Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 209

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

• Gini coefficient#Other uses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sarouk7 (talk · contribs)
• Limit-theorem (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added a contribution of a new use of the Gini coefficient in reliability engineering. The addition was supported by citation of a research paper citation that was introdiced and pulished as a chapter in a springer book Kaminskiy, M.P.; Krivtsov, V.V. (2011). "A Gini-Type Index for Aging/Rejuvenating Objects". Mathematical and Statistical Models and Methods in Reliability. Birkhäuser Boston: Springer. p. 133-140. ISBN 978-0-8176-4970-8.. I understand that the use is limited to the reliability engineering field, and that was the reason I added it as a contribution under other uses of the Gini coefficient. I noticed that there are other uses under that section with much fewer citations: Ref 74 has only 27 citations, reference 78 has 3 citations, and reference 81 has no citation.

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

Discussion in the talk page: Talk:Gini_coefficient#Gini_index_other_uses

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think a mediator mediating the discussion would lead towards a constructive discussion.

1) These citations correspond to research published by a small group of researchers. Scientific articles should map to things accepted in mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

This is not encyclopedia level by any stretch. I would gladly support these edits and help with their phrasing/introduction if one can find any such discussions in significant mainly reference review articles. But, alas, there are no significant secondary sources on this use of the Gini in the standard literature and the papers added are new and, really, really, low impact (low citations, and such publication as the one called the "13th Iranian Statistics Conference" or "On Gini−type index applications in reliability analysis, Reliability Theory and its Applications, Mashhad, Iran, 2017.").

The topic of the Gini inequality metric is vast and one cannot add every single low-impact paper unpublished or in no-impact journals on a novel use of the concept; it would make the page grow to hundreds of pages.

WP:SCIRS: "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it relevant. Many ideas are proposed and disregarded in the context of scientific discourse. If an idea is cited by a small minority of researchers, but rejected or ignored by the majority of researchers in a field, it should receive limited weight according to its acceptance; ideas held by a tiny minority of researchers need not be reported in our articles, except in articles devoted to these ideas. "

2) Finally, these papers are about aging and reliability analysis, not the Gini coefficient which may be used in some of their branches. It is not about the Gini, but that would be another discussion. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I will try to determine whether this is the right noticeboard for this issue. Please read the usual rules. All of the rules are important, but the most important rule at this point is to be concise. Is this about:

• 1. The reliability of sources?
• 2. Whether a use of the Gini coefficient is original research?
• 3. Whether reporting something would give it undue weight in an article?
• 4. Some other question of policies and guidelines?
• 5. Something that isn't about policies and guidelines?

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the main question in terms of policies and guidelines? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Excluding academic sources due to relative infrequency of citations in citation indexes. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sarouk7:

1. The reliability of sources:

Per WP:RS, “Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications." The subject GINI usage is referenced in the following books:

Mathematical and Statistical Models and Methods in Reliability. Editors: Rykov, V.V., Balakrishnan, N, Nikulin, M.S. (Eds.) Birkhäuser Boston: Springer. p. 133-140. ISBN 978-0-8176-4970-8.

Kaminskiy, M.P. (2013) Reliability Models for Engineers and Scientists (1st ed.). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, London, doi.org/10.1201/b13701, ISBN ISBN-13: 978-1466565920.

The two books are published by Springer and Taylor & Francis, respectively, which are highly reputable publishers of scientific literature with peer-review editorial boards. Notably, the latter is a textbook (as it has end-of-the-chapter exercises) and is used in educational courses at several universities.

2. Whether a use of the Gini coefficient is original research?

Per WP:NOR, “Original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”. However, reliable published sources do exist for the proposed use of the Gini coefficient, as explained in #1 above.

3. Whether reporting something would give it undue weight in an article?

No, it wouldn’t. On the contrary, it shows an elegant extension of the Gini Coefficient to the Reliability Theory, much like other uses that are already reference in the Gini Coefficient article: a measure of biodiversity Reference#73, quality of life in a population Reference#74, a measure of the inequality of universities Reference#75, selectivity of protein kinase inhibitors against a panel of kinases Reference#76,

4. Some other questions of policies and guidelines?

In my opinion, No.

5. Something that isn't about policies and guidelines?

5.1 The opposing side doesn’t seem to disagree that the Gini Coefficient use in Reliability Theory is published by reliable sources. However, they do dispute the reliability of the secondary sources (that reference the primary source). In doing so, they focus on one (indeed not so reliable) source but ignore other, truly reliable sources, such as:

M. Parsa, A. Di Crescenzo, H Jabbari, Analysis of reliability systems via Gini−type index, European Journal of Operational Research, pp. 340 – 353, 2018

A. Păun, C. Chandler, C.B. Leangsuksun, M. Păun. A failure index for HPC applications, Journal of Parallel and Distrib. Comput., Elsevier, 2016.

5.2 The opposing is using the citation index as a criterion for judging the reliability of academic articles for Wikipedia purposes. Yet, this criterion is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in WP:RS. Another Wikipedian, @TransporterMan:, already raised this topic on Gini Talk page and Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Furthermore, even if this criterion was used, some of the Other Gini Uses have as low as 3 citations, such as this one: Measurement of the discriminatory power of rating systems in credit risk management.Reference#78 — whereas, the proposed use of Gini in Reliability has over 40 citations as referenced by the original sources and over 10 citations — by the secondary sources.

The two journals linked above are highly reputable in the fields and have significant impact factors. Sarouk7 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Limit-theorem

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia representing a summary state of knowledge in a given subject matter. If we let every entry such as the Gini to be expanded and be bloated to include fringe and indirect research (even if promising), it would no longer be an encyclopedia but a discussion board. Scientific fields have metrics to evaluate whether something is part of a normal curriculum on a subject and editor's Sarouk7's additions do not fit the bill. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

When I said to be concise, and that the most important consideration was to be concise, I meant to be concise. When I said to post one paragraph about what was the main question, I meant to post one paragraph about what was the main question, not to post one paragraph about each of five possible answers. I did not say that I would collapse overly long posts, so I won't do that.

Any editor who did not post one paragraph in response to my first statement may post one paragraph in response to my first statement. Any editor who did post one paragraph in response to my first statement may post one more paragraph in support of their previous paragraph. Comment on content, not contributors. Overly long posts will be collapsed (as will other inappropriate posts, but I do not expect other inappropriate posts). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sarouk7: The use of the Gini index in reliability engineering is an excellent utilization that extended its use from economics to reliability theory. Not only that work was published as a chapter in a Springer's book Mathematical and Statistical Models and Methods in Reliability, but it was also reintroduced to the reliability society this year in the last Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium in May 2021, the publication can be found at This link. That should prove that the application has its weight as it resurfaced after 11 years of its first introduction. Also, the use of the Gini index in reliability is being taught at one of the graduate-level courses at the University of Maryland "ENRE640 Syllabus" (PDF).. That is far from bloating the article. --Sarouk7 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

My own thinking at this point is that User:Sarouk7 has presented a concise case that a concise discussion of other uses of the Gini coefficient is due weight and that this is the proper noticeboard. Each editor may provide another concise statement, or I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sarouk7:

The dispute is mainly around the low number of citations for this article; The paper is not widely cited because the reliability field is fairly new. I quote user @MPants at work: I'm not aware of any such guideline from the discussion on Reliable source noticeboard discussion. Judging an article by the number of citations is extremely subjective, especially if it's a new and relatively small field such as reliability engineering; 20 citations for a mathematical paper has much more impact than a biochemistry article with the same number of citations. In some areas, people work many years to prepare a publication, and some others can publish a dozen papers per year. Therefore, judging the number of citations is unfair. I can see why some people refer to the citation number simply because of its simplicity; it's just a number that you can look at it and judge a book by its cover. However, the value of that approach seriously defeats its purpose. Even though using the Gini index in reliability applications doesn't have a huge impact, it's still worthy of being mentioned, that's the reason I mentioned it under other uses and didn't create its own article. Looking at most of the references supporting other uses: Ref 74 has only 27 citations, reference 78 has 3 citations, and reference 81 comes from medium.com which is described as Medium is a place to write, read, and connect. How is that different? Again, that's the reason it's under other uses and not a standalone article. --Sarouk7 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

• Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VQuakr (talk · contribs)
• Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedian1337 (talk · contribs)/198.53.108.48 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Originally I had introduced an edit discussing the relevance of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s 1973 report summarising their investigation that was triggered by a bidder's complaint to the RFP for NASA's decision to award the solid rocket booster contract to Thiokol Morton.

In the thorough conversation that ensued on the talk page, Balon Greyjoy and VQuakr stated that the GAO report was not relevant to the disaster, a point that I vehemently disagreed with.

At the end of the first period of discussion it was understood that if I could demonstrate that bidders had concerns over the Thiokol designs and there was evidence to support they had been voiced in 1973, that this material would be worthy of mention.

Unfortunately in my discussion with the GAO, my FOIA (RFI 21-182) resulted in no additional documents being produced. I however found a source that conclusively stated that a competing company in the RFP process voiced concerns about Thiokol's o ring design, which was determined to be the cause of failure.

Editor VQuakr now has removed my edit in spite of my production of the necessary evidence that demonstrates the original RFP complaint yielded concerns by other competitors about the safety of Thiokol's design. VQuakr now claims the GAO report is not relevant, in spite of there being no avenue for competitors to voice concerns of an award winner's design outside of the RFP complaint process that is handled by the GAO.

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

Please consult Talk:Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#the_GAO_investigations_and_their_relation_to_the_U.S._house_hearings

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think it would be nice to have a set of eyes look at the amount of evidence I have produced in support of my position. Originally I used the book by Malcolm McConnell that states the attitude of the NASA SSO Fletcher, who praised Thiokol's design in response to the RFP complaints, had significant impact on the disaster.

I have now produced a good source (NY Times) that further states the concerns were there in 1973, and I feel that overlooking the importance of the GAO process is unreasonable

IP's original proposal was to add the GAO report to the "investigations" section, which was a non-starter since the GAO report unrelated to the disaster years later, not an investigation of the disaster. Adding a bit about Thiokol's competitors' concerns re O-rings in general is relatively new and I think jumping to DR is premature for that. VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion and the discussion on Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster makes me think that 198.53.108.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is engaging in a different argument than VQuakr and I are in. Since the beginning of this discussion, my opinion has been that the concerns voiced in the 1973 GAO report about the selection of Morton-Thiokol for the SRB contract are verifiable and important, but do not necessarily belong in the article about the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. While I think that a quick line about 1973 O-rings concerns in the O-rings sub-section would be appropriate, having an entire subsection about the GAO report, which was always about the awarding of the contract and not the engineering of the SRB designs, goes outside the scope of the article. As I have stated before, this information is relevant on pages such as Space Shuttle design process and Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. There is plenty of information in the prose about the dangerous history of the O-rings in the first 24 Space Shuttle missions; concerns voiced prior to the first SRB being built do not merit the same amount of attention in the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I will make at least a preliminary effort to moderate this discussion. The editors should read the rules, and abide by the rules. If you have questions about the rules, ask questions. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts are not helpful. Even if they make the poster feel better, they often do not explain what the issues are.

The unregistered editor is very strongly advised that if they want to discuss substantial changes to existing articles (on any other topic), they should register an account. The unregistered editor is cautioned not to use long rambling edit summaries.

Remember that the reason for discussion here is to improve the article. Each editor is requested to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want changed, or kept the same, in the article.

The unregistered editor wrote: "Unfortunately in my discussion with the GAO, my FOIA (RFI 21-182) resulted in no additional documents being produced. I however found a source that conclusively stated that a competing company in the RFP process voiced concerns about Thiokol's o ring design, which was determined to be the cause of failure." Please explain what your involvement is and was with the Solid Rocket Booster for the space shuttle, and whether you have a past or present conflict of interest with the space shuttle program, especially if the interest involves any sort of remuneration. Also please explain what reliable sources any information was obtained from, and whether they are primary or secondary, so that we can decide whether there was any original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hello, Robert.

• the sources are as follows:

1. PRIMARY: the GAO review^[1], merely to provide curious readers the definitive literature so they are able to independently assess the quality of the secondary sources.

   this report is the center of the argument. i feel it is relevant for reasons the secondary sources will describe below.

   briefly, this is a report that recommended NASA reconsider the award of the rocket booster contract on the primary basis that morton-thiokol's costs were underestimated and lockheed's were overestimated

   NASA's primary argument for choosing morton-thiokol was cost effectiveness, but this report shows that lockheed's proposal fell within a reasonable margin. however this report does touch on other things.

2. SECONDARY: an AP news article corroborating the reasons for choosing morton-thiokol were mainly due to cost-effectiveness^[2]
3. SECONDARY: an IEEE spectrum article that states the following ^[3]

   lockheed stressed that the solid rocket booster design would be a large risk

   the thiokol design was rated the worst among all proposals, finishing at 124/200 points.

   the GAO stated there was flawed reasoning for awarding thiokol the contracts (in this case they reference cost, but were aware of lockheed's concerns about safety)

   Fletcher was aware of the problems and chose to go with thiokol anyways.

   as late as 1977 there were concerns about the solid rocket booster technology.

4. SECONDARY: an AP news article that establishes the year (1973) when a competitor (aerojet) voiced concerns about the o-ring seals (which were the cause of the disaster)^[4]
5. SECONDARY: the definitive book on the disaster by author Malcolm McConnell^[5]

   Fletcher's defence of Thiokol's engineering excellence in response to the 1973 GAO report has been viewed as having significant effect on the booster design and eventual disaster.^[6]

   it recapitulates much of what is separately sourced above.

• it seems the thrust of VQuakr's argument is now that the aerojet concern was interpreted by them (WP:SYNTHESIS) as "marketing".

  i have asked them to provide sources that competitors were aware of eachothers' designs, or how competitors would have knowledge of others proposals prior to submission deadlines, as i believe that would violate typical RFP protocols.

  they have refused to read my response as they do not like the formatting, which is similar to that provided here.

  i do not think it's reasonable for the other side to refuse reading my response when it's organised properly, but not to their liking. they are the first editor i've seen to dislike this format.

• RE: Conflicts of interest. i do not have any conflicting interests at all. i have never had any involvement with any space program or any corporation associated with it, nor is there anything planned in the future. i have never received any remuneration for any of my work (surprise!), let alone my fleeting interests that led to the proposed insertions.
• RE: account. i have one, but i don't like the username. and for some reason @1997kB: thinks the username Whigger is not appropriate. but that's neither here nor there. i only use the account when i need to add images or edit something that's protected.

Remember that the reason for discussion here is to improve the article. Each editor is requested to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want changed, or kept the same, in the article.

Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Discussion that goes into unnecessary detail about issues with editors may be collapsed.

The unregistered editor is strongly advised either to change the name of their account or, if its use has been minimal, to abandon it and create a new account. This advice especially applies if you plan to try to rewrite substantial portions of mathematics or other articles, or if you plan to make long rambling comments in edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The article addresses the dangers of the O-rings in the design of the SRBs. The strongest evidence that demonstrates the risk of O-ring erosion and blowby is the actual operational information about how problems arose during the first 24 flights of the Space Shuttle, which is included in this article. While concerns voiced during the design process are not necessarily incorrect, their inclusion in this article is not necessary to demonstrate the potential O-ring dangers that ultimately occurred on STS-51-L. I consider it adequate to mention their concerns in the O-rings subsection, but it does not require a separate sub-section, especially when most of the content is critical of NASA's decision because of cost overruns rather than safety concerns. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

GAO's relevance to the Challenger disaster is quite tangential at best, and for that reason I do not think it merits mention in the article about the disaster. There were 4 participants in the original proposal for SRBs; Morton-Thiokol tied for second place in the overall mission suitability score but the difference was so minor as to be considered a three-way tie (714 vs 710). Lockheed cried foul when NASA went with a 710-scorer (their safety concern was related to the nozzle design, which was not a factor in Challenger). GAO (quite gently) suggested NASA review the decision, and NASA stuck with Morton-Thiokol. All a matter of record and all unrelated to the Challenger disaster. The three leading proposers all used segmented designs with field joints; Aerojet was the lone proposer that had a design for a monolithic booster casing. As far as I can tell, their "integrity of the O ring is largely a matter of faith" quote is from their original proposal, not a separate safety concern, and was a swipe at all of their competition, not solely Morton-Thiokol. Editorially, I don't think it merits mention in the article on the disaster for this reason. But I recognize that this opinion is contentious since it was an attractive quote, repeated after the disaster by both the NYT and IEEE. As we already mention in the article, there were concerns from engineers in both Morton-Thiokol and NASA from 1973 all the way up to the disaster in 1986 about the specifics of M-T's terrible design. In fact, in 1986 the joint had already been redesigned but they decided to use up the old boosters before switching to the improved joint. I think we all agree that that content should remain in the article. VQuakr (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Two editors have made statements as to why the inclusion of the GAO report in the article would be undue weight. Each editor may make another one-paragraph statement, after which I may close the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

what do you mean too long didn't read? isn't the point of this to settle the dispute? what am i to do? i have to answer and my points are important. would you prefer point form @Robert McClenon:

If the moderator says to make a one-paragraph statement, they mean to make a statement that fits into one normal paragraph, not to extend the concept of a paragraph.

All unsigned statements will be collapsed. If you don't know how to sign a statement, ask for advice at the Teahouse. If you forget to sign a statement, either remember before it is collapsed, or remember and post it again.

The moderator has not been asked to act as a judge. The purpose of this discussion is to resolve the dispute in a way that improves the encyclopedia, and that requires being concise. If this dispute cannot be resolved by discussion, it will have to be resolved by RFC, and that will involve presenting concise arguments to the community, not presenting walls of text. I am willing to resolve this in one of three ways, by closing the case as having been discussed, by closing the case as failed, or by publishing a Request for Comments. If any editor wants an RFC, we will close this dispute with an RFC, which will require providing the text that they wish to have added to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

what happens if dispute resolution leads to failure? what would the next option be, if i am looking to avoid the shortcomings of the randomness of any potential RfC vote? in my opinion, i feel the evidence is solidly on my side. i don't want to go to rfc only for my hard work to get overruled for whatever reason.198.53.108.48 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: would you act as a judge, if @VQuakr: and @Balon Greyjoy: are willing? otherwise i hope there's an avenue to the "court of appeal wannabes" aka arbitration committee 198.53.108.48 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note:The IP and account are blocked for personal attacks and other disruption unrelated to this discussion. They are close to an indef/lengthy IP block. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

And they've achieved that goal. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Trinity Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marshal277 (talk · contribs)
• Meters (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The discussion is over a sexual assault by a former teacher at the school. There is a question about whether the content is fair, and also whether it should be included in the article.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trinity_Schools

• FWIW, I think this DRN was opened prematurely. It's true that some discussion of the matter occurred on the talk page, mostly between Marshall277 and me. At a certain point I threw in the towel (maybe that was bad of me) even though I wasn't wild about the agreement I reached with Marshall277 (and I told him so). Then he asked Meters what Meters thought, there was minimal interaction between them on the talk page lasting less than two days, and then Marshall277 came over here. Novellasyes (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Novellasyes I think the issue is mostly about whether the content should go in the article. I gave my reasons: that the schools are run by the religious group; the alleged sexual assault was of a student by a teacher two weeks after graduating; the school has admitted to mishandling the report, and that there were subsequently other accusations of sexual misconduct filed against this same teacher by students; there are questions about when the school administrators knew about it, and what they did or failed to do, etc. Meters said he read my reasons and remained unconvinced. I don't really see a way forward from that, and would appreciate another set of eyes on it. Novellasyes, after we came to an agreement, I waited 5 days for Meters to respond. S/he did not. Then I posted our agreed upon text and Meters deleted it. During the time that had elapsed, another story had come out in the Washington Post about the alleged assault and the school's response to it.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need another opinion on whether the content should be included in the article, and whether the content is fair.

Decline to participate. This is still premature. This is still under discussion on the article's page. The OP proposed a new version which did not address many of the issues I had previously raised, and brought this back to DRN before I responded. I have posted a neutral notice at the Schools Project requesting input [3]. Meters (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I have now notified the other editor on that editor's talk page.

Marshal277 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Amusement Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Notfrompedro (talk · contribs)
• Tehonk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Tehonk believes that the film should have a different release date and that no mention of the film being "considered lost" should be in the article. I attempted to meet them halfway by agreeing to the release date change (even though they offered no references at the time for it) but they keep changing their view of what is acceptable. There are multiple references in the article that explicitly say the film was considered "lost" but Tehonk says I need different sources because they don't seem to like those. They refuse to actually discuss changes and edit war their own version. The talk page consists of them largely attacking me personally and stonewalling any changes to their version.

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

Talk:The_Amusement_Park

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We clearly need another view about what references are acceptable and what they say as Tehonk refuses to engage with me in good faith.

They demanded references that said the film was "lost" which I provided. [4] Tehonk then blindly reverted it.

Tehonk then demanded I find references that predate 2017 (which is arbitrary) but I did that too even including a book quote. Tehonk blindly reverted that too.

Regardless of the references I provide they just revert and stonewall. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Palmer Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dr. Swag Lord (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Thank you. Palmer Report is a political blog and today an editor added "fake news" to the header. I am a reader and asked that "fake news" not be used in the header. Also, this editor,when adding that term SAID while adding it, "feel free to revert back."

I do not have an account so I asked on talk page to revert back. Having that term in header could hurt the business deeply plus editor said feel free to revert.

We could not resolve and editors closed talk page to non-regulars. All I seek is help with this. I was honestly told I was disrupting but nobody would address the question.

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

Talk. I stopped posting because editors told me I was getting on their nerves or to be more specific I wasn't indenting my signature, I shouldn't be posting so much without researching Wiki. Recovering from knee accident so cannot spend hours a day on this like these people.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I do not get why they keep closing the talk page. Wiki says to resolve there but if I post there more then once or twice they get really mad at me. I just -- I do not want to be intimidated or disparaged. And I really do not know where else to post.

I would like to move that term from the header since the editor who made th change said himself anyone should feel free to do so.

I do not know how to "ping." I'm sorry.

N ````

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

• Negi (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JayPlaysStuff (talk · contribs)
• Nikki00786 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The other user keeps claiming that Negi is a Kshatriya surname, even though the article said Shudra. When I asked him to add a reliable source, he said that "The only two Victoria Cross recipients from India were Negis." I don't want to violate 3rr, so I am bringing this dispute to this noticeboard.

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

I contacted him on his talk page.

User talk: Nikki00786

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Find a reliable source that proves either them or me right

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

• Jeremiah Lisbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MaccWiki (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is concerning the article Jeremiah Lisbo. The article contains the following statement:

In February 2020, Lisbo was among thirteen young actors selected to be a part of the Rise Artists Studio, a new talent agency developed under Star Cinema, the Philippines' largest movie production company.

The phrase "the Philippines' largest movie production company" was removed by an editor because it was not supported by the source. I then provided a source for the statement, undoing the deletion. The source I provided is a journal article. Subsequently, a different editor removed the statement.

I created a section on the article's talk page and brought to this editor's attention that the reference they removed was a journal article. The editor then revealed that they did not bother reading the reference that they removed. They also seem pretty adamant in refusing to revert the statement back because they arbitrarily dislike the source and don't want to read it.

So to summarize: an editor removed a statement and its reference (which they did not read). When it was brought to their attention that the source backed up the statement, they insisted that the source is not good enough because they can't be bothered to read the source.

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

Talk:Jeremiah_Lisbo

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An independent editor to mediate a resolution based on Wikipedia policy.

• Volunteer Note - The article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Lisbo. The question of whether the article content should be in the encyclopedia takes precedence over any discussion of what the content of the article should be, if the content is kept. Also, sometimes an AFD results in changes to the content of an article while it is kept. Editors should discuss the existence and content of the article at the article deletion discussion. If the article is kept and if the content issue remains unresolved, there can be new discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Palmer report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dr. Swaglord (talk · contribs)
• GorillaWarefare (talk · contribs)
• DAZMasters(he is trying to help) (talk · contribs)
• Chetsford (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi. My previous request for help was denied because I did it wrong. I am sorry. I am asking for help regarding Palmer Report. They are a Political News site. For many years they have ben referred to as "liberal" in the header which they are.

The other day the term "fake news" was added.The editor who added it also said to feel free to discuss in talk or feel free to revert his edit.

Please understand I CANNOT create an account now. I am recovering from a broken acl/knee after a bad fall and have no computer-- I borrow someone else's and his is not comfortable with my creating an account on his computer.

I attempted to have a discussion on the talk page. At first it went ok I guess. But nobody ever answered my questions which I am seeking help with here as Wikipedia says to do.

I asked why the term fake news could not be taken out of the header. I do not like it there at all but if it must be, it does not need to be in the header and the editor who added it even said that as he said feel free to revert back.

Some editors got irritated at me for posting and I get that but Wiki says to try talk first. There was an issue with my indenting comments. I also felt I was irritating them and could see the discussion wasn't working.

Having fake news in header could hurt the business. The implication is not neutral. There are dozens of sources for PR so picking those two very non-objective words as the actual header implies quite a bit of bias and there ARE no sources that say every article PR wrote was a fake. I believe another editor raised this issue. Plus, that term has not BEEN in the header and the person who DID put it there seemed to know his edit might not go over well as he openly invited other editors to revert back.So I do not know what the issue is.

They then locked the talk page down. I have seen that done before but that meant I could not continue discussion.

I am well behaved, never threatened anyone, felt very bad that I irritated the editors and am just seeking help to resolve this. It could hurt their business plus they are not fake news but I understand you cannot evaluate the aunthenticity of the "fake news" comment.

I'd appreciate if the comment could be taken out of header. But if not possible could talk be unlocked or can a consensus be reached about editing? Because there is at least one other Wikipedia editor on there who agrees with me.

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

palmer report talk page and here.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At least one, possibly two other experienced Wiki editors share my feeling. I would like either the talk page opened, consensus or discussion on the fake news comment being in the header, permission to other editors to be able to actually edit it or any other way you deem fair.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

• American Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Shoreranger (talk · contribs)
• TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Started with a revert that removed much more content than indicated in the summary, and has been somewhat honed down to the issue of an end date for the American Revolution.

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

Talk:American_Revolution#End_date_of_the_American_Revolution

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Facilitate point by point discussion of disputed content that allows sufficient time to defend. Lack of a reply to a flurry of Talk page edits within a matter of hours should not be allowed to be interpreted as consensus or a point conceded. Condescension and bullying should also be addressed.

• Volunteer Comments - First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Second, if the specific issue is a straightforward one, which appears to be the end date of the Revolution, then a Third Opinion is the next step. However, although there has been extensive discussion, it has been in multiple sections of the article talk page. So I would suggest that the editors first each exchange one comment, and then request a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

• Psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Brokenrecordsagain (talk · contribs)
• Iss246 (talk · contribs)
• Psyc12 (talk · contribs)
• Ohpres (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We have reached a position in the Psychology article where no consensus has been established. I have attempted to include Lillian Gilbreth in the article as the reliable sources show she had a influence in the early 1900s There also seems to be an inflation and promotion of a society of occupational health psychology that the other three editors appear to be from and an attempt to attack the major specialization within psychology industrial and organizational second only to clinical psychology.

I am concerned that the Lillian Gilbreth sentence with reliable sources attached is being disputed by Psyc12 although Iss246 does not mention my main issue in their summary of our dispute. In fact, Iss246 believed before I corrected them she was not even a psychologist. Writers in previous decades never gave our pioneering female psychologists the recognition that their works deserve in the history books. I'm sure this happens in all areas of days gone by. Also Wikipedia is a worldwide resource and Iss246 does not want to recognize this fact and only concentrates on the United States and ignores the field throughout the rest of planet earth. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Talk:Psychology I have attempted to get support for dispute resolution which the other editors have not agreed or ignored.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need a completely uninvolved, neutral and independent editor to mediate a resolution based only on Wikipedia policy.

I objected to some of BR's edits on the grounds that they were inflating the contribution of i/o psychology to research on work and health. Except for some work in the UK (not Gilbreth but Mayer), i/o psychology has been on the side of management and not workers. BR likes to cite the 20th century industrial psychologist Kornhauser as an i/o psychologist who was interested in worker health. That is true. Kornhauser was an admirable industrial psychologist. But Kornhauser was a lonely figure, with most of his colleagues on the side of management. I documented this point but my documentation was probably blown away in the blizzard of edits BR has made. It was only in the 21st century that i/o psychology shook off its earlier indifference, an indifference I also documented, to the work-health interface. Of course, occupational health psychology (OHP) by the turn of the 21st century had emerged.

I also objected to BR's attempt to undermine the field of occupational health psychology by first claiming that it is a mere subfield of i/o psychology (there is a later claim that I will get to a little further on). OHP has its origins in health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational medicine, according to Everly (1986)--I think that citation remains in the article. But OHP became a field in its own right. The origins of i/o psychology are in social psychology (e.g., leadership, work climate, work teams) and psychometric psychology (selection, testing the abilities of job applicants) but I don't claim i/o psychology is a subfield of social psychology or psychometric psychology. I/o psychology has become a field in itself. Much the way OHP has become a field in itself.

BR has gone on to say that OHP is not really a branch of psychology (this was their later claim), yet the American Psychological Association publishes a journal called the Journal of Occupational Health Psyhology and many of its editors and reviewers are members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. The APA teams up with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology to run a prestigious international conference on work, stress, and health. Another such a conference is planned for November.

My dispute with BR centers around two things. One is his inflating the history of i/o psychology's contribution to research on the work-health interface. The other is his denigrating occupational health psychology. It has nothing to do with the views of other WP editors. If anything, I tried to get an experienced editor, WhatamIdoing, to intercede in the dispute, not because she would be prepotently on my side, but because I have seen her in action previously, both on my side and opposed to some of my edits, and I think she is a thoughtful and fair-minded Wikipedian. She did intercede a little on the talk page in the context of the present disagreement but I wonder if the walls of words discouraged her from interceding more. I also think someone mistakenly deleted her comments. Iss246 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

BrokenRecordsAgain refuses to accept input of 3 other editors who are in agreement that Lilian Gilbreth does not belong in the section of the article on worker health/well-being. A few weeks ago BRA put mention of her in the article and included sources that did not support what was written and/or were unreliable (self-published web-articles). I have discussed for weeks on the talk page how several peer reviewed reliable sources from renowned scholars specifically on Gilbreth and more broadly on the topic of worker health do not support BRA's point that she was a pioneer for worker health. BRA has not addressed those reliable sources, and continues to claim to have multiple sources and has not addressed that they do not support their position and/or are unreliable. BRA's position seems to be that because they can find a source (even an unreliable one) that says something they want to put in the article, that it doesn't matter if multiple reliable sources say the opposite.

When their arguments on this issue failed to convince other editors who were focused on reliable sources, they resorted to personal attacks. Their most recent post on the talk page claims that I just automatically support the other editors regardless of position. This is untrue. I have supported BRA's position versus ISS246 on several other issues (e.g., 100 year history and Charles Myers) because I could find reliable sources that explicitly supported them, and those points are still in the article. I tried hard to find support for their position on Gilbreth by consulting many reliable sources, but none support it. When I explained this, they resorted to edit warring and then personal attacks.

At the top of this section of the talk page (link below) I summarized why Lilian Gilbreth doesn't belong in the article. Further up in the talk, I have elaborated on these points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychology#Regrouping_about_worker_health

On the talk page ISS246 (and OHPres agreed) suggested eliminating BRA's historical discussion that noted some random examples of IO contributions. In a spirit of compromise I suggested that rather than just deleting, they be replaced with major contributions as noted by reliable sources. BRA's response was to attack my integrity. To be honest, I don't think this entire paragraph is necessary in this section of the article, and it is too focused on IO psychology, but I supported leaving it in as a compromise. Psyc12 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

BrokenRecordsAgain tends to overestimate the focus of I/O psych on worker health and to underestimate the autonomy of occupational health psych.Ohpres (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I will act as the moderator. Please read the usual rules and follow the rules. You are expected to be able to understand and follow the rules as they are stated. However, I will repeat a few of them. Be civil and concise. That means be civil and concise. Neither of those has been followed in the talk page discussion. Your statements are too long, and some of them include personal attacks. I will not tolerate personal attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. All comments must be in the context of how to improve the article (or what should be left the same). It appears that there is disagreement about Lillian Gilbreth. I do not see her mentioned in the History section, so I am assuming that the issue is whether to mention her in that section along with a brief summary of her work. If I have interpreted the disagreement about her correctly, then I will prepare an RFC on whether to include her, and we first need to resolve the wording of the RFC. I am asking each of the editors for a two-paragraph statement. First, state concisely either what should be said about Gilbreth in the History, or why mentioning her would violate due weight or some other guideline. Be civil, and keep your statement to one paragraph. Second, state concisely what other issues if any there are about article content, in one paragraph.

Be civil and concise. Overly long statements will be collapsed, and you will be asked to provide another one-paragraph statement, while other editors may be asked another question. Incivility, including personal attacks, will be collapsed or worse. The objective is to improve the article. You have been warned about incivility. Now please provide two one-paragraph statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Gilbreth should not be mentioned in the history paragraph at all. This paragraph is noting major developments in employee health/well-being, including some of the people who made those contributions. I have checked several reliable sources from renowned experts about Gilbreth and about history of occupational health and IO psychology. ^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} None of these scholars credit Gilbreth as being a pioneer in occupational health/WB. Her contributions are in other areas having to do with efficiency and productivity which was the main the focus of early 20th century American IO psychology.^[10][11]

This paragraph should provide a concise overview of major developments as noted in reliable sources. The earliest figure is Charles Myers followed by Arthur Kornhauser, and the paragraph currently provides sources. From here other major developments could be added based on reliable sources such as Barling & Griffiths or Cooper & Dewe who talk about history of occupational health and note significant milestones. It should not contain an assortment of miscellaneous studies. The paragraph should be clear that concern with worker health/WB did not become mainstream in psychology until the 21st century. That is why the field of occupational health psychology developed. It also should be careful not to attribute all of it to one subdiscipline of psychology because contributions came from many disciplines within and outside of psychology. This should be a paragraph about applications of psychological principles to enhancing employee health/WB. History of IO itself should go in the article on IO. Psyc12 (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Psyc12 showed evidence that Myers had a research interest in work and health. So I changed my mind a little about i/o psychology. But the documentary evidence regarding Gilbreth does not demonstrate sufficient interest in work and health. The work of Gilbreth or Myers does not change the fact that industrial psychology was largely concerned with helping management. Even industrial psychologists' interest in rest periods in munitions plants during World War I (i/o had hardly a footprint in that era anyway) was motivated by concerns for productivity; the motivation came from the British government.^[12] As admirable as industrial psychologist Arthur Kornhauser was, he was a lonely figure in i/o psychology with most of i/o psychology on the side of helping management rather focusing its attention on worker health and well-being.^[13] Koppes ^[5] showed little in the history of i/o psychology of an interest in worker health. Also see leading i/o psychologist Spector's observations on 20th century i/o psychology's lack of interest in worker health.^[14] Iss246 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The section we are talking about "Health, well-being, and social change" also includes worker "wellbeing" which is separate to health. And I think we need to look at things from a worldwide frame not just in the USA. Lillian Gilbreth's entire career as an industrial psychologist was devoted to worker happiness, job satisfaction, welfare and wellbeing. I have included seven reliable sources. I am okay with leaving a source or two out. A couple of sources here describe her achievements in that way. The fact that writers of text books omit female pioneers like Gilbreth is not remarkable in a patriarchal society. But things are changing slowly.https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/lilian-gilbreth-biography The Sullivan source supports the inclusion too. Sullivan, S.E., (1995). Management’s unsung theorist: An examination of the works of Lillian M Gilbreth. Biography 18(1), pp. 31-41. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

BR posted Laura Koppes's fine piece about Gilbreth. I don't dispute that Gilbreth was an accomplished person. Koppes itemized Gilbreth's work in industrial psychology: "Gilbreth’s writing on topics such as leadership, motivation, selection, job analysis, quality, promotions, group cooperation, training and nonfinancial incentives..." There is no mention of the work-health interface. If the work-health interface was in Gilbreth's portfolio, it was a very small part of that portfolio. Like BR, I admire Gilbreth. But I can admire her without artificially inflating her accomplishments. Iss246 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The section we are talking about "Health, well-being, and social change" also includes worker "wellbeing" which is separate to "health" which Psyc12 and Iss246 are focusing solely on. The sources also certainly mention Gilbreth as a pioneering industrial psychologist and has nothing to do with my admiration of her. The Laura Koppes's source for example that Iss246 liked and quoted from also includes this paragraph not just the one Iss246 chose to include. "She believed that Taylor’s scientific management system neglected individual needs in the work setting. Gilbreth understood the importance of identifying the best motions to improve efficiency but she also wanted to know if those best motions provided the happiest result to those who used them. While Frank Gilbreth was studying the employee’s motions, Lillian was observing and analyzing the employee’s dedication to his/her job. In Gilbreth’s doctoral dissertation, she asserted that scientific management proponents should consider the perspectives and happiness of workers". The sources all talk about Gilbreth's unique interest over 100 years ago in the happiness and job satisfaction and welfare/wellbeing of workers, whereas scientific management considered only efficiency. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

BR's above paragraph underlines a part of Gilbreth's portfolio of interests. In that paragraph is, at best, the slimmest foundation for asserting that she was concerned with the work-health interface. I think we should proceed to the second round of statements/discussion. Iss246 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I said worker-wellbeing interface. There is a difference between the constructs of job happiness/satisfaction and worker health. No other early industrial psychologists were so concerned with worker happiness and wellbeing and job satisfaction. The sources I have provided all support the facts that she was a pioneer in psychology and everything she did considered worker wellbeing and happiness. Here is another source. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/a-genius-in-the-art-of-living-lillian-moller-gilbreth-industrial-psychology-pioneer.html Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to BR, they are splitting hairs. Worker health is not mentioned in the article. Job satisfaction is a very small part of her portfolio. More importantly, the article underlines the following: "Gilbreth relentlessly closed holes in efficiency design and, whether working in factories, schools, or kitchens, she always considered the human element of any environment." Efficiency is the center of her contribution. Not only in work but also in homes and schools. I am concerned that BR are inflating Gilbreth's contribution to the work-health interface and, even, work-well-being interface. Let's move on to a second statement. Iss246 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

My statement above referred both to health and well-being, and the sources I cited dealt with both. They do not attribute to Gilbreth a major (or even minor) contribution in areas of health, satisfaction, or other indicators of positive or negative well-being. I read BR's Sullivan paper that claims Gilbreth was interested in stress and well-being based on two cited sources. I read them both and cannot find anywhere that Gilbreth was focused on stress, health or well-being. The closest I can find is that Gilbreth wrote a comment that she believed workers would be happier if they were making ideal motions and getting ideal rest breaks. But it was clear in her writing that it all was in service to efficiency and productivity, as noted by the sources I cited. I cited in my opening statement a Kornhauser paper in which he talks about Gilbreth, so he was aware of her, but he notes that she was focused on efficiency, and also that American industrial psychology was focused on efficiency/productivity and was indifferent to the negative things work did to people. A similar statement about the U.S. was made by Warr (I cited above). I also consulted a 1934 paper by Uhrbrock^[15] who reviewed research at that time on job satisfaction (the main measure of employee well-being). He mentioned Kornhauser and several others who did early work on the topic, but there is no mention of Gilbreth, which is consistent with other histories on the topic. She is a leading early figure in industrial psychology because of her insights about factors that affected efficiency and productivity, not because her work focused on employee health/WB because it did not.Psyc12 (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears that one point of contention is the sentence about Lillian Gilbreth in the Worker Health, Safety, and Wellbeing section. That statement is currently in the article. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. That means that the RFC will ask whether to delete that statement due to undue weight. Please make a one-paragraph statement as to any other changes that you want made to the article, specifically stating where the changes should be. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the section above for back-and-forth discussion.

Do we agree that one issue is whether to remove the statement about Gilbreth? What else is in dispute? Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Koppes Bryan and Vinchur, in a 50-page history of industrial/organizational psychology, showed that i/o psychology manifested a great deal of interest in important topics such as selection, testing, productivity, training, team relationships, leadership, task analysis, performance appraisal, and organizational culture; the chapter, however, barely contained two sentences on job stress and health.^[16] Koppes Bryan is the same person as Koppes, the author cited above in an earlier publication on the history of i/o psychology. This authoritative history of i/o psychology indicates that the work-health interface played barely a minor role in i/o psychology. The observations of leading i/o psychologist Paul Spector are consistent with that view.^[14]

With regard to BR's claim that British industrial psychology was more attuned to worker health than i/o psychology in the U. S., Peter Warr, a renown British occupational psychologist, a psychologist that BR elsewhere has cited, observed that "occupational psychology was held in low esteem within the British academic community" (p. 99).^[17] Iss246 (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The disputed paragraph begins by noting that interest in employee health/WB had its start in the UK with Charles Myers. In the U.S. it began with Kornhauser. Reliable sources support this, so I am ok leaving them in the article. Later the paragraph talks about IO contributions to the study of health/WB by sprinkling a few random primary studies. These studies have no place in this article because they are not major developments but just random examples. There is no basis for choosing them over hundreds of other examples. I would be fine in deleting this part, but if the chapter is going to give a historical overview, I would be fine with including what reliable sources such as Barling & Griffiths or Cooper & Dewe note as important milestones, such as Herzberg's work on job enrichment, the Institute for Social Research work on role stress, Trist & Bamforth's work in the UK on sociotechnical systems, work in Nordic countries on job demands (much by nonpsychologists), and Karasek's control-demand model of stress (all noted by Barling & Griffiths). Psyc12 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The RFC concerning Lillian Gilbreth is available for view at Talk:Psychology/Gilbreth and will be moved to Talk:Psychology unless someone persuades me that it should be changed.

There is discussion in the second section about a disputed paragraph. Please specify exactly what paragraph, and sentences if necessary, the dispute is about. The purpose of this dispute resolution is to improve the article. Maybe all of you know what and where you are arguing about, but if you ask for moderation, you need to specify what and where you are arguing about. Specify exactly what the disputed paragraph is, and then we can decide whether to compromise or use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The disputed paragraph is the third in the section "Worker health, safety and well-being", beginning with "Concern for the health..." Which is part of the larger section on Applications.

Given placement/heading, this section should be about psychological applications concerning employee health/WB. As it is written, this paragraph is a history of IO psychology (which doesn't fit in the section), and a distorted one at that. This paragraph needs a lot of work. I'll break it down.

1. First three sentences on Myers should be condensed to one. This is too much space devoted to Myers who was an early pioneer, but had little lasting impact. 2. Gilbreth--delete as discussed above. 3. Kornhauser--condense to one sentence. He was an early pioneer, but the space could be better used by noting other major developments. 4. From "More recently" to end. Delete. These are some random examples that do not move the story forward. Here's my suggested re-written paragraph, that replaces the random examples with contributions noted by a reliable source. There can be links here to other articles that provide details.

"The origins of interest in psychology applied to worker health and well-being can be traced to Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the UK during the early part of the twentieth century. In the U.S. mid-century Arthur Kornhauser did groundbreaking work on the study of occupational mental health and the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. Barling and Griffiths history notes some groundbreaking contributions in the area that include the Institute for Social Research studies of occupational stress, a program of research on workplace health begun in the 1960s in Scandinavia, a seminal publication on occupational stress by Beehr & Newman, and publication of Karasek's control-demand model that linked work demands and lack of control to heart disease."Psyc12 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I totally disagree based on the fact that the sources attribute the first research into worker health and wellbeing to industrial psychologists. Industrial and organizational psychology is a major specialization in psychology whereas this field of occupational psychology is not even one of the 56 divisions of psychology in the USA. https://www.apa.org/about/division We are giving way too much weight in this section of the psychology article to an area of study that is not even one of the 56 divisions of psychology. If the American Psychological Association does not recognize it as an area of psychology why are we even including this multidisciplinary society in this section and such a large part of the article violating due weight? It is similar to the field of psychological medicine which is not part of mainstream psychology either and is comprised mainly of medical doctors, not psychologists. We do not include this multidisciplinary field in the psychology article either as it is not part of mainstream psychology or even one of 56 separate divisions within psychology!

We currently have this paragraph in the article that needs to be trimmed significantly and given due weight only. The problem is that this other multidispinary area competes with the major recognized field of industrial and organizational psychology. Both fields seem to study and apply the exact same issues. "As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the field of occupational health psychology emerged. Occupational health psychology (OHP) is a branch of psychology that is interdisciplinary.[240][241][47][242] OHP is concerned with the health and safety of workers.[47][242] OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health.[47][243] OHP grew out of health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology.[244] OHP has also been informed by disciplines outside psychology, including occupational medicine,[244] industrial engineering, sociology, and economics.[245][246]"

Why are we including sentences on irrelevant points of where and how this multidisciplinary society came from and what is involved when it is not even one of the 56 divisions within psychology and only attempts to compete with industrial and organizational psychology. I think we should remove this from the psychology article or trim it significantly based on undue weight in that section.Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point BR. There is too much detail on OHP which has its own article. I combined/condensed the last two paragraphs below.Psyc12 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

When the moderator says to be concise, they mean to be concise. Many of the replies are too long. But also read Be Specific at DRN. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, so specify exactly what you want changed where. Please reply in two parts, as described below.

First, it appears that the paragraph in dispute is the paragraph in the section on Worker health, safety and wellbeing and is the paragraph beginning with 'Concern with the health and well-being of workers goes back over a hundred years in British industrial psychology.' Each editor should prepare a proposed rewrite of the paragraph. Do not give arguments in favor of the changes at this time; just provide the revised text.

Second, is there any other section or paragraph of the article that requires dispute resolution? If so, please identify the paragraph, and specify in one paragraph what you want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I will repeat here what I said at Talk:Psychology. When an RFC says to make a statement in the Survey and to engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion, it means not to engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. You are bludgeoning the discussion of the RFC, and that is disruptive. You came to DRN because you were not able to resolve the content dispute by back-and-forth discussion. That was a good idea. I determined that an RFC was the best way to resolve the issue. So why do you now think that back-and-forth arguing with the RFC respondents is likely to force a consensus? If there is any more disruption of the Survey, I will collapse the coloring outside the lines, and I may report the disruption at WP:ANI. Arguing with the respondents to an RFC is not an effective way to "win" a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion without cites. I combined/condensed the last two paragraphs.

The origins of interest in psychology applied to worker health and well-being can be traced to Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the UK during the early part of the twentieth century. In the U.S. mid-century Arthur Kornhauser did groundbreaking work on the study of occupational mental health and the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. Barling and Griffiths history notes some groundbreaking contributions in the area that include the Institute for Social Research studies of occupational stress, a program of research on workplace health begun in the 1960s in Scandinavia, a seminal publication on occupational stress by Beehr & Newman, and publication of Karasek's control-demand model that linked work demands and lack of control to heart disease. As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the interdisciplinary field of occupational health psychology emerged, bringing together people from different areas of psychology (e.g., health and industrial-organizational) and disciplines outside of psychology.^{[18][19][20][21]}Psyc12 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my preferred wording. I am still wondering why a multidisciplinary field like occupational health psychology which is separate and competing with psychology (like psychological medicine does) which while including the word psychological is a discipline mainly comprised of medical doctors.

Concern with the health and well-being of workers goes back over a hundred years in industrial psychology. ^[22] Industrial psychology's interest with worker fatigue for example, began during World War I, when government ministers in Britain were concerned about the impact of fatigue on workers in munitions factories but not other types of factories.^[23][22] British interest broadened to worker health and well-being by Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the period between the two world wars.^[24] During the early part of the twentieth century American industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth was a pioneer in the areas of worker efficiency, satisfaction, welfare, happiness and safety. ^{[25] [26][27] [28] [29] [30] [31]} During the mid-twentieth century another American industrial psychologist Arthur Kornhauser was another pioneer in the study of occupational mental health, having examined the link between industrial working conditions and mental health as well as the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job.^[32][33] More recently, industrial organizational psychology research and pracrtice has found that staying vigorous during working hours is associated with better work-related behaviour and subjective well-being as well as more effective functioning in the family domain.^[34] Trait vigor and recovery experiences after work were related to vigor at work.^[34] Job satisfaction has also been found to be associated with life satisfaction, happiness, well-being and positive affect, and the absence of negative affect.^[35] Other research indicates that among older workers activities such as volunteering and participating in social clubs was related to a decrease in depressive symptoms over the next two years.^[36] Research on job changing indicates that mobility between, but not within, organizations is associated with burnout.^[37]

As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the multidisciplinary field of occupational health psychology (OHP) emerged. Just as industrial and organizational psychology does, OHP is also concerned with the health and safety of workers.^[38][20] OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health.^[38][39]

Above portion by User:Brokenrecordsagain

There have been two versions of the material in question offered. One editor wants to make relatively minor changes that will leave the material at two paragraphs. The other editor proposes to condense it to one paragraph. I am asking each editor for one required paragraph and one optional contribution. The required paragraph is a brief explanation of why you think that one paragraph or two paragraphs in the article is the proper length. One of the key guidelines is due weight.

The optional request is a proposed compromise, which preserves your length but addresses the other editor's content differences.

Other editors may also propose a version, or a brief explanation of why they think that someone's length is correct.

After this round, if we do not have a compromise, I may ask for another round of back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is about major applications of psychology to worker health/WB, and one paragraph is sufficient if it focuses on a few major issues with links to more detail in other articles. The current two paragraphs are unbalanced with too much detail, failure to present both sides where sources disagree, and much of it is more primary than secondary research. What I included was based on reliable sources that trace the history and specifically identify the major milestones. I deleted much of the detail about subareas of psychology that belongs in other articles or sections.

My paragraph is already a compromise. If it were up to me alone, I would delete both paragraphs as being tangential to discussion of applications, but other editors want the content. So my paragraph includes content each wants, but not all the content each wants.Psyc12 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. I think we could remove the random sections on cardiovascular disease, accidents, workplace violence and leave these findings to be attributed to industrial and organizational psychology. The section starts with "Psychologists work with organizations to apply findings from psychological research to improve the health and well-being of employees" and I am wondering what other major field within psychology specifically deals with organizations if not industrial and organizational psychologists? No other field within psychology at least deals with organizational applications. Just a fact. I vote we get rid of the other multidisciplinary area of occupational health psychology as it is a micro field outside of psychology and does not fit within the psychology article. I checked six major text books on psychology and not one single text book on psychology even mentioned occupational health psychology in it. We should not give weight to a mutidisciplinary field that does not seem to exist within psychology. I don't get it. Maybe the other editors could provide a justification for including it in the psychology article at all? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there is an impasse about the paragraphs on worker health, safety, and well-being. I will try two approaches at the same time. First, you may discuss back-and-forth in the section below. Second, I will be preparing a draft RFC, and if the back-and-forth discussion does not result in a compromise, I will start the RFC. (This will mean that there will be two RFCs in progress at Talk:Psychology. This is not a problem.)

In the section for statements by editors, make a list in bullet-point form of other matters in the article that you want changed. Do not argue in their favor. Just provide bullet-points.

So, discuss back-and-forth about the one or two paragraphs in question. Provide a list of bullet-points. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

1. There is a draft RFC at Talk:Psychology/Worker Health. It will become live within 24 hours unless a reason is given to delay or change it.

2. You may still provide a list of bullet-points.

3. Discuss the first RFC, and the second RFC, in the Threaded Discussion section. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. You may each make a statement in the Threaded Discussion, and may reply to other statements.

4. Replying to other editors in the Survey section, either of the first RFC or of the second RFC, is disruptive editing. It may be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. You were already warned nine days ago. Do not throw a boomerang at an invisible kangaroo; the kangaroo is invisible because she isn't there, and the weapon will come back. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

• Muhammad Ali of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Haldir Marchwarden (talk · contribs)
• Maleschreiber (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One user (me) added content to the article (about the origins of the subject) providing multiple sources to back the new content. Two users argued that the other viewpoints regarding the subject's origins should not be added because, they say, the "majority of sources on GB describe him as having Albanian origin". These two users did not engage in the discussion beyond this initial comment. Another user now argues that the content should not be added because the sources (I provided) are self-published and unreliable, they don't trust some of the scholars, and think that the other viewpoints regarding the subject origins are not notable enough to be included.

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

Talk:Muhammad Ali of Egypt#To seek consensus and fair depiction of facts in the free encyclopedia

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By allowing me to publish the other viewpoints regarding the subject's origin, which are independent, notable and reliably published.

I'm not a participant in this DRN. I was not asked by Haldir Marchwarden if I want to participate in it. Haldir's edits have been reverted by 3 different editors and I've suggested to him that he should file a discussion at RfC. The DRN can be archived. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Stakeholder Capitalism in English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bolgerb1953 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Here are more details related to what I believe to be a unilateral, unwarranted removal.

1. Mr. Ollie has removed an entire article on Stakeholder Capitalism because he incorrectly believes it is a synonym for Stakeholder Theory. A. His only argument is that Stakeholder Capitalism is the equivalent of the US calling it "French fries," whereas the British call it "chips," when in fact British journals are all using the term "Stakeholder Capitalism" separately from "Stakeholder Theory."

2. Stakeholder Capitalism emerged before the concept of Stakeholder Theory, which was formulated by a single professor in 1983, and is used completely separately from Stakeholder Capitalism in the US and the UK. A. Stakeholder Theory is a subset of the bigger field of Stakeholder Capitalism, not the other way around. B. In fact, Mr. Ollie appears to be the only one to conflate the two terms. There are no references to Stakeholder Theory in any of the articles below. C. In the past two years, the term Stakeholder Capitalism has been used many times in leading US and UK journals such as those cited below, none of which make no reference to Stakeholder Theory. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/business/business-roudtable-stakeholder-capitalism.html https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/stakeholder-shareholder-business-roundtable-environment-capitalism-11629690204 https://www.barrons.com/articles/president-trump-embraces-stakeholder-capitalism-51566586175 https://www.ft.com/content/fcb05366-a3fb-4946-a026-5188d841b4a5 https://www.economist.com/business/2020/09/17/what-is-stakeholder-capitalism https://fortune.com/2020/08/19/business-roundtable-statement-principles-stakeholder-capitalism-corporate-governance/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/01/2

3. Readers of these articles would be confused if redirected to Stakeholder Theory on Wikipedia.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bolgerb1953

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By having someone objectively review the history and usage of Stakeholder Capitalism and Stakeholder Theory. Using the logic of Mr. Ollie, Stakeholder Theory should be removed, not the other way around. However, since Stakeholder Theory is a subset of Stakeholder Capitalism, I think it's fine to leave both entries.

Or, if Stakeholder Capitalism is removed, the Stakeholder Theory article needs a major update.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template:Serena Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Revolynka (talk · contribs)
• Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Icons for Olympics medals only are misleading in tennis player templates because Grand Slams are the most important trophies in the sport, SINGLES ones. I've uploaded the two missing ones to Commons (for women's tennis) and added them. They have been removed as "teensy weensy trophies".

Cities for WTA 1000 / Masters 1000 tournaments have been replaced with "Open" which is also misleading for new users who might think it's Italian Open is more "cool" than Madrid Open because it's the whole country. Usability issues.

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

History of revisions

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I might be wrong but these icons provide useful information.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Panjshir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 2401:4900:5557:545F:D188:831F:15E5:F3FB (talk · contribs)
• Cipher21 (talk · contribs)
• TranceGusto (talk · contribs)
• Viewsridge (talk · contribs)
• Boud (talk · contribs)
• Applodion (talk · contribs)
• Georgethedragonslayer (talk · contribs)
• AlphaTangoIndia (talk · contribs)
• TranceClub (talk · contribs)
• JavaHurricane (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article lists Pakistan as a belligerent based on Indian newspaper articles which are dubious, outright false on the matter and have been debunked, yet for whatever reason - some users are still keen on definding the articles. Many users were involved in the debate, but I have tagged the ones who were actively participate in the discussion.

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

Tw threads have taken place where arguments from both sides have been given. The first thread was supposed to take votes on whether the references should be used or not, though I believe the majority opposed the references, they have yet to be removed.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Well preferably by removing Pakistan as belligerent alongside the Indian articles, but personal opinion aside, to explain whether the dubious articles can be considered reliable or not and whether Pakistan should be listed as a belligerent or not.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Richard J. Tallman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FLJuJitsu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Expansion of the article to include more family details, inclusion of additional career details, superficial formatting.

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

Talk:Richard_J._Tallman

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide direct resolution over what does and does not constitutive sufficient sourced biographical details for inclusion. Thank you.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Abu Yagub#Category:Bukharan Islamic Scholars (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Abu Yagub (talk · contribs)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user HistoryOfIran and I cannot agree on the title of the category "Bukharan Islamic Scholars". As can be seen on my talk page, I cleared up the confusion and misunderstanding (as it was lost in translation), and I proposed a new title that was eased his qualms: "Medieval Islamic scholars from Uzbekistan". For some reason, and despite the numerous (5) sources I provided, he refuses to agree upon this title as, according to him, there will be confusion about whether or not they are ethnically Uzbek (despite my explanation stating the basis of the categorization). We have reached a standstill and I fear he is not cooperating on my talk page and is threatening to keep edit warring me with any edit I publish. He is very uncooperative, he shuts me up "I think we are done here", and orders me around as if he owns the place. Very rude and callous behavior, especially when I am trying to be reasonable and cooperative (I provided him 5 sources).

I am not sure who has “severe competency issues,” when his only response related to the issue was “He now wants to create and add an anachronistic category to several articles, which is a big no no. Not to mention the sources have nothing to do with the category.” The sources ARE relevant to the category and claim that those scholars are Islamic scholars from Uzbekistan, and any claims of “anachronism” is eased with the elaboration of the basis of the category (which I also offered to him, to no avail). —Abu Yagub (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User_talk:Abu_Yagub#Category:Bukharan Islamic Scholars

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Have the user cooperate or find another user who can help.

User has severe WP:COMPETENCY issues, as evident in both his edits and messages (and why he took this here). He has engaged in WP:OR and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing in the last few days [5] [6] [7], which I have tried to tell him is not okay (despite him accusing me of being 'uncooperative' and 'callous', simply because I do not agree with him), yet to no avail. He now wants to create and add an anachronistic category to several articles, which is a big no no. Not to mention the sources have nothing to do with the category. I would like Abu Yagub to explain how "I think we are done here" means that I am shutting him up, rather than I am not interested in further participating in the discussion. Also, was your first message to me not that you accused me of being bias simply because of my username? [8] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Daniel Martyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• jessicapierce (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I became a member solely to put right inaccurate, libelous and defamatory information entered on my son's web page. Being new i am not yet fully conversant with the rules and regulations so edited out the offending sentence as best i could. Later i received a message from jessicapierce advising me that without any reference to me to establish corroboration of the facts, she had rescinded my edit, which resulted in this spurious detail being put back in the public domain. During our talk I messaged her copies of newspaper articles from the time in question backing up my claims, and naming the person responsible; plus a copy of a corrective apology from a newspaper called the National, who had published this unfounded information, admitting that what was claimed in the article was wrong, and absolving my son of any involvement in the incident.

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

talk; Daniel Martyn

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By, if necessary, advising me on the procedure to getting the offending sentence removed to a point where jessicapierce will not rescind my edit again.

While patrolling for formatting errors on 14 September, I found a problematic edit at Daniel Martyn. Golferman9 had removed sourced content (citation from the BBC). The paragraph in question casts the subject in an unflattering light, and is the sort of thing a fan of the subject might not like to see. I restored the content, explaining why in my edit summary and on Golferman9's talk page.

We had a short conversation, in which Golferman9 used hostile and insulting language, informed me that Martyn is his son, and warned me against editing the page again.

I briefly mentioned Wikipedia's requirements for content, told him this might need to be discussed on the subject's talk page, and bowed out. I didn't mention the conflict of interest issue, as it would only complicate things.

Golferman9's response was as angry as his first.

If the claims previously made in the article (as Golferman9 has again removed that content) are incorrect, or course they should not appear at Wikipedia. However, as the charge of Martyn's "inappropriate relationship" was reported by credible media, perhaps we need some sort of "this was reported, but later found to be untrue" notice. I have no idea what the real story is with Martyn. Golferman9 did not, as he says, "message me copies" of anything - he included long unformatted quotations in our talk page discussion, without links. The one url he included had to do with an entirely different person, and its relevance was unclear to me. And I'm not sure what to do with The National's apparent retraction, given that the original article cited was from the BBC.

Ultimately the burden of proof falls on the contributing editor, so if Golferman9 would like to see content added or removed from this article, he will need to show proper proof. I'd appreciate it if someone else walked him through this, and navigated the COI concerns as well. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There are a few problems with this filing, and also a problem with the article in question. The filing editor does not appear to have discussed the page in question, Daniel Martyn, with User:Jessicapierce, either on the article talk page or on her user talk page. The filing editor also does not appear to have notified Jessicapierce of this filing. On the other hand, the article in question appears to be a [[WP:BLP}biography of a living person]] who does not appear to be notable. It isn't clear why there is a Wikipedia article about this person. I am ready to nominate the biography for deletion, and am asking whether that will satisfy the filing editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The prior discussion was on the talk page of the filing editor, at User talk:Golferman9, and not at the article talk page. The biographies of living persons noticeboard might be a better place for a discussion of negative material in a biography of a living person. However, the subject of the biography does not appear to satisfy either military notability or general notability. Do the filing editor and the responding editor agree that the solution to this dispute is to request that the biography of a living person be deleted for lack of notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Metamorphosis (manga) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 4meter4 (talk · contribs)
• Link20XX (talk · contribs)
• Elli (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The main concern is the use of this YouTube video as a source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SD9-4pUPH0 One side of the debate wants to use the source for it value as a form of critical analysis

On the other side of the argument, objections have been raised concerning the suitability of YouTube as a reference per WP:YOUTUBE, and also WP:COI concerns as the YOUTUBE page being linked to includes marketing merchandise for sale and requests for donated money which would appear to be a financial col issue.

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

• Talk:Metamorphosis (manga)#YouTube ref

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Input from a neutral observer would be useful; particularly an editor familiar with policy issues related to COI and the use of YOUTUBE within Wikipedia.

I admit that I don't usually like to get involved in disputes like this, but I guess I will here. While I generally don't believe YouTube should be used as a source (see the recent AfD for my thoughts on that), but this is a direct interview. As per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, self-published sources of this type are generally okay, and Template:Cite YouTube exists for a reason. The only point I have seen raised against it is WP:ELNO, which as per WP:ELPOINTS #1 doesn't apply here. Link20XX (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of this filing. ELNO doesn't apply here - this isn't being used as part of an "external links" section. We allow all sorts of references to contain advertising as long as it is reliable for the information being referenced. If this was used as a review of the work, it would be reasonable to make the argument that a financial incentive would bias the review, but this is solely used for the creator's own commentary on their work, something that self-published sources are explicitly allowed for. Unless we think that this interview is entirely fabricated - which is clearly not the case - then I don't see why it wouldn't be an acceptable source here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The discussion at the article talk page has been inadequate. There has been one comment by each editor. As the Third Opinion volunteer said, resume discussion at the article talk page. I will leave this request alone for 24 to 48 hours to allow discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Stakeholder Capitalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bolgerb1953 (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An individual has arbitrarily decided that the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism is the same as Stakeholder Theory, likening it to another name for "fish and chips." He summarily deleted the entry and redirected it to Stakeholder Theory, which isn't even mentioned in all of the business media now discussing the topic. However, a quick Google search will reveal that the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism has become an international topic being debated in such leading media as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, the Financial Times, Business Roundtable, etc.

https://www.google.com/search?q=stakeholder+capitalism&sxsrf=AOaemvJldTUqIUgvk7nSpI5SlhcuQ-kTMQ%3A1630852325850&source=hp&ei=5dQ0Ya3nMKKx5NoPhd65kA4&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYTTi9fC1kNvvoMIJfFshlkOwnQDytU-i&oq=stake&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIECCMQJzINCAAQgAQQhwIQsQMQFDIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCABDIICC4QgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzoICC4QsQMQgwE6CwguEIAEEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QM6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToLCAAQgAQQsQMQyQM6BQgAEJIDOgsILhCABBCxAxCDAVCK1gFYxNoBYLbmAWgAcAB4AIABcogB7wOSAQMzLjKYAQCgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

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

Here is a thread of the dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review the many articles referencing Stakeholder Capitalism against the article Stakeholder Theory. If everyone thought Stakeholder Theory was the same as Stakeholder Capitalism, why is everyone using the term Stakeholder Capitalism in these many articles and no one is using the term Stakeholder Theory.

Bruce Bolger has been an editor and a publisher in the people management space for over 30 years in the US. See: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebolger/

I am the owner of the Enterprise Engagement Alliance at http://TheEEA.org, a think tank on people management that publishes Engagement Strategies Media at http://EnterpriseEngagement.org, and have written hundreds of articles and two books on people management issues. Our revenues come from businesses seeking to promote or profit from the concepts of employee and customer engagement.

I am not being paid by anyone or any sponsor publish this article Wikipedia.

Because our organization supports a strategic focus on people, we write about over two aspects of people management, including sales, marketing, human resources, supply chain and distribution management, and many related topics.

We began writing specifically about Stakeholder Capitalism when the Business Roundtable in the US changed its charter to focus on addressing the needs of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

Other than our interest in the subject, and my extensive experience in people management, neither I nor my company will derive any direct or indirect financial benefit from the publication of this article. It was scrupulously written to address both sides of the growing debate.

Please note, as the article demonstrates, there is a large and public debate about the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, which embraces both people and the environment, not one of which even mention Stakeholder Theory. As earlier stated, Stakeholder theory is a subset of Stakeholder Capitalism, as is Enterprise Engagement, ESG, and other approaches to its implementation. It is the equivalent of quantum mechanics to physics, or obstetrics to medicine.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The dispute is about the redirecting of Stakeholder Capitalism to Stakeholder theory. This was done because MrOllie concluded that Stakeholder capitalism was a content fork of Stakeholder theory. A content fork is the situation in which two articles are about the same or almost the same topic but have different content, often because they have competing points of view. That is, two articles in Wikipedia disagree, and appear to be arguing with each other, because their authors were arguing with each other. For obvious reasons, Wikipedia cannot allow content forks to exist. That is why I asked these questions a day ago:

• 1. Are stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory two names for the same concept?
• 2. If yes, which is the preferred name?
• 3. If not, what is the difference, and do we need separate articles, or can we combine them into one article?

It appears that MrOllie's reading is that they are the same concept, and it appears that Bolgerb1953 is now saying that one of them is a superset of the other. What Bolgerb1953 should propose is a split of the article into two articles. The merits of the split should be discussed on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Stakeholder theory. If there is a consensus to split, then two articles will be the result. It will be necessary to compare and review the two articles to ensure that they are neither duplicative nor contradictory. If there is a consensus against splitting, then the current article will remain, and can and should be edited to incorporate any additional information. If discussion is inconclusive, a Request for Comments can be used to obtain additional community input.

I have not reviewed the content of the articles and am not offering a view as to whether there is one topic with two names, or whether one topic is a superset of the other.

There has also been a question about whether Bolgerb1953 has a conflict of interest as the head of a think tank that publishes on people management and employee and customer engagement, including on stakeholder capitalism. I am not offering a view at this time as to whether Bolgerb1953 has a conflict of interest that will constrain their ability to edit in this area collaboratively.

On the contrary, I reverted the notification because I asked Bolgerb1953 to stop posting on my talk page after a round of personal attacks. It was only in part a notification, so I elected to remove it. I'm willing to participate here if we can head off a repetitive talk page discussion which I suspect will be in the offing otherwise. - MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:MrOllie.

I will try to act as the moderator. Read the ground rules. Each of you are responsible for complying with the rules. If you do not comply with the rules, I will fail the discussion. I will try to be neutral, but if one editor complies with the rules and the other does not, I will stop being neutral. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are not helpful. They may permit the poster to feel better, but they often do not clarify the issues, except to establish having a strong opinion. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article or articles, and so should be focused on the encyclopedia. So discuss content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Comments that get into personalities will be collapsed. Also, do not reply to each other or engage in back-and-forth, except in the space that I provide for you (where back-and-forth can be ignored). Address your answers to me, as the representative of the community, not to each other.

I have outlined above what I think the issues are. Please provide one paragraph to address those questions. That is one total paragraph, not three paragraphs. Also, if there are any other issues, please state them in one other paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Addendum to Moderator Note:

User:Bolgerb1953, User:MrOllie - Please reply within 24 hours, if, as stated, you do want to resolve the content dispute of how many articles there should be, and any other content disputes.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

These are two names for the same concept. The Investopedia definition cited on Stakeholder Capitalism is "a system in which corporations are oriented to serve the interests of all their stakeholders. Among the key stakeholders are customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders and local communities." Stakeholder theory is defined by our article as "a theory of organizational management and business ethics that accounts for multiple constituencies impacted by business entities like employees, suppliers, local communities, creditors, and others." - clearly the same thing. The citations covered are very similar, too: for example 'Capitalism' credits a publication by Klaus Schwab as the first reference to the concept, and so does 'theory'. Notably Bolgerb1953 wrote in an edit summary last week that Stakeholder Capitalism is "the more commonly used term today for the same concept." Per google books, 'Stakeholder theory' is clearly the common name, see ngrams].

The other issue as I see it is that Bolgerb1953's preferred version of the article is largely based on a new, more expansive definition of the concept that he wrote and has published through self published sources such as his 'Enterprise Engagement Alliance' and a Forbes contributor piece he is the coauthor of. I don't believe these are usable sources for Wikipedia, and I think we can't write about that version of Stakeholder Capitalism until it is picked up by the academic community at large and secondary, reliable academic sources become available. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to explain why I say to be concise. The purpose of a statement is not to provide all of the facts to a moderator who will be acting as a judge and who will read the statements of facts in detail. I am not acting as a judge or arbitrator, and will not make any ultimate decisions as to article content. Any statement has at least two purposes. The first is to try to persuade the other editor or editors. An overly long statement is not likely to be read at great length, and it is likely to be ignored. See too long, didn't read. The other editors really may skip an overly long statement. The second purpose is to persuade the community. If moderated discussion fails, we will use a Request for Comments or some similar consensus process. Outside members of the community really may skip an overly long statement, and may be persuaded by a concise statement.

I said to provide a one-paragraph statement, and I meant one paragraph, not 1000 words. (But User:Bolgerb1953s statement is not "well below the 1,000 word limit". I didn't set a 1000-word limit, but MS Word counts 1012 words.) So I have a statement from User:MrOllie and do not have a concise statement from Bolgerb1953. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I had asked:

• 1. Are stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory two names for the same concept?
• 2. If yes, which is the preferred name?
• 3. If not, what is the difference, and do we need separate articles, or can we combine them into one article?
• 4. Are there any other content issues?

MrOllie says that they are two names for the same concept, and that the common name is Stakeholder Theory. If so, we only need one article, which is why he redirected one article to the other.

Bolgerb1953 says that Stakeholder Capitalism is the broad concept, and that Stakeholder Theory is a subset. He then gives analogies that seem to inflate the topic with grandiosity. No, there hasn't been as much written about stakeholder theory or stakeholder capitalism as there has about quantum mechanics or obstetrics, let alone about physics or medicine. And you don't need to make grandiose comparisons to explain what a subset-superset relationship is to a computer scientist. And if you mention quantum mechanics too many times, a lot of editors will move on to something else, because they find quantum mechanics incomprehensible, and they will be correct, because I have studied enough quantum mechanics to know that it really is incomprehensible.

So I will ask User:Bolgerb1953 to explain concisely what is meant by stakeholder capitalism and what is meant by stakeholder theory so that a fourth party can see how there is a subset-superset relationship (and what the other subsets are).

I am not the judge on a content issue, because the community is the judge; but it appears to me that only one article is needed, because the topics either are the same or are closely related, and the content is not enough to justify a split. If either editor disagrees, they can explain concisely how they disagree.

I will also ask both editors whether there are any other content issues that need to be discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie

I don't have any other issues at present, but I suppose that could change if the articles end up being split or material gets added to the Stakeholder theory article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Bolgerb1953

Thanks. Again, I appreciate this as going through this process the best type of learning, so I appreciate your patience and that of Mr. Ollie. I got the word count limit from the Wikipedia instructions I read, and assumed that a debate of this nature would justify a thorough discussion of the facts along with links. (Your word count includes the many URL links I provided.)

So here is the simple answer:

Are stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory two names for the same concept?

No. Stakeholder Capitalism predates Stakeholder Theory by 10 years, and specifically includes the Environment, while Stakeholder Theory does not. Stakeholder Theory is one of many theories, in this case postulated by a single professor, among many other implementation processes for Stakeholder Capitalism. Others include ESG, Conscious Business, Inclusive Capitalism, Economics of Mutuality, Enterprise Engagement, etc., all of which merit and in some cases already have Wikipedia entries.

Stakeholder Capitalism, not Stakeholder Theory, was the term embraced by the Business Roundtable and the many links I cited, along with multiple recognized educational institutions that address Mr.Ollie's suggestion that we wait until academics focus on the issue. They have. The reason is because Stakeholder Capitalism is the umbrella term for many theories and approaches. While the two terms are related, I have found no citations using the two terms completely interchangeably.

• 2. If yes, which is the preferred name?
• 3. If not, what is the difference, and do we need separate articles, or can we combine them into one article?

Separate articles are required, as it would confuse the reader and do a disservice to the work of E. Freeman to combine them.

As stated, Stakeholder Theory is one of many theories and implementation processes for Stakeholder Capitalism. Each of these warrant their own entries in Wikipedia, just as do Direct Marketing, Advertising, Digital Marketing, etc. merit their own entries even though they are all part of marketing--to use a more prosaic example.

Based on the many links I have provided, anyone who reads those articles will be confused if led to a Wikipedia article on Stakeholder Theory that makes no mention of the broader movement, the related debate, and the issues related to the environment.

I cannot find one recent article in business or other media talking about Stakeholder Theory, while the article that was removed cited many talking about the broader subjet of Stakeholder Capitalism.

• 4. Are there any other content issues?

Not that I know of.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

When I said at the beginning to provide a one-paragraph statement, I didn't mean to read through instructions for other methods of dispute resolution and find a word limit that you preferred, such as 1000 words not counting links. I meant one paragraph, maybe no more than 150 words.

User:Bolgerb1953 has used 1000 words and now another 400 words to explain how they think that Stakeholder capitalism is a superset of Stakeholder theory. I will ask User:MrOllie to respond concisely, with no set word limit, if they want to disagree with what Bolgerb1953 has written so far. I will also state that I don't understand what the difference is. That is, I don't understand how Stakeholder capitalism is more inclusive than stakeholder theory, and I will again ask for definitions of what each of them is, no more than one paragraph (150 words each). The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article or articles, so that a reader, who doesn't read the sources, will understand what the topics are.

At this point, I will give the parties an idea of what I anticipate for how this dispute resolution will go. If Bolgerb1953 and MrOllie cannot agree on some resolution or compromise, and it appears that they probably will not agree, then I will have to ask the community to decide by means of a Request for Comments. I will remind them both that concise statements are usually more effective than thousand-word statements. So if the parties do not reach agreement, their ability to persuade other editors with strong concise reasoning will be decisive. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bolgerb1953 - Please define what stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory are in a way that other editors will agree as to the superset-subset relationship. Each definition may be no more than one paragraph. If you need to define other terms concisely to make the superset-subset relationship clear, you may define other terms.

User:MrOllie - You may (but are not required to) agree or disagree concisely with what Bolgerb1953 has written in the first and second statements, in particular focusing on your assertion that stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory are synonyms.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there is much to disagree with. Bolgerb1953 writes above that I suggested that we wait until academics focus on the term 'stakeholder capitalism'. What I actually wrote is that we cannot include Bolgerb1953's self published definition until it is the subject of secondary academic sources, and I see no evidence has been presented that that has happened. Many of the links Bolgerb1953 are citing predate his definition, in fact. None are 'academic journals', despite his labelling them as such. Overall what we've got are a number of links that feature the words 'stakeholder' and 'capitalism' next to each other, but no reliable sources that show that this is a distinct topic from stakeholder theory, which is by far the more used term according to the ngram link I posted earlier. We still don't have a clear explanation of what the differences between these topics would actually be. I'll also note that Bolgerb1953 is now writing that this as yet undefined concept of 'stakeholder capitalism' predates stakeholder theory by 10 years, but as recently as last week [9] [10] he was writing that capitalism is a new term for the same concept that came into usage in 2019 - I still do not understand these discrepancies. What has changed? I also don't think his characterization of stakeholder theory as being the work of a single person in 1983 is accurate - that conflicts with the history section of our current article, which traces the concept to the 60s. - MrOllie (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel that Mr.Ollie continues to ignore the fundamental argument I am making and is instead looking for what he feels are inconsistencies in my argument and is relying on a word usage tool that does not correspond to what is found in actual Google search results.

1. Whether or not these academics were writing in academic journals, they are all academics writing about Stakeholder Capitalism in university sponsored publications and none make reference to Stakeholder Theory. A. This is indeed an academic journal: http://www.ieomsociety.org/ieom2020/papers/639.pdf B. If the editors don't feel the alternative definition we included is well substantiated, that's fine. But what needs to be noted is that there is no official definition for a term that is now being widely debated to describe the capitalism reform movement.

2. Rather than looking for what might be perceived as inconsistencies in statements I've made, it might be most useful to look at the facts. A. The concept of Stakeholder Capitalism that embraces people and the environment is the subject of heated debate in major media around the world with not one mention of the term Stakeholder Theory, which remains an arcane discipline for organizational management, along with many other theories. B. I have not found one current article in any media discussing Stakeholder Theory. C. The concept of Stakeholder Theory remains a debate among academics with almost no discussion at the popular level, while Stakeholder Capitalism has risen to the top of the agendas at multiple major organizations, from the Heritage Foundation on the right to the World Economic Forum, JUST Capital, Business Roundtable, Economics of Mutuality. D. If you wish to use Google as a source, do a search for the two terms. You will find practically no current references to Stakeholder Theory, and all of them from little known sources. A search for Stakeholder Capitalism yields dozens of current articles from major sources.

3. While many people have discussed the role of stakeholders, Mr. Freeman is widely credited with promoting the concept of Stakeholder Theory in his 1983 paper on the subject, which makes no reference to the environment because it's a theory for organizational management, not for the reform of capitalism.

4. The distinction is clear.

Stakeholder Capitalism is a movement to reform capitalism. The most recent book on Stakeholder Capitalism by Klaus Schwab clearly depicts it as a capitalism reform movement (not a process for organizational management) and makes no mention of Stakeholder Theory that I could find. See: https://books.google.com/books/about/Stakeholder_Capitalism.html?id=QdYPEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

Stakeholder Theory is a process for organizational management.

To subsume the Stakeholder Capitalism reform movement under the rubric of a narrow arcane theory on organizational management will do nothing but confuse readers.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Stakeholder Capitalism is a reform movement founded in the early 1970s that seeks to improve capitalism by addressing not just the needs of shareholders, but of employees, customers, supply chain and distribution partners, and the environment. There are many different approaches to implementing Stakeholder Capitalism, including Stakeholder Theory (which does not include the environment), Conscious Capitalism, Inclusive Capitalism, ESG, Enterprise Engagement, Economics of Mutuality, and more. None of these others are included in Stakeholder Theory.

Stakeholder Theory, created in 1983, is, according to Wikipedia, "A theory of organizational management and business ethics that accounts for multiple constituencies impacted by business entities like employees, suppliers, local communities, creditors, and others." It is one of many methods for addressing people issues in organizations.

Based on the current usage of the term, they must be separate articles because people searching for Stakeholder Capitalism will be confused if directed to the Stakeholder Theory article.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note my reply is longer because it includes considerable substantiation but even with all the links is well below the 1,000 word limit.

1. Stakeholder Capitalism is the umbrella term for a wide variety of theories and processes advocated by different parties cited below. It’s first use can be traced to the early 1970s in the context not only of stakeholders but also the environment. A. Stakeholder Theory is to Stakeholder Capitalism what Quantum Mechanics is to Physics, not the other way around, as MrOllie has implied.

2. Stakeholder Theory is a concept developed by Edward Freeman, a professor at the University of Viginia in 1983 and is a subset of Stakeholder Capitalism. Mr. Freeman is certainly one of the pioneers in the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, but his is only one of the many approaches to its definition and implementation. A. I confess to have made a sloppy edit on the Stakeholder Theory page that implied otherwise. My point was that many people are using Stakeholder Capitalism instead of Stakeholder Theory, as will be substantiated below, because it is the broader term inclusive of multiple approaches as well as the environment. C. Darden’s work is only just one of many constructs for Stakeholder Capitalism. Other processes include the concepts of Economics of Mutuality, Inclusive Capitalism, Conscious Capitalism, B Corporations, Enterprise Engagement, and ESG, to name a few. It should be noted that all of these organizations make reference to Stakeholder Capitalism in their communications, with little or no reference to Stakeholder Theory.

3. If usage is an important determination in Wikipedia, as it is in the world of dictionaries, the distinction between the two terms is further confirmed by a Google search. A search for Stakeholder Theory turns up mostly arcane or academic references to Mr. Freeman’s theory, mainly related to debates about his work. A. A search of Stakeholder Capitalism yields a wide variety of highly credible recent sources, include Fortune, Forbes, The Economist, New York Times, Financial Times, Harvard Law Work Life Forum, Heritage Foundation, not one of which even reference Stakeholder Theory, as cited below. B. In the past month alone, the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism has been written about and debated in authoritative business and academic journals without the existence of any formal definition in Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, or to our knowledge Oxford. How one defines the concept is critical to the nature of the debate, as one will see in reading the references below. B. This is why it is so important to discuss the definition that was removed from the Wikipedia article before the article was removed in its entirely. C. As the following links show, there is an enormous debate raging about Stakeholder Capitalism which can only be answered based on a clear definition that doesn’t currently exist. D. Furthermore, a review of these articles cited below in both popular business media and business journals in the past few months about Stakeholder Capitalism clearly shows that people would be confused if they were referred only to an article on Stakeholder Theory on Wikipedia, which doesn’t even make mention of the broader field of which it is a part.

E. Not one of the articles below about Stakeholder Capitalism in current media make any reference to Stakeholder Theory, because it is simply one of the approaches to implementing Stakeholder Capitalism; multiple articles will show the need for a clearer definition.

This article appeared in early Sept. in the National Review--it demonstrates how the definition one uses for the term determines whether Stakeholder Capitalism robs from shareholders to give to other stakeholders, as some of the right allege, or whether it's a means of creating wealth for everyone, as this advocate from the right agrees in this recent article: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/08/the-importance-of-stakeholders-to-profit/

• https://www.ketchum.com/stakeholder-capitalism-is-back-is-your-next-earnings-call-ready/

• https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yale-center-for-customer-insights_yale-professor-ravi-dhar-on-stakeholder-capitalism-activity-6837051981085859840-ka9S

• https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/stakeholder-capitalism-is-a-trojan

• https://www.aesc.org/insights/magazine/article/shifting-stakeholder-capitalism

• https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/stakeholder-capitalism-is-here-to-stay-2021-08-24

• https://www.gcu.edu/blog/business-management/10-stakeholder-capitalism-examples

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/stakeholder-capitalism-esg-business-roundtable-diversity-and-inclusion-green-washing-11629313759

• https://fortune.com/2021/08/18/stakeholder-capitalism-business-roundtable-corporate-purpose-just-capital/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=ceo-daily&utm_content=2021081812pm&tpcc=nlceodaily

• https://www.ft.com/content/be140b1b-2249-4dd9-859c-3f8f12ce6036

• https://fortune.com/2021/08/18/stakeholder-capitalism-business-roundtable-corporate-purpose-just-capital/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=ceo-daily&utm_content=2021081812pm&tpcc=nlceodaily

In addition to the academic articles cited above, the following papers have appeared in multiple academic journals in the US, Great Britain, Australia, Singapore, etc.

A. Oxford: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2021/05/what-stakeholder-capitalism-can-learn-jensen-and-meckling B. New York University: https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/faculty-research/how-make-stakeholder-capitalism-work C. This same article appeared in a Stanford University publication earlier this year: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_to_make_stakeholder_capitalism_work D. London School of Economics: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/02/06/employees-the-missing-link-between-stakeholder-capitalisms-pledges-and-metrics/ E. Singapore University: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/stakeholder-capitalism-is-having-its-day-in-the-sun F. Amrita School of Arts and Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham: Amritapuri, India.http://www.ieomsociety.org/ieom2020/papers/639.pdf G. The University of Sydney, Australia: https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/news-and-events/events/iagnzgs2021-conference/stakeholder-capitalism.html

4. Given that the debate over Stakeholder Capitalism clearly cannot be resolved without a proper definition, it is completely appropriate to cite a Forbes article (not a blog) co-authored by a professor of finance at the London Business School, with whom I have no financial or other connection for that matter, and for which I was not paid. A. Edmans has done considerable work in this domain, and has been published in the Harvard Business Review, Harvard Law School Governance Journal, and is author of Growing the Pie. See these links to his work. https://hbr.org/2016/03/28-years-of-stock-market-data-shows-a-link-between-employee-satisfaction-and-long-term-value. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/12/03/the-edmans-bebchuk-debate-on-stakeholder-capitalism-the-case-for-and-the-case-against/ https://www.growthepie.net/ C. An article by Mr. Edmans published just yesterday in the University of Chicago Stigler School of Business publication on the topic of Stakeholder Capitalism contains no reference to Stakeholder Theory. https://promarket.org/2021/09/07/business-roundtable-shareholder-capitalism-promise/?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=linkedin-stigler-business-roundtable-shareholder-capitalism-promise D. As the articles above demonstrate, the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism has been raised at Harvard Law School, Yale, and the Stiglitz Business School at the University of Chicago.

In summary, Stakeholder Theory is a subset for the overall concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, because: • The use of the term Stakeholder Capitalism predates the work of Mr. Freeman by 10 years or more and also includes the environment and multiple implementation approaches. • Stakeholder Theory is only one implementation approach for Stakeholder Capitalism, many of which already also have entries in Wikipedia. Stakeholder Theory is appropriately mentioned as one of those theories in the Stakeholder Capitalism article Mr. Ollie removed. There is no reference to Stakeholder Capitalism on the Stakeholder Theory page, which is why I attempted to make that edit. • It is a fact that the definition of the term Stakeholder Capitalism is still in question, that the nature of the definition has a major bearing on the debate, and that Professor Edmans is a highly credible authority to propose a definition more consistent with the term “capitalism” than others that seem to apply it’s a “trojan horse” for socialism. • Nonetheless, the article removed by Mr.Ollie accurately depicted both sides of the debate, and so the two definitions should be restored along with the article as there is no final definition anywhere.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I have prepared a draft RFC which, if you cannot reach agreement, will be published and will resolve the dispute. You are welcome to comment on the draft RFC, and to propose any changes to the RFC. However, I retain neutral control of the content of the RFC until it is published, by moving it to the main article talk page, at which point other editors will respond, including some who will be invited by a bot to participate. An RFC normally runs for 30 days, after which time it will be closed by an uninvolved neutral editor.

Both editors - You may make any brief comments about the RFC. You are also welcome to offer any sort of compromise.

User:Bolgerb1953 - Please edit Talk:Stakeholder Theory/RFC Draft to insert the explanation that you have given of the superset-subset relationship in the subsection headed Explanation of Subset-Superset Relationship.

User:MrOllie - As before: You may (but are not required to) agree or disagree concisely with what Bolgerb1953 has written in the first and second statements, in particular focusing on your assertion that stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory are synonyms.

I was under the impression that RFC statements are supposed to be neutral - it would seem that asking one party to embed their argument for an article split in the RFC statement itself couldn't possibly be neutral. I would suggest that only the ABCD options be listed, without the ' as explained in the subsection below'. Bolgerb1953 can add his arguments in the Survey section where they belong. - MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User:MrOllie - Your point about neutrality is well-taken. I don't want to allow a two-paragraph explanation in the Survey section, so I will expand the section including the statement on the superset-subset relationship to be a section, above the Survey, for brief statements in support of each option. Then you will be able to make a brief statement in support of Option A (assuming that that is what you wish).

The RFC will be started in 24 to 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is now running at Talk:Stakeholder theory. If there are no further issues identified, I will close this DRN thread. The RFC will run for 30 days, after which time it will be closed by an uninvolved editor. User:Bolgerb1953, User:MrOllie - You should make your brief statements in the Survey. Do not respond to each other's statements in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marcywinograd (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have requested the lead be rewritten for accuracy & to reflect the lack of global consensus on the status of Taiwan. {{Edit semi-protected}} I ask that the lead to this article on Taiwan be changed. It currently reads, "Taiwan,[II] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][h] is a country in East Asia.[20][21] It shares maritime borders with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south." I recommend the lead be revised to read as follows: "Taiwan, the Republic of China, is an East Asian island whose status is in dispute, with the People's Republic of China claiming Taiwan is a break-away province of mainland China but supporters of Taiwan sovereignty arguing Taiwan is an independent nation. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/taiwans-un-dilemma-to-be-or-not-to-be/ https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-TaiwanMarcywinograd (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can resolve the dispute by accepting my revised lead or one that accurately reflects the dispute over Taiwan's status. Just because a group of Wikipedia editors at one time decided, on their own, without any substantiation from the world community (e.g., the United Nations, the US State Department, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Brookings Institution) that Taiwan is a country does not make it so. In fact, to assert in the lead that Taiwan is a country violates Wikipedia's neutrality pillar.

• Volunteer Note While some talk page discussion has taken place, no other editors have been listed as involved, and none made aware on their talk page. Additionally, determining who is "right" is more the role of WP:RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to close - This is an inappropriate use of DRN, considering that the discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and it seems on the face of it, the only reason this was filed is because the filer was disagreed with due to long established and standing consensus. The filer has in addition taken issue with the fact that Wikipedia does not adhere to UN or US standards, which is immaterial (but also discussed within the prose of the article in question) to how Wikipedia as an encyclopedia addresses Taiwan.--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• I second the request to close, looks like either WP:POINTY or POV pushing to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2021 (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.