Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	In Progress	PromQueenCarrie (t)	11 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours	PromQueenCarrie (t)	8 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	In Progress	Jonathan f1 (t)	6 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Jonathan f1 (t)	11 hours
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka	Closed	DinoGrado (t)	5 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	In Progress	Titan2456 (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours
Ryan T._Anderson	Closed	Marspe1 (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar	New	Southasianhistorian8 (t)	1 days, 14 hours	Simonm223 (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Simonm223 (t)	1 days, 12 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

RNA Vaccine

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 31.127.3.146 on 03:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute RNA Vaccine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Guest2625 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview RNA vaccine / History. Guest2625 has removed the inventors name for political reasons. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RNA_vaccine How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Reinstate the truth. Don't edit Robert Malone out of history because you don't like his opinion on covid vaccines and you want to delegitimise him. Summary of dispute by Guest2625 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. RNA Vaccine discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-gender movement

– New discussion.

Filed by Ergo Sum on 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Anti-gender movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ergo Sum (talk · contribs)
• buidhe (talk · contribs)
• Newimpartial (talk · contribs)
• Mathglot (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing debate on the talk page about how scholarly opinions should be framed in the lede. (Forgive my use of the word "opinion" as that is itself the talk page debate. I'm just not sure how else to phrase it). The question is whether the scholarship should be presented in the voice of Wikipedia as conclusive/statements of fact or presented as opinions in the manner of "some scholars critique X in such as so manner" or "some scholars say" or "critiques/opponents of the anti-gender movement say" etc. My opinion is that these scholarly opinions are opinions nonetheless and should be presented as such. Two other editors argue they should simply be presented as "the" scholarly position on the matter. I believe (and hope) I have characterized the dispute charitably to both sides. I welcome User:Buidhe's correction if I have not.

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

Talk:Anti-gender movement#Re: NPOV in lede

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Input from other experienced editors can generate more substantive discussion and reach a conclusion of how to phrase this topic.

Summary of dispute by buidhe

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

Summary of dispute by Newimpartial

If I understand Ergo Sum correctly, they are saying that the discussion of the "Anti-gender movement" by social scientists needs to be taken out of Wikivoice, and attributed to "some scholars" or "opponents" of the movement, because certain other scholars - namely, Catholic theologians - support the movement. My own view is that the support of Catholic theologians for the anti-gender movement should be noted in the article, but should not affect the WP:NPOV of the article which needs to reflect on-topic scholarship, not theology. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is my position. Ergo Sum 03:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Buidhe

The issue is that Ergo Sum has yet to come up with any reliable sources written from the perspective of Catholic theologians about the anti-gender movement. Personally I suspect that such sources don't exist, since theology is not the study of political movements (even those that originate in religion). All we can do in this case is report what reliable sources say about the anti-gender movement, per WP:OR. If a source doesn't discuss the anti-gender movement, it can't be considered. And when most or all RS agree, unnecessary qualifiers should not be introduced in order to downplay the support in actually existing RS for certain claims, as that would violate WP:WEIGHT. For another example, many scholars would agree that some event being a genocide is an opinion. But we shouldn't write "Some historians say the Armenian genocide happened, but the Turkish government disagrees."

I think Catholic teaching on sex and gender is a separate topic that is only partly related to this article (for one, the CC existed for 2,000 years, the anti-gender movement only since the 1990s). In articles about Catholic theology, citing Catholic theologians who write about sex and gender, but not about the anti-gender movement, would not be original research. (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mathglot

I was a late arrival to the TP discussion, and just added myself here. What is being brought here as a content disagreement looks to me more like incomplete mastery of policy and guidelines, notably WP:Verifiability and WP:DUE. I personally don't see how presenting views about content is going to go anywhere here; seems to me it will quickly devolve into questions about interpretation of those two policies, and perhaps others. I also question whether appropriate criteria have been met before bringing this here; the WP:DR page lists many avenues of approach to resolve disputes before coming here, and I'm unsure if any of them have been tried. But if the criteria have been met, then I'm willing to take part. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing party has notified the other editors. One of the other editors has erased the DRN notice, which means that they have seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Anti-gender)

I will try to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read the ground rules. You are expected to have read and to understand the rules. If you are not sure about the rules, ask questions rather than ignoring the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not post overly long statements that make you feel better, but that are too long to understand quickly. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of the discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about the other editors. Discuss edits, not editors. Now: Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph summary of what you either want changed in the article, or what you want left the same that another editor wants changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Anti-gender)

I see no changes that are necessary to the lead, which fully complies with policy, in particular, WP:NPOV.

Most of the dispute, such as it is, takes place at Talk:Anti-gender movement#Re: NPOV in lede. Claims made there that the Lead is POV are incorrect, and based on a faulty understanding of policy. One post there (diff) attempts to place publications in scholarly journals into the position of being one participant in a dispute, and therefore requiring double-quotes and WP:INTEXT attribution. Excerpts:

Just because one author or one journal makes a scholarly assertion does not mean other scholars agree... that can't be written in the voice of WP because it's clearly a POV

and then goes on to place Catholic theologians in the position of an equal and opposing view to scholarly journals taken collectively as a monolithic whole:

In the same way that e.g. "gender ideology" scholarship relates to left-wing politics on gender, so does the "anti-gender ideology" scholarship relate to conservative anti-gender ideology politics.

Both of these assertions are incorrect, and reflect a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.

• Articles in independent, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals are not participants in a dispute or a movement.
• When articles in scholarly journals represent the preponderance of reliable sources on a topic, summarizing their content does not require INTEXT attribution or double-quotes. The majority view may, and should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
• Conversely, Catholic theologians are a main participant in the dispute. They originated the dispute.

One cannot equate fully independent scholarship from a multiplicity of reliable sources with pronouncements of the principal creator/participant in a dispute. The Lead is fine as it is, and majority opinion scholarship should not be characterized as a "side", nor should it be placed in quotation marks or have in-text attribution. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator (Anti-Gender)

I will reply to the one statement that has been made by a participant and will restate my introductory request. A content dispute is any dispute over the wording of any article in article space that is read by readers. Mathglot says that this is an issue about the understanding of policy, which is almost certainly true; but if an issue about policy affects what an article should say, then it is a content dispute that is based on a policy question. And the purpose of the policies is to govern the content of the encyclopedia that is read by readers. So it is a content dispute, at least if there is a question about the wording of the lede section or any other part of the article.

I asked the editors to state, in one paragraph, what they wanted changed, or left the same, in the article. One editor has discussed the policy reasons for what they want left the same, without stating what language in the article is in question. The other editors have not yet replied.

So I will ask each editor, again, to provide a one-paragraph summary of what they want changed or left the same. An additional explanation of why they want that, supported by policy, is optional at this point. I will want reasons, but first we will define what text of the article is being disputed. (That is my choice as the moderator of this discussion. Another moderator might approach this differently.) Be concise in stating what the issue is about the wording of the article.

Also, do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors (Anti-Gender)

In response to Robert McClenon's request for a definitive restatement of each editor's desire outcome, here is mine. My proposal is essentially this edit: 1) rephrase from "scholars" to "some scholars" in the second paragraph because "scholars" alone suggests unanimous scholarly opinion, which is not the case, 2) move the sentence about "empty signifier" etc. to the second paragraph so that criticisms of the movement are kept together and identified as criticism rather than written in wikivoice (in the spirit of WP:CRITICISM), and 3) remove the Graff 2016 ref and the statement it supports as both are clearly POV and do not qualify as an RS (explained in greater detail on the article talk page). Ergo Sum 20:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial - My view is that the correct treatment, per WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:WEASEL and WP:FALSEBALANCE, is to (1) retain "scholars" rather than "some scholars" in the first instance; (2) maintain the location of the "empty signifier" sentence as it is, to maintain a distinction by topic rather than marginalizing the RS on the subject by labeling them as "criticism"; and (3) retain the Graff 2016 ref as it clearly qualifies as a RS on this topic - which the sources Ergo Sum agrees with, the Catholic theologians, do not, at least when it comes to factual descriptions of gender identity and the existence or otherwise of "gender ideology".

My view is also that it may well be appropriate, per WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE, to include citations from Catholic theologians in the article, but only on the question of whether or not Catholic theologians support the anti-gender movement, and not on questions (such as whether "gender ideology" is a real thing or an imagined conspiracy) on which they have no expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (Anti-Gender)

It appears that there are four points of disagreement as to the wording of the article:

• 1. Whether to say "scholars" or "some scholars" when stating that the movement has been characterized as moral panic.
• 2. Whether to move the reference to an "empty signifier".
• 3. Whether to remove the Graff reference and the statement that it supports.
• 4. Whether to include statements by Catholic theologians supporting (or not supporting) the anti-gender movement.

I will comment that the name of the movement is confusing, because, if I understand correctly, the movement is not opposed to the concept of gender, but rather is opposed to another movement or viewpoint known as gender theory. The so-called anti-gender movement supports a traditional view of sexuality that is based on Catholic religious teaching. However, Wikipedia should use the name that is used by reliable sources. So we have to be very careful to avoid increasing the existing confusion. Do all of the editors agree with this understanding?

Are there any other article content issues? Please be concise.

Are there any questions?

Are there any issues about the article that do not have to do with article content? (If so, we should identify and discuss them, but article content is more important.)

Will each editor please state, briefly, what their policy-based reasons are for 1, 2, and 3. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine, Breaking Benjamin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 71.222.83.87 on 05:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Rage Against the Machine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Breaking Benjamin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved discospinster (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Long story short, I was looking at sources used to describe bands such as Breaking Benjamin and Rage Against the Machine. I noticed that these sources not only stated the genres currently listed, but they also said nu metal. So I changed this, and Hot me thinking other about groups labeled as such. I then checked their links, and they didn't say they were. I then went to List of Nu Metal bands, and noticed they used sources from either articles deleted from long ago, but even noticed were using Parody sources for credit. They then reverted every change I made even when specifying where I got the sources from How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I couldn't do anything because they were administrators themselves How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Stop punishing people who edit genre articles trying to correct them by reverting all edits even if the sources aren't reliable Summary of dispute by discospinster Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Binksternet Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Rage Against the Machine, Breaking Benjamin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Graham Hancock

– New discussion.

Filed by Terratian on 18:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Graham Hancock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Terratian (talk · contribs)
• ♦IanMacM♦ (talk · contribs)
• wooF (talk · contribs)
• ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants (talk · contribs)
• Hob_Gadling (talk · contribs)
• J8jweb (talk · contribs)
• JosephHatton101 (talk · contribs)
• Boleslawwolowik (talk · contribs)
• Pcervelli (talk · contribs)
• Roxy the elfin dog (talk · contribs)
• OhNoitsJamie (talk · contribs)
• bonadea (talk · contribs)
• Splitpenny2001 (talk · contribs)
• KRLA18 (talk · contribs)
• ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)
• Hypnôs (talk · contribs)
• Austronesier (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Designation of the author as a "pseudo-scientist, pseudo-archeologist, pseudo-historian", rather than a journalist.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_Hancock#Proposed_Deletion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Discuss bias in source's used by editors to designate the journalistic works of Hancock, which are heavily cited, as "pseudoscience".

Summary of dispute by ♦IanMacM♦

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

Summary of dispute by wooF

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

Summary of dispute by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants

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

Summary of dispute by Hob_Gadling

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

Summary of dispute by J8jweb

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

Summary of dispute by JosephHatton101

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

Summary of dispute by Boleslawwolowik

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

Summary of dispute by Pcervelli

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

Summary of dispute by Roxy the elfin dog

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

Summary of dispute by OhNoitsJamie

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

Summary of dispute by bonadea

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

Summary of dispute by Splitpenny2001

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

Summary of dispute by KRLA18

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

Summary of dispute by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Summary of dispute by Hypnôs

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

Summary of dispute by Austronesier

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

Graham Hancock discussion

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