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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
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, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Firstly, there is no singular talk page discussion for this issue because the user in question has resisted talking about it. I linked to LordOfPens' talk page so that you can see that multiple users, including myself, have tried to engage them about this behavior that has been ongoing for at least a year. I'm raising this issue here because they stopped responding on Talk:Free software movement. I checked and found their long history of this behavior and that that they continued moving other pages after I talked to them yesterday. Because of its unusual decentralization, I hope that will be sufficient.
Essentially, LordOfPens has spent the past year moving articles to add hyphenation to their names because they believe that there is an objective grammar rule that requires this. They have also been mass-editing article bodies to this effect.
Obviously, I have an opinion about how the rule should be applied, quite particularly in the cases of free software or public domain equivalent license, but LordOfPens' current strategy seems to be mass editing with minimal communication when questioned before moving on to other disparate articles to do the same there. I hope we can come to a consensus about whether or not this behavior should continue, and decide on an appropriate process to follow if it should.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried engaging them on Talk:Free software movement, but that is only the two of us and would not reach consensus even if they responded again. I found a similar attempt at discussion on Tesla Model 3, but they did not respond to that. Then there are the multiple messages to this effect on LordOfPens' talk page, as linked above and not responded to.
How do you think we can help?
I think this needs a centralized discussion and resolution as to how LordOfPens should go about this crusade of theirs. Because of the breadth of the articles they are moving, I don't think just doing it and appealing to supposedly objective grammar rules when questioned is appropriate or sustainable for their project, even assuming for the sake of arguments there are articles out there that would benefit from this hyphenation.
Summary of dispute by LordOfPens
Like the comma, period, and semi-colon, the hyphen has well-defined rules governing its usage in English, which is also explicitly defined in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
I am of the opinion that Wikipedia's English articles' titles should comply with proper English and the Manual of Style, regardless of how a given article was initially titled. There are multiple reasons for this, including:
Many people do not understand how to use hyphens, so they avoid using the punctuation character; this has resulted in many articles in Wikipedia being improperly punctuated upon creation
I view Wikipedia as a long-term reference of human knowledge, so I consider the titles for any existing article today to not be set in stone (in terms of punctuation)
I do not view the editing of punctuation in an article's title to be significantly different than editing punctuation in an article's body, to the point that warrants creating a Wikipedia Talk entry for each article, and waiting for feedback (regarding well-defined punctuation usage) for each article before continuing with the title change
Regarding a license for free software (free-software license), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen. Note that the usage of "free" in this context refers to freedom, not pricing—this means there exists "free free-software licenses", and "non-free free-software licenses" (not "free free software licenses" and "non free free software licenses").
Regarding the movement on free software (free-software movement), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "movement", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen.
Regarding a license that grants similar rights as licenses in the public domain (public-domain-equivalent license), "public-domain equivalent" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain an additional hyphen.
User talk:LordOfPens discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - The filing editor has properly notified the other editor. This is not the typical case, because it does not involve a single article. However, if the filing editor and the other editor are willing to engage in moderated discussion understanding that this is a content dispute affecting multiple articles, and that the Manual of Style must either be followed as written or formally modified by a Request for Comments, I am willing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am fine with discussing this in terms of the MOS. lethargilistic (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am open to discussing this in terms of Wikipedia's current Manual of Style. LordOfPens (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am opening this case for discussion, to focus at this time on general principles, not on specific articles. Specific articles can be discussed on their article talk pages. If discussion at an article talk page becomes lengthy and inconclusive, we can move it to this forum. However, do not edit the articles in question for now. You may discuss the articles on the article talk pages, but we should agree that any edits to articles should only take place after consensus on the talk page. Read my rules for moderated discussion and comply with them. Now I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they think the underlying issues are about hyphenation and article content and titles that are the basis of disagreement. We have already agreed that the Manual of Style governs. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that many people do not understand how to properly use many punctuation characters—particularly, the hyphen, en dash, and em dash. As such, this segment of people are hostile towards the usage of these punctuation characters, and will actively remove them. I am of the view that the three referenced article titles above are in English, are subject to the grammatical rules of English, and are improper nouns with compound modifiers with well-defined punctuation rules both in English and Wikipedia's English Manual of Style. Therefore, the three articles should contain hyphens in their titles. LordOfPens (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, Wikipeida is descriptive and not prescriptive. That is, it is a reflection of the world as it is, not the world as Wikipedians would like to see it. It is not the place of Wikipedians to tell outside groups that their spelling is incorrect. I think the main source of my contention is that the sorts of names (groups and products) at-issue are treated by their constituents as proper nouns in effect and in all ways aside capitalization. To be abstract, consider something called the "good pens movement" that advocates for "good pens." Because "good pens" is understood to be one important unit by the group in question, I would equate the change of "good pens certificate" to "good-pens certificate" as akin to the MOS's example of an incorrect WP:HYPHEN, "Middle Eastern cuisine" to "Middle-Eastern cuisine." This is not true for somewhat-or-completely synthetic construtions from those names (think "good-pens-certified conference"), and I see significant room for compromise in such cases. lethargilistic (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If these three articles' titles are proper nouns, then they should edited to reflect that. LordOfPens (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator
User:Lethargilistic writes that Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Does User:LordOfPens agree or disagree? If disagree, please explain in one paragraph.
Do both editors agree that the most commonly used name should be the primary name, and that the most commonly used form of the name should be the primary name? If not, please explain in one paragraph.
Do the editors think that renamings of articles (done by moving should be discussed first, or that they can be done boldly followed by discussion? Explain in one paragraph. Do not refer to the bold-revert-discuss cycle, because even a single revert ot a move is a move-war.
Is this discussion limited to three articles, or is this a discussion about hyphenating practices in general?
Does anyone think that the Manual of Style should be modified, or is there agreement? Please be concise about any changes.
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.
European Graduate School
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Serenest on 04:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The European Graduate School is a graduate school that has philosophers from all over the world who supervise graduate students. The article paints it as a fraudulent and substandard school which change is blocked by one or two editors. Several editors refuse to allow the full faculty to be posted, as in the French Wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Graduate_School (after all it is European). The nature of the school is mis-characterized as the short seminars are emphasized, and not the graduate supervision. There is a group of editors who seem to have holier than thou attitudes, and every one is kind of fed up with each other.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I recently opened a talk discussion page on the issue, and was told everything has been discussed to death, and there was no appetite for discussing it anymore.
How do you think we can help?
I am hopeful that reasonable people can see clear to update the site with the relevant information and make the article clear and useful to readers as is the French site, not unbalanced with undue weight given to paranoid suspicions.
Summary of dispute by Jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The statement of the dispute in the OP, is vague and simply states a belief or perhaps perception.
The issues raised by the OP have been raised a zillion times on the Talk page. For example, there was an RfC in 2016 about the accreditation/Texas thing, and another in 2017 that failed to overturn the first one. That hard won consensus cannot be overturned here.
Another key aspect of the history of the page is an extensive history of conflicted and advocacy WP:BOOSTER editing - see the list in the archives here.
Finally, Steve, you have more or less blown the "moderator" role here by taking a stance on what you think the content should actually be (without reviewing the history of how it got that way) -- but in any case this is more of a WP:3O approach than one appropriate here. Please recuse yourself from moderating. But better, this should just be closed. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Solarmancer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bjerrebæk
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not sure why I was included in this discussion. I haven't paid attention to the strange goings-on on the talk page of this article lately and I'm not party to any dispute related to it. I can, however, offer my perspective here based on my past dealings with the article. My position is as an uninvolved editor who has been editing topics related to higher education across different projects for a decade or so, and who has also removed promotional material from the corresponding article on my "home project" (the Norwegian Wikipedia), including a list of "famous people" claimed to be affiliated with the school. My understanding is that this is a small, somewhat obscure school, that started as a somewhat "alternative" or left-wing project, but that there is no evidence, based on any credible sources, that it is fraudulent or anything of the kind.
First: I cannot support the summary by the editor who started this discussion or their proposal to list all faculty members. On the other hand I can understand their frustration with the current non-encyclopedic state of the article.
When I first came across this article this summer, it struck me first as poorly written and it had a highly strange focus on Texas(!) and what turned out to be a passing mention in an outdated, low-quality source from some obscure local government authority on the other side of the planet, that is presided over by a climate change denier. No less than 60%(!) of the discussion of the school's "status" in both the lead and body was related to that – for a school located in Switzerland and Malta with no ties to Texas! Imagine if an article about an American university was dominated by the perspective (based on an old passing mention, to boot) of some Maltese authority; to me this is primarily an example of a US bias that we should strive to avoid in any article. It appeared that there was only one editor pushing this weird "Texan bias", and when questioned about the quality and relevance of his source and its clearly WP:UNDUE weight in the lead, he refused to offer any policy-based arguments or engage in constructive discussion. At the time I didn't care enough about the article to pursue the matter further.
In my opinion this article has a problem with both some promotional edits, and with biased editing and ownership behaviour by one editor who seems to have some sort of animosity towards the school. My recommendation is that they both stop editing the article, as they are clearly involved in one way or the other and incapable of editing the article in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Currently it's impossible for us uninvolved editors, with long experience in this particular field, to make any effort to improve the article, given the behaviour of both sides.
Additional comment: I find Steven Crossin's comments below very helpful and his proposed wording to be a clear improvement of the article. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:European Graduate_School discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. I'll be helping out with this dispute. I have done some research on this item, and I understand this is the current text that is under dispute:
“
EGS is licensed as a university in Malta[8] and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[9] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[10] In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[11]
”
Breaking this down to what is supported and not supported in references:
1. EGS is licensed as a university in Malta... - this statement is supported in the reference provided. In addition, their is a copy of their University License issued by the National Commission for Higher Education Malta, allowing them to operate in Valetta, and Switzerland on their website.
2. and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[9] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[10] ... - references this page [1], translated here (for my benefit, I don't understand French!). The link that The translated text says:
The private law foundation EGS European Graduate School Foundation offers tertiary level training programs in Malta and Valais (summer campus in Saas-Fee) in the following areas: Human Sciences, Health and Society (AHS) and Philosophy, Art & Critical Thinking (PACT). The canton of Valais is a founding member and has a representative sitting on the Board of its foundation. The titles issued by EGS have been accredited since 28 February 2016 by the National Commission for Higher Education of the State of Malta. As this school is not accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities of 30 September 2011, the diplomas obtained from EGS do not give free access to the Swiss university system.
Breaking down the bolded items in the above, I read these items:
"The canton of Valais is a founding member and has a representative sitting on the Board of its foundation." (again, translated). To me, this states that the canton may have a representative on the Board, but that does not explicitly mean it is overall recognised as an institution by the canton, and I don't believe there is sufficient citations to support the text "and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates". There are approx 350,000 people in this canton, having a citizen of the canton on the board does not equal recognition. The spreadsheet with the description of EGS as having canton approval by the State of Texas is not sufficient either alone.
Regarding this text:
but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland. - again, this seems to be based on the fact they are not listed on the a page by the Swiss University Conference, which lists some Swiss universities. I reviewed the law cited in the translated VS page, which is here, and it appears that by description of the text, they have not been accredited by any Swiss accreditation organisation. However, I recommend it would be more appropriate to stick to referencing the actual text, which states "As this school is not accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities of 30 September 2011, the diplomas obtained from EGS do not give free access to the Swiss university system."
Lastly, the Texas sentence is definitely undue weight and gives the reader the impression that the university is dodgy/fraudulent/illegal, which in reality it hasn't been accredited/their Maltese accreditation isn't recognised in Texas. The source (which is a spreadsheet) referenced explicitly states "Institutions may be authorized in other states or countries. Inclusion on this list should not be interpreted as limiting other jurisdictions' recognition of degrees from an institution. Texas law only applies to activities in Texas." The way the article is written does not make that clear, and for that reason should not be included.
I would recommend the paragraph be shortened and replaced to:
“
EGS is licensed as a university to operate in Malta and Valais, Switzerland[2], however as it has not been accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities in Switzerland, diplomas issued by EGS do not provide free access to the Swiss university system.[3]
”
Welcome your thoughts. StevenCrossin 06:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I spotted this diff from 26 Oct this year [4]. The text at that time said:
“
Founded in Switzerland, the School operates on two locations: Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and Valletta, Malta. It is recognised as a university institute in the Canton of Valais where one of its two campuses is located,[3] but does not hold federal recognition as a university in Switzerland.[4] It is accredited as a university in Malta.[3]
”
This is closer to the mark, but still, "It is recognised as a university institute in the Canton of Valais where one of its two campuses is located" - this isn't in the source quoted as per above explanation by me. Let's keep it simple - "Founded in Switzerland, the School operates on two locations: Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and Valletta, Malta. It is accredited as a university, but does not hold federal recognition as a university in Switzerland." StevenCrossin 06:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Jytdog), I'm a mediator, not a moderator. Some volunteers here might just facilitate the discussion without weighing policy and guidelines, and let the people involved try and work it out alone. I've never found that overly successful. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if other volunteers could chime in here on the discussion @TransporterMan:, to see the best way forward for this thread, as it's gone rather quiet.
Volunteer note - If editors stop discussing a case, the volunteer can close the case. The editors appear to have stopped discussing this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
It was agreed by editors not to move this page on the talk page, someone has done so, it was agreed by editors to remove a list of offices and elected reps as it did not meet the requirements for an encyclopedia and they were since readded without anyone commenting on the talk page. I suspect that some of the editing on this page may have been done by the marketing department of this students union as several passages of the article are sourced only from the SU website and appear overly promotional.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Removed content, posted on the talk page
How do you think we can help?
Help reverse any editing by marketing staff who are not independent and ensure that the decisions agreed by multiple editors on the talk page are kept and not reversed without discussion in contravention of wiki rules.
The Students%27_Union_at_UWE discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Isagenix International
– New discussion.
Filed by Zeelyone on 16:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
New to this - but would like someone who is new to MLM marketing companies to review.
The study was sponsored by Isagenix, but they didn't have any control over the results. I think it belongs on the page because the studies are referenced by multiple medical journals, and the underlying bias against MLM pages could be hindering good information being added onto the page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on the talk page. Found multiple sources supporting the results of the study but all were shot down by other users on the page.
How do you think we can help?
Determine the validity of the study results being on the page in regards to Wikipedia's rules and without an underlying/existing bias against MLM companies.
Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Isagenix International discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– New discussion.