the other. So there is not a clear black and white as to what the United States is defined, and is for the most part very based on the context of its usage.

For instance, at the Olympics Puerto Rico is considered a seperate entity, however in regards to foreign relations it is considered part of the United States if it were attacked militarily, nor does it have independent representation at the OAS.

2)I believe Mendaliv is correct. I would be fine with different articles about the United States having different inclusive/exclusive areas for its stats, as long as it is clear what those areas are.

3)My proposal is 3d as I see it as inclusive by being ambigious about what those other territories are, thus leaving a grey area for those who want to include ALL territories and those who only want to include certain territories in their definition.

4)I would not object footnotes, but prefer to have the differences well referenced and explained in a section following the lead, say a terminology section. This way it is clear that the United States is larger or smaller depending on the definition used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Response by TheVirginiaHistorian

My concern is the integrity of a source-based encyclopedia. Sources say the U.S. is a republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. I have agreed to LCRC’s proposed wording for the purpose of collaboration. The U.S.G. in a secondary source 2007, says to guide immigrants p.77, The U.S. includes 50 states, the District … and [the five organized territories of] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.

_ 1) Constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson edited an anthology in 2005 with co-editor Bartholomew Sparrow. (a) Sparrow says p.232, territories are a part of a federal nation-state; today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific. (b) Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review p.1160-1162, and (c) Judge Juan R. Torruella in the Journal of International Law p.326, are “include territories" scholarly sources. No editor has found any scholarly source to “exclude territories” from the Union

_ 2) U.S.G. in primary sources in multiple examples of statute, jurisprudence and executive order “include territories”. The State Department Manual interprets INA law including four major territories as a part of the U.S., with Samoan nationals and citizens, the “last overseas territory”. GAO reports to Congress report the ‘five major territories’ have a constitutional status “equivalent to states”; they are ‘a part of the U.S.’ These U.S.G. primary sources, manuals and reports are said to be editor synthesis and original research, making scholarly and government secondary sources "including territories" inadmissible. I disagree on both counts.

_ _ Over a discussion October 2012-March 2013, nowhere is there a source of any description which says, “ the official United States is the incorporated territory of 50 states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll, excluding organized U.S. territories with citizens and autonomous government equivalent to states.” Editors must cobble a synthesis across multiple tertiary sources without direct quotes referencing WP articles, lists, digests, dictionaries and encyclopedias, each shown to be inapplicable to U.S. territories of 2013 by secondary and primary sources from the most recent 20 years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@TVH: Thanks for the input. Was this intended to be a response to my 4 questions above? --Noleander (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert: RightCowLeftCoast's d) The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories. Any space indicates a separation in the federal union which no U.S.G. source acknowledges for a territory in 2013 of citizens, independent legislature, elected governor, Article III federal district and representation in Congress.

_ _ No sources says official publications by Department of Homeland Security including territories are illegitimate to represent U.S.G., poisoned at their source and void in the eyes of international law. Editor assertion, "All sources say." to contradict is not a source.

_ _ Samoa residents include native naturalized citizens and children of citizens born in Samoa, irrevocably guaranteed by federal courts. TFD's possessions had military governors with populations ineligible for citizenship. Nothing is admitted in the last half-century of U.S. history since 1962 by the "exclude territories side. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by the Four Deuces

The current wording of the lead for the United States is fine. The U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean." Using this definition, statistics should only include the U.S. or explain when they are including other territories. The wording could affect other articles. For example, including the territories would mean that we could not say that the U.S. has birthright citizenship, since it has not been extended to American Samoa. It creates problems for historical information as well, since the U.S. has occupied dozens of countries or parts of countries in the past. TFD (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

[Note from volunteer Noleander: Still waiting for user Golbez to respond before proceeding --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)]

Response by Golbez

1) Yes, the crux of the discussion is how the country is defined in the introduction. However, if it is changed in the introduction then cascading changes throughout the article and Wikipedia must occur to remain consistent.

2) I do not know, and that is the other primary issue; everything in there must be checked to see if it applies to the territories or not. To the best of my knowledge, all facts and figures in the United States infobox and article, unless otherwise specified, omit all territories. For example, the population figure, taken straight from the U.S. Census, omits the territories. (Which brings up a pertinent question: If they are part of the country then why do multiple government agencies and figures omit them?)

3) I much prefer the status quo wording (C), as I feel it handles the issue the best. But, I have said that, should a consensus be gained for solution D (though the version I saw ended with "... other territories and possessions", which is required), that I would not challenge it. A is right out, and B is too much detail for the lede.

4) If we stuck with C, then yes, I would be fine with a footnote stating that some sources portray the U.S. as including some territories, but this article treats them otherwise. --Golbez (talk)

More questions

Thanks for the responses above. I'm starting to get a clearer picture. More questions:

5. A party above suggests that a change from 3c (the status quo) to something like 3d or 3b (include the territories in the 1st sentence) would require changes to the entire article and to other articles within WP. Can parties comment on that possible impact?
6. It looks like some persons born in some of the territories are not US citizens, correct? Do these non-citizens carry US passports?
7. What do parties think of another wording option (I'll call it (3e) for the sake of consistency): "The United States of America ... is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. The country also comprises several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean, and several uninhabited possessions."
8. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the article were to include a sentence approximately like "The term 'United States' is sometimes used in a sense that includes the territories, and sometimes in a sense that excludes the territories". Where would such a sentence go: (7a) the Lead; (7b) the body; (7c) a footnote to the Lead; (7d) the sentence is wrong and should be excluded.

Thanks in advance for your replies. --Noleander (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by Mendaliv

5. As I mentioned above, my concern with 3(d) stems from uninitiated editors with new sources entering the scene, changing statistics to reflect a new source that defines the United States differently, and triggering this whole argument again with respect to that statement. I don't think 3(d) requires up-front changes or even thorough fact-checking to United States, and may in fact not affect related articles all that much (perhaps except in the case where the related article uses 3(a) or its opposite, in which case we'd want to start a discussion there). 3(b) on the other hand would at least put editors on notice that they should exercise greater care than usual with statistics, etc. I believe it would be preferable in executing 3(b) to go through the article and indicate the definition in use where otherwise ambiguous.
6. "United States citizenship is not required for passport eligibility, but the applicant must be a national of the United States, and owe allegiance to the United States." 59A Am. Jur. 2d Passports § 21 (citing 22 U.S.C. § 212, 22 CFR 51.2, and 22 CFR 51.1) (footnotes omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1408 (cited by 22 CFR 51.1) (defining how a person can gain "national" status at birth without gaining citizenship).

   See also 8 U.S.C. § 1185(c) (defining United States for the purposes of § 1185 as including the "Canal Zone, and all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.").

7. I have no particular problem with that, but I do recall one point of contention being that the territories should be syntactically placed on the same stage as the states and DC (thread archived here). Thus I don't see that particular arrangement working out.
8. First choice would be 7(b), followed by 7(c). I dislike informational footnotes stylistically, but I am not against their use when necessary.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by The Four Deuces

5. Articles that claim there is birthright citizenship would have to be changed because that right only exists for persons born in the 50 states and D.C. and territories where it has been extended. We would have to determine which parts of the U.S. constitution apply to the various territories.

6. Nationality is a concept derived from common law and is recognized under international law while citizenship is derived from statute and not recognized. All persons born in territories under American jurisdiction are therefore American nationals entitled to U.S. passports. But that gives them no right to enter the 50 states or D.C. or to vote if they live there. The same reasoning applies to British nationality law. Hence citizens of Hong Kong were British nationals without the right of entry to the U.K. People in territories only receive birthright citizenship under the constitution if the territories have been "incorporated" into the U.S. However the U.S. Congress has extended birthright citizenship into 4 of the unincorporated territories.

7. Under the laws of the U.S. and international law, the U.S. consists only of fifty states and D.C., with the status of the uninhabited Palmyra Atoll remaining undetermined.

8. Probably in the lead after the statement, "The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean." However, I would write, ""The term 'United States' is sometimes used in a sense that includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government". The source is clear that this is a secondary use of the term.

TFD (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ryanspir on 16:27, 26 January 2013 (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 Talk:Medical uses of silver (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ryanspir (talk · contribs) Zad68 (talk · contribs) Doc James (talk · contribs) Alexbrn (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 1) Using quackwatch as a reliable source for a biomedical claim. 2) Using old statement from quackwatch site from 2005 as a source for biomedical claim. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing on the talk page How do you think we can help? By advising editors to follow wp:medrs policy according to which such source fails wp:medrs on two counts: the website which is used as a source is not falling in any category of reliable sources mentioned on wp:medrs, and 2) the source is older than 2-3 or 5 years as specified in medrs. Opening comments by Zad68 1) Quackwatch has been discussed on RSN several times and has been found useful in alt-med cases where Quackwatch is in line with mainstream scientific consensus, as is true in this case. The trouble with ingested colloidal silver is that it's considered fringe and not investigated by mainstream science, see for example that pretty much nothing relevant to ingesting colloidal silver comes up in a secondary source search of Trip Database. Like NCCAM, Quackwatch is useful for this purpose. 2) As Ryan brings up, the 2005 Quackwatch entry is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS's timeframe of 2-3 maybe 5 years but we can solve that easily, let's just use this other Quackwatch article, last updated January 20, 2013, which states "However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." Zad68 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Doc James A great deal has been written on Wikipedia about the use of Quackwatch for discussing alt med content. Generally it has been deemed to be okay in some situations decided on a case by case basis on the talk page.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery IMO unless a high quality source refutes it than it is okay to use. If one looks for medical review articles in the last 5 years on colloidal silver you find one and it deals with its side effects. So I ask does anyone have any decent evidence that shows benefit from "colloidal silver". We have this review from 2009 that discusses risk [4] and there is definitely some of that. I guess we could replace it with this 2007 review [5] which states "Some health food and nutraceutical manufacturers are promoting ineffective colloidal silver-based products as treatments for major illnesses" but no one is studying CS so one does not really expect recent evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Alexbrn I have taken the liberty of adding myself here as an involved editor – it was I who recently added the QuackWatch material. So far as I know, QuackWatch has repeatedly been discussed in relation to altmed topics, and is established RS on matters of quackery provided nothing authoritative contradicts it, and that it is used with care and attributed. I don't believe the five-year rule of thumb applies, unless of course there is indication QW's views are outdated or the scientific/medical consensus has changed. However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that. Then, would any wind be left in this dispute's sails? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Talk:Medical uses_of_silver discussion not relevant to discussion user:Zad does not appear to exist. Certainly, that user has no contributions so can't be involved in this dispute. There is a Zad68 who appears to have been involved, and I've changed 'users involved' appropriately. Zad68 has been notified. CarrieVS (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for commenting, all of you. As I understand it, the dispute is about whether a particular source is reliable, and there's no disagreement about including the content - I assume this relates to the sentence 'Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as "risk without benefit".' - provided the source is agreed to be reliable. Is that right? I've read the RSN discussion about Quackwatch, and the two Quackwatch articles that have been proposed as sources. What I understand from the RSN discussion is that there is a consensus that it can be used as a reliable source, but should be judged on a case by case basis. So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source. It also seems to me that we have a general consensus that it is, so if any user believes it isn't, I would say it's up to them to provide a convincing argument why that is so. CarrieVS (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Secondary reasoning According to: "It seems as though there is a consensus forming here: Quackwatch is neither always a reliable source nor always an unreliable source. It is a partisan source with disputed information that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis by editors. Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles. We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)" (From the relevant RSN discussion) Quackwatch is considered as provocative and containing of self-published articles. Here I'll provide reliable primary and secondary available sources: Current research on nanosilver http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069039 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17468052 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18854209 - However the third article PMID 18854209 is a recent review article in a MEDLINE-indexed peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor. In my opinion, that article is worth looking into and possibly using in this article. (By Zad) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141039 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523420 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22654516 - Cites http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20730806 - A recent 2012 review - secondary source. Peer-reviewed medline indexed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22117785 - Dental oriented 2011 review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22029522 - Coping with antibiotic resistance: combining nanoparticles with antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. Secondary source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23163208 - Synergy between novel antimicrobials and conventional antibiotics or bacteriocins. Secondary source. "..examines the enhancement of antibiotic efficacy by their combination with new antimicrobials, such as plant-derived compounds, metal ions and nanoparticles and bacteriophage lytic enzymes p.s. Here are some more sources: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/CS/C2CS35289C - Controlled synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles in organic solutions: empirical rules for nucleation engineering . http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn301724z?mi=z48nb4&af=R&pageSize=20&searchText=aging - Formation Mechanism of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: Analogies and Differences to the Growth of Gold Nanoparticles. http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/4/045007 - Powerful colloidal silver nanoparticles for the prevention of gastrointestinal bacterial infections http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956566312002412 - Robust one pot synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles by simple redox method and absorbance recovered sensing It would be very highly doubtful and very unusual to have many scientists investigating a quackery substance. Not to mention the positive results all of the articles demonstrate. Ryanspir (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, here's my thoughts on that. Are any of these about ingesting colloidal silver, as treatments for any disease? If not, I don't think they apply to this situation, nor would they be evidence that that use of colloidal silver is not 'quackery'. Would you agree that if better sources can't be found (and agreed to be appropriate), one of the Quackwatch sources could be used, with an in-text attribution such as "Quackwatch says..."? If not, could you give reasons why. CarrieVS (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Per "Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles." I would highlight the word "always". I wouldn't like Quackwatch to be used in this article because it makes the article speculative. I have further established that higher quality, peer-reviewed research is present, current, in abundance and with positive results. In relation to ingestion, I'm currently satisfied with the FDA advisory regarding that, the link is here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/Alerts/ucm184087.htm. I have no problem of the FDA advisory to be used in the article. In fact, I have proposed also to remove all NCCAM refereed context and only use the current FDA's one as it outlines the current situations, in which some of the silver containing preparations has been approved by the FDA for external use, and none were approved for ingestion. I'll also bring to your attention, that the updated quackwatch article says: "(or anything else)". That contradicts the FDA advisory which separates ingestion (which is still in the field of alternative medicine) with external application. A quote from the FDA advisory: "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth." As such, I agree that this quote from FDA can be used specifically in relation to ingestion: "FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of standards than those that apply to drugs. For example, FDA does not approve dietary supplements or their labels before they are sold. It is unlawful for a manufacturer to represent a dietary supplement containing silver as able to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, or cure any disease." If that is ok with you, there is no need to use quackwatch (or NCCAM for this matter). Ryanspir (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC) As an aside, there's no need to keep adding to the thread on your talk page. I'm watching this page so I'll know when you reply. I only posted my last reply there so that the others would see it. Firstly, which of the sources you've found pertain to ingestion of colloidal silver to treat diseases? Please bear in mind that I am very far from an expert on this topic or on medical Wikipedia articles in general. Secondly, can I repeat my question from above, if - this is a hypothetical situation - better sources can't be found and agreed to be appropriate, would you then - in that hypothetical situation - agree to use the Quackwatch source? Thirdly, as I understood the sentence, the phrase "or anything else" referred to treating diseases by ingestion of colloidal silver. Fourthly, I'm not sure whether the FDA quote is applicable either. Precisely what content would you be using it to source? CarrieVS (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Another aside: from some of the things you've said, I'm concerned that you might be under the impression that I have a position of authority or would be able to overrule the other editors. That is not the case: volunteers have no special powers or privileges, and we can only try to help you come to an agreement with the other editors. If you're hoping for me to issue some sort of ruling in the face of consensus, we might as well close this now. CarrieVS (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I'll change the course of my reasoning per your permission and save the extensive reasoning referencing. 1) Right from the opening comments we have got a consensus that the particular article mentioned won't be used because it's too old. - "So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source." - Two editors out of three has conceded in their opening comments that this article in question isn't reliable one. Adding me, that is 3 against 1. 2) So we won't consider that article anymore, but instead concentrate on the Lyme article which was proposed to be used instead. Ryanspir (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, I think I edited to fix the collapsing before you'd finished. Hope it didn't confuse you. CarrieVS (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)) Not really. :) Ryanspir (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, great start. So, what do you think about the Lyme article: if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC) The relevant quote The relevant quote is: "Colloidal Silver Many colloidal silver and silver salt preparations have been touted as cures for AIDS, chronic fatigue, herpes, TB, syphilis, lupus, malaria, plague, acne, impetigo, and many other diseases. Lyme disease is just the latest target. A 1996 Federal Register notice stated the "FDA is not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of . . . colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for these disease conditions." The same notice stated that "human consumption of silver may result in argyria—a permanent ashen-gray or blue discoloration of the skin, conjunctiva, and internal organs" [17]. Despite these warnings, some websites devoted to Lyme disease or colloidal silver products display misleading reports about laboratory experiments in which colloidal silver killed spirochetes. One such report is a letter from Dr. Burgdorfer, the discoverer of the Lyme spirochete. The letter merely reports on a pilot study using colloidal silver to kill spirochetes in a test tube and states that additional laboratory and human studies are underway. Many silver and Lyme advocates have used the letter to suggest that colloidal silver has been proven effective against Lyme disease. However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." It referenced to [17] which is Federal Register 61:53685-53688, 1996. The statement in question was: "risk without benefit" (with attribution "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as). I chose not to answer to your hyphothetic question because I feel it's asked prematurely. If that's ok. "Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch" and "We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-)" by -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01 from the RSN discussion. I believe this is the case. Per WP:MEDRS FDA advisory is an ideal source and shall be used at this time instead of Quackwatch - which is a really controversial source and considered speculative according to RSN discussion. If this reasoning will not suffice I'll be glad to provide further reasoning, but I have just tried to make it as simple as possible and to the point, per wiki policies and the RSN discussion's consensus. Ryanspir (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, fair enough. What content do you want to put in with that source? Obviously the 'Quackwatch characterises..' line will have to be changed. Could you tell me the wording you want to use? CarrieVS (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Something along the line "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth." It should made clear that currently Colloidal Silver or any kind of silver is considered as an alternative medicine and cannot have legal claims (not necessarily ineffective) when is ingested by mouth and it should be balanced that currently there is a lot of ongoing research into Silver Nanoparticles for medicinal uses with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I don't agree to QW being replaced (though have no objection to it being augmented). The fact that QW has an opinion on colloidal silver is notable (it's a quack remedy) and needs to be in the article, in my view. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Could you please clarify. Are you saying cs is a quack remedy for all applications including external application for wounds treatment or only in relation to ingestion by mouth? Ryanspir (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, here's what I think about that. It's all good information, but it's not appropriate for that section. We're talking about the alternative medicine section, and so far the only alternative medicine use we have in the article is consuming colloidal silver. So the information in that section needs to stick to being about that. You could probably use the FDA source (if you can agree a suitable wording with the other editors) to say that there's no legally-marketed drugs containing silver to be taken by mouth, and/or that it's not legal to market colloidal silver to be taken by mouth with claims that it is effective in treating anything. Information about the appropriate, non-alternative uses of silver should go in the relevant sections if it isn't there already, and again, if you can agree on it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Sure. However, I would like it to be removed first, as it is already agreed that it fails wp:medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Can we stick to the current bit of discussion for now. Jumping about all over the thread makes it hard to follow. CarrieVS (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Quackwatch as reliable source for expert opinion relevant to this topic I saw what I view as a few attempts to cherry-pick individual statements from the RSN archives in an attempt to discredit Quackwatch generally. This needs to be addressed. Here's some support for the use of Quackwatch for exactly the kind of use found in the article, from the RSN archives, a relevant ARBCOM case, and also very reputable medical organizations: From RSN archive 32: "This question [of whether Quackwatch is a reliable source] has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit." "I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit." "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source." From RSN archive 118: "Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics." From this arbitration case discussion: "The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong." -- the way Wikipedia articles handles opinionated sources is to attribute in-line, exactly as the article currently does This article in the extremely highly-respected Journal of the American Medical Association specifically lists Quackwatch under "SUGGESTED SITES: Following are select sites that provide reliable health information and resources" This and this American Cancer Society articles list Quackwatch as a reference they trusted enough to use. I feel this should put an end to the discussion of whether Quackwatch is generally reliable and useful for the statement under discussion. Zad68 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Kindly let me use the very quote Zad has provided: "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source." The above section introduces extensive research being done into cs. I'm referring to provided links with "Colloidal silver nano silver". Search on Google with "colloidal silver nano silver" produces 224,000 results. So that would invalidate that cs is a low profile or obscure alternative approach in my opinion. Anyway, I will take a liberty to remove the current reference and the statement from the article per consensus on the second count produced at the opening comments. I feel that using the statement from Lyme disease section would be more appropriate on Lyme disease article. But, would anyone decide to reintroduce context from quackwatch based on Lyme or other aricles I'll be making a new RSN. I think with that we may close the current RSN. p.s. I feel that the reason quackwatch was approved for some alt. med articles is following. Lets assume someone created an article on the testicles of a tiger and it's being used somewhere as an aphrodisiac so he has written about it. Lets assume for the purpose of this example that quackwatch has an article about it and states that its a fraudulent claim. Due to the absence of any credible medical research upon the topic I would agree that in this case it would be appropriate and even useful to use quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I see no consensus for removal. BTW, Google hits is not a reliable indication of anything much. Search for "coffee enema" here gets me 962,000 hits! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Kindly see the opening comments regarding consensus. You are right, google results by itself don't mean much. Search for "coffee enema" didn't produce any reliable primary sources with positive results nor secondary sources with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I'm taking the comments as a whole, not cherry-picking. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Haven't you agreed to use a new article when you have said: "However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that." Ryanspir (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I could live with that; that's not the same as agreeing to remove the QW content entirely though (I reverted your edit of a few minutes ago doing this, BTW). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Ryanspir, I think you need to understand the distinction between colloidal silver in general and taking colloidal silver by mouth as a treatment for any illness. Let me make an analogy: antibiotics are certainly not low-profile or alternative. But suppose some people were touting antibiotics as a cure/treatment for autism or something. Would that be high-profile and mainstream? Unless any of your sources are about this particular use of colloidal silver, then they don't show that this particular use of the stuff is anything other than a low-profile, obscure alternative approach. The upshot of the Lyme disease statement is that there are no studies showing that taking colloidal silver by mouth is an effective treatment for anything, so why shouldn't we use it here? If you want, we can close this thread, but consensus is still against you, so you can't go and change the article based on this and expect it not to be reverted, and if you keep trying to change it you will end up getting blocked. I don't want to see that, so I've been trying to help you organise your objection into a clear argument and a clear proposal for what you do want to put in the article, so that you can have one more shot at convincing the other editors. At present, you haven't convinced them, and consensus is still against you. It is up to the person who wants to change consensus to convince others, not up to them to prove that it should stay the same. That's a good example of what Quackwatch is a RS for, but not the only example. The consensus in the RSN discussion about Quackwatch was that 'quackery' wasn't restricted to fraudulent claims but included things that are obscure and have no scientific basis, even if their proponents believe in them. I would say, based on everything I've seen, that taking colloidal silver by mouth falls into this category. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Don't we have a consensus per opening comments that this particular reference shall be removed because it contradicts 2-3 and 5 years frames? Ryanspir (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I believe we had a rough consensus that if it was agreed that the current one should be removed we could use the other one. I'm not sure it went as far as consensus that it should. But let's get that issue out of the way now. Everyone, what do you think about that? Should we replace that reference with the newer article? CarrieVS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) A rough consensus, but consensus nonetheless. Alex said: "I could live with that"; I certainly agree; Zad has conceded that the current one: "is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS". Ryanspir (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, but I want to wait to hear someone else answer here before we say 'great, let's go ahead and change it'. And if we do decide to change it, it will be taking the old source out and putting the new one in. I think we will also need to alter the sentence, so that should be agreed upon as well (As a starting point, I suggest something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness".) CarrieVS (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC) To clarify: There is absolutely no consensus to remove all references/uses of Quackwatch in the article and leave it like that. It was very disappointing to see Ryan jump the gun and remove it while this DRN conversation over exactly that is still active and unresolved. To try to better respect the WP:MEDRS timeframe, there is a proposal to replace the existing article content "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as 'risk without benefit'." sourced to the Quackwatch Colloidal silver article last updated 20085 with something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." sourced to the Quackwatch Lyme disease article. Note this is just a proposal, we haven't worked out an exact agreement on it. If we can't come to an agreement on this replacement proposal, there is no agreement or consensus to remove the existing Quackwatch-sourced content, for the reasons Doc James and others have already stated. Finally, I really wish Ryan would stop conflating important content ideas (external vs. ingested) and mischaracterizing the statements of the other DRN participants (I didn't 'concede' anything) or the status of any consensus. Zad68 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC) We seem to be going over old ground a bit. This is what we have consensus on: We are going to include one of the Quackwatch articles. Ingesting colloidal silver is an alternative treatment without scientific evidence of benefit. The main thing we have to decide on is whether or not to replace the existing content sourced to the older Colloidal Silver Quackwatch article with something sourced to the newer Lyme Disease one. Now, without editing the article until and unless we've finished discussing and explicitly agreed to do so, without making interpretations of anyone else's comments or claiming we've reached consensus on things other than those listed above, can you say whether you agree to make the change, or disagree and want to keep the current content and source. Keep arguments and explanations very brief for now; when we have an idea who objects to what, then we can start trying to persuade each other, if we need to. CarrieVS (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Agree to the change, although I would not mind if the existing content were to stay as-is either. Zad68 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Agree using wording: "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." (would also be happy with the status quo) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure why we need to say "according to Quackwatch". It's an easily verifiable matter of common scientific knowledge, not an opinion held largely or solely by Quackwatch. The U.S. National Institutes of Health says that "scientific evidence does not support the use of colloidal silver to treat any disease." Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that "no human clinical data support the use of oral colloidal silver." The FDA writes that it is "not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts". I'm concerned that we're misleading the reader if we attribute this view to Quackwatch, when in fact Quackwatch is merely describing the modern scientific consensus about colloidal silver. MastCell Talk 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Understood, but: There's a point that it's helpful to the reader to know that ingesting colloidal silver is something commented on by Quackwatch - that's a piece of information that would be missing from the article if we were to use only the other sources without in-line attribution like we do when using Quackwatch generally. The solution is easy, there's no reason the article can't state both. Zad68 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Good points. Agree it is useful for the reader to know this is on QW's radar. Strongly agree with suggestion to use both QW sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Agree with Alex Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Not relevant to discussion. I see that Ryan's been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry -doesn't come as a surprise, but it is a shame as we finally seemed to be making some progress. I assume the rest of you can all agree on what to say and cite and we can wrap this thread up? CarrieVS (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I think with that, there is no more impediment to agreement and consensus and this can be closed. Zad68 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Seems it was a misunderstanding. CarrieVS (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC) There has been some discussion - mainly going over old ground - on my talk page following tha last comment on this thread. No new conclusions were reached. Can we continue the discussion here, please. CarrieVS (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Medical uses of silver and Quackwatch -- are we done? Are we done? Can this be closed? Zad68 14:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Ryan hasn't responded, or indeed made any contributions, since Wednesday. I'm not going to close it just because one side of the dispute has been away from Wikipedia for two days, since he might just not be able to get online, but I would suggest that, since the rest of you are in agreement, you go on with editing as if it was done. If Ryan has any more to say on the matter I'll either let you guys know or I'll archive this as failed, depending on whether I think there's any point continuing to discuss it - if Ryan's still going over the same ground that's he's already failed to change consensus on for the umpteenth time, there won't be. If it gets to two weeks since it was filed and no-one has said anything for (I think it's 24 hours), it'll be automatically archived. CarrieVS (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC) not related to dispute A little late but open.Go ahead and close it after two weeks but shouldn't it be opened?24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Has anyone mentioned that indiscriminate use of colloidal silver causes human being's skin to turn blue? If the previously mentioned Quackwatch article does include that warning, I think that it would be a good source.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'shouldn't it be opened?' I had intended to close the thread several days ago, unless Ryanspir had replied again in that time, but I've since heard from him (on my talk page) that he does intend to continue the discussion so I was leaving it until either he returned or the case is archived. Regarding silver turning you blue, there is a section about it in the article already. CarrieVS (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Pardon me but I was attempting to jiggle the pink statement at the top of this DRN. I was under the impression that a volunteer could open a discussion by posting but it is still pink-my bad.Yes I did see that under side-effects ty.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC) De-archived This case has been de-archived to be closed. There will be no extensive discussion, only agree/disagree statements. There is clearly no consensus, or any likelihood of gaining it, for removing references to Quackwatch. Proposed compromise: Quackwatch remains in the article, but the newer article (about Lyme Disease) is referenced instead of the older one currently used. The previously proposed wording: "according to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness" seemed to gain approval. Please delete agree or disagree as appropriate and sign. If you agree in principle but dislike the suggested wording, choose 'agree' and add a brief comment. If you disagree, add a brief comment stating what you would be prepared to accept. CarrieVS (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Zad68: Agree although I'm also equally fine with leaving the existing content or adding the Lyme source to the existing. - Zad68 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Jmh649: Agree - Sure either leave it with the old ref or leave it with the new one. Or even leave it with both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Alexbrn: Agree/disagree - [signature and timestamp] Ryanspir: Agree - I agree. The original reference is outdated and fails wp:medrs. I said agree/disagree statements only. I suggest Doc James to review his opinion after reading my reasoning on his and the article talk pages. My point is clear: cs is silver as mentioned in the research. Same as saying that research which mentions Ciprofloxacin cannot be applied to discussion on Ciprofloxacin Hydrocholoride. If Doc James will not review his position because of 'peer-pressure' that would be on his consciousness. I know that he knows that my reasoning is valid. I'm not expecting him to review his opinion however, at least not at this time, so in this case I prefer to leave the context of the article the same and substitute the reference only to the updated one proposed by zad. Afterwards I'll challenge it in formal mediation process. Ryanspir (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC) I'll give Alex another 24 hours to respond, and if he doesn't I'll call this resolved, unless anyone objects (in which case it will probably be closed anyway but as 'failed'), since he was happy with this same compromise when it was suggested some time ago. CarrieVS (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (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.

Francesca Hogi

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 170.35.208.206 on 19:51, 27 February 2013 (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? The article's eligibility has been discussed on the AFD page Location of dispute Francesca Hogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Frietjes (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Article was nominated for deletion a week ago and was closed today. However, the closure has been disputed by Frietjes (talk · contribs) and I am filing this in case she feels the article is notable. I suspect this user may be Francesca herself trying to keep her own article or an avid Survivor fan trying to keep the article in spite of consensus that the article fails notability standards Have you tried to resolve this previously? We redirected the article to a list of all the contestants but we know this user will attempt to reopen the WP:AFD discussion How do you think we can help? Explain to this user that not all people are notable enough to have their own articles and that anonymous IP voters are entitled to share their opinion as much as logged in users are Opening comments by Freitjes Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The AfD was closed as no consensus, so redirecting Francesca Hogi is inappropriate. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Francesca Hogi discussion Hi, I'm Carrie, and I'm a DRN volunteer. *What exactly is the dispute? The AfD was closed as no consensus, so the article hasn't been and shouldn't be deleted. CarrieVS (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC) My mistake, I didn't examine the article history. The AfD was closed as no consensus - the previous closures did not meet the criteria in WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures, so the final closure by an administrator should stand - so the article should not be redireced unless a future discussion results in a consensus to do so (the closing comments included a suggestion that the article be relisted in a month's time, so if you still feel it should be redirected, I suggest you wait and do that). CarrieVS (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2013 (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.

Hurricane Kira

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 174.252.18.178 on 17:56, 1 March 2013 (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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved GB fan (talk · contribs) Peter James (talk · contribs) Whpq (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Users and anonymous IP addresses wheel warring of closure of this discussion Have you tried to resolve this previously? Decide whether or not the discussion should continue. There is no consensus to keep or delete How do you think we can help? Reach a conclusion that everyone can agree on Opening comments by GB fan This dispute is real simple. An IP closed the AFD as no-consensus after it had been open for only ~3 days and 11 hours. This is less than 1/2 the normal 7 day period for an AFD. I reopened it and multiple different IP addresses have reclosed it. The essay on non-admin closures discusses when it is appropriate for non-admins to close AFDs. It says that non-admins can close AFDs that have run for the full seven days as no-consensus if there is little or no discussion. This AFD is seeing quite a bit of discussion and it was ongoing at the time of closure. The IP stated in their filing of this dispute that they had tried discussing this on a talk page. They do not specify what talk page, the AFD talk page is still a redlink and there is no discussion on the article's talk page. I see no reason for dispute resolution at this time. There is only one answer to this dispute, let the AFD run for seven days and then an uninvolved admin can close the AFD as they read the consensus. GB fan 19:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Peter James Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Whpq Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.

Talk:Wasteland 2#Game_Camera_View

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Frogacuda on 19:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Wasteland 2#Game Camera View (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Frogacuda (talk · contribs)
• Niemti (talk · contribs)
• Sxerks (talk · contribs)
• ThomasO1989 (talk · contribs)
• SharkD (talk · contribs)
• Furious Style (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Game sites sourced in the article claim that the game uses an isometric view. This claim is agreed upon by all parties involved as inconsistent with all writing on the subject of isometric projection. One side of the dispute believes that the source(s) should be considered unreliable on the subject of isometric projection, based on the greater reliability of dictionaries, textbooks, etc. On the other end, a user believes that the source calling it isometric is enough to make it so.

No claim is made by any party that the game is consistent with any definitions of isometric projection, only that this misinformation should be included because it can be sourced, and directly stated claims to the contrary about this particular game cannot.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on board. This resulted in repeated threats from user Niemti, continued revert wars, reports of abuse, and accusations of canvassing and sockpuppetry for all users disagreeing with Niemti.

How do you think we can help?

Need opinions on reliability of the sources for the specific context of isometric projection.

Opening comments by Niemti

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The sources need to be directly related to the subject of the article. You gotta find them, or else it's original research. That you, or me, or anyone else, happen to disagree with whatever the developers and the media are saying, it just doesn't matter. At all. That's not something for any kind of discussion, and you're again just wasting time (mine, yours, and now you want waste time of more people). You've got to understand it and you're not going to change it, ever. That's, seriously, all. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Which statement in the article as it appears now are you claiming is original research? No one has attempted to make the claim that the title is not isometric in the article. At present the article makes no use of the term "isometric" at all.

This is a discussion on the reliability of the source's claim that the game is isometric. Comments should be limited to that subject, and not hypothetical claims of what would and wouldn't be OR if it was included in the article. According to wikipedia's writing on the matter, a source needs to be evaluated for the context of the claim it is supporting. Since the source does not demonstrate any particular knowledge of the term, and is using it ways that are contradict the definition of the term (referencing movable viewing angles, for example), it is a simple matter to discredit that source for the purpose of that claim.Frogacuda (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In light of the fact that no one is defending the actual claim that the article is accurate, and Niemti is largely focused on including the claim because of wikipedia standards (note his above claim that "It doesn't matter what you me, or anyone else think") that I'd like to invoke the common sense stipulation. This is a clear-cut case of a time when everyone knows something is wrong in reality and the argument is whether or not wikipedia should have it anyway. Frogacuda (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sxerks

In the given video the developer states it is no longer "static isometric". "isometric" IS static, it is not free-motion. Developer states users can "move the camera" "change the direction of the camera" which is consistent with the use in the visual source and consistent with the description of an "Interactive 3rd person camera"--Sxerks (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the video in question [[6]] The comments he references can be heard around 14:20. Although I would think that it is likely that the game was never truly isometric even when the camera was static (isometric projection also assumes a lack of parallax not shown here), and the term was only ever used informally as a common reference point for that viewing angle. The claim of being isometric is not used in a meaningful way in any of the sources using it, and is clearly not being intended literally.

Opening comments by ThomasO1989

While I'm normally against original research, leaving out a statement on an objective idea because when one knows it to be incorrect is plain common sense. It isn't good judgement to blindly accept what reliable sources say, because being reliable doesn't imply infallible. I feel that describing visuals is very finicky, because you risk mixing objective with subjective claims. Isometric projection is objective however, and it's not unreasonable if many people disagree that the projection is isometric based on previous knowledge. The sources in question obviously don't specialize in differentiating different forms of projection, and leaving out the claim is an improvement to the article because it potentially makes the article less inaccurate. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SharkD

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The dispute is over whether the game's visual perspective should be labeled "isometric projection" or not. See also Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art and here for a similar dispute outside Wikipedia. I don't think "isometric" should be used in this game's case. I think we should instead opt for different terminology. SharkD  Talk  20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Furious Style

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:Wasteland 2#Game_Camera_View discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

• Hi, I am Go Phightins!, a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Let me begin by saying this, we can help resolve a content dispute, but not user conduct disputes. For that, I would recommend an WP:RFC/U. Now that that is taken care of, let's delve in to the issue at hand, shall we? Based on my initial read of the talk page discussion and all of your opening statements, it seems to me that from a broad perspective, we should not be synthesizing information that is not in a source, so in that respect, I believe that Niemti has a point. I have a question for all of those involved: What is your opinion, in 100 words or less please, on Salvidrim's proposed text from the talk page. Do any of you have specific other suggestions? If so, please post. Go Phightins! 05:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the guidelines regarding synthesis only apply to the content of the article itself. This dispute is about the reliability and veracity of the sources, which can be scrutinized using common sense standards by comparing it with better academic sources. Salvidrm's proposal is unsatisfactory because it still makes the assumption that there is some use of isometric projection in the game as an option or otherwise, which is utterly and completely false to anyone with eyeballs. Isometric projection, in addition to having a fixed viewing angle, is a form of parallel projection, which means there is no parallax distortion, and all verticals are parallel to each other, straight up and down. This is simply not the case in Wasteland 2, which uses standard perspective projection, the same as a first-person shooter, or any other 3D game. Images appear basically as they would from a normal camera from that angle. There has been no other proposed meaning of the term in this discussion so far.

My proposal was to say something to the effect of "a semi-overhead perspective similar to that used in isometric games" or to simply use less controversial descriptive terms and avoid the word "isometric" altogether. This was deemed unsuitable by Niemti, although no reason was given. Frogacuda (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Salvidrim's text makes it sound like there are only 2 views available. The visual source shows free movement, which is an "Interactive 3rd person camera"--Sxerks (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)