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
Wolf	Closed	Nagging Prawn (t)	30 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	Closed	Randomstaplers (t)	27 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	10 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 11 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	8 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Wolfdog (t)	13 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	7 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	PromQueenCarrie (t)	46 minutes
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	1 days, 16 hours
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka	New	DinoGrado (t)	21 hours	None	n/a	DinoGrado (t)	21 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 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

List of conspiracy theories

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by H-influenzae on 16:23, 23 June 2022 (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 List of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved H-influenzae (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page includes no conspiracies related to anti-feminism, lgbtq issues, or fandom/celebrity conspiracies despite them being well-documented elsewhere on the site. This is a clear gender bias on the page that prioritizes conspiracies created by and for cishet men and erases gender/sexuality marginalization as well as communities formed by women & gender/sexual minorities. Via his own profile page, user Slatersteven who reversed even preliminary edits of this issue seems to not be informed of or interested in learning about these conspiracies before deleting all edits made to the page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_conspiracy_theories How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Page needs to be investigated to determine whether the assessment of gender bias on the page is accurate. Summary of dispute by Slatersteven Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. And only one was added, relativity (if not totally) minor one Larries. We can't have every conspiracy theory that has ever existed, so we need to choose only major and/or long-lasting ones. Also the users wp:rightgreatwrongs attitude is an issue. Nor is there an attempt to "erases gender/sexuality marginalization as well as communities formed by women & gender/sexual minorities", hell I have even said that Gay agenda may well be valid for inclusion. Also at least one of the "conspiracy theories" they wanted to add is not one. It is just a group that believes in a specific conspiracy theory (and so that is the one that should be added). Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I added larries first merely to test the waters about additions to the page, and because I am very familiar with the community. It IS major and long-lasting - the Larry conspiracy theory has been ongoing for 12 years. H-influenzae (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I have experience on Wikipedia editing as a queer person - I did not want to spend hours arguing about anti-gay conspiracy theories needing admission when testing the waters to see if anything related to queer spaces could be added did just fine to figure out that people sit on the page and don't like additions. H-influenzae (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC) And I would ask you to wp:agf and lay of the wp:pa. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) But are you editing in good faith? It seems I am only asked to assume good faith when someone is completely dismissing what I have to say because they feel they own the page, which is supposedly antithetical to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. H-influenzae (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC) It's true that Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs; however, the page including both the conspiracy of white genocide and New Coke suggests it is a place to discuss conspiracies both of the social justice and "trivial" variety, and there is very clearly an imbalance about the types of conspiracies that you believe should be allowed on the page. I do not think the list of conspiracies on the page should be infinite, but reverting the addition of something you feel is too trivial before you even researched it suggests a feeling of ownership over the page which is also not acceptable for an open source website for sharing information. H-influenzae (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Fair enough. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC) They continue to add the material. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Yes, I agree, but it may be moot now. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC) List of conspiracy theories discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note First- all participants are reminded to not discuss the dispute before a volunteer opens this page. Unfortunately, due to personal issues, I cannot commit to mediating at this time (I will be without internet from tomorrow for 5 days). Next- there are a lot of behavior issue accusations being tossed around- these are not to be handled on this board. Before a volunteer agrees to take the case- all involved users must agree that these issues are not really the problem and it is indeed a content issue. If all involved editors agree to this, a mediator will begin the process as soon as possible. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I have no personal issues with Slatersteven outside of him being the person who reverted my edits. This IS purely a content issue - the page contains no conspiracies about the topics I mentioned while at the same time containing many conspiracies that are less serious or that people have never even heard of. Slatersteven did not even allow me to make substantial edits, or research the edits I did make, before reverting them and telling me they were irrelevant. He clearly lacks the expertise on these issues to dismiss them so quickly.H-influenzae (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Note – First, the filing editor says that the page needs to be investigated to determine whether the assessment of gender bias on the page is accurate. If I agree to mediate this dispute, I have no intention of investigating a claim of gender bias, only of discussing whether to add certain other conspiracy theories to the page. If the filing editor wants a more general investigation, they will have to go somewhere else. Second, the filing editor is making various statements about Slatersteven, such as that they lack the expertise to dismiss certain issues. A rule of this noticeboard is to comment on content, not contributors, and to discuss edits, not editors. If I agree to mediate this dispute, the filing editor will have to focus on topics that should or should not be included, not on who does or doesn't want them. Third, will the filing editor list specific conspiracy theories that they want added to the page? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator on conspiracies I will try to mediate this dispute, but only if the editors agree to accept my moderation with my ground rules. Please read the rules. I will ask you to read them again, so I am only asking you to read them once at this time. We will only discuss the content of the article, not other editors, and we will only discuss specific changes to the article. We will not discuss whether the article is biased, unless you wish to correct a bias by adding or subtracting something. Do the editors agree to a moderated discussion of specific article content? Please reply below with a yes or no. You may optionally state what you want to change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors on conspiracies 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.

Bengali Kayastha

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Satnam2408 on 15:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bengali Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Satnam2408 (talk · contribs)
• Ekdalian (talk · contribs)
• LukeEmily (talk · contribs)
• Chanchaldm (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is regarding the addition of the Bengali Karana connection as described in the two most essential scriptures (that enlisted castes, local to Bengal) in the Bengali Kayastha article. According to most sources, there was an unavoidable connection between these two. Some schools of thought regard these two as identical and claim 'Kayastha' is a remolded appellation of 'Karana,' Some other schools of thought claim that Karana merged themselves into the Kayastha. But these all scholars accepted that in epigraphic evidence as well as in the earliest scriptures of Bengal which enlisted these caste groups had taken both synonymously. Currently, the complete information is missing in the Bengali Kayastha article.

Sources:- I prepared a Draft version regarding the origin of the community. Reliable sources are already cited there. However here I am providing some other reliable sources 1. quote- "Whatever the case in early times, in Bengal up to about the ninth or tenth century Karana and Kayastha were considered to be synonymous. In Bengal, the Karanas gradually became subsumed under the name Kāyastha, although we have noted that in the Bengali inscriptions of about the Gupta and post-Gupta era the word Käyastha was used as frequently as the word Karana. Generally, it can be said without doubt that in the inscriptions of this period Käyastha is not a word denoting any caste or sub-caste, but one signifying a profession; the Kāyasthas had not developed in this period into the caste or sub-caste which they comprise today." Ray, Niharranjan, History of the Bengali People, p. 175. 2. quote- "Figuring repeatedly in copper plates of Bengal from the 5th century CE onwards, the Kayastha emerged to immense prominence in the early medieval Bengal society. The Kayastha, often synonymous with the term Karana in Bengal inscriptions, is known since the early historical times as the scribe or the clerk."- Furui, Ryosuke (2018). "Social Life: Issues of Varṇa-Jāti System". In Chowdhury, Abdul Momin; Chakravarti, Ranabir (eds.). History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Vol. 2: Society, Economy & Culture. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. p. 62. However, He is silent about the Kayastha-Karana connection. Apart from these reliable sources are cited in the draft version. Quotes if needed would be provided here. Sanyal, Sharma, and Ralph W. Nicholas have taken Karana and Kayastha identical. Majumdar claims Karana merged themselves with Kayastha, however, he accepted that in epigraphic evidence and literary sources both are synonymous.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Bengali_Kayastha#Karana_connection
• Talk:Bengali_Kayastha#Origin_Section
• Talk:Bengali_Kayastha#To_do_list

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The missing information is essential and should be included in the article. One of the experienced and neutral editors LukeEmily, a specialist in editing Indian caste-related articles has fixed goals in To do list section to improve the article. The Karana-Kayastha connection is also present in this. However, Ekdalian is opposing (at least a section) it by providing a previous consensus. The dispute should be resolved as early as possible by providing a reasonable solution to this. thanks.

Summary of dispute by Ekdalian

As I have mentioned several times on the relevant talk page, we have a separate article on Karan Kayasthas/Karan (caste), and we need to incorporate relevant information about the Karans/Karanas of Bengal under a separate section there. IMHO, we need to do is divide the article on Karan caste into regions like Bengal, Odisha, etc, and mention the relevant details there under Bengal. Since we have a separate article on the Karan caste, we should add relevant details there itself as per convention. Further, Karans and Kayasthas are mostly considered as distinct castes, though may be somewhat related, which may again be a subject of debate, as per speculations based on reliable sources! Can you please provide the sources Satnam2408, like LukeEmily mentioned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LukeEmily

I dont know much about these communities but will suggest that we follow the geneeral rule.If reliable sources show any relation between the two communities it could be mentioned IMHO unless it is a fringe opinion that modern scholars dispute. This is a little confusing and needs someone who has more context to understand the academic consensus. EkDalian, can the connection be mentioned on both pages (Karan Kayastha and Bengali Kayastha)? Was Karana a caste or profession? What is the difference between Karan Kayastha of Bengal and Bengali Kayasthas? Also, please can you check "National Integration in Historical Perspective:By Rabindra Nath Chakraborty , page 121-124? Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chanchaldm

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Bengali Kayastha discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by moderator, Kayastha

Three of the four editors have responded. Discussion can be conducted with two or more editors. I will act as moderator. Please read the usual rules. Then read the rules, again. If there are any questions about the rules, please ask them now rather than guessing. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the poster feel better, but do not communicate as well as shorter statements. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me and the community. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, so we will try to define exactly what the content issues are. If there are questions about the reliability of sources, they can be stated, and then asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

I will ask each editor to state, in one or two paragraphs, what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed. Also, separately, state any questions about the reliability of sources. After we have identified the article content issues and source reliability issues, we will decide how to proceed further. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors, Kayastha

Statement by Satnam2408:- As I mentioned earlier, I want to add the information regarding the Karan and Kayastha connection in the relevant section of the Bengali Kayastha article. I want to bring the attention of the Moderator to this Draft. I want to incorporate the specific section starting from the line:- In the eleventh century, Bengal was in the grip of Brahmanism. The Kayasthas had evolved into a caste over the preceding centuries [.....] And ending by the line [....] Ralph W. Nicholas associates Kayasthas with Karanas, claiming that 'Kayastha' is a remoulded appellation of 'Karana,' as recorded in the Brihaddharm Purana. The section is highlighted. The section has demonstrated all relevant Theories as propounded by different scholars. The sources and corresponding page numbers are already given there. Thanks.

Proposed paragraph:-

In the eleventh century, Bengal was in the grip of Brahmanism. The Kayasthas had evolved into a caste over the preceding centuries. The Brihaddharma-Purana, a 13th-century Sanskrit text, contains the earliest comprehensive chronicle of the constitution and structure of the cast system of Bengal.[5] The Brahma Vaivarta Purana, significant for a relatively late Bengali recension (c. 14/15th century), gives a caste structure but differs from the Brihaddharma-Purana on caste description. Traditionally, the Hindu society of Bengal was divided into two categories: Brahmin and Shudra.[5][10] The Brihad-dharma and Brahma-vaivarta Puranas explicitly note a caste group called Karana of mixed descent, from Vaishya father and Shudra mother, classified under the Sat-Shudra/ Uttam-Sankar-Sudra category.[11][12][13] Vaijayanti (11th century A.D.), a lexicographer, appears to consider Kayastha and Karana to be synonymous and depicts them as scribes. This reference is consistent with the Brihaddharma-Purana, and epigraphic evidence proves the identification of Karana and Kayastha.[14] According to Jyotirmoyee Sarma, perhaps the term Kayastha didn't persist as a proper caste name; the Karana was the prevalent caste name when these Puranas were composed.[5] According to Sanyal, the Kayasthas are indistinguishable from the Karanas and were classed alongside some trading and artisan castes in the Brihaddharma Purana.[12] Majumdar observes that, After the conclusion of the Hindu period, the Karana caste, whose members performed the same vocations as the Kayasthas, steadily dissipated from Bengal. The Kayastha caste became prominent from this period. According to these observations, Majumdar concludes that Karana merged themselves into the Kayastha, and these two castes were ultimately fused in Bengal as in other parts of India.[14] Ralph W. Nicholas associates Kayasthas with Karanas, claiming that 'Kayastha' is a remoulded appellation of 'Karana,' as recorded in the Brihaddharm Purana.[11].

Agriculture in Singapore

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Plasmastate on 16:39, 26 June 2022 (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 Agriculture in Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Plasmastate (talk · contribs) Singaporeano (talk · contribs) Dispute overview My edit about the first cultured meat product on the market was reverted by Singaporeano, who thinks it was "blatant advertising". On their talk page I gave my reasons for disagreeing w/ such an assessment, but Singaporeano still insists on their initial assessment. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Singaporeano#Re._reverting_mentioning_a_cultured_meat_product_in_Agriculture_in_Singapore How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? by providing a third opinion Summary of dispute by Singaporeano Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Agriculture in Singapore 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.

Lavender oil

– New discussion.

Filed by 50.45.170.185 on 18:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Lavender oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Zefr (talk · contribs)
• PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article on Lavender oil as I found it claimed there was no evidence that Lavender oil could treat anxiety or insomnia. The citation for this was a "drugs.com" article that didn't actually make any such claim, so I edited the article to reflect "drugs.com"'s actual content.

However I then noticed that the "drugs.com" article only cited very old articles, the newest of which was from 2018. So I added the findings of a 2019 meta-analysis to the Wikipedia article. This was then immediately removed as an "unreliable source" despite being from the 7th most cited journal in the world.

Attempts to engage in conversation with the user who reverted the changes was simply met with more unexplained requests for a "better source" and also conceding that the current "drugs.com" citation is not a good source for the claims being defended either.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide guidance on if any of the multiple peer-reviewed research articles I mentioned on lavender oil (and others that exist), as well as the "drugs.com" article should be included in the Wikipedia article.

Help decide which sources discussed thus far should be considered appropriate for this article.

Possible help in finding a new source if none of the existing ones are up to standard.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zefr

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Although a meta-analysis, the 2019 source suggested by the IP editor covers weak primary research in 5 studies, 4 of which were by the same German author in journals of dubious quality. A review of weak research is still a weak source for the encyclopedia. The original edit by the IP was far too detailed and overstated from such a weak review. The previous version concerning the use of oral lavender oil for anxiety was There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety, which is true and supported by the Drugs.com review (updated in Oct 2021), which stated concerns about the research on oral Silexan for anxiety: the presence of significant heterogeneity, lack of blinding, small sample sizes, and small number of studies (4 of which were by the same author) limit extrapolation of the results. Overall, the 2019 review by Yap et al. is unconvincing as a source, and leaves us with the conclusion there is no good evidence for using oral lavender oil to treat anxiety. Further, there is no WP:MEDSCI source to indicate any clinical organization recommends such treatment. Zefr (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Zefr, as you have thus far not posted on the Talk page and only have reverted my changes or posted here, I will copy-paste my response from the Talk page to be here but feel free to reply on the talk page:

It is not an encyclopedia's job to do a peer-review of research. If you don't think the conclusion of these papers are correct because of bad methodology then you should reach out to the journal itself to see if you can have it removed.

In any case, at least the methodology and findings are clear and the publishers' names are known for these papers. The "conclusion" of the drugs.com article is simply anonymous and not peer reviewed, and many many papers are missing from their page in the first place (most papers on their page are older than 5 years too).

Perhaps a middle-ground: find all relevant papers published in the last 5 years on the topic, no matter what their findings are, and write up a summary of what was found. Example, "Some studies show effectiveness[1][2], while others do not[3][4][5]" or "There is some evidence of effectives[1][2][3]", etc etc whatever we find gets summarized. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Lavender oil discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it has only been conducted for a few hours. The discussion should continue for at least 24 hours. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, a volunteer can open a case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply! Discussion between Alex and I have somewhat continued now that a new user User:PaleoNeonate has entered the discussion to again simply claim that the source is bad without much justification. This time though, Alex has acknowledged that there are multiple sources pointing to the same conclusion like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33638614/ 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• I noticed that I was added here but I don't intend to spend much time on this. The discussion at the talk page is likely enough. Moreover, it seems to be an WP:1AM issue and it's perennial essential oils claims... Conflicting studies means no reliable evidence. —PaleoNeonate – 09:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that there are no recent conflicting studies, that was just an edit I made to better reflect the contents of the original (bad) source, "drugs.com". Every meta-analysis that I can find in the last 5 years all point to the same conclusion: lavender oil capsules taken orally is effective in reducing anxiety symptoms in people with anxiety disorders. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Also sorry if I wasn't supposed to add you to this. I saw you comment on the Talk Page so I figured you became part of the "Users involved". Feel free to remove yourself if that's not how DRN is supposed to work. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Robert McClenon.

I'm not sure if here or "request for comment" is a better place for this now as Alexbrn and I have somewhat reached a consensus on a good meta-analysis source, but Zefr has now finally joined the Talk Page and has brought up one of the original issues/questions that I mentioned in this DRN entry. "Provide guidance on if any of the multiple peer-reviewed research articles I mentioned on lavender oil (and others that exist), as well as the "drugs.com" article should be included in the Wikipedia article. Help decide which sources discussed thus far should be considered appropriate for this article."

Basically, he insists that the not peer-reviewed, anonymously authored article on "drugs.com" is in-fact superior to the multiple meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. My best effort of understanding this comes down to the MEDRS article, which includes this image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#/media/File:Research_design_and_evidence.svg

From my understanding, the new sources would be considered "2nd best" and "drugs.com" would be considered "2nd worst". I feel it has no place on this article, and all instances of it being used for medical claims should be replaced by secondary sources from reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Thank you. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Another example of Zefr reverting findings he disagrees with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1095480708&oldid=1095476822

Note his claim of "Not a reputable clinical publication" is contradictory to Alexbrn's position on the journal: "Phytomedicine seems a reasonable, relevant journal (impact factor ~5)", as Zefr continues to push for "drugs.com" as the only good source.

From what I can tell, both of these users are long-time editors that know much more about Wikipedia policy than I do, so I'm curious how they reached such different conclusions and how we should go forward from here. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User Zefr has now launched an investigation into me being a sock-puppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:50.45.170.185

Until yesterday I actually didn't know Wikipedia had higher standards for medical sources than for other types of content. And I totally understand why and I think it's really cool that the community considers things like the safety of the readers. However, this just seems overly aggressive against me in the face of content of the peer-reviewed meta-analyses I'm trying to add to the Wikipedia article in favor of "drugs.com" ... Sorry if this is veering into too much focus on a user vs the content, but I feel like this is part of why we need more eyes looking at like user User:Pyrrho_the_Skipper who recently joined the discussion to support the addition I made. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on lavender oil

Slow down. I will act as the moderator. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me and to the community. These ground rules will be in effect. Read the rules a second time. If you have questions, ask them rather than guessing. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often only make the poster feel better but do not communicate effectively. Now, it appears that there are two intertwined sets of issues, about article content, and about the reliability of sources. This noticeboard discusses article content. If there is an issue about the reliability of a source, we can put the content discussion on hold while we ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about source reliability. It also appears that the issue has to do with a statement about whether lavender oil (or its aroma) can be useful in relieving anxiety. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Each editor may post three paragraphs. The first paragraph should state what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same. This is about article content. The second paragraph should state any questions about the reliability of sources. The third paragraph should ask any other questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

First-person shooter

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 73.70.13.107 on 23:36, 26 June 2022 (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 First-person shooter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute regarding how the information in the "history" section is organized, with two competing versions of the section. One version has been argued for on the talk page, and these arguments have gone unchallenged for over half a year. The other version is not being defended by anyone, but user "MrOllie" keeps reverting the section to that version anyway with no reason or explanation and has ignored multiple requests to discuss the issue on the talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:73.70.13.107#June_2022 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Revert to my most recent edit, lock the article, and tell MrOllie to take the dispute to the talk page like a big boy instead of my personal page. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. First-person shooter 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.

USA

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 209.6.11.83 on 22:53, 27 June 2022 (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 USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Theroadislong (talk · contribs) Rusalkii (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am bringing this matter to volunteer(s) to help with a dispute that I have especially with reviewer, Theroadislong, as well as with Rusalkii, who insist that my Draft: Leadership-as-Practice reads as an essay when I believe it certainly does not. Unfortunately, it appears that this criticism has taken on a life of its own and I fear that these reviewers are not seemingly able to bend from their impressions, guided by the history of the reviews of this prospective important contribution to the subject of leadership. I have had other entries fully and firstly accepted in wikipedia and wikisummaries and I believe my draft is encyclopedic and ready for publication in wikipedia. Minimally, I request an impartial review by someone willing to read the draft without being guided by an impression or prior history or stereotype implanted by these reviewers. Thank you. Joe Raelin How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have appealed to these reviewers to give this draft a fair read without prior bias, but they have seemingly shown unwillingness to do so. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To either review the draft without bias or to find someone who could do so. Summary of dispute by Theroadislong Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rusalkii Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. USA 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.

Medieval Technology

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mpaniello on 03:27, 28 June 2022 (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 Medieval technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mpaniello (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the article Medieval Technology, I noticed that Leonardo da Vinci was referred to simply as da Vinci. I corrected it to the full name, but editor Ravenswing has kept undoing the change. I noted in the Talk section that it's a long-established practice in scholarly writing to refer to him either as Leonardo or by his full name, and that da Vinci isn't a surname, nor has it ever been accepted as the equivalent of Leonardo or his full name in formal writing. They replied that that using da Vinci to refer to Leonardo has been an established practice "for centuries." When I asked for some evidence, they gave a list of place names and geographical features, all whose names have their origins in the late 20th century. I pointed out that it was irrelevant to the discussion on the proper form of Leonardo's name in formal writing. They also pleaded common use, though I'm certain that common use doesn't trump Wikipedia's policy of favoring an academic style and formal register for its articles. Unfortunately, there's not enough space to list sources, but I can provide links to Britannica Online, Oxford Art Online, the Met (NYC), the National Gallery (UK and US), and the Chicago Manual, among others, to support my argument. In fact I've been unable to find a single authoritative source that gives the name as da Vinci or that places him under D or even V. I'm frankly very puzzled by Ravenswing's adamant rejection of a perfectly valid edit. If they have anything to support their rejection of the edit, let them present it and make their case. If not, then let the edit stand. I think it clearly improves the quality of the article by bringing a snippet of its language into line with the prevailing academic practice. Thank you for your time. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medieval_technology How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd simply like for the edit to stand, as it is a valid, uncontroversial edit. Beyond naming conventions, a proper name should be given in full in its first appearance in an article, and it would also make the name congruent with the other full names given in the same paragraph. If no resolution can be achieved, at least I'll have had my say and had my argument validated. Medieval Technology 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.

177 (number)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Radlrb on 18:47, 28 June 2022 (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 177 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Radlrb (talk · contribs) David Eppstein (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I suggest we have the following properties for 177, since David Eppstein is warring my edits: A Blum integer: 11th and less than 60 below 1000. A Leyland number as there are very few below 1000. A 60-gonal number as there are very few below 1000. I added 177 as the sum of the three prime factors (41, 59, 71) whose product make the minimum faithful complex representation of the Monster group. This is not trivial, it is another set value of these digits. I.e. the group 2.B has a faithful representation under 96,256 dimensions, whose sum of digits is 196,560, the kissing number in 24 dimensions. Aliquot sums and sums of divisors are common properties of numbers, and 196,883 is a particularly important number within the monstrous moonshine as it is linked with the j-invariant under its 196,884 dimensional representation - if this is too OR then I am perfectly fine with not including it. It seems to me that David Eppstein just wants to remove "cruft" he doesn't like because, well, personally he doesn't like it. He removed plenty of other information like examples of .177 guns. It makes very little sense. People who come here and read these pages are often times not mathematicians, so yes, including information of numbers being odd, composite, and even semiprime, are important tidbits of information that inform people not well acquainted with mathematics. These values are not unimportant. They define some of the characteristics of the number 177. To take out these properties leaves this number less notable. I am seeking mediation, as I have needed to continue reverting misguided edits by David Eppstein. He alone is not one to choose what goes on a page, or not; and neither am I. So if we can get proper input that would be great. Radlrb (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I removed two of the properties he removed, and still did permit the inclusion of three properties that are notable (as a Blum integer and 60-gonal number). How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Find a middle ground, I removed some and he should accept some. Thank you. Summary of dispute by David Eppstein Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 177 (number) 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.