Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve 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 enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words.
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
SCUM Manifesto	In Progress	TaqPCR (t)	33 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 days, 15 hours	Sangdeboeuf (t)	10 hours
Lena Katina	New	Thedarkknightli (t)	16 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours
Spain	New	Léopold Favre (t)	11 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours
Emirate of Nekor	In Progress	Lankdadank (t)	6 days, 20 hours	Wichey (t)	1 hours	Carlstak (t)	33 minutes
Imran Khan	New	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	6 days, 18 hours	None	n/a	LesIie (t)	4 days, 18 hours
1985 Trincomalee massacres	New	SinhalaLion (t)	6 days, 14 hours	None	n/a	SinhalaLion (t)	6 days, 14 hours
Ministry of Ayush	New	Draconacht (t)	6 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 19 hours	Draconacht (t)	4 days, 2 hours
francia	New	Heraldry22276 (t)	5 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 19 hours	Reconrabbit (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Jessie (2011 TV series)	Closed	StrawberriesShiShi (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Wichey (t)	13 hours	Wichey (t)	13 hours
Ethiopian–Adal War	New	Habeshakira (t)	1 days, 22 hours	None	n/a	Habeshakira (t)	1 days, 22 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.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 72 hours are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 1.

Current disputes

SCUM Manifesto

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by TaqPCR on 21:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

SCUM Manifesto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The core dispute is whether or not "elimination of the male sex" through what is stated to involve what is self described as murder and "kill[ing] all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM" constitutes a description of androcide. And whether or not the literalness of the advocacy needs to be proven to include a wikilink.

Someone (not myself) added a link to androcide from the phrase "eliminate the male sex". Other users removed that saying it couldn't be added because it was not literal. I don't think whether something being discussed literal or not matters on whether it should be included.

edit: adding background that immediately after the quote is "It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody."

Other users mentioned that it was inconsistent with other views from elsewhere in the quote not being linked and I agreed so I added them together with it.

They said that we need a source that "eliminate the male sex" is "is the systematic killing of men because of their sex" or else that is original research so I found one discussing SCUM using androcide to describe eliminating the male sex.

Then they said that they never asked for sources and that they have sources that disagree. I asked what and they said the text itself (they had previously stated that primary sources should not be used for "interpretive claim[s]") because it says "Both destruction and killing will be selective and discriminate". I pointed out that the text said they would kill all men who do not join with them in either helping to kill other men, making men biologically unnecessary, or living in complete devotion to women. It also mentions that the "selective action" involves "SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking-up and killing until the money-work system no longer exists and automation is completely instituted or until enough women co-operate with SCUM to make violence unnecessary to achieve these goal"

Their latest statement is that it is not androcide because "entire groups of men will not be killed".

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SCUM_Manifesto#Androcide_/_Genocide

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a neutral view of whether "elimination of the male sex" through what is stated to involve what is self described as murder and "kill[ing] all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM" constitutes a description of androcide. And whether or not the literalness of the advocacy needs to be proven to include a link.

Summary of dispute by Sangdeboeuf

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

TaqPCR is conflating statements made by MrOllie with statements made by me as though they were made by the same person.

As I stated at Talk:SCUM Manifesto, I object mainly to inserting Wikilinks into direct quotations. Given the obvious hyperbolic tone of the manifesto and the fact that a number of scholars view it as satire (not to mention the mental condition of author Valerie Solanas), we cannot know what the author clearly intended. Therefore, any links (especially Easter egg links) within the quotation in the lead paragraph would effectively be putting words in the author's mouth.

I would be fine with including a brief summary of coverage by published, reliable sources that describe the manifesto as pro-androcide further down in the article. However, putting links to any such controversial topics in the very first paragraph would be WP:UNDUE. A single scholarly paper is not enough to establish the author's clearly intended meaning per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Relying on users' interpretations of language such as eliminate the male sex would be original research. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC) edited 20:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 OzzyMuffin238

Yeah, TaqPCR summarized it pretty decently. I thought that the actual meaning of the manifesto might reasonably be argued either way, but since these are interpretive claims, I am of the opinion that both claims ought to supported by secondary sources, and they shouldn't be framed as absolute statements of fact, but rather as interpretations of the primary source. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's obvious who wrote this, could you still sign your edit? It makes it easier to follow a discussion when somebody replies to you. Amatmilen (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the lack of signature the first time around; I was used to the autosign that works elsewhere on this site. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SCUM Manifesto 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 yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please read the contentious topic status of gender and sexuality before discussing this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought including them here notified them. I'll do so now. TaqPCR (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Note - The other editors have not commented here, 72 hours after being notified by the filing editor of this filing. If none of the other editors makes a statement, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I replied yesterday. The timestamp only says otherwise because I hadn't signed it at the time. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note: ~2026-32748-52 added but not notified. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 22:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
added though I think that temp account has been abandoned TaqPCR (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (SCUM Manifesto)

I am available to moderate this dispute if there is a content dispute. The purpose of moderated discussion here is to improve the article. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes to the article another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Please read DRN Rule D and the rule that discussions of gender and sexuality are a contentious topic. If at least two editors make statements that are in disagreement with each other, we will proceed with moderated discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (SCUM Manifesto)

First statement by TaqPCR

I wish to include links, including to androcide, in the quote in this section of the lede to SCUM Manifesto (currently there are no links in the quote, current citations are present but not included here).

First published in 1967, it blames men for the ills of humankind and urges women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex". It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody.

I am open to some alternatives for the first 3 links if there are suggestions for better targets (especially automation I think there might be better targets). The point of contention however is the inclusion of androcide. I believe that the manifesto is clear that this is a wide ranging elimination of men followed by the remainder gradually dying out and their ultimate extinction which I think can be described by no other target. Additionally the term has been used in some discussions of the manifesto (some other sources also describe it as genocide but I believe androcide to be the more accurate target). The degree to which this is sincere I am uncertain of but I believe that the literal next sentence being that it is sometimes viewed as a satire already addresses concerns that it could be seen as POV pushing. I am open to including an additional citation(s) to justify the links after the quote but I do not believe it necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaqPCR (talk • contribs) 02:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't sign since I'm used to it being automatically added and in some of the above discussions it wasn't being included in cases such as this where the author is stated by the section title. TaqPCR (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming a literal construction, I think the following about the first three links:

"overthrow the government" would best be linked either to Coup d'état or Revolution rather than Anarchy;
"eliminate the money system" may be fine as-is unless there's a specific article on elimination of the money system as an objective of post-capitalism; and
"automation" is fine as-is insofar as the statement is talking about eliminating the need for commerce etc.

(I'm not counting this as part of my zeroth statement since it's incidental.) --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Later in SCUM she states "There’s no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders" and "SCUM is against the entire system, the very idea of law and government" so while a literal reading of the quote itself would probably link to those I think it's fair to say she meant "overthrow the government" in a more universalist meaning that makes sense to link to anarchy. There's definitely a reason sources describe her as anarchist a lot.
Yeah I agree I wasn't able to find a better one there either though I think it's pretty close except perhaps it could be merged with the next one
Automation I'm a bit iffy on because the article isn't really about the kind of utopian automation she discusses. An option would be linking the full phrase ("institute complete automation") to post-scarcity or one of it's subsections? Also if we link there we could combine it and "eliminate the money system" but I think I'm leaning against that.

TaqPCR (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by OzzyMuffin238

In light of @Sangdeboeuf's concerns, I would suggest leaving the quoted material itself alone, but inserting something after the quoted material to the effect of "it has been speculated that this remark may be about androcide" (complete with a secondary source to that effect), before adding: "…although some scholars have disputed whether the manifesto should be taken literally in this respect", together with a citation to the sources that offer non-literal interpretations of the manifesto. I'm obviously not married to the wording I used here; I'm just suggesting the general idea. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this specific wording looks like improper synthesis. Do we know that the quotation in the lead paragraph is what Ioanes (2022) is referring to? (Ioanes actually cites the edition using destroy the male sex before explaining that it is not a straightforward explanation for Solanas's shooting of Warhol). ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by volunteer (SCUM Manifesto)

There seems to have been WP:NPOV and WP:OR violatons that were restored and removed on a repeated basis. Because this concerns gender and sexuality, which is designated as a contentious topic, I would recommend that participants of this discussion read WP:CT/GENSEX. The proposed changes require community consensus, as per the standard set of restrictions in contentious topics. If MrOllie commented, it would help resolve this dispute. If it's needed, I will draft an RFC. If there are no objections to this, I will open it.

Thank you.🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 15:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (SCUM Manifesto)

First statement by Sangdeboeuf

I don't think an RfC is needed at the moment. As the anonymous account has so far not participated in any discussions, it's basically a WP:1AM dispute. Unless and until additional editors decide to support TaqPCR's proposed addition, we shouldn't waste more of the community's time with this. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say that I'm strictly "against" @TaqPCR; I actually do agree in principle that there ought to be a link somewhere in the article to androcide. The problem is the way he's suggested implementing it, which I think could be alleviated pretty easily. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but the specific proposal here (not to mention previous edit warring) has been about adding links to the quotation from the manifesto in the lead paragraph. I'm OK with adding relevant Wikilinks along with a summary of relevant secondary source coverage further down in the article, as I stated. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm skeptical that OzzyMuffin238's most recent suggestion comports with due weight. So far the only independent, reliable source supporting the connection to androcide has been Ioanes (2022), with the relevant quotation being: [T]he contradictory gender politics of the [SCUM Manifesto] itself have become an ambivalent, paradoxical resource for autotheoretical writers. In addition to advocating androcide, the manifesto draws on transphobic accounts of gender identity in its critique of patriarchy [...].

We shouldn't cherry-pick the reference to androcide from this discussion that focuses far more on transgender issues and autotheory, especially in the lead section. Nor should weasel words such as it has been speculated and some scholars be used to suggest that the issue is more substantiated than it is (let alone imply a connection not stated by any one source). However, I'd be fine with adding a brief, representative summary of the Ioanes source under § Reception. Indeed, that should have been done before proposing any additions to the lead section. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say that I wasn't married to my exact wording. But how about "Ioanes has interpreted the manifesto literally as 'advocating androcide', whereas scholars X, Y, and Z have argued in favor of a more figurative interpretation"?

As for WP:UNDUE, however, I frankly don't see a problem including Ioanes. Just because it's apparently solitary in the context of WP:RS doesn't mean it's WP:FRINGE; it is a plausible interpretation in light of a verbatim reading, which doubtless many ordinary readers (i.e. non-academics) have given to the work.

At any rate, I'm fine placing it in SCUM manifesto § Reception. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be UNDUE to put it in the lead section, especially in the first paragraph. Whether you or I think it's a plausible interpretation is not relevant. Looking at the entire source in context, the connection to androcide is still a minor aspect of Ioanes's argument, and the comparison with scholars X, Y, and Z reads like editorializing to me. Better to place Ioanes in their own paragraph summarizing their main thesis, not just this one aspect. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by TaqPCR

I have little knowledge about RFCs so on that topic I will largely defer to our volunteer's experience though I would like to look more into what it would involve if you still believe it the best choice.

I also am interested in the moderator's opinion as to whether we can link things regardless of whether they are viewed by sources as a literal endorsement or not. I understand that OzzyMuffin wants to add text to explain the disagreement on interpretation of whether the endorsement is literal or not, but I do not view that as important in linking "it", because what "it" is remains the same whether or not someone is literally endorsing "it" or not.

As to the idea that it is WP:Fringe to view SCUM as describing the systematic killing of men because of their sex.

Sources that describe SCUM or Solanas using Androcide/al:

aforementioned Loanes 2022
(The work also uses genocidal) "For present purposes, however, my interest lies in the fringe of female cultural performances that may be called 'androcidal feminism.' These cultural products envisage, and usually depict as desirable, a world cleansed of men and masculinities. Possibly the most notorious work of 1960s feminist agitprop is Valerie Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto" Genocides by the Oppressed : Subaltern Genocide in Theory and Practice page 189, edited by Nicholas A. Robins, and Adam Jones,

one of the authors, Adam Jones, is listed as Executive Director of Gendercide Watch as listed on his wiki page.

"[translated] the argument of a disability specific to the latter in order to justify her androcide project" Ledoux-Beaugrand, E. (2013). Littéralisation et lignée féministe: l’héritage du Scum Manifesto dans Les Mouflettes d’Atropos de Chloé Delaume. Nottingham French Studies, 52(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.3366/nfs.2013.0064
"Without endorsing this act, we might expect women to commit androcide as a natural response to ‘gynocide,’ given the basic human drive to retribution. If we consider Solanas from this perspective, her out- rageous call to ‘kill all men’ does not seem devoid of a vengeful logic." Addison, C. (2020). Radical Feminism and Androcide in Nawal El Saadawi’s Woman at Point Zero. English Studies in Africa, 63(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00138398.2020.1852683
"Valerie is the only western feminist that [Addison the author of the above quote] has cited who publicly endorses androcide as an antidote, deterrent, or punishment for patriarchy." Hafiza Rimsha Malik, Nimra Maryam, & Malaika Zafar. (2025). Exploring Women Oppression: A Radical Feminism Study of “The Story of an Hour, By Kate Chopin”. `, 4(02), 59–70. Retrieved from https://assajournal.com/index.php/36/article/view/929
"Vanessa Place's Boycott (Brooklyn: Ugly Duckling Presse [sic], 2013) had substituted all references to women with their male counterparts in her rewriting of fifteen iconic feminist texts, including Valerie Solanas's androcidal ‘SCUM Manifesto’." Milesi, L. (2015). CounterTexting One Another: Conceptual Poetics, Flarf, and Derridean Countersignature. CounterText, 1(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.3366/count.2015.0018

Sources that describe SCUM or Solanas using gendercide (I also note that Wikipedia uses androcide as the title for gendercide's male subsection instead of male gendercide).

"In the SCUM Manifesto, Solanas calls for women to commit gendercide against men to build a feminist utopia." Rose A. Owen; A World without Men: Valerie Solanas and the Feminist Uses of Violence. New Political Science 1 March 2022; 44 (1): 105–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2021.2024025
(discusses Owen from above, and directly states it interprets SCUM as seriously endorsing violence) "The SCUM Manifesto’s prescription of gendercide can look so absurd, so much like satire and ironic inversion, that it can be tempting to lean into its rhetorical style as a way of disavowing the stubborn fact that, at bottom, the SCUM manifesto endorses feminist violence." Duong, K. (2022). Violence: Introduction to the Special Issue. New Political Science, 44(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2031024
(also discusses Owen from above) "Although interpreted by some as a call for gendercide,[citation of Owens] Solanas’s intention was that the manifesto be taken up by women to use violence against men to enable the destruction of ‘the money-work system’ by which women are subjugated to men. However, there is no reason (in law, at least) why a state-driven gendercide, proceeding from the starting point that men to not have the right to life might be brought about and yet leave that system in place to be adapted by women as they see fit." Fletcher, R. (2024). Against a Dark Background: The Prevention of Femicide Act 2023 and the Problem of Legislating for Control. International Journal of Gender, Sexuality and Law, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.19164/ijgsl.v3i1.1576
"it is not Solanas’ literary anger or her call for male gendercide that ultimately caused her text to be dismissed in popular discourse" Malinowska, A. J. (2025). Valerie Solanas’ utopian world-building: Feminist poetics of anger and political violence in SCUM Manifesto (1967). Feminist Review, 140(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789251361129
(this is the literal opening sentence) "In 1967, Valerie Solanas wrote and self-published the SCUM Manifesto, which called for male gendercide" Liang, E. (2011). "The Shock Value of the SCUM Manifesto." Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 3(10). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=589

and many more

and the number which describe it as genocidal is far greater still (again many of the above sources also use genocidal as a description of SCUM so it is not a matter of believing in a different description but of term usage). I will also note that Sangdeboeuf was the one who changed the lede description from "genocide of the male sex" to "eliminating the male sex" before changing it to the quote and eliminating all category tags that link it to genocide despite that being the most popular term for describing it's "eliminat[ion of] the male sex". That includes "The Radical Possibilities of Valerie Solanas" by Fahs, a source they directly cited as justification for content additions/removals ("The decision to associate maleness with genetic deficiency frames her argument for male genocide") Though I do think it's somewhat off to describe it using wikipedia's definitions/categorizations for genocide, we must either accept that means that when an author describes SCUM using genocide they mean the Wikipedia topic androcide, or that SCUM should indeed be described using the Wikipedia topic genocide (but that would require a much larger rework than this). I don't believe there is any serious question as to whether sources agree that SCUM's "eliminate the male sex" refers to the topic that Wikipedia titles by the name androcide, whether they call it androcide, gendercide, or genocide. TaqPCR (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Thoughts? Going by the titles, it appears as though a couple of these commentaries are explicitly focused on androcide. If they're reliable, this seems to establish that TaqPCR isn't merely synthesizing. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to go through all these sources yet (a couple of which do not have links, making it even more time-consuming to find them), but I will say TaqPCR could have saved a lot of other editors' time by bringing these sources to the article talk page for discussion before filing an entire DRN case. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have confidence that would satisfy you when, after being given the first source, you said other citations said the opposite and when I asked what sources you replied saying the SCUM Manifesto itself and eventually made the statement In other words, entire groups of men will not be killed in the imagined future of the SCUM Manifesto. Thus proving MrOllie correct in that it is obviously not androcide. And when on my talk page I said that I agreed with your suggestion that we would have to link all of her positions and that I found a citation that you had asked for on you said I never said either of those things. at which point I decided to take your advice and seek dispute resolution. TaqPCR (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found a citation that you had asked for [...] When did I say that? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We go by the predominant views among reliable sources, not dictionary definitions I then gave you one and the next reply you made still talked about POV and NOR, I pointed out I literally just posted a source and you said Others have already provided citations that say the opposite. We don't pick and choose based on our personal POV, we go by the predominant views of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT. And while I suppose I could have spent the time making this giant list, at the time I really wanted to know what other sources you were talking about. And then you replied The manifesto itself with the following conversation ending with the aforementioned idea that In other words, entire groups of men will not be killed in the imagined future of the SCUM Manifesto. Thus proving MrOllie correct in that it is "obviously not androcide". Which is a statement I still cannot believe someone could have seriously said. TaqPCR (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are still arguing based on your personal point of view. That's not how we determine due weight. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm arguing based on the sources I listed. TaqPCR (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

POV or not, it's ultimately just an interpretive claim advanced by several reliable sources that are also secondary in nature, just like the other position. As I've said earlier, I think the best option were to simply include both points of view—although perhaps under SCUM manifesto § Reception, per Sangdeboeuf—and let readers decide for themselves how they want to interpret the text, as it's a question that may well remain open until the end of time. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we can expand the reception session with more discussion as to the extent she is serious about the goals of SCUM, but do you believe there is any question that one of the goals of SCUM within the manifesto is complete and total androcide? And do you think whether or not the advocacy is serious is important as to whether we link it in the quote? I feel as if including the quote and including the quote with links are not fundamentally that different and that we already cover the concerns about the quote being POV pushing in the next sentence. TaqPCR (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, my own personal interpretation (a literal one) is irrelevant. Given that there is at least a colorable argument that it's some kind of prank, or satire, I'm inclined at this point to believe that linking to androcide, except strictly to compare and contrast different scholars' interpretations of the text, is a species of suggestion that could indicate bias in favor of said literal interpretation. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, my own personal interpretation (a literal one) is irrelevant. To clarify, I wasn't asking whether you think she was advocating SCUM commit androcide seriously or as part of a satire, I was asking if you think there is any question that (satirically or not) what she describes SCUM as committing is androcide. Because I don't think there is any serious disagreement in the sources there. They may differ in the words they use and how seriously they take her, but I don't think any source argues against it being what Wikipedia categorizes as androcide.

As to the idea that linking it biases towards a literal interpretation, while I think maybe that's theoretically true, I don't think linking the article on child cannibalism in the lede to A Modest Proposal is meaningfully biasing the readers towards a literal interpretation. And in any case I think it's miniscule in comparison to including the quote at all which is why we already have the next sentence being It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody. TaqPCR (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh; I apologize for the misunderstanding. I personally don't see any question as to whether the words themselves are referring to androcide. By analogy, I think it might well be considered genocide if someone were to advocate eliminating a given religion, since, even if it were purely by conversion rather than murder etc., it would still result in the end of that religion and its attendant culture. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the genocide convention does explicitly include religious groups already and acts other than death are included in it including prevention of births (which SCUM does include by analogy of female only artificial reproduction) and forcible transference of children from one group to the other (Solanas doesn't really mention children/boys in terms of what will happen in SCUM) though interestingly I don't think adult forced conversion is covered under the genocide convention (which SCUM by analogy does advocate for). TaqPCR (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by possible moderator (SCUM Manifesto)

I am now moderating this discussion. Please reread DRN Rule D, which states that editors should not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and that the moderator will ask questions, and the editors will address the community, and the moderator, who represents the community. I have not read the back-and-forth discussion, and we are starting over. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state briefly what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Be civil and concise. Remember that overly long statements make the poster feel better, but may not inform the community as to what the issues are.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I do think my discussion with Ozzy at least has been productive at least which should be helpful going forward (we had not discussed as much as I had with the other editor).

Also, unrelated, I noticed that for some reason when Ozzy comments the table at the top of this page reflects him as the "Last Volunteer edit" instead of as an editor. IDK if we want to try to fix this or if it's not worth trying to tinker with however the page works.

Also I'm going to assume but hope to get a confirmation from you that another editor going to my talk page is also disallowed? TaqPCR (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That might have to do with me having recently added myself as a volunteer-in-training for the DRN. But for the purpose of this dispute, I'm just another editor. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (SCUM Manifesto)

Second statement by TaqPCR

The intro section of SCUM Manifesto includes "...urges women to 'overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex'. It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody." I wish to include links to anarchy, post capitalism, automation, and androcide as links in the quote. The main topic of contention is the last one, androcide. My belief is that there is not any real disagreement in the sources that SCUM describes what Wikipedia categorizes as androcide. Some sources refer to it as male genocide or male gendercide instead of androcide (sometimes they will use both androcide and one or more of these) but Wikipedia categorizes those as androcide. While there is maybe the slightest bit of discussion to be had about whether male genocide means they're referring to androcide, the page on gendercide actually lists androcide as the male form of it and links it as the main article on the topic. My above comment includes several sources that either use androcide or male gendercide.

I believe that linking it among the other links in the quote in the intro does not meaningfully push the POV that she is being serious and not satirical, particularly given the sentence following the quote states that some view it as a satire or parody, and think trying to more directly frame the disagreement in the lede would be too much. I think the sources I've found since the beginning of the DRN might also be useful for expanding the text's main body but I do not have a concrete suggestion for what text to add or where at this time. TaqPCR (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by OzzyMuffin238

I agree that the literal meaning of eliminate the male sex unambiguously refers to androcide. The question is whether, because there's a plausible argument to be made that the manifesto could be satirical, that phrase should be linked to the article on androcide. Given the clarifier that immediately follows, however—that it has sometimes been interpreted as satire (which could possibly be modified to clarify that the question is open, such as "Scholars have disputed whether the work is satire")—I don't see a problem with the link. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by possible moderator (SCUM Manifesto)

The long answers that I am getting to the question of what each editor wants to change or leave the same are not helpful. Is the primary issue what links to include in the Subject field of the infobox? Are there also questions about what to include in the lede section, or is the dispute limited to the infobox? It appears that one of the content issues is whether to include androcide in the infobox. What other questions are there? Will each editor in particular state whether they want androcide included in the infobox?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (SCUM Manifesto)

Third statement by TaqPCR

I believe the only point of contention here is including links in the lede, no discussion about infobox changes has occurred.

For maximum clarity I wish to add links to a quote in the lede. And my understanding is that if this is done Ozzy wishes to change the sentence following the quote to more directly state that it is debated, I do not care either way other than suggesting present tense.

Thus my suggestion combined with a modification of Ozzy's proposal is that we change a portion of the lede from

...urges women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex". It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody.

to

...urges women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex". Scholars dispute whether the work is satire.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TaqPCR (talk • contribs)

@TaqPCR: Heads-up: you forgot to sign your statement. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit I'm still to used to the standard reply system. TaqPCR (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by OzzyMuffin238

The point of contention is the first paragraph of the lede: The question is whether the phrase eliminate the male sex should be linked to the article on androcide. I now have no reservations about such a link because of the subsequent sentence, which explains that the manifesto has sometimes been described as a satire or parody, although, separately, I agree with TaqPCR about slightly tweaking that sentence. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I don't have any significant preference as to changing the second sentence from what it is. I was incorporating it together with my change since you suggested it. I hope changing your suggestion to present tense was okay. TaqPCR (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense is fine by me. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by possible moderator (SCUM Manifesto)

It appears that the article content issue is what links to include in the lede section of the article. I have more than once said that the editors should address their answers to the moderator, rather than engaging in back-and-forth discussion, but back-and-forth discussion is continuing. So I will put DRN Rule B into effect. Discussion should continue in the space for back-and-forth discussion, and will continue until the editors reach an agreement. If they don't reach an agreement, then this discussion will fail, partly because of the inability of the editors to follow the moderator's instructions. Discuss in the section for back-and-forth discussion. Either come to an agreement, or don't come to an agreement.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I understand why the conversation after my first statement should not have happened. It's way too long and hostile.

I thought it'd be acceptable since instead of being long and hostile the recent edit was a short clarification of my position of why I incorporated Ozzy's change and him making it known that he's okay with the way I did it.

At this point Ozzy and I don't have any real disagreement. The question is whether Sangdeboeuf or MrOllie still object and I think that's where we still do need you to act as a moderator. TaqPCR (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by past moderator (SCUM Manifesto)

I do not plan to act as a moderator or mediator. It may be my fault that I expected that when I told you to read DRN Rule D, you would notice that I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. I assumed that you had actually read the rules. I didn't say to be concise in the back-and-forth discussion, because I said to address your answers to the moderator and the community. So I am no longer trying to act as a moderator. If the other editors disagree, you can resolve your dispute by normal discussion and normal editing.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I thought a narrow exchange was acceptable but I shouldn't have assumed that. Again my apologies. TaqPCR (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Back-and-forth discussion (SCUM Manifesto)

Are there any objections or further suggested changes or should we make the edit such that the lede now reads

...urges women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex". Scholars dispute whether the work is satire.

TaqPCR (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks should not be placed in direct quotations per MOS:LWQ. Aside from Androcide, which is fairly straightforward, the choice of link targets for phrases like overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, [and] institute complete automation also involves a good deal of original research. The phrase Scholars dispute is simple editorializing. Adding a brief, representative summary of the above sources under § Reception should be done before proposing any additions to the lead section per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks should not be placed in direct quotations per MOS:LWQ.

Per MOS:LWQ they can be put in but we need to be particularly careful with them. That's different from saying they should not be used at all.

also involves a good deal of original research ???

Some variation of "anarch_" occurs 12 times on the page already. Anarchism is already being linked as the first topic in the info box's list of the subjects the work covers.
Capitalism occurs 3 times all in the context of talking about SCUM overthrowing it, Rich is quoted as calling SCUM a "declaration of war against capitalism and patriarchy" and while it doesn't use the term the quote from Dana Heller says that SCUM describes a "utopian vision of a world in which mechanization and systems of mass (re)production would render work, sexual intercourse, and the money system obsolete." It's clearly viewed as being post-capitalist in some way and the post-capitalism page is basically a catch all for all kinds of variations of post capitalism.
automation is... literally just automation. It's also already linked in the article.

The phrase Scholars dispute is simple editorializing. I think I need you to expand on why you think this but this is Ozzy's suggestion.

Adding a brief, representative summary of the above sources under § Reception should be done before proposing any additions to the lead section per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

While I am open to expanding the discussion of the sources I listed above my contention is that this is not necessary as sources which are already included discuss "male genocide" which is clearly the topic Wikipedia covers with the article titled androcide. With that being made very explicit by * Genocides by the Oppressed : Subaltern Genocide in Theory and Practice by Nicholas A. Robins, and Adam Jones using "androcidal" together with "genocide" at the same. TaqPCR (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who suggested it; unless we can cite a published, reliable source explicitly stating something about the scholarly reception, then it's original research. Where are the sources that discuss anarchism and/or post-capitalism in the context of this specific quotation? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is the work's own summary of what it's about. When articles call it "one of the longest surviving perennials of anarchist publishing", a "declaration of war against capitalism and patriarchy" (perhaps we could link to Anti-capitalism?), or just... use the word automation I think they know what the first lines of the work are. Especially given how often that line is quoted before calling it things like anarchist. But if you don't think we can definitively say the work's summary of itself can be taken as an accurate listing of the topics the work covers as confirmed by secondary sources then what I think you're arguing that we should replace the quote in the lede with a summary in our own words because evidently it's a reliable summary of the work and should be replaced by Wikipedia's own summary of the topics the work is about, and I'm pretty sure that at the very least a work with an info box saying it's subject is anarchism and as "Part of a series on Anarcha-feminism" and as anarchist by basically every single source on the page, I think at the very least that can be linked to anarchism. TaqPCR (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles call it "one of the longest surviving perennials of anarchist publishing", a "declaration of war against capitalism and patriarchy" – we should simply summarize any such reliable sources, along with Wikilinks to relevant topics outside any direct quotations.

I think they know what the first lines of the work are – how do we know scholars are commenting on these lines as opposed to the rest of the manifesto?

Especially given how often that line is quoted before calling it things like anarchist – examples, please.

I never said this quote was the work's summary of itself. It is a representative quotation according to independent reliable sources, which is why it's in the lead section to begin with. We should definitely not add Wikipedia's own summary of the topics the work is about because that would be an interpretation of a primary source, which is original research. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

we should simply summarize any such reliable sources, along with Wikilinks to relevant topics outside any direct quotations. I wasn't suggesting we add that to the article.

how do we know scholars are commenting on these lines as opposed to the rest of the manifesto? Again if we don't trust that the quote is a relevant description of the work why are we putting it in the article lede.

I never said this quote was the work's summary of itself. It is a representative quotation according to independent reliable sources, which is why it's in the lead section to begin with. So sources say it's representative of the work then also say that it's anarchist etc. So what's the problem with linking anarchist in the quote?

We should definitely not add Wikipedia's own summary of the topics the work is about because that would be an interpretation of a primary source, which is original research. Come on, I literally pointed out that I was referring to the statements of reliable sources used on the page. It is obvious I'm referring to replacing the quote with a summary of what sources say it's about. It's no more original research than listing anarchist in the infobox is. TaqPCR (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting we add that to the article – why not?

Why are we putting it in the article lede – because it is emphasized in several independent reliable sources, as I already said.

Sources say it's representative of the work then also say that it's anarchist etc. – the manifesto as a whole is described as anarchist, not this specific quotation. Something can also be anarchist without literally using the word "anarchism".

What's the problem with linking anarchist in the quote – I already gave reasons for this. See MOS:LWQ, WP:NOR, & WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

I'm referring to replacing the quote with a summary of what sources say it's about – that wasn't clear. I've already stated that I support summarizing any relevant secondary sources. The quotation itself is well-attested & seems duly weighted in the lead section; I don't see any reason to remove it. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why not? Because they're already in it. They were meant to be illustrative of the article's main body.

because it is emphasized in several independent reliable sources, as I already said. The lede is meant to summarize the topic. Either the quote does a good job of summarizing how SCUM covers topics like anarchy that are mentioned throughout the article. Or it doesn't do a good job of that so we should replace the quote with the topics the article discusses.

that wasn't clear. I've already stated that I support summarizing any relevant secondary sources. The quotation itself is well-attested & seems duly weighted in the lead section; I don't see any reason to remove it. because I think the lede for SCUM should have links to the topics that SCUM is about and if it's a choice between them and the quote I chose them. Though I don't think that's a choice we need to make because I don't see an issue including links within the quote (and neither did OzzyMuffin238) to topics which are already in the body (WP:LFB) and sourced (WP:NOR). MOS:LWQ says links within quotes are allowed if the author clearly meant that thing which I believe is clear in the case of anarchism, automation, and androcide. I'd be fine with excluding post-capitalism/anti-capitalism mainly for the reason that the target article isn't great in either case even if she's quite clear that by money system she means capitalism (perhaps we could just link capitalism without including abolish?) TaqPCR (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're already in it – where?

The lede is meant to summarize the topic – no, the lead section is meant to summarize the rest of the article. Since the above quotation is featured prominently in the body of the article, I think it belongs in the lead as well.

Either the quote does a good job of summarizing how SCUM covers topics like anarchy [...] Or it doesn't do a good job of that – that's for published, reliable sources to determine, not us.

The lede for SCUM should have links to the topics that SCUM is about and if it's a choice between them and the quote I chose them – who said we have to choose one?

MOS:LWQ says links within quotes are allowed if the author clearly meant that thing – we can't know what Solanas clearly intended for reasons I've already stated. MOS:LWQ also says, Be conservative when linking within quotations [...] Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead. Linking four out of every five words in the quotation is not being conservative. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Katina

– New discussion.

Filed by Thedarkknightli on 00:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Lena Katina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

There's an ongoing dispute over whether to link "Soviet Union" in the "early years" section. I think the link makes sense, given that the Soviet Union no longer exists and that, in the section, "Soviet Union" isn't part of a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units (quoted from MOS:GEOLINK, which also states, "If the smallest unit is an extant place, but the largest is not, it is preferable to space the links out when feasible, ..."). Revirvlkodlaku finds the link redundant, given that we already link "RSFSR" in the same sentence and that, if we include it, there'd be "an unnecessary excess of blue links" (with which I disagree, given how many links the section currently contains). Lee Vilenski thinks we should write either "... the capital of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union" or "... the capital of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union". Tony1 suggests deleting "RSFSR" from the sentence because "[he'd] never heard of that long-winded state name", and "[Moscow's] very well known already". Moscow Connection thinks "[t]here's no point in linking "RSFSR". ... There is no more sense in this than in linking "Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Oblast" and such." Dingolover6969 thinks "it's good to link both ..." because this case "is not covered by [MOS:GEOLINK]", and linking both "Soviet Union" and "RSFSR" "would not even violate WP:SEAOFBLUE".

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

Talk:Lena Katina#Linking "Soviet Union"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing an independent seventh opinion.

Summary of dispute by Revirvlkodlaku

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

Summary of dispute by Lee Vilenski

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

Summary of dispute by Tony1

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

Summary of dispute by Moscow Connection

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

Summary of dispute by Dingolover6969

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

Lena Katina discussion

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

I am not entirely independent here as Tony and I go way back, but the Soviet Union is the definition of a major, even if former, country that we wouldn't link in this context per MOS:OVERLINK. I also cannot imagine any reason why we'd specify Moscow, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Soviet Union. Does that actually happen in sources? (Not that I'm aware of, but perhaps I'm wrong.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timely input! I'm definitely not familiar with how reliable sources describe Katina's place of birth. However, given that the lead defines her as a Russian, I personally think we should clarify in the body that she was born in Russia. ~~Besides "... Moscow, the capital of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union", I'm also fine with "... Moscow, the capital of Russian SFSR, Soviet Union."~~ Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant to ask was do sources generally include "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" with Moscow generally? I'd personally be going with "Moscow, the capital of the Soviet Union" at most and without links per MOS:OVERLINK's guidance on major countries/settlements. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No per [1], [2], etc. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Lena Katina)

Is there still an article content dispute? If so, please read DRN Rule D, and please state what you want to change in the article. If there is no article content, I will close this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I'm not sure if there still is. If the editors involved reply, then we can determine whether or not there is still a dispute. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 13:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, yes. I personally think we should write "... Moscow, the capital of the Russian SFSR of the Soviet Union." TBH, I don't buy @The_ed17's MOS:OVERLINK argument, given WP:SENSE, this comment, and that Katina was born and raised in Moscow, and had a career there. Thedarkknightli (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean. The comment is a fine opinion. However, MOS is a guideline, and MOS:OVERLINK says that "links may be excessive even if they are informative". It also says that "major examples" of "settlements or municipalities" should not be linked, and I'm not sure we'd find too many people who would argue that Moscow doesn't meet that definition. If you'd like to propose a change to MOS, such as a carve-out for important city names within biographies, the talk page is available. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I agree that Moscow is among "major examples" of "[s]ettlements or municipalities", like I said, I don't see how seven links are "excessive" in one section. Thedarkknightli (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Edited for grammar at 13:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that, per this discussion, there's a consensus to link "Moscow" once in body section of the article of Dmitri Shostakovich, who spent 32 years in Moscow. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Lena Katina)

First statement by volunteer (Lena Katina)

Is there still an article content dispute? It appears that we have two editors involved, the filing editor, and one who was not listed by the filing editor, but I will list them. Other editors have not responded. If the issue is about linking in the Early Years section, please state exactly what sentence or sentences the dispute is about, and what you want the article to say.

I am willing to offer a third opinion, but only if the editors agree that they will accept my opinion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Lena Katina)

Spain

– New discussion.

Filed by Léopold Favre on 21:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns whether the lead of the Spain article should include a brief mention of Spain's cultural influence and international cultural profile, summarizing material that is already covered and sourced in the body of the article, especially in the Culture section. My position, shared by others, is that such a mention is valuable and should be included in the lead in a brief and neutral statement. The lead is meant to summarize the most important aspects of the article, and Spain's cultural influence is a major and well-sourced aspect of the subject. A concise mention of this topic would help readers understand Spain's historical and contemporary significance beyond politics, geography, and economics. The proposed material refers to broad, factual, and sourced points such as the Spanish Golden Age, the international reach of the Spanish language, Spain's major role in global tourism, and its number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. This is also consistent with the leads of other country articles, where similar cultural, linguistic, tourism, and heritage summaries are commonly included when relevant, such as in the articles on France, Italy, Germany, Japan, China, and others.

Other editors have objected that any lead mention of Spain's cultural influence, heritage, tourism, or the Spanish Golden Age is puffery. I disagree with that assessment, as the proposed content does not imply that Spain is superior to other countries, nor does it rely on grandiose or exaggerated language; it simply summarizes significant, sourced material from the article body in a concise and neutral way. The matter has been discussed extensively on the article talk page, but no stable consensus has been reached. A semi-protected edit request adding a brief cultural mention was accepted and implemented, but the content was later removed and restored more than once. I am requesting dispute resolution to help determine how the lead can include a short, neutral, properly sourced summary of Spain's cultural influence.

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

[3], [4]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

DRN can help by providing an outside opinion on the content issue under discussion: whether the lead should include a brief, neutral summary of Spain's cultural influence, and what wording would best comply with the relevant lead, neutrality, due weight, and peacock-language guidelines.

The goal should be to reach a stable version on neutral wording that summarizes the article body without promotional language.

Summary of dispute by Barjimoa

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

On this issue I have consistently argued that the proposed edit in question was fine to me (see me adding it here per a request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain&diff=prev&oldid=1355370263). Barjimoa (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Darth Stabro

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

I am not sure why I am involved in this because the only edits I have made to Spain are automated AWB cleanups. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Moxy

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

Summary of dispute by Largoplazo

I'm pretty sure my only substantive objection was to the WP:PUFFERY of the phrase "cultural superpower" or anything else that goes beyond a neutral presentation of the highlights and reads like admiration or glorification. Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by ~2026-30385-48

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

Summary of dispute by Inherli

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

Spain 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that I had to notify everyone individually. Instead, I posted a notice in the Spain Talk discussion. I have now notified them individually on their talk pages. Thanks. Léopold Favre (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Spain)

I am ready to moderate an article content dispute if there is an article content dispute. There appear to have possibly been two related disputes, whether to include a paragraph on Spain's international cultural influence, and the wording of that paragraph. Are there any article content disputes, either about a cultural influence paragraph, or about its wording? Please read DRN Rule A, and then state:

1. Do you think that there should be a paragraph in the lede section about Spain's international cultural influence?
2. Are there any issues about the content of such a paragraph?
3. Are there any other article content issues where you want to change the content of the article and another editor disagrees, or where another editor wants to change the content and you disagree?

Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answer to the moderator on behalf of the community.

We will have moderated discussion if two or more editors disagree about article content, which is an article content dispute.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Spain)

1. Yes. I think the lead should include a brief, neutral paragraph or sentence summarizing Spain's international cultural influence. Specifically, I support the version accepted by Barjimoa here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain&diff=prev&oldid=1355370263

2. Yes. Inherli, in particular, appears to oppose any inclusion of Spain's cultural influence in the lead, and has reverted this content multiple times, sometimes citing Peacock, promotional content, and even block evasion.

3. As far as I know, there is no other article content issue.

Thank you. Léopold Favre (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by possible moderator (Spain)

It appears that the editors who are participating in this discussion agree to the paragraph proposed by Barjimoa and by Léopold Favre. The editor who is said to have objected has not edited in the past two weeks. I am asking one of the editors who favors the addition of the paragraph to add the paragraph to the article. I will keep this dispute open for a few days to see if there is any objection, either here, or on the talk page, or by reverting the addition. If the addition stays, I will close this case. If there is any objection, I will prepare a Request for Comments.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Spain)

Emirate of Nekor

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Lankdadank on 20:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Emirate of Nekor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A dispute over what the lead of the article should say. This has been dragging on for over a month now and I would like outside input. The disagreement centers on whether the opening sentence should describe the polity as an "Arab emirate", as some reliable sources do, or remain neutral, given that scholars are divided on whether the ruling dynasty was of Arab or Berber descent. I argue that calling it an "Arab emirate" in the lead takes a side in that ancestry debate, while the other editor argues the polity label is separate from the dynasty's ancestry.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emirate_of_Nekor#Revert

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

DRN can help by providing a third-party non-partisan opinion on the dispute and work towards a consensus solution or compromise.

Summary of dispute by Carlstak

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

Although I wrote three quarters of the article, I am not presently part of this dispute. The complainant and I had reached a compromise when another editor got involved in editing the article and the talk page, and now there's some edit-warring going on, which I want no part of. I'm sick to death of the ~~combative attitudes~~ endless disputes various editors have brought to this article concerning the Arab or Berber nature of the emirate. Carlstak (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Zabayrisxaaqi

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

Emirate of Nekor discussion

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

Just wanted to point out that I just found out that I am currently involved with the same user using a different account on a different dispute: Morocco#Tamazight_translation_vs_official_state_name. I'm not sure if it's just a content dispute anymore, as the same pattern of arguing against Berber-related content and (what looks to me like) stonewalling is present in that dispute too. lankdadank (chat) 15:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Note: I am able to serve as a neutral party in this matter, if one is needed. It appears that the initial editors involved have already reached a compromise on the talk page, which the article now reflects. If User:Zabayrisxaaqi still has an issue, I will leave this thread open for a little while longer so they can write a summary of their opinion in the "Summary of dispute" section. To me, it sounds like this is becoming less of a content dispute and more of a conduct dispute with User:Zabayrisxaaqi, which is more appropriate for WP:ANI. Wichey ^{(Let's Chat!😊)} 15:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better solution would be for one of the disputants to make an RfC so that (one hopes) a consensus among more editors can be reached and referred to in case of the inevitable return of this perennial issue. Carlstak (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan

– New discussion.

Filed by WikiEnthusiast1001 on 22:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I added a factual claim of Pakistan terminating bilateral investment treaties during Khan's government, which can be independently verified. The author, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies with extensive research experience in international trade, investment policy, and Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). While this does not make him automatically correct, it means his work should be assessed on its evidence rather than dismissed outright.

SheriffIsInTown objects to the source because they consider the author "non-notable."

My argument is that the relevant considerations are the author's subject-matter expertise, the publication's editorial standards, and whether the article's factual claims can be independently verified.

If any of Perez-Rocha's claims are inaccurate, they should be challenged with evidence, rather than rejecting the source solely because the author is non-notable.

The broader point is that the credibility of a source depends on its evidence + verifiability, not on the author being a household name.

Sheriff also reverted my edit regarding a military appointment by Khan as "inconsequential" despite the office being a four-star rank appointment and the highest ranking military official.

Another edit where Khan successfully defended himself in a libel case brought forward by Ian Botham and Allan Lamb, which was described as the most expensive libel actions in cricket history at the time, was reverted by Sheriff who said "the lawsuit was filed and in return was inconsequential".

I also made an edit noting that Javed Hashmi now says Khan "might have" compromised, in contrast to his earlier claim that Khan "conspired" with "disgruntled elements in the army," during his political career, but Sheriff reverted it as well, saying "they hold no encyclopedic value".

An edit in which I noted that Khan sold his apartment at Shahr-e-Dastoor was also reverted. Sheriff said: "the Dawn source quotes anonymous sources and aprtment selling, not an independent reporting and not sure if it is same apartment." However, the apartment described as being on Constitution Avenue is literally known as Shahr-e-Dastoor.

Sheriff also has an issue with including a quote attributed to Herald staffer Zaigham Khan, who reported on Khan being a part of a pressure group with Hamid Gul and Muhammad Ali Durrani, which never materialised. The quote stated that Khan "quickly became uncomfortable with the idea of being seen as a puppet in the hands of Gul". He reverted it with the explanation that "we do not need to include his o.."

My question is, why? Since the article identifies Zaigham Khan as the journalist who reported on the formation of the pressure group and the quote appears verbatim in the cited source, what is the rationale for excluding it?

He also suddenly has an issue with this video which had been in the article for over a year.

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

Talk:Imran Khan#Additions
Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 8#WikiEnthusiast1001's edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We seem to be at an impasse. I'm hoping other editors can suggest a way to move the discussion toward a resolution. I don't think it's productive to go back and forth with someone who refuses to budge, so I'd rather seek an uninvolved editors opinion.

Summary of dispute by Burrobert

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

A look at the recent edit history shows there are numerous points of dispute in the article. I will restrict myself to some of those raised by WikiEnthusiast1001.

The video titled "Imran Khan provides his perspective on the May 9 riots in July 2023" is long-standing content. It has been in the article since 7 March 2025.[5] WP:STATUSQUO says "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion". The video contains no claims related to a BLP other than about Khan himself. No problem was raised regarding the video during the recent GAN review.[6] It should remain in the article.
Assessment of Manuel Pérez-Rocha: Pérez-Rocha can be considered an expert in the area of trade and investment agreements so his opinion is worthy of inclusion. It is more coherent than the opinion attributed to Declan Walsh, which is contained in the article.
The apartment on Constitution Avenue: in Imran's bio we call it a Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment event though the source says Constitution Avenue. Since there is disagreement about whether Khan sold this apartment in 2022, we should remove this from his bio. Specifically, remove the statement "He paid Rs11.97 million for a Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment". Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTown

All of these are old disputes except one. I do not think they can bring old disputes to DRN in this manner. The only dispute currently being discussed at Talk:Imran Khan#Additions is the proposed addition of Rocha's opinion. They argue that it is a widely known fact. If that is the case, then there is no need to cite the opinion of a non-notable author published on the website of an advocacy group or think tank. Widely known facts should be supported by mainstream reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan discussion

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

See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 272#Imran_Khan, which involved the same three participants and was closed on 13 June 2026. I think it would be better if these disputes stayed on the article talk page, and if WikiEnthusiast1001 found that every other participant disagreed with him/her, he/she accepted that as consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but your claim that every other participant disagrees with me isn't accurate, Burrobert has no issues with my edits. If anything, it's the opposite. No one agrees with Sheriff and Sheriff doesn't agree with anyone else either. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor following the talk page, I note that there is no consensus against WikiEnthusiast1001. The primary standstill stems from SheriffIsInTown aggressively gatekeeping the page, using double standards to block verified facts and reliable global outlets. LesIie (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor following the talk page, there is no mention of an opened DRN discussion at Talk:Imran Khan and it is hard to believe that you just stumbled upon this discussion. I note that there is no consensus against WikiEnthusiast1001 There is never a consensus pro or contra an editor; consensus is always about content. The DRN discussion concerns content, not editors, but your statement speaks volumes about how you might have stumbled upon this discussion. As for the accusations against me, this forum is for discussing content disputes, not for making accusations against editors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The filer had 'suggested' to take this to DRN on the talk page, and DRN is a public noticeboard. LesIie (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Trincomalee massacres

– New discussion.

Filed by SinhalaLion on 02:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

1985 Trincomalee massacres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

SinhalaLion (talk · contribs)
Petextrodon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We are unable to agree on whether the Anuradhapura massacre can be ~~considered~~ stated to have a causal relation with the May-June 1985 violence in the Trincomalee District. This is related to the Sri Lankan civil war.

In 2025, I added the view of a prominent, secondary RS related to the Trincomalee District violence: that the Anuradhapura massacre of Sinhalese, which happened in mid-May 1985, triggered a wave of reprisal violence in the immediate weeks, some of which occurred in the Trincomalee District: "Following a massacre of Tamils at Valvettiturai in May 1985, the LTTE massacred Sinhalese at Anuradhapura. This precipitated violence against Tamil civilians in several places, including in the Trincomalee District.[3]"

To me it was appropriately worded and weighted. The other user disagreed. They argued that the source was not sufficient to include language suggesting a casual relationship. Frankly, I did not agree. You can read through the discussion for more. But, in the spirit of consensus, I conceded that it can be left as a background detail without suggesting causality. This was done under the assumption of sole source.

Since then, I have found two other sources that also claim causal, consequential, or reprisal connection between the Anuradhapura massacre and part of the Trincomalee District massacres. I believe that now having three sources warrant some mention of a causal connection. However, the other user continues to disagree. I feel that they are reiterating the same arguments as before that I already addressed. As such, I bring this to the DRN.

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

Talk:1985 Trincomalee massacres#Background section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Opine on whether the Anuradhapura massacre can be stated to have a causal relation, and if so to what extent, based on the arguments presented.

Summary of dispute by Petextrodon

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

1985 Trincomalee massacres discussion

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

Ministry of Ayush

– New discussion.

Filed by Draconacht on 11:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Ministry of Ayush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Draconacht (talk · contribs)
RelaxedWriter69 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

edit-warring was incited and is being continually incited for this page on this X thread - https://x.com/theliverdoc/status/2073272428445474943 . i have no qualm with the factuality of the claims made here, but it is inconsistent with WP:SOAPBOX. this page is not appropriate to have discussions of alternative medicine on, and definitely not in the lead. The page is being edited and reverted by multiple users. since the original thread was posted (<48 hours ago), multiple users have edited the lead in a way that violates WP:NPOV.

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

[[7]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

clarify the WP policy position in this talk thread, and in general for the lead. there have been other editors making good faith edits involved in this process, so im not sure exactly what is to be done in this scenario. if i'm wrong about policy here i'm glad to back off of course. this is my first time filing a report so sorry if i got something wrong.

Summary of dispute by Sethukrishnants

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

Ministry of Ayush 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. Please note that the other editor has changed their user name (but was not notified under either name). Notification on the user talk page is required as a condition of all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i had put a message here - User talk:RelaxedWriter69#July 2026 , is that inadequate? Draconacht (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

francia

– New discussion.

Filed by Heraldry22276 on 04:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Francia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I had recently made an edit to the government of Francia by changing it to this:

Monarchy

Under a Military Dictatorship by the Mayors of the Palace (687-751)

My source is Ian Woods book 'The Merovingian Kingdoms (450-751)', a recognized and reliable source on Frankish history. Whilst these people constantly edit it back, first with no source, while yes I had no source at the beginning, I did gain the source I just mentioned which proved my claim, secondly they then say it is "unduly complex", if Wikipedia did have a rule on no complexities then the wiki page on the Empire of Japan wouldn't have all that shit about its government, thus their claim is complete bullshit. Next they say that the article doesn't support it, yet if you go to spart 7 of the Merovingian Period section it is about the reign of the Mayors of the palace from 687 to 751, thus the article supports my claim. Nextly they stated that it doesn't belong in the Info-box, as I said before if it doesn't belong then the info-box for the empire of japan wouldnt have all that shit about its government. Then one of them stated that it was potentially controversial, first of all, how the fuck would the political system of a nation that existed a thousand years ago be controversial today, and secondly, it isnt controversial it is an accepted fucking fact, it literally how the fucking carolingians became kings, they are ignorant of history. And finally Adakiko gave me a warning about "edit warring" whilst they were the ones who began the edit war, I am not warring I am simply trying to preserve accuracy, not opinion. And I believe that they are gatekeeping the wiki-page which is a clear violation of wikipedia's rules and for them trying to wipe history.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To bring back my edits, that is the only path I will accept as I will not accept the subverting of historical fact due to the bias of others, I value historical accuracy over the opinions and bias of others as history has already happened and if proven, like my argument, then it is NOT open to opinion.

Summary of dispute by Adakiko

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

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

Summary of dispute by Belbury

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

Summary of dispute by Andrew Lancaster

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

francia 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. Notice on the user talk page is required in connection with all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look like much of a discussion was had on the talk page besides a disagreement with the editors reverting. Where in The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751 does it describe the period from 687–751 as a military dictatorship? Certainly this period is dominated by the Mayors of the Palace but does this make the government no longer a monarchy, so much so that we have to describe it in detail in the infobox? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie (2011 TV series)

– 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 StrawberriesShiShi on 07:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I had contacted Amaury on his talk page to let him know I have created dispute resolution request but he deleted the message. I’ll be re-contacting him as I presume you require the message to be on the talk page to verify I have contacted him. He responded to me on the Jessie talk page in a way that indicated he is unwilling to try to resolve this in a civil manner with the help of mediators. I apologise for not attempting to solve this in the talk page sooner. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Per WP:UP and WP:UPNOT, users are free to remove messages from their talk pages, and they are presumed to have read the message whenever they do remove them.

You don't need to have the message being live on some editor's talk page to indicate / prove that you've noticed them; a mere diff is enough. (I provided the notice diff for your convenience here). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this, I won’t re-add the message to the talk page then. Apologies for not reading about that in advance. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Jessie (2011 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

StrawberriesShiShi (talk · contribs)
Amaury (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In Jessie (2011), Josie Torah is credited as J.J. Torah, as she had not transitioned at the time of filming the show. Noticing the article was one of the few to still use Torah's deadname, I edited it to be Josie Torah, with a note on her being credited as J.J. Torah. This was done to follow both MOS:GID and MOS:TVCAST, as it would give Torah's credited name to follow MOS:TVCAST while still following MOS:GID. Around this point, user Purplewowies would make a talk page in regards to it, but neither me nor Amaury would notice, a mistake on both our parts.

User Amaury would revert this edit. I decided initially to simply revert it once more, making a note about MOS:GID. Amaury would revert this and state it was to follow MOS:TVCAST. I once more decided to revert this and ask Amaury to check the talk page, which I admit I should've gone to the talk page first before editing again. After my edit, I would make my points on the talk page, explaining my thoughts.

After this, Amaury would reply to my message and simply stated the edit I had made would not follow MOS:TVCAST, which I did not feel addressed many of my points. He would also state users engaging in further disruptive edits would be warned, as he is a rollbacker. Despite making my edits before he sent this message, I was warned. While I admit I should have taken it to the talk page much sooner, I feel it was rather disrespectful for Amaury to give me this warning while we were engaged in a dispute. As such, I felt I did not have any power no longer in the talk page to discuss the issue on equal footing and told Amaury I would be bringing this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Third parties have also been involved on the talk page, though Amaury did little to acknowledge their points either in my opinion.

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

[[10]]

Discussions had with other editors, who have also discussed their own opinions.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe you can help us by allowing us an equal footing of editors to discuss our opinions. I feel as though Amaury has more power than me in this discussion, as he is a dedicated editor with rollbacker permissions, while I only occasionally edit articles. I also feel rather intimidated due to Amaury warning me while being in this dispute and hence am looking for a mediator to help me discuss this issue peacefully.

Summary of dispute by Amaury

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

Jessie (2011 TV series) discussion

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

Volunteer Note: I am able to serve as a neutral party to help resolve this dispute. Resolution through this page will require the willing participation of both parties. If User:Amaury could provide a summary of their perspective in the "Summary of dispute" section, that would be appreciated and we can proceed. Both parties should be aware that WP:CT/GENSEX applies here. I see that User:Amaury expressed dissatisfaction on their talk page about this matter being posted here. If both parties are not willing to work together to resolve this, then I will close the thread and recommend the filer take it up with WP:ANI. Wichey ^{(Let's Chat!😊)} 04:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after checking Amaury’s user logs and finding the diff for the removal, it seems he is currently unwilling to work with me. In regards to the language barrier comment, English is my first and primary language barrier. I simply occassionally word things oddly. I’m neurodivergent if that helps explain my odd wording to Amaury.

I’m more than willing to work with him if he changes his mind. I do admit I should’ve attempted to discuss with him more before taking it here upon reflection. However, if Amaury continues to not be willing to work with me, I will likely take it up with WP:ANI as he has made various comments that in my opinion are disrespectful and go against WP:CIV. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have contacted Amaury again on his talk page (see here) to request him to provide his perspective on the DRN, as well as letting him know of the possibility of going to WP:ANI. Will keep an eye out for his response. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ethiopian–Adal War

– New discussion.

Filed by Habeshakira on 18:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Ethiopian–Adal War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dispute on the infobox "result" field of Ethiopian–Adal War. One side maintains that the result should say "Ethiopian-Portuguese victory" because there are references that show the reconquering of Christian lands and downfall of Adal's occupation in about 18 months after the Battle of Wayna Daga (Chekroun & Hirsch 2020, Pankhurst 1997, Cerulli, Solomon Gebreyes). The opposing party asserts that the result should be either "stalemate" or nothing at all because according to wider syntheses the war left both sides mutually exhausted after years of fighting (Burke 2009, Hess, Ylönen 2023).

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

Talk:Ethiopian–Adal War#Current result status is highly problematic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethiopian%E2%80%93Adal_War#Current_result_status_is_highly_problematic

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A determination by an uninvolved editor regarding whether the secondary sources are being evaluated properly by WP:DUE, and whether specialist sources for this particular conflict should take precedence over broader works that merely mention it in passing, would bring us closer to consensus.

Summary of dispute by GoldenDragonHorn

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

Summary of dispute by Javext

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

Summary of dispute by Socialwave597

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

Summary of dispute by Limegreencoral

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

Ethiopian–Adal War discussion

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

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Mentorship Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Splits Moves Protection Batch Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames Report violations Requests for comment Request rename Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards