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
RRR	Closed	SaibaK (t)	6 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours
Cyril Ramaphosa	Closed	JoshuaJ28 (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 1 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 20:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Chivalry of a Failed Knight

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Draco Safarius on 22:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

Summary of dispute by ThunderPX The original work has Alice self-identify as "a maiden born in the body of a man". This is reiterated on the anime adaptation's website in Alice's character bio. I see no reasonable interpretation of this other than the character being transgender. This line exists in the Japanese work as well as the English translation. The other characters in the scene then discuss this, with ultimately the conclusion being "Alice wants to be seen as a woman, so we should respect it." External sources also refer to the character as a trans woman and refer to her with she/her pronouns. I see no reason to dispute what is said in the original work, and I do not understand why an explicit statement from the author would be necessary to clarify what is in the literal text of the work, any more than one would need such a statement to clarify a character's hair color or favourite food. Summary of dispute by Knowledgekid87 My stance is to look at the sources involved when it comes to gender naming. As pointed out here and [1] the kanji used for said character refers to them as male. There is no doubt though that western media such as Anime UK News, and Anime News Network refer to her as a "she". This leaves the issue of respecting the author's original work, versus citing this fictional character as translated into English. My option would be to include both with something like "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender." or something along those lines if possible. If this has blossomed into a larger controversy then it might warrant its own sub-section on the Chivalry of a Failed Knight article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Chivalry of a Failed Knight discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (CFK) I am possibly opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules for this moderated discussion. You are expected to have read and understood the rules, and will be expected to follow them. It appears that either the only dispute or a part of the dispute has to do with the gender of a character. I see that some of the editors say that the character is a trans woman, a person who was born male and has transitioned into being female. What is the alternate viewpoint as to the gender of the character? Are there any other content issues? Editors are expected to reply to my questions at least every 48 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. I would like each editor, first, to state whether they are willing to discuss in accordance with the rules, and, second, to answer my questions about the scope of the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC) All content issues are indeed related to that. The other viewpoint that I was talking about is that the original source text does not ascribe to their argument as the author uses male or gender neutral language, and they use a secondary source or nigh unrelated outside viewpoints not in the series to try and justify their claim. As for discussion, I believe both Knowledgekid87 as well as Lullabying, who got into the talk page after this dispute was opened, put forth good explanations for ideas. Going off of what they've proposed, I would say a compromise of leaving the page with male language and including either a footnote or end of section text line proclaiming the character has possibly identified themselves that way would be as far as I would go as to not disregard the original. Draco Safarius (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC) I have read the rules and am prepared to participate in the discussion according to them. The dispute is indeed solely about the gender of the character Nagi Arisuin, nicknamed Alice. I am of the opinion that the character is a trans woman, so I have nothing to say as to the opposing viewpoint. ThunderPX (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors Checking back in and saw this section that is probably supposed to be for the initial replies discussion, so just copying my above reply: All content issues are indeed related to that. The other viewpoint that I was talking about is that the original source text does not ascribe to their argument as the author uses male or gender neutral language, and they use a secondary source or nigh unrelated outside viewpoints not in the series to try and justify their claim. As for discussion, I believe both Knowledgekid87 as well as Lullabying, who got into the talk page after this dispute was opened, put forth good explanations for ideas. Going off of what they've proposed, I would say a compromise of leaving the page with male language and including either a footnote or end of section text line proclaiming the character has possibly identified themselves that way would be as far as I would go as to not disregard the original. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (CFK) Please read the rules for moderated discussion again. It appears that the only question is the gender identity of the character known as Alice or Nagi. The article currently states that Alice/Nagi is a transgender woman. One editor has proposed to say, "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender". Is that wording acceptable to other editors? Does any other editor have any other proposed wording? Does their statement that they are a maiden in a man's body appear both in the Japanese and in the English? If so, is that sufficient to establish that they are, in universe, a transgender woman? If not, why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC) I would say that is not acceptable wording, barring the nickname or also known as. A better fit would be including it at the end of the character page with a description of preferring the name Alice and also feeling like a woman at heart, or creating a separate section for the article as a whole to briefly cover the issue and list both sides of the argument. Regarding the statement, however, it does appear in both, but no, I would not say it is sufficient. The author does not use language that would support that, and we should not choose to ignore the author/narrator to purposely skew a viewpoint. If we do it for that then the article as a whole would need to do away with that aspect of the story and it becomes info that can only be supplied via character statements. Draco Safarius (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC) The "maiden in the body of a man" statement must be seen in its full context. Alice is asked if she is a crossdresser (English translation) or okama (Japanese), which she denies with the above statement. Later in the conversation, the character Shizuku says that since Alice wants to be seen as a woman, the others should treat her as such. The exchange appears to specifically contrast a situation in which a cis male presents in a feminine way with Alice's actual situation. Therefore, I believe Alice's statement is synonymous with being transgender. I would accept the compromise of simply quoting "maiden in the body of a man" verbatim, so long as she/her pronouns are used from thereon out. Additionally, I protest against referring to the character as "Nagi", as the books never do so, only referring to her as either Alice or by her last name Arisuin. ThunderPX (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (CFK) This is the section referred to in rule 9, correct? I've never done this sort of thing before and it's somewhat confusing and stressful, so my apologies if I put anything in the wrong place. ThunderPX (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (CFK) This question is for User:Draco Safarius. Please provide the exact language that you think is in order to describe Nagi/Alice. Other editors may make a one-paragraph statement explaining why the current language, which describes them as transgender, should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC) I would change or revert the previous edit to the section to put back in the male language and original name, and go with the end of section bit I mentioned above, so that the text would read as: Nagi is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. Nicknamed Black Sonia, he has the ability to control shadows with his device, the Darkness Hermit. His Noble Arts include Shadow Bind (影縫い), Shadow Walk (日陰道), and Shadow Spot. Nagi is a very nice person, though he does sometimes tease others. He is a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to him. He is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, which infiltrated Hagun Academy. He had a dark past, being an orphan who lost his friend Yuuri, and was taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In Chapter 36, he attacked Newspaper Club member Kagami and stole her research when she started to uncover evidence of the existence of Akatsuki. However, he turned against Rebellion, due to his friendship with Shizuku. Nagi prefers going by the name Alice and has described himself as feeling like more of a woman in a man's body, but language in the source text uses male and gender neutral terms leaving the character's gender a debated topic. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Please see my reply to the previous question. ThunderPX (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (CFK) Like ThunderPX above I do find the rules a bit confusing on layout here, as they don't cover much for each individual section, just giving brief overviews so I apologize in advance if using the back/forth comments section isn't supposed to be used this way. If that's the case just mention it and I'll refrain from it further. Regarding the above point(s) that ThunderPX lists, I would argue that even if the scene can be read that way the fact the author then purposely goes on for every volume of the series to not address the character with language that would affirm that defeats the arguing point. To put it another way, when the reader is being told something as directly as possible, barring direct statements outside of the series, by the author, through the impartial narrator, it would not logically make sense to set aside the information they are presenting as it can be considered the most accurate unless the narrator is a character recounting the series. And, for the second point, the series does indeed use the name Nagi. The narrator uses either Nagi or Arisuin. The English release version might not, but that was one of the major points in that one should not ignore the source in favor of a less accurate version just because it supports their view/argument. Draco Safarius (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (CFK) We have a "black-and-white situation". Two editors think that the article should describe the character as transgender female, and one editor thinks that the article should describe the character as male. I see three ways to deal with this: 1. The minority can defer to the majority, and we can agree that there is rough consensus to describe the character as transgender female. 2. We can request the community to provide consensus on the gender identity of the character by means of an RFC. 3. An editor can write a description of the character that states that the character, who was born male, is of uncertain gender identity, and illustrate this briefly in a way that satisfies both viewpoints. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Each editor is asked to state which of the options are acceptable to them, and we will decide how to proceed. An editor who supports option 3 should write draft language that explains the gender ambiguity of the character. Statements by editors go in the space for statements by editors. I have been ignoring misplacement of statements because it is more important to get the statements in an orderly manner than to insist on where they go. It is also important that the discussion be civil and concise, which it has been, and that back-and-forth discussion be avoided, which it has been. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (CFK) I would say it's actually two editors one way, one the other, and two in the middle (referring to Knowledgekid87 and Lullabying, though the latter only came in after this was opened and is not taking part in this discussion but warrants mentioning for considering both sides). With regards to the three things laid out, I don't think any of those three options provided are sufficient unless on option three the thing I initially mentioned as a potential resolution of having that be a separate section on the page itself would qualify while retaining the male language in the character section. Should that be the case then I am all in favor of three and would place it either above or below the "Works cited" section of the page, and would phrase it as: Nagi/Alice Arisuin's Gender The character of Nagi, or Alice, as has been mentioned as a preferred name, Arisuin has generated debate with regards to gender, and whether or not they should be considered a transgender person. Upon their introduction in the series they mention that they largely prefer to go by the name of Alice and consider themself to be more of a "maiden in a man's body," but this contrasts with how the author uses male and gender neutral language through the narrator when mentioning them in the novels. The conflict between character dialogue and narrator descriptions has sparked debate over what the author was intending them to be and how the character should be classified. The above aside, between updates on here there was a posted comment reply on the talk page that I think is a good point not previously raised in detail. Draco Safarius (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Obviously option 1 would be most preferable to me, given that it is the shortest route to getting what I see as the correct result. I would absolutely be willing to make use of option 2 to get more opinions on the subject, as right now our sample size is very small. Option 3 is the least preferable to me, but I will nonetheless offer up my take on what such a character description would look like to offer an alternative to Draco Safarius' suggestion: Alice is a first year student as well as Shizuku's roommate and close friend. Nicknamed Black Sonia, they have the ability to control shadows with their device, the Darkness Hermit, allowing them to travel through shadows and bind others by pinning their shadows. Alice is a very nice person, though they does sometimes tease others. They are a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to them. Alice is born male, but describes themself as "a maiden born in a man's body", and their friends agree to treat them as a woman. However, the narration in the Japanese version often uses male pronouns regardless, making it ambiguous how the character is meant to be viewed. Alice is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, sent to infiltrate Hagun Academy. They had a dark past, being an orphan living on the streets before being taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In advance of Akatsuki's attack on Hagun Academy, Alice assaulted Kagami to keep the existence of Akatsuki under wraps, but their friendship with Shizuku prompted them to turn against the group just prior to the attack. ThunderPX (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Moderator (CFK) There are four proposed versions of the language about Nagi/Alice: A. This is what is currently in the article. Alice is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. She is described as "a maiden who was born into the body of a man" and, in the English translation, female pronouns are used to refer to her. Nicknamed Black Sonia, she has the ability to control shadows with her device, the Darkness Hermit. Her Noble Arts include Shadow Bind (影縫い), Shadow Walk (日陰道) and Shadow Spot. Alice is a very nice person, though she does sometimes tease others. She is a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to her. She is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, which infiltrated Hagun Academy. She had a dark past, being an orphan who lost her friend Yuuri, and was taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In Chapter 36, she attacked Newspaper Club member Kagami and stole her research when she started to uncover evidence of the existence of Akatsuki. However, she turned against Rebellion, due to her friendship with Shizuku. B. This was in the article until it was changed by an editor who is not a party to this dispute resolution. Alice is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. She is a transgender woman. Nicknamed Black Sonia, she has the ability to control shadows with her device, the Darkness Hermit. Her Noble Arts include Shadow Bind (影縫い), Shadow Walk (日陰道] and Shadow Spot. Alice is a very nice person, though she does sometimes tease others. She is a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to her. She is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, which infiltrated Hagun Academy. She had a dark past, being an orphan who lost her friend Yuuri, and was taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In Chapter 36, she attacked Newspaper Club member Kagami and stole her research when she started to uncover evidence of the existence of Akatsuki. However, she turned against Rebellion, due to her friendship with Shizuku. C. Wording proposed by Draco Safarius Nagi is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. Nicknamed Black Sonia, he has the ability to control shadows with his device, the Darkness Hermit. His Noble Arts include Shadow Bind (影縫い), Shadow Walk (日陰道), and Shadow Spot. Nagi is a very nice person, though he does sometimes tease others. He is a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to him. He is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, which infiltrated Hagun Academy. He had a dark past, being an orphan who lost his friend Yuuri, and was taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In Chapter 36, he attacked Newspaper Club member Kagami and stole her research when she started to uncover evidence of the existence of Akatsuki. However, he turned against Rebellion, due to his friendship with Shizuku. Nagi prefers going by the name Alice and has described himself as feeling like more of a woman in a man's body, but language in the source text uses male and gender neutral terms leaving the character's gender a debated topic. D. Wording proposed by ThunderPX Alice is a first year student as well as Shizuku's roommate and close friend. Nicknamed Black Sonia, they have the ability to control shadows with their device, the Darkness Hermit, allowing them to travel through shadows and bind others by pinning their shadows. Alice is a very nice person, though they does sometimes tease others. They are a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to them. Alice is born male, but describes themself as "a maiden born in a man's body", and their friends agree to treat them as a woman. However, the narration in the Japanese version often uses male pronouns regardless, making it ambiguous how the character is meant to be viewed. Alice is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, sent to infiltrate Hagun Academy. They had a dark past, being an orphan living on the streets before being taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In advance of Akatsuki's attack on Hagun Academy, Alice assaulted Kagami to keep the existence of Akatsuki under wraps, but their friendship with Shizuku prompted them to turn against the group just prior to the attack. At this point, I am asking each of the editors which of these versions are acceptable to them. That is, say Yes or say No to each version. You may also write another version. After all of the editors say Yes or No to each of the four versions, we will have a better idea of whether we need to proceed to an RFC. If there is an RFC, it will involve choosing between some of these versions of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth Statements by Editors (CFK) I would say A - no, B - No, C - yes, D - no. There is still also the option for the main body of C excluding the sentence separated from the main description, and moving said separation to create its own topic further down the page like was mentioned in my third parent statement. That is probably the most fair as it follows the idea raised in the talk page comment I mentioned with adhering to a set precedent for a different article with a similar situation, and it does not do away with the original language that is the crux of the issue. The goal should not be replacing and rewording that since that's tantamount to just ignoring the author either in favor of personal bias and/or following a purposely changed secondary source, which is the issue in the first place. The goal should, at most, be creating a part in the page somewhere to mention it that does not detract from, or overwrite, the original, be it at the foot of the character section or its own area further down. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC) A - yes, B - yes, C - no, D - yes. With a preference for A or B, as D is already a compromise. I do not find using male pronouns to be acceptable, nor using the name "Nagi" as this never happens in the actual body of work and my request for proof to the contrary fell on deaf ears. I would compare doing so to writing the article for Scrubs and incessantly referring to J.D. and Turk as John and Christopher. ThunderPX (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth Statement by Moderator (CFK) In statement 4 I listed four draft versions of paragraphs about the character Nagi or Alice, and asked for comments. Any editors who have not commented should comment Yes or No. Any editors who have not composed a draft should do so. If no one will accept another version so that we have approval by all editors, then we will have to publish an RFC. The RFC, rather than asking editors to choose one out of A, B, C, and D, will ask editors to Vote Yes, this version is acceptable, or No, this version is not acceptable, so that the closer can find the version that has the most general support. I will be composing the RFC within the next 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC) If anyone has any objections to the upcoming RFC, please state the objection and offer an alternate plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors (CFK) No objections to an RFC being opened, I highly doubt we'll ever reach an agreement here and arguing in the back/forth section doesn't really help anyone or this as a whole. However, we can attempt seeing if creating a large section detailing the disagreeing points on the page itself works, a more expanded version of what I suggested before. Break it into three parts, a loose overview, one side, and then the other side. The only caveat I'd be asking for that is that the character section be what I suggested, or near to it by doing ThunderPX's but using Nagi or Nagi/Alice as the name, to leave the actual character overview the base level of what's being plainly written, not what someone reads into, and the end of the character entry mention the disagreement so whoever is reading the page knows to look for it further down instead of going to rage edit the page. Could also protect the page itself, but a decision on that should probably wait. I won't compose the whole entire section being proposed, as both ThunderPX and Cyberweasel89 would probably want input into that for what they feel are any additional relevant mentions, but for the intro and the point I'd be arguing for: Nagi/Alice Arisuin Gender Controversy Disagreement The previously mentioned character of Nagi/Alice Arisuin has drummed controversial disagreements with regard to their gender, the arguments being as to whether the character should be classed and addressed as a transgender woman or a man. The conflict stems from language used in the original Japanese releases of the light novels clashing with a statement given by the character early in the series. (ThunderPX and Cyberweasel's point below, I'll do a rough formatting for it, but they should get input and raise whatever additional points they feel are relevant. I would, however, say to limit argument points to the JP light novels, anime, and their associated websites like the publisher or anime info releases. Attempting to use any outside sourcing just turns it back into using someone else's opinion as fact, and then we're right back to square one.) The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a transgender woman, complete with female pronouns and language, deals with a conversation early in the series in which they mention to the main character, Ikki, that they prefer going by Alice instead of Nagi and also feel like "a maiden in a man's body," and then Ikki's younger sister, Shizuku, proclaiming that everyone should use Alice and treat them as a girl. The series goes on with Ikki and other main characters calling them Alice. The anime's associated website also features the same tagline quote of "a maiden in a man's body." The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a man, using male pronouns and language, comes from the author opting to instead use male and gender neutral language when writing as the narrator throughout the whole series. Being the narrator, they are assumed to be all knowing, omniscient, unless shown to be an unreliable narrator, an example of an unreliable narrator being a character giving their memory or opinion as narration or even a narrator for a mystery novel that would be giving what the characters are currently aware of. Because they are being presented as an omniscient narrator it can be said that the narration is the author's opinion and intent, and that what is written is the most correct or truthful information for the series unless otherwise contradicted or clarified from a statement given by the author directly. This is further compounded with official character listings for the series using "Nagi Arisuin" for the character entry, instead of Alice, for both the voice actor announcement(s) for the anime and its official character entry on the associated website. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC) An RFC is the only option, as only Draco Safarius and myself are responding anymore and it's clear we will not see eye to eye on this. I trust others will make the right decision in the RFC. ThunderPX (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Moderator (CFK) I have created a draft RFC for viewing at Talk:Chivalry of a Failed Knight/Draft RFC. This is a draft RFC, not a live RFC; please do not !vote in the draft RFC. I will move it to the talk page after review. It is my opinion that the draft section containing a long discussion of the gender of the character is too long for due weight for a character who is not listed first or second in the list of characters, and who does not have a stand-alone article. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statements by Editors (CFK) Bit of confusion on what you're meaning with the draft containing a discussion. If you mean the actual RFC draft, then yes I'd agree, direct people to read the talk page and this dispute resolution rather than having it all one huge wall of text. As for the four statements, slight correction. B was the reverted version that prompted this being opened after one user ignored two different editors telling them to stop as their sources used didn't actually defeat the argument being made, that one only features an additional citation that, like the previous version, didn't defeat the argument. It should probably get a note making mention of that in the talk page if it's going to be left in as a vote consideration, though I'd imagine anyone being allowed to vote should have read that entire thing to begin with so it's probably fine. The only other thing I could think of asking is what would be the requisites for editor voting? Like it goes out randomly, yes, but what's the oversight on making sure people are actually considering both sides and not just doing a quick personal bias vote? Draco Safarius (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC) I agree that there should not be a long section discussing the character's gender, as not only is the proposed section overly long but it has no sources and therefore just reads like a tedious summary of the opinions of Wikipedia editors--in other words, OR. If the history of version B is at all relevant, t should be noted that it is essentially the same version that was in the article for years until Draco Safarius began making his edits, which I restored after providing an additional source, which he then not considered good enough. The rest is history. ThunderPX (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh Statement by Moderator (CFK) I have changed the wording of B. If one of the editors has questions about the RFC process, they can ask them at the RFC talk page or Village Pump (policy). The closer will consider strength of arguments as well as a numerical vote count. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh Statements by Editors (CFK) Both good spots to look at, thank you. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion by editors (CFK) For the sake of clarity, can User:Draco Safarius provide some examples of Alice being referred to as "Nagi" in the text? This obviously discounts use of the full name "Nagi Arisuin". I do not recall in either the official translation or the fan translations that were quite prominent before the series' official availability--which often skewed very literal to a fault--that this ever occurred. Her friends obviously call her Alice, while characters who aren't close to her and the narration seem to use "Arisuin" to my knowledge, so I would like to see examples to the contrary. ThunderPX (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Why would you remove using the full name if it’s still the narrator doing it? That’s part of the point here, taking the narrator as the author since it differs from character dialogue and if they intended otherwise they’d have done what they were doing with every other character and been using Alice. Selectively setting restrictions for name use while ignoring the point of the entire argument only bogs it down. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC) The context in which one uses a full name is very different from addressing them by their first name, that much should be obvious--especially when the person in question prefers going by a different name. ThunderPX (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC) I agree, but only when it comes to dialogue between characters. Using one's full name is roughly in the same vein as using an alias or a title in place of their name for 3rd person writing in that you do not constantly write the exact same thing, similar to how one should avoid starting every sentence or paragraph with the same word or phrase. In this case, we know the characer's actual name is Nagi Arisuin, and not their alias of Black Sonia/Black Thorn(s), so the narrator using either the full or partial bit of the name is not out of the ordinary, and, again, had they intended or meant it to be the other way then they'd have written that instead. Draco Safarius (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC) If you cannot provide examples of the character being referred to simply as "Nagi", then I must disregard your claim to the contrary and maintain that the character should not be referred to as such in the article. ThunderPX (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Then the entire argument would have to be thrown out. The arguing point is that since the narrator, the author, is not following what they are having characters say, opting instead for male/gender neutral language as well as both variations for his name, then you cannot pick and choose which points to use and instead go with the default and what the narrator is saying, male language and Nagi. It is either all under consideration for what the author is intending or there is nothing to argue as that says to ignore the whole thing. This is why in the parent third statement I mentioned one of the recent talk page comments, as it raised a good point in not throwing out labels and changing names/info unless it is hard confirmed in an inarguable sense. Draco Safarius (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC) As noted above in the reply, the text does use the character's name of Nagi, but ThunderPX finds that using a full name somehow defeats the point, which is sidestepping the argument's point. And as for Scrubs, which is a good example, I'll give you that, it has the problem of official name being different from actual name. Both J.D. and Turk are called almost exclusively by their nicknames, and the official names for them in related media or outside references from creators/actors are the nicknames. I would also hazard a guess every script uses those as well. That contrasts with how the text for this does not use Alice save character dialogue, and no using the English version as an example does not get around the issue. The author wasn't writing that as the narrator, and associated official media on the Japanese side, that ThunderPX attempted to use as reference to prove their point, uses Nagi as well. So, like the above reply, if the argument is being considered that the author's intent was what they were choosing to write as the narrator for 10+ volumes, then there should be no consideration given to pick and choose or dance around that to supplement names. Move it as an entire thing to a separate section of the article to cover it in detail and not try to sweep it under the rug with changing the character section. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC) The context in which one uses a full name is not the same as using their first name that the person doesn't prefer using. I've already explained this to you. The Scrubs example is the same because the characters are called "John Dorian" and "Christopher Turk" when it's relevant for their full names to be mentioned. Alice is referred to as "Alice", "Arisuin" or when relevant "Nagi Arisuin" but never simply "Nagi". I'm getting very tired of explaining this. I will not respond to this point any further. ThunderPX (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Yes, and I already explained the reasoning for using one's full name as an author, but they are completely different when comparing narration and spoken dialogue yet you continue to ignore that. If a character's name is X, and is listed as such in sources, and by the narrator, you do not just ignore that being the literal correct name in favor of a nickname. That's why the Scrubs example didn't mesh, because despite their names in the show being nicknames those are their actual listed names for the series. In a similar vein, in-universe (spoken dialogue) for this we have Nagi being called Alice or rarely his moniker, Black Sonia/Thorn(s), but as per official info the character name is still Nagi Arisuin. If, by your argument(s), we're now both ignoring the author in their most direct form, the narrator, and official info, that you wanted to try to use, for what characters are called then the page may as well just be marked fan fiction. Draco Safarius (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Since I have to keep clarifying, using a source different from the original doesn’t do anything. It ignores the argument as a whole since it is, in the most literal sense per their own words, one person’s opinion on the text. Should never have been used, and trying to use it as a defense for the prior page version that was already incorrect just makes the position look worse. Draco Safarius (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Unproductive. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Regarding the close with the subsequent comment replies, that was what I was doing. The content, sources and citations, they were using were not lining up with their argument and were both contradicting themself in supporting the other side, and they were accusing me of what they were doing while also denying all of the conflicting issues they used in this. It is definitely productive to point out how their arguments didn't work as that's part of the discussion's goal, to list out why what they were blindly using was not adequate, and how they were attempting to dodge around their own argumentative points or sources used against them. I do, agree, however, that them throwing out accusations with no explanation, refusing to elaborate how their contradicting points were all consistent despite glaring evidence to the contrary, and essentially insulting the other party is not in any sense productive. Doubt it would have gone any further in replies, but thank you for closing the section. Draco Safarius (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC) You don't seem to understand how using sources on Wikipedia works very well. I suggest reading WP:ORIGINAL to help you with future edits. ThunderPX (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC) No that’d be you. Original refers to stuff without a source, as you both got told twice. If you’re using something to argue a point that conflicts with the original source or is just some random site’s opinion with no correlation to the mentioned series then it doesn’t work as a source for the scenario. You keep trying to look at this in a vacuum as if the only thing in existence is what you’re trying to source to twist your point. As bare bones an example as can be: person A writes a story where something is blue, but person B changes it to red in their release and someone who read it says it was blue. That doesn’t make it blue, nor does it make citing it as blue from a person’s review. What does happen though is when you, or someone, reads into something. When you purposely start trying to say the narrator is wrong without any citations as to why in the argued source or from its creator, only using opinions and saying something clearly stated isn’t what is being stated. Your English teacher might love the needless analysis of reading into nothing, but that’s literally what you’re trying to say I was doing. This is like the fourth time you’ve either tried to 180 on a source you used or say you weren’t doing something. Since it apparently needs to be said in a very easy to read format, here’s what you should consider on tiers/sources. - 1 The original work and author. Doesn’t even need to be said, but the actual release from the author, their comments on clarifying it (should they exist), and publisher statements on their behalf are the absolute truth. If they write that a character thought a bug was huge, but use the narrator to say it was actually small then it was small. There isn’t any beating the author, don’t try to ignore them. - 2 Related media of the source. This would be additional data books, websites, or maybe special chapters. It’s essentially the author and/or publisher doing a secondary tiered release, still of absolute truth but doesn’t hold the same weight as if the author said something in like a Q&A or interview where it would solely be them doing it. - 3 Anime and its associated media. Only not in 2 as animation studio staff oftentimes make small changes or cut things out, and more often than not the series creator is not involved. However, it’s still at 3 as it’s from the same country, which largely kills any chance of large changes as they try remaining faithful and are also in the same culture so there would be next to no agenda changes or interpretations. - 4 Other language releases. Encompassing both animated and physical media, this is lower than just original anime as the creator and publisher are even less involved than even anime productions. This is where you see large-scale changes most of the time due to script rewriting, but it’s also a random game of who translates it and whether the publisher or studio checks to see if they’re faithful or correct. It’s fine as a source unless shown conflicting info from any of the higher tiers. - 5 Not actual sources. Barring websites that cite info releases from the original publisher or studio, these aren’t sources. It’s purely some random people. You can use these to see if they cite something, but unless it is cited, and doesn’t conflict with a higher tier, it’s useless. What you both have kept trying to do is use 4 and 5 (or 3, but act like the part working against you doesn’t exist), as well as unsourced opinions that the author wasn’t meaning what they were writing since your opinion differs or you can see some people IRL that might fit your argument. That’s ignoring more reliable sources, and injecting your own opinions or biases to try to argue a point. That’s literal confirmation bias, and original research as per the link you used. Two different editors told you guys this in the talk page. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I am begging you to stop writing complete novels about points that aren't being argued and actually read the Wikipedia policy instead of making up your own. You're frankly impossible to debate with, and I was making a last attempt to actually help you understand how things work, but I see that's a waste of time. ThunderPX (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC) You keep disregarding your own points, the actual things you're linking, what the editors told you, and what the actual thing you're arguing about is saying. You can say you're not arguing something, but the entire talk page and this discussion is filled with you doing otherwise. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I have been nothing but consistent in my points. None of your counter-arguments hold any water, because they don't follow Wikipedia policy or, frankly, common sense. I have no choice but to assume bad faith since you refuse to actually read anything I give you, so I'm going to stop responding to you and leave this matter to the RFC. I hope I don't have the misfortune to ever have to deal with you again. ThunderPX (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC) "nothing but consistent." Okay, then you didn't try to use the anime website character page until it was used against your point, and definitely didn't try to say nothing in any source had the character listed as Nagi Arisuin. You also didn't try to use an interview from a guy who had no actual say on the series, and was not the author. You also certainly didn't disregard the entire narrator for nearly 20 volumes by using one statement and your own confirmation bias. Also definitely didn't try to say I was doing original research directly above when you were doing almost nothing but that, yep. If consistency is ignoring things that poke holes in your points or show your sources to not be accurate, then, oh yeah, you've been extremely consistent. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC) References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Knives Out#Comedy_Genre

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Doobledoop on 20:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Knives Out#Comedy Genre (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Doobledoop (talk · contribs) InfiniteNexus (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Reopening: there is significant discussion with more than 12 messages between Doobledoop and Nemov within the past week on the talk page linked (toward the bottom), although the initial discussion was from 2019. I am unsure why Nemov is replying to this dispute; they wrote only one message in recent discussion, after initial dispute was opened. I do want to note that I am trying to act in good faith; I understand we have different interpretations of the style guidelines and both have FA and GA-class examples to represent our perspectives. I am unclear about the accusation of ignoring other perspectives. This dispute is regarding the genre of the film in the opening sentence. The film has been received as a comedy mystery (specific sub-genre used in FA cinema articles such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit). The WP:FILMGENRE guidelines suggest using at minimum the primary genre or sub-genre of the film in the opening sentence. I suggest aligning the opening sentence's genre classification with that of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and other FA-class articles. On these pages, the genre classification of comedy mystery was judged appropriate by consensus. This would appropriately reflect the weight of the film's regard by Lionsgate and professional associations (see accolades) as a comedy mystery. The discussion has reached an impasse as we are both providing GA and FA-class articles that support our respective opinions (please see talk page for these references). Regarding the last point, while I understand it may seem to the other editors that I am ignoring anything other than my own perspective, I can find multiple FA-class articles demonstrating both our perspectives. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[2]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think we need an independent editor to review both our points, as well as the articles and references cited in the discussion, to help make a decision regarding style. Summary of dispute by InfiniteNexus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Before we begin, let me just say I don't think starting a DRN thread was a good idea, with all due respect to the hard work done by DRN volunteers. A better course of action would have been to make a post at WT:FILM to ask whether "comedy mystery" is considered a sub-genre, or start an RfC like Nemov suggested if the consensus is divided and the matter remains unresolved. That being said, we're already here, so here goes: The longstanding consensus of the film project has been to only place one genre in the lead of film articles — the primary, most predominant, and most general genre. This is documented at WP:FILMGENRE, and the majority of articles that I know of have adhered to this guideline pretty closely, i.e. you will only find one genre in the lead. Knives Out (film) is first and foremost a mystery film, but it also contains elements from the comedy, crime, detective, suspense, and thriller genres. Out of all these genres, the most dominant and general one is mystery, so that is what the lead has stated for years. To name a few examples of similar cases off the top of my head, I know the articles Deadpool (film), Guardians of the Galaxy (film), and The Incredibles (all of which have strong comedy elements but are not primarily comedy films) have closely followed WP:FILMGENRE for years by forgoing "comedy" in the lead. Now, Doobledoop here has challenged said consensus, arguing that because the comedy themes in Knives Out are so prevalant (I would argue the crime, detective, suspense, and thriller themes are just as prevalant), "comedy" should be added to the lead. When pointed to WP:FILMGENRE, Doobledoop asserted that "comedy mystery" is a single sub-genre rather than two genres put next to each other (kind of like saying "apple orange" is a fruit, not two). Both Nemov and I begged to differ, and so here we are. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Nemov Bizarre that the editor reopened after the prompt close. This should be withdrawn. If the editor will not listen to feedback, create a RfC. So far the editor is ignoring anyone who doesn't share their POV. Nemov (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Talk:Knives Out#Comedy_Genre discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you. I've added the template to a topic on the user's talk page. I am not certain I formatted it correctly, but it contains links to the relevant topic and thread. Doobledoop (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC) You did not, but that's okay. It was easy enough for me to find this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Knives Out) Please read the usual ground rules and follow them. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If you have any questions about the rules, ask them now. If not, please state that you agree to the rules. Do not edit the article while mediation is in progress. It appears that there is disagreement about the film genre to be listed in the lede paragraph of the article. Are there any other issues to be addressed by moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Knives Out) There are no other issues I can think of. I will let the other editor respond as well. Doobledoop (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC) I guess we're doing this. Yes, I agree to the ground rules, and yes, the genre in the lead is the only issue being contested. @Nemov? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC) This issue had come up in the past and generally it was agreed that the lead had one genre. This came up again due to the interest in the sequel. There was a hidden note in both articles urging editors to find consensus. InfiniteNexus, myself and several editors discussed the reasoning in the past. I have urged Doobledoop to create a RfC if they're unwilling to listen to us, but those suggestions have led us here. I even left a comment on their TALK and they didn't respond. When I commented here the first time the editor deleted my comment. I'm not sure why the editor is unwilling to listen to our suggestions. Nemov (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Knives Out) The suggestion was made by one editor that we ask at the Film WikiProject talk page whether a two-part genre such as "comedy mystery" is consistent with their guidelines. Do the editors agree to ask that question? Do the editors agree that if the film project says that only one genre can be listed in the lede, this dispute can be resolved, with "mystery" chosen? If a two-part genre is permitted, then do we agree to "comedy mystery", or is the genre still in dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Are there any other issues to be discussed? Second statements by editors (Knives Out) I agree with this course of action. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Yes, I agree with the moderator. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I think the question is whether “comedy mystery” is a genre—not whether one genre can be used—since it is used by most critics to describe film. I understand InfiniteNexus can produce articles which use only one word; however, there are FA-class articles which use “mystery thriller“ (Blue Velvet (film)) and “comedy mystery” (Who Framed Roger Rabbit) with consensus for years as well. If only one of these words were to be used, however, I think it is worth noting that the production company submitted the film to the “comedy or musical” categories for most major awards associations. There is no other film in this category for the Golden Globes, for example, that does not include the word "comedy" in the lead sentence. While I understand InfiniteNexus has personal opinions about the weight of different elements, I think consideration needs to be given to how the movie is classified by the producers. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Just as a note, I am unsure why Nemov is responding to this dispute thread and made comments on my own talk page when there was an ongoing discussion on DRN. It is my understanding the participants in the DRN must have made more than one recent post on the relevant talk page discussion, and the editor made only one post. Doobledoop (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC) My comments are allowed and my participation in the discussion occurred long before you arrived. This isn't just a dispute between you and InfiniteNexus. We simply repeated the same points that had been made in the past by other editors. Nemov (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Question. Is it permissible, in accordance with DRN rules, for me to comment on WT:FILM#Question About Two-Part Genre in Lede while this moderated discussion is ongoing? I would like to clarify that the crux of the matter is whether "comedy mystery" is considered a subgenre (1x) or a compound genre (2x), as Doobledoop noted above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Knives Out) I will permit discussion at the film project talk page. Depending on how the discussion goes, I may either say to stop discussion at the film project page, or allow discussion to continue, or even close the discussion here if the discussion at the film project page is productive. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you, and thank you for adding the clarification on Wikipedia talk:FILM#Question About Two-Part Genre in Lede, @InfiniteNexus. Doobledoop (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Knives Out) Fourth statement by moderator (Knives Out) The discussion at the film project talk page has been productive, but seems to have moved on to other subtopics. At this point, what do each of the editors think that the lede sentence should say is the genre of the film? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Knives Out) Status quo I agree with GoneIn60[3] that the majority of sources characterize the film as a murder mystery. Sticking with that seems reasonable. Nemov (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Mystery film – I concur with Nemov. Per what was discussed over there, especially GoneIn60's comments, the vast majority of sources describe the film as "mystery" rather than "comedy", solidifying the former's status as the rightful primary genre of Knives Out. Editors there have also rejected the suggestion to use "mystery comedy" or "comedic mystery", because as GoneIn60 summarized, we shouldn't be mashing [two genres] together unless sources are doing that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Knives Out) There is a rough consensus that the lede sentence should describe the film as a murder mystery. We thank the Film WikiProject for providing guidance. This case will be closed as resolved shortly. Any further discussion can be at the article talk page or at the film project talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Knives Out) Back-and-forth discussion (Knives Out) 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.

T.Rex (band)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Romomusicfan on 09:13, 5 January 2023 (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 T. Rex (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Romomusicfan (talk · contribs) Woovee (talk · contribs) Netherzone (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Circa 2019 Woovee deleted sections relating to T.Rex reuinion projects Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X-T. Rex (formerly Bill Legend's T. Rex) and input a statement in the article that "As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, his death ultimately ended the band." It was Woovee's stated view that the possible validity of such reunion bands was a fringe/minority viewpoint underserving of coverage. I tagged Woovee's statement for CN and recently added a neutrality disputed tag and input an IMHO even-handedly worded reason in both tags relating to the controversies relating to such projects. Woovee deleted the tags, stating that the reasoning given amounted to "introducing opinions" into the article in contravention of WP:NOT and insinuating that I must be motivated by somehow being related to the musicians involved (I am not!) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:T. Rex (band)#RfC on Disputed Reformations section Talk:T. Rex (band)#A note/reference about T. Rex after Bolan's death: was it still a band How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Immediate resolution is required about the validity of my tags of Woovee's statement including the Reason given. In the long term, resolution is required about whether the subject of these reunion bands should be covered in the T.Rex article or not. Summary of dispute by Woovee Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Netherzone Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The timing of this is not great for me as I am travelling and in the middle of a vacation, and it is difficult (and unpleasant) for me to concentrate on a dispute at this time. I thought we cleared up this matter some time ago, and was surprised it has resurfaced. Briefly, my position is that the band did not "ultimately end" when Marc Bolan died. That the opinion of the writer Mark Paytress, who alegedly made that statement, does not make it "true" as various other band members went on to develop at least two tribute/spinoff bands, X-T.Rex and Mickey Finn's T-Rex. I believe that the position of the editor Romomusicfan who opened this discussion is correct the article should not make the claim that the band ultimately ended when Mark Bolan died, or that both POVs (the band ended/the band did not end) should be included and each be reliably sourced (with page numbers if applicable). Note: I re-read the DRN rules and have modified the sentence above so as to comment solely on content, and not on contributors. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I'm not even sure Paytress made such a statement, particularly in his second Bolan book as briefly cited. (If a page number and quote can be provided for authentication, that would be fair enough.) Romomusicfan (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC) I added the word "alegedly" to my statement above because it is not verifiable that Paytress actually made that claim at all; an extensive search of the book does not verify it. Even if it were found that Paytress made that statement, that is only one point of view. Would that not give undue weight to a single source? NPOV states that "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Billboard magazine clearly states: "But in 1997, after band members received a rapturous reception at a public performance to commemorate Bolan’s 1977 death, the group reformed with Finn, original band member Paul Fenton, and several new musicians. They performed all over Europe and were particularly popular in Germany. The group recorded an album, “Renaissance,” in 2000."[4] If we are to achieve balance, then both viewpoints should be included in the article, per "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC) T.Rex (band) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There are two areas that need to be dealt with. The recent discussion has not been continuing long enough. So resume discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors. Please notify them on their user talk pages. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Try to discuss the issue for at least 24 hours with at least two more posts from each editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Hi, I thought it automatically notified the parties concerned. I have already notified Netherzone, I shall notify Woovee also.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Have left a note on Woovee's talk page.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Have allowed time for a response by Woovee. There has been none. Have made the first of my two posts as requested by Robert McClenon. If there is no response from Woovee either there or here, such that this thread ends up being closed or threatened with closure due to inacticvity (or whatever similar reason) I feel I would be well within my rights to revert Woovee's last reversion and reinstate the CN and Neutrality notes complete with reason tags. I don't want a revert war but all this silence could frankly be interpreted as Woovee having dropped any disagreement with my reasoning! Romomusicfan (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Statement one-half by moderator (T. Rex) The editors should read the usual rules, and should each make a statement saying that they agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules. If there is agreement for moderated discussion, we will proceed with moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Have done so below. Do Woovee and myself still need to get our remaining posts (my second and both of Woovee's) done on the talk page as requested by yourself above, or is that abandoned now? Romomusicfan (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Statement one-half by editors (T. Rex) I agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (T Rex) I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the rules again. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss the article here rather than on the article talk page, and do not edit the article. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that someone else wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (T Rex) Ideally I would like the "ultimately ended the band" sentence either taken out or replaced with something less definite along the lines of the band "deactivating" at the point of Bolan's death. Also a brief section (no more than a quick paragraph) on the subject of the two "revival" bands such as existed on the article prior to Woovee's 2018/2019 edits - probably in more concise form than the old version - should be input. As a compromise I would accept the existing wording with the CN and Neutrality tags with the Reason notes re. the "revival" bands - such as it was when I added the Reason notes - to be left up long term.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I would like to see the following three changes made: 1) Remove this sentence until or unless page numbers can be found in the Mark Paytress book for verification: “As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, his death ultimately ended the band.” As it stands, the latter part of the sentence after the comma cannot be verified through an online search, and thus may be original research or not a neutral point of view. 2) If a page number is found, the sentence may stand as written but should be balanced with another POV to achieve a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I suggest the following: “As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, music critic Mark Paytress states that Bolan’s death ended the band. However Billboard magazine states that “the group reformed with Finn, original band member Paul Fenton, and several new musicians. They performed all over Europe and were particularly popular in Germany. The group recorded an album, “Renaissance,” in 2000." [5] 3) Reinstate the former section on the two “revival bands” as seen here: [6] and improve the referencing such that each claim has a citation to a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (T. Rex) Two editors have made statements as to what should be changed, and there seem to be two or so matters of agreement. Is there agreement to remove the sentence that ends in "ultimately ended the band"? Is there agreement to reinsert the section on revival bands? Does each editor have any other comments on the other suggestions? Does either editor have any specific other ideas for improvements to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (T. Rex) I would say that there is broad agreement between we two editors who have so far participated. (I am striving to make this point in a manner compliant with number 3 of the Rules.) However, we do both come from the same side of the discussion, so perhaps that is unsurprising. I would advocate turning the "ultimately ended" statement into a line saying the band disbanded rather than simply deleting the sentence The remainder of that paragraph is a very good section about the post band careers of T.Rex sidemen 1967-1973 and should be kept unchanged and unaffected by this edit. I would suggest that a second paragraph then be added to this section condensing the old Attempts At Reforming section down to bare bones. Romomusicfan (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC) I agree 100% with Romomusicfan's statement and suggestions above. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (T. Rex) Three editors are listed as participating in this discussion. Two of the editors are mostly in agreement, and one has not edited in ten days. I am putting moderated discussion on hold for maybe a week, during which time the two editors may edit the article and may discuss their edits either here or on the article talk page. If the other editor returns and disagrees with their edits, moderated discussion can be reopened. Otherwise moderated discussion can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC) If moderated discussion is closed and subsequently the other editor returns and the dispute resumes, what recourses will we then have? Romomusicfan (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (T. Rex) Have made the edits as requested above by the moderator.Romomusicfan (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (T. Rex) If the other editor who has not edited in two weeks, with whom there were disagreements, returns and reverts the edits, or disagrees with them, a Request for Comments is probably the best approach. An RFC is often the best way of dealing with an editor who appears to be in a minority or editing against consensus, because it establishes a binding consensus. At this point, there has been normal editing of the article for four days. I will close the moderated discussion in between one and three more days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (T. Rex) Back-and-forth discussion (T Rex) 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.

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Olympian on 09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Olympian (talk · contribs)
• Abrvagl (talk · contribs)
• ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
• Dallavid (talk · contribs)
• Alalch E. (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created this article on 1 December 2022 [7]; user Dallavid initiated an AfD immediately after the article's creation [8], resulting in a consensus for keeping the article [9]. Not getting the outcome Dallavid had hoped for, they proceed to delete a third of the article's content (10K bytes) [10], vaguely citing Wikipedia policies, without gaining consensus in the talk page, or at least explaining their massive content removal in the talk page (until directly asked). Dallavid's reasoning for deleting content that cited 14 different authors referenced non-existent consensuses and unfounded genocide-denialism claims. I advised Dallavid to seek a consensus in WP:RSN before removing the sources and their content, but they have been unwilling to do so. The dispute is summarised in the numbered points in the replies between Dallavid and myself, they relate to whether Soviet historiography, alleged genocide deniers, and others, can be cited to support the content removed by Dallavid.

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

Talk:Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)#Issues

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Providing an objective and uninvolved analysis of the questions involved in the content dispute, and helping to resolve the dispute in deciding which content is appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia to remain in the article.

Summary of dispute by Abrvagl

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

Dallavid initiated AfD, resulting in the keepig the article. Then they reopened AfD, which led in another Keep. Ultimately, Dallavid began eliminating large amounts of sourced content from the article. As someone who briefly engaged in the conversations, it appears to me that it is attempt to erase article one way or another, rather than concerns about the sources. With regards to the sources:

1. Baberowski – Support restoring
2. Balayev – Support restoring
3. Coyle – Support restoring. The random tweet [11]), written by the known propogandist Simon, who works for Armenian lobby organization ANCA ([12]), cannot be a reason to dismiss reliable published source.
4. Hasanli – Support restoring, but to be used with attribution. If we will going to dismiss this source solely because it is related to Azerbaijan, then we shall remove dozens of other sources across the AA2 editing area, because there are number of articles citing books published in Armenia or Azerbaijan.
5. Hovannisian – Support restoring, no attribution is required for cases where information is not opposed by other reliably published sources.
6. Kaufman – Support restoring.
7. Kazemzadeh – Support restoring. RSN where literally no one commented cannot be used as a reason to dismiss reliable published source.
8. Korkotyan, Zaven – Support restoring, no attribution is required for cases where information is not opposed by other reliably published sources.
9. La Temps newspaper – Support restoring. I do not see why it is should be considered as a primary source
10. Mammadov & Musayev – Support restoring.
11. Tarasov, Stanislav – Support restoring, no attribution is required for cases where information is not opposed by other reliably published sources.
12. Volkova, Nataliya – Support restoring, no attribution is required for cases where information is not opposed by other reliably published sources.
13. Additionally: Mark Levene - Support restoring. Mark Levene is a well-known and respected historian. "Devastation: The European Rimlands 1912–1938" is published by Oxford University Press, which fact-checks its content and is peer reviewed. If some of its material is sourced from McCarthy, then it means that that specific part of McCarthy's research has been examined and found to be accurate by Levene and Oxford Press team. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ZaniGiovanni

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

Summary of dispute by Dallavid

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

Olympian, could you please not make WP:ASPERSIONS personal attacks. The WP:ONUS is on you for creating the article, which you thought to be Good Article quality but were told by an AfC reviewer that it is not even B quality.[13] The amount of bytes in an edit has nothing to do with its quality or if it even deserves to be included, as Alalch explained.[14] And by "they have been unwilling to do so" I'm sure you meant to say that I pointed out you are the one that needs to go to RSN because you are trying to include the disputed content, right?

Anyways, I am in favor of merging this article with the Deportations article, although a redirect shouldn't be left behind because the article subject is largely original research, with the only source supporting it being written by a genocide denier. --Dallavid (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alalch E.

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

My initial vews on the dispute are located here Talk:Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)#Cont.

Objectors to this article have tried the following things: (1) to get it deleted, (2) to remove information that is the most specifically tied to the subject as expressed in the title (massacres), (3) to tag it with PoV and hoax templates, (4) to get it merged to its parent article, (5) to insert a selectively crafted version of a disputed element in the lead (and only there) to the effect of making the topic appear more questionable than it previously was (diff)

#1 Trying this seems like a bad idea in retrospect. I supported keeping the article, after changing my !vote from delete/draftify.

#2 I upheld the removal done by Dallavid considering his objections as probably having some merit, and something that needs to be seriously discussed. My expectation was that the interested editors, but primarily Olympian and Dallavid, would resolve the content dispute on the talk page in a vigorous discussion that would hopefully result in a compromise version of the removed content, so that a significant portion would be restored, relying more on attribution, as opposed to own-voice writing. Said editors are currently having a fruitful discussion on the talk page, but as Dallavid needs to defend his action, I expected him to be a little more active. In my view, his responses to Olympian's queries are a little terse, and a little weak.

#3 Trying to tag the page with these templates during an active dispute was a bad idea.

#4 Merger is not being discussed enough. Olympian seems to believe that if the title remains "Massacres of", merger to "Deportation of" would not be appropriate. I am still somewhat in favor of merger for reasons expressed here.

#5 This was a bad idea. I rewrote the lead. —Alalch E. 10:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) discussion

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

Hello, My name is The Great Wikipedian and I will be the volunteer handling this case today. I would greatly appreciate it if all parties involved could put in their statement. After reviewing the page, I see that there is a merge proposal, which could be a good option for the article. What are your thoughts?

First statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

I will try to moderate this content dispute. Please read the usual rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here. Address your comments to the moderator as the representative of the community. I am reminding the editors that this is a contentious topic, which has been subject to battleground editing because the border regions of Azerbaijan and Armenia have been real battlegrounds for more than a hundred years. Because this is a contentious topic, ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been authorized for disruptive editing based on WP:ARBAA2. I am asking each editor to provide a statement that they agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual ground rules and subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I am also asking each editor to provide either a one-paragraph summary of what they want changed or left the same in the article, or a list of bullet-points that they want changed in the article, or left the same.

First statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

Statement by Olympian

I acknowledge and agree to the moderated discussion subject to the usual ground rules and subject to discretionary sanctions. In regards to the content that I want changed, I'm seeking a almost-complete reversion of Dallavid's massive content removal (excepting the Aharonian source which I agreed is considered WP:PRIMARY), basically, a restoration of content referencing the sources by the following authors (use CTRL+F to find the sources in the bibliography section of this version [15]):

1. Baberovski, Jorg
2. Balayev, Aydyn
3. Coyle, James J.
4. Hasanli, Jamil
5. Hovannisian, Richard G. (volumes 2 and 4)
6. Kaufman, Stuart
7. Kazemzadeh, Firuz
8. Korkotyan, Zaven
9. La Temps newspaper
10. Mammadov, Ilgar & Musayev, Tofik
11. Tarasov, Stanislav
12. Volkova, Nataliya

And a partial removal of content by Taner Akçam (due to its content being proven to be outside of the scope of the article [16]), specifically along the lines of: Turkish-German historian Taner Akçam posits that the massacres against the Muslim population of Armenia are exaggerated or even outright fabrications in order to "reinforce the image of the 'Armenian peril.' – Olympian ^loquere 12:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Alalch E.

I agree to a moderated discussion etc. (I will not edit the article, participate on the talk page etc.) I request that my advocacy here be seen as subsidiary in function: Whatever Dallavid and Olympian (edit: and Abrvagl) agree on and is different from what I suggest below, my position should be ignored. There's another thing that probably goes without saying but I'll say it: Whichever form of the content that is to be restored if any emerges from this process, it should be seen as an incremental change relative to the current state of the article; the restorations should be done manually without reverting to a previous revision. For example I think that my version of the lead is a good starting point for a better future lead, and should not be undone by simply reverting to the old lead. That being said:

1. Baberowski – Support restoring
2. Balayev – Support restoring
3. Coyle – I lean toward supporting Dallavid's criticism of Coyle (in connection to the tweet; it's on the talk page [17]) and not restoring at least as an intermediate step; Coyle's literature should be removed from the scope of this dispute resolution process so that it can be handled via RSN afterwards, and this reference should not be restored before that
4. Hasanli – I lean toward not restoring at all because, honestly, his book doesn't look very good to me in connection to what was said here: User talk:El C#Question re warning
5. Hovannisian – I support restoring with more attribution, and possibly quoting, per talk page
6. Kaufman – I agree with Olympian that "one sentence is sufficient to be referenced, we don't require an entire book written about the subject to be able to reference its information", and I support restoring, but preferably as a quote, because if it's one sentence in the whole book, that seems like a good opportunity to quote.
7. Kazemzadeh – Same as with Coyle, remove from scope of this dispute resolution and take to RSN afterwards, I tend toward supporting Dallavid's objection here, and I agree more with the critics in the cited existing (but unresolved) RSN thread than with the other side, but I'm not certain.
8. Korkotyan, Zaven – I don't have a strong enough position on the issue of Soviet historiography
9. La Temps newspaper – Support restoring, not a primary source
10. Mammadov & Musayev – Lean toward restoring, not sure about how practical in-text attribution would be here
11. Tarasov, Stanislav – It's the Soviet hist. issue which I don't have a strong position on
12. Volkova, Nataliya – Same as above. —Alalch E. 15:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

It appears that there at least two areas of disagreement about article content. First, some editors want to rewrite the lede paragraph of the article. Second, it appears that some editors want to remove certain content because of questions about the reliability of the sources that the content is based on. Are there any third or fourth areas of disagreement about article content? If so, please describe them briefly. This should be a relatively straightforward question that should not take long to answer. If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for the status of the sources, but that can wait until we determine what the areas of disagreement are. I will be asking each editor to rewrite the lede paragraph, but I am not asking that at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

Two editors have made preliminary statements, but have not answered my question of whether there are any other issues, so I am assuming that the answer is no. The other editors have not made preliminary statements.

I am now asking each editor who has made a preliminary statement to submit a proposed rewrite of the lede paragraph. I am asking each editor who has not made a preliminary statement to make a statement as to what they want changed (or left the same) in the article. I am also asking all of the editors to provide a list of all of the sources that they want reviewed at the reliable source noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

Statement by Olympian

Apologies for the late reply. There are no other issues—in fact, I'm not entirely opposed to the lede paragraph written by Alalch E.; If the disputed content is added back, I would add to the lede's existing structure/wording as appropriate. In a nutshell, the lede isn't a subject of contention in this case. However, in the case of the sources, as listed in my last reply [18], whichever ones Dallavid opposes and questions the reliability of, I'm open to being discussed in RSN, which happens to be all of them (excepting the Hovannisian and Kaufman sources which had problems re wording/attribution, not reliability). Also, both Alalch E. and Abrvagl made statements supporting the restoration of most (6 and 12, of 12, respectively) of the sources that I listed: [19] [20]. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Dallavid

I agree to moderated discussion. I would like the article to remain essentially as it is now, with all of the unreliable sources and their content removed. However, in this current state, the sources that actually are reliable to not really discuss massacres, but rather Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. I would support what content in the massacres article that is credible being eventually moved to the deportation article without leaving a redirect behind. Concerning some of the sources proposed being added back, I would like to point out that Baberowski is a genocide denier, Hovannisian mentioning extraordinary claims is not the same as endorsing them, and La Temps is an example of WP:AGE MATTERS.

There is also the area of disagreement of whether the article should be merged into Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. If the removed content remains removed, then there will be no sources justifying the existence of a massacres article, which is largely original research.

For the lede, I would support removing "Azerbaijanis in Armenia were targeted as "Turkish fifth columnists" in connection to the Armenian genocide which had ended in 1917." and "Armenia's minister of war, Rouben Ter Minassian pursued a policy of ethnic homogenization in the affected areas" being removed from the lede, as both of these sources are referring to deportations, and their use in the header misleadingly implies they refer to massacres. --Dallavid (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, I have a question. Is Abrvagl calling a genocide denier's work "accurate" something that the discretionary sanctions you asked us to acknowledge would be subject to?

McCarthy's books have been published in university presses; that has done nothing to make him any less regarded as a dishonest fringe pseudo-historian.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl is knowingly attempting to justify using a genocide denier as a source. --

Dallavid (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by ZaniGiovanni

I would support the article being merged into the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article, of which this article is a clear POV fork of. There are no sources specifically dedicated to the Massacres subject, which is not a notable topic by itself. I also support the removal all of the sources that were removed, as these are largely fringe sources or sources cited out of context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

There is some discussion of McCarthy as an unreliable source. Is that Justin McCarthy (American historian)? He is not currently either listed in the Bibliography or the References or mentioned in the article. Should he be included in the inquiry at the reliable source noticeboard, or is it agreed that he is a biased source and is considered a genocide denier? Also, I am assuming that any references to genocide denial more specifically are about denial of the Armenian genocide.

Some of the sources that are in dispute are not currently in the article, and may have been removed, so that the question is whether to restore them. Will each editor please provide enough information to identify the source for RSN, either the full name of the author, in brackets if they have an article, or the title of the work by the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

Statement by Olympian

Robert McClenon, Mark Levene in his book Devastation references Justin McCarthy for the following passage in the book on page 217:

… and in the cross-border Kars region on the other, Armenian units—notably those led by Andranik in the latter case—went on a veritable killing spree, 'emptying one Tatar (Azeri) village after another'. According to British reports, by May of that year 250 Muslim villages in the eastern Caucasus had been burnt down.

When Dallavid complained about the reliability of the claim due to it referencing McCarthy [21], I removed it [22]. After this, Abrvagl left a comment disagreeing with my decision to remove the source given that it's published by Oxford University Press [23].

On the issue of genocide-denialism, they have been conflated in the replies in this thread and on the original talk page discussion: Dallavid alleges that of two of the authors of the removed sources, Jorg Baberowski is a Holocaust denier and Jamil Hasanli is an Armenian genocide denier. In regards to McCarthy, I don't question the fact that he's an Armenian genocide-denier after having researched him, however, I believe Abrvagl is suggesting that it'd be appropriate for RSN to decide whether Levene's claim is suitable, nonetheless, for Wikipedia-usage.

In regards to your second point, you can view the citation/details of Levene's book Devastation in the bibliography section of the article by searching "Levene"; incase someone removes it—as it's currently unused in the article—the ISBN is 9780191505546. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 05:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Dallavid

Robert McClenon Yes, it's that McCarthy, originally added to the article by Olympian. Although Olympian removed the McCarthy citation after another user pointed out he is a genocide denier, I've since discovered that much of the article content that I removed had come from McCarthy's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922" source, specifically from pages 208 to 221. This unreliable source is the only source that has been provided so far that has a real focus on "Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)" (even the date range comes from McCarthy), rather than a combination of being about deportations and original research instead.

Baberovski is a defender of Ernst Nolte,[24] who has his own section on Holocaust denial. And here is a quote from Hasanli that shows he is a genocide denier. --Dallavid (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Jörg Baberowski is undeniably a very controversial figure, as one look at the "Academic criticism", "Political views and disputes" and "Conflict with Trotskyists" sections that take up half of his article prove. He is clearly a fringe source, and also somewhat of a clown known for attacking students and failed defamation lawsuits against his critics. "Baberowski is a central figure within the far-right milieu. He spreads xenophobic hate speech, downplays violence against refugees and relativizes the crimes of the Nazis. In February 2014, he claimed in Der Spiegel that Hitler was not vicious and that the Holocaust was comparable to shootings during the Russian Civil War." --Dallavid (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Abrvagl

Robert McClenon, I do not have much issues to comment, and I covered must of what I wanted to say in the summary. None of the quotes of Hasanli here proves or implies that he denies Armenian genocide. The simplest approach to discredit any source in AA is to assert that the author is a genocide denier, but there should be consensus or credible sources proving this. It is not the prerogative of editors to label an author as a genocide denier based on their original research. For example: Jörg Baberowski is German historian and Professor of Eastern European History at the Humboldt University of Berlin. He also was appointed to a chair in Eastern European history at the University of Leipzig in 2001 and book he wrote won the Leipzig Book Prize in 2012. There are should be strong reasons to discredit Baberowski, and allegations that Baberowski is not reliable because he is "defender of Ernst Nolte" is not that kind of reason. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

I have posted a list of the sources that we want an opinion on at the reliable source noticeboard. We don't have an article on a newspaper named La Temps, so that a query will require more information. Are there any other authors or works for which inquiries at RSN are in order?

Are there any content issues that do not depend on reliability of sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)

Statement by Olympian

Robert McClenon Thanks for posting that to RSN. I hope you don't mind, I've just updated the RSN request with full details of the sources in question to avoid ambiguity/confusion [25] I've added the Le Temps newspaper and Levene source to the request too.

The content issues which don't depend on the reliability of sources are in regards to two removed sections of the article that reference the volumes by Hovannisian, whose reliability as an author is unquestioned:

1. In dealing with "troublesome" Muslim bands in Etchmiadzin, Armenian militias looted Muslim villages along the railway, forcing their inhabitants to flee across the Aras river—in an instance of this, the men of six Muslim villages were massacred and the women distributed to the "Armenian warriors".

What the source states: "On August 20 Topchibashev warned the peace conference that the ethnic and territorial character of the Caucasus was being radically altered through a policy of terror and violence. Armenian aggression in the provinces of Erevan and Kars, … was aimed at eliminating the Muslim population … It had just been learned, for example, that the men of six villages had been massacred and their womenfolk distributed to the “Armenian warriors.” Azerbaijan could no longer tolerate such atrocities or acquiesce in the loss of a part of its land and people … Armenian militiamen and irregulars exacted retribution from the most vulnerable Muslim settlements"

2. Mustafa Kemal, the leader of the Turkish National Movement, in justifying an invasion of Armenia, stated that reportedly nearly 200 villages were burned by Armenians and most of their 135 thousand inhabitants were "eliminated".

What the source states: "the Grand National Assembly declared that the Erevan government since its inception had done everything possible to decimate the large Turkish-Muslim element under its dominion. Because the West ignored the voice of the Muslim population, the Dashnaks had perpetrated every conceivable form of cruelty … In the Erevan district alone, nearly 200 villages had reportedly been burned and most of the 135,000 Muslims eliminated."

Whilst point 2 has proper atribution already, I'm amenable to changing the wording of point 1 to something along the lines of:

During the Paris Peace Conference, Azerbaijani diplomat Alimardan bey Topchubashov accused the Armenians of massacring the men of six villages and distributing their women. Hovannisian states that "the most vulnerable Muslim settlements" were exposed to retribution by Armenian "militiamen and irregulars".

– Olympian ^loquere 07:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Voivodeship of Maramureș

– New discussion.

Filed by Gyalu22 on 15:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Voivodeship of Maramureș (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Super Dromaeosaurus (talk · contribs)
• Gyalu22 (talk · contribs)
• OrionNimrod (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over the inclusion of some data about the ethnicities in the region the article is about. Tangibly, the disagreement is over that should the modern speculation that the establishing Romanians could speak the Aromanian language and could be from the vicinity of the Lake Ohrid be mentioned or not; and that should another ethnicity — the Rusyns — be written down as immigrants as the cited source does or just simply residents.

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

Talk:Voivodeship_of_Maramureș#Neutrality

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think another opinion from anyone would decide the debate. He/she doesn't have to be active in the topic as the discussion is mostly on how to treat the used references.

Summary of dispute by Super Dromaeosaurus

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

Summary of dispute by OrionNimrod

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

Voivodeship of Maramureș 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 not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did that now. [26] [27] Gyalu22 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Maramures)

I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the editors agree to it. Please read the usual rules for moderated discussion. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do you agree to these rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Rent regulation

– 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 Lila1994 on 04:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Rent regulation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lila1994 (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Drmies (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The rent regulation page is deeply biased and polemical, providing broad unsupported statements such as "there is a consensus" and "many economists believe." I have attempted to better those citations and to add additional context and other users have blocked me from doing so. I am concerned about the neutrality of this page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lila1994 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe this page needs a neutral assessment of the sources cited and language used. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Drmies Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is no dispute. User kept blanking material. MrOllie and I reverted because their edit summaries were insufficient--four instance, they kept saying that a source was "unjustifiable" when the material they removed had FOUR references. Yes, brand-new editor sought the talk page but apparently can't wait for an answer. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Rent regulation 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.

Schloss Fuschl

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jamesluckard on 01:22, 18 January 2023 (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 Schloss Fuschl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jamesluckard (talk · contribs) Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Twice, on September 12 and December 27, I attempted to expand the short article on the Schloss Fuschl. The first time, user Justlettersandnumbers reverted my additions for being "ill-sourced." The second time, I found more sources, but Justlettersandnumbers again reverted my changes. This time, Justlettersandnumbers claimed my edits were "Promotion," that a portion failed the "Crystal Ball" rules, and also complained about my additional sources. It's my opinion the sources I've found are the best available for a relatively obscure historical site. The primary source was a booklet published by the hotel, but it only contains historical data, no opinion about or endorsement of the business. The booklet was written by a legitimate local historian. As for Promotion, the page here says promotion consists of "advocacy, opinion, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising." I can't find evidence of that in what I wrote. Finally, the Crystal Ball rule feels like it is being applied incorrectly. I provided sources for statements about the near future. The Crystal Ball page here says it's okay to include things about the future if they are "almost certain to take place." I would also add that almost everything in my two revisions is contained in the German-language article here, which has virtually no sources listed. I asked two other members here to chime in with their thoughts. You'll see their comments on the Talk page. One is a friend of mine, the other is a stranger I found on a page I frequently edit, the St. Regis New York hotel. I am requesting a dispute resolution because the other user has not replied recently, and the page is fairly obscure, so it hasn't attracted any other Talk page comments. I'm hoping a fair resolution can be arrived at. Perhaps I just need to find a few more sources for my text, but it's all interesting historical information and it seems a shame to delete it all entirely. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Schloss_Fuschl User_talk:Justlettersandnumbers/2022 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like an impartial moderator or moderators to look at my revisions of 9/12 and 12/27, then review the comments on the Talk pages, and decide what the best course of action is. Thanks! Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Schloss Fuschl 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.

Jakarta

– New discussion.

Filed by Whatsup236 on 02:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Whatsup236 (talk · contribs)
• Merbabu (talk · contribs)
• Juxlos (talk · contribs)
• Ckfasdf (talk · contribs)
• Austronesier (talk · contribs)
• Bluesatellite (talk · contribs)
• JarrahTree (talk · contribs)
• Baqotun0023 (talk · contribs)
• HyperGaruda (talk · contribs)
• Hddty (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia, but why are the flags and photo montages removed while all capital cities in the world in the Wikipedia article show the photo montage and regarding flags in every province in Indonesia there must be a flag symbol

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

Talk:Jakarta#Why_photo_montage_and_the_flag_is_removed_?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

In order to be able to restore the photo montage and the flag symbol

Summary of dispute by Merbabu

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

Summary of dispute by Juxlos

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

Summary of dispute by Ckfasdf

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.

Summary of dispute by Bluesatellite

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

Summary of dispute by JarrahTree

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

Summary of dispute by Baqotun0023

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

Summary of dispute by HyperGaruda

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

Summary of dispute by Hddty

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

Summary of dispute by

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

Jakarta discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Please notify the other editors. When they respond, a case can be opened. With ten editors listed, moderated discussion is not likely to result in compromise, but an RFC on whether the article should have a photo montage will probably be the outcome of the moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Stop edit-warring! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Al-Bayan (radio station)

– New discussion.

Filed by LaundryPizza03 on 03:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Al-Bayan (radio station) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs)
• Panam2014 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is an ISIL-owned pirate radio station with known operations in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Panam2014 and I disagree on whether the list of known frequencies used by Al-Bayan in Libya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

In 2017, Panam2014 had successfully proposed blacklisting all sites under a family of ISIL domains at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2017#Terrorist propaganda, having described them as terrorist propaganda sites with short lifespan (though not on grounds of legality). Panam2014 removed the list of radio frequencies in Libya on November 7, initially because it was deemed "terrorist propaganda". Following my rough judgment of consensus of a subsequent AN, I restored the content per WP:NOTCENSORED on November 9, but was reverted again as "dangerous and illegal content". Following a lengthy rebuttal by several users at Al-Bayan's talk page and Panam2014's user talk, plus parallel discussions at the French Wikipedia, Panam2014 no longer believes that the disputed content is illegal or terrorist propaganda. I restored the content on December 9, but was reverted about 3 hours later because Panam2014 nonetheless deemed the information to be impertinent. I then opened an RfC, as they had asked, but it received only one comment from a third party during the standard 30-day frame, despite notification of the relevant WikiProjects, and the result is probably insufficient for consensus. Therefore, I have brought the issue to DRN as a last resort.

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive347#Terrorist propaganda
• Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station)#Libya frequencies
• User talk:Panam2014#WP:NLT
• Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station)#RfC: Radio frequencies

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To decide whether to restore the content to the article (possibly with a new source — the previously-used one looks rather iffy). It may be worthwhile to look more closely at Panam2014's history in the topic area of ISIL, but that would need to proceed at WP:ANI.

Summary of dispute by Panam2014

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

Al-Bayan (radio station) discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - I have formally closed the December RFC as No Consensus. A better-publicized RFC is one way to resolve the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Which page would you recommend? My next go-to in a situation like this would be to choose a relevant WikiProject talk page, but I'm not sure which one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)