Skip toopen disputes skip tonewest thread (purge cache)

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

This page has archives. Sections older than72 hours may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Military–industrial complex#Connotations (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Apfelmaische (talk ·contribs)
• David Tornheim (talk ·contribs)
• PositivelyUncertain (talk ·contribs)
• Uhoj (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute exists overthis diff. While phrases like "many scholars describe" are typically used in a weaselly manner, my concern here is that it's being used more like an expression of doubt that whitewashes what the sources actually say. It implies that a sizable fraction of scholars considermilitary-industrial complex to be non-pejorative. This implication appears to be unsupported by the known sources and thus may be something like false balance. Quotations from sources are provided in the references below.

Many scholars describeMilitary–industrial complex aspejorative.^[1][2][3]

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

Talk:Military–industrial_complex#Connotations[1][2][3]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help us interpret the policy and the guideline that were cited[4][5] in discussion.

Apologies for the slow reply. This is a dispute aboutWP:NPOV, specificallyWP:WIKIVOICE andWP:DUE, about the claim that the phrasemilitary-industrial complex is pejorative. Should this claim be presented as a plain fact, or as the opinion of certain scholars? Three reliable sources have been presented supporting the claim. In my opinion they are not representative of the larger body of academic work about this topic. Most sources don't address whether the phrase is pejorative or not. How should we interpret their silence? I'm not sure dispute resolution is necessary, but I am happy to participate if it helps us work through this.Apfelmaische (talk)18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this has been brought to DR. I believe the usual process of finding consensus is sufficient. Uhoj has been very adamant about pushing his/her version and seems to have a hard time accepting when almost all other editors at the talk page disagree.WP:1AM. A number of editors have complained that this behavior is wasting editor time (Diffs: me:[6],[7],[8];PositivelyUncertain[9],[10],[11],[12];Apfelmaische[13]). Uhoj's has been repeatedly warned about this behavior--in those diffs--including by admin.Firefangledfeathers inthis diff, which includes:On the timing: I meant that it would have been better to wait until the final proposal had been considered for a while. We generally want lengthy local discussion before outside dispute resolution is attempted. This applies for RfCs, 3O, and DRN. --David Tornheim (talk)23:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mesocarp Thank you for your interest in helping in this matter--if it is determined that DR is necessary. You hit the nail on the head in yourlast paragraph. --David Tornheim (talk)04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm glad. It's ultimately up to you if you want to participate or not; we can see what the other editors say.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)16:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to act as the moderator for this dispute if that's what y'all would like. However, I've looked at the cited talk page discussion and it doesn't appear to be at a genuine standstill necessarily, nor does it appear that any of the involved editors are explicitly interested in utilizing DRN to continue the discussion right now aside from Uhoj. If any of the other involved editors do feel that the discussion could be carried on more productively here, I'm happy to facilitate that and I think it's possible that it might help, but ultimately if we have only one editor who wants to participate there isn't much basis for a real discussion. Uhoj, is there a reason you feel itneeds to be carried on here and not simply continued on the talk page?

Also, I just want to say, Uhoj, I think what the other participants are trying to get across to you is not so much that they think that "a sizable fraction of scholars considermilitary-industrial complex to be non-pejorative" necessarily, but rather that they assert that plenty of sources that discuss the idea do itwithout describing it as pejorative or treating it that way, and as a result the other participants don't want the article to give the impression that all of the existing literature is in line with the sources you've cited here, even if those sources do speak in strong words. The concern about giving readers the wrong impression cuts in both directions because of that; there is room between "many scholars consider it non-pejorative" and "many scholars use it in a non-pejorative fashion". If I'm off the mark, anyone is welcome to correct me; otherwise I think it's important that any discussion here goes forward with that on the table. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《𔑪‎talk〗⇤03:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhoj, are you still interested in this? It looks like two of the other participants are willing to if you actually want to.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)02:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have come to an agreement on this, but I'll let Uhoj say.Apfelmaische (talk)02:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, sorry if there was something I missed.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)03:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progress has been made, but no, we have not come to an agreement. I simply stepped back from the conversation since enthusiasm for dispute resolution seemed lacking. I'll present a couple potential compromises and additional evidence to support them in due time.

Mesocarp said that talk page discussion remained possible, which has proved true. So, I'll go there first.

Thank you Mesocarp, Apfelmaische, and David Tornheim for expressing willingness to engage in dispute resolution.Uhoj (talk)16:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry for presuming.Apfelmaische (talk)22:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Would you like me to close this (in which case you can come and open a new case later if you like) or leave it open for the time being in case you decide to return?

Something I kind of want to say as a side note, just as a bit of advice kind of…I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind of course, so maybe this won't be directly applicable, but I do want to note that this might not really be the sort of thing you could settle with more references necessarily. Like, if there is a decent pool of sources that don't use the term pejoritavely, that's not really something you can refute with other sources; the existing sources will still be there. Obviously you don't want to go as far assynthesis, but even if a given source says "it's almost always used as a pejorative" for example, they may not truly meanin general but rather in a specific context (electoral politics, mainstream news media, discussion "on the street", etc.) and that's definitely something we can weigh and consider as editors, at least to the extent that it might not be appropriate to just put that conclusion in wikivoice and cite the source and be done. You don't want to take any specific source(s) too far, either; that'snon-neutral. It might be synthesis to say "these academic sources don't seem use it pejoratively, so we ought to say in wikivoice 'academics tend to use it nonpejoratively'", but I wouldn't call it synthesizing to say "many sources use it non-pejoratively, so if we're going to talk about its pejorativeness in the article we should attribute statements about that to the authors and put them in context" or similar.

I know one thing that came up in the talk page conversation already is that there are academics that try to seriously study the military-industrial complex, in other words treating it as something real that we could analyze through a historical, sociological, economic, political, Marxist, etc. lens. Generally that type of analysis isn't concerned with treating the object of its analysis in a directly pejorative way; even if the analysis shows bad things, the people conducting it often want to let their conclusions stand on their own and not come across as having a preexisting axe to grind, because that calls the results of their analysis into question a little. Like, I've been doing work onRapid Support Forces (RSF) recently, and most of the RS that discuss the RSF talk about them doing really malign things, but it's not as if they use the term "RSF" itself as a kind of smear or insult; they're trying to be responsible journalists and "just document the facts" about the RSF, or serious scholars who want to discuss their history or political ideology or the like in an authoritative way, and if they talked about the RSF asintrinsically malign before any analysis has taken place it would suggest that they're approaching the subject with worrisome bias.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)02:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess go ahead and close given that both the people who showed up said that dispute resolution isn't necessary. Thank you for sharing your perspective: that gave me ideas for some compromises I hadn't considered before.Uhoj (talk)01:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, by the way, I'm glad if it helped.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mesocarp: Ire-opened this Dispute Resolution. I wasn't sure what to do with your close reason, so I just commented it out. Should it go here? Can you put it where it belongs?

Why did I re-open this? Because shortly after you closed this DR,Uhoj went in and went against consensus by putting in his/her preferred versionYET AGAIN.

This is tiresome, and it is to the point where it seems that it might be worth bringing it toWP:AN/I with a request that Uhoj be prevented from editing the article directly, or something more severe. We have tried repeatedly to tell Uhoj to stop this and nothing seems to work.

FYI.Volodia.woldemar,Apfelmaische,PositivelyUncertain --David Tornheim (talk)01:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that's fine with me. I'm going to go ahead and open it in that case. Don't worry about my close reason; at this point when I next close it, the reason will be different anyway since there's already been further discussion. Note that if this dispute is taken to ANI I'll have to close this again, because DRN is meant for disputes that aren't already being handled in another context. I'd like to hope that we can find a resolution here that doesn't require ANI; I guess we'll see.

Uhoj, please take care here—your collaborators are obviously getting frustrated, and if at least four users show up at ANI and accuse you oftendentiously editing the article under dispute here, I can't say what will happen of course, but the edit history of the article does appear to me at a glance to show you battling back and forth with some of the other editors involved here since at least early August(?). That honestly shows me that people have been extending alot of patience and goodwill towards you and I really think it's worth trying not to squander that. It's maybe worth noting that it's fine to edit boldly when no one has yet objected, but once someone reverts or otherwise objects, it's a central thing to go talk with them and really work it out with everyone before makingany new edits to the page that impinge on the dispute. If you feel that any of the other editors involved are out of line in conduct terms, you can bring that to the attention of an admin through the appropriate channel, but as long as it stays purely in the realm of content, conversing with the disputing editors and finding consensus is how Wikipedia moves forward.

So, in that spirit, what I'd first like from everyone, in the "Zeroth statements by editors" section below, is a fairly brief summary of what you feel is an acceptable range of possibilities for how the pejorativeness of the phrase "military-industrial complex" and related text could be described in the article—say, what you feel might be ideal, what you're willing to live with, and where your red lines are right now. Since there's been repeated discussion of trying to find compromises, I think that might be a nice way to start to see if we can find a point of overlap between everyone.

@Volodia.woldemar, you're welcome to join the discussion if you'd like.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)03:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the evidence provided by Uhojhere, I would prefer something like "The phrase is often used as a pejorative." I would acceptusually in place ofoften. I still would not accept "The phrase is pejorative" because that's a minority position in the sources, and ignores frequent non-pejorative use of the phrase in academic sources.

I strongly prefer that context be given for pejorative use, mentioning specific complaints e.g. wasteful/excessive defense spending, and harmful military influence in politics.

Special attention needs to be given to tone. The section shouldn't imply that these complaints are fringe or unreasonable.Uhoj's version of the article last month suffered badly from this, giving the impression that only extremists worry about the MIC, and (by extension) that it's not a real phenomenon. I won't accept a version with this problem.Apfelmaische (talk)19:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is great. I appreciate the evidence you've provided to help explain your position. I think down the line we may want to look closely at some of these arguably non-pejorative academic sources (I've done that some on my own already a bit which has informed what I've said here so far). Right now, if there is one or a few particularly non-pejorative-seeming sources anyone feels inclined to cite to help convey why they've adopted the stance they have, feel free to share; otherwise we can just take that up down the road, since I think the most important thing right now is just to clarify everyone's current positions.

As a side note, looking through Uhoj's diffs you've linked here, it seems like one of the most salient from that set is maybethis diff adding a "Usage" section. I take it that you are maybe especially opposed to phrases in it such as:

• "Military–industrial complex is apejorative directed at thearms industry and military."
• "The term carries a sinister overtone and implies that military leaders may be colluding with thearms industry to extract resources from the economy and to increase their own power and prestige."
• "It is used as anantimilitarist rallying cry."
• "TheNew Left focused on the role ofbureaucrats, while Marxists are more concerned with corporate wealth."

Am I right in that—that, regardless of sourcing, you feel that statements such as these areinsufficiently impartial in wikivoice, and maybe in need ofin-text attribution or other forms of reworking? I don't know if Uhoj still wants the article to read like this or not yet, of course, but in any case these might be useful examples of your "red lines"?^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)21:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a definite trend in older literature, especially during the Vietnam War, to use the term pejoratively. Brandes 1997^{[note 1]} and Bradford 2010^{[note 2]} list several examples of this—older sources which seem like heavily biased, sensationalist muckraking. I haven't read them.

However, newer literature, especially sources that claim MIC is pejorative (seeUhoj's list, plus Brandes 1997, Ledbetter 2011 and Roland 2021), tend not to use it pejoratively. A few others stand out to me as high quality, neutral analyses: Koistinen 1970, Cuff 1978, Leslie 1993. It's hard to single out one of these in such a gigantic field.

Yes, that diff is what I was referring to. The second phrase in particular comes across (to me) almost as mockery of the MIC as a concept. Attribution helps, but it's not a cure-all fordue weight issues. Roland 2021, for example, mentions in three sentences thatMIC is used pejoratively, but also writes 200 pages of analysis and history about the actual MIC.Apfelmaische (talk)20:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm a little reluctant to go too much into detail here and clutter up this section, but I will note that Koistinen (I always like to get a historian's perspective) has, in the front matter, a then-U.S.-representative (later Secretary of Defense), Les Aspin, and a U.S. major and professional historian, Robert K. Griffith, Jr., both describing the military-industrial complex as a real and significant phenomenon, explicitlynot based in conspiracy or collusion but rather emergent from the various motivations of the involved parties. Koistinen himself introduces the idea of the military-industrial complex as a "model", an approach to analyzing military-business interactions, used by "theorists" of various stripes (pgs. 5–6). Neither Koistinen nor Aspin treat it as a solely American phenomenon, but rather something that exists to some extent in any modern country. Koistenin raises the question "[A]re there unique aspects distinguishing the U.S. MIC from the MICs of other nations?" on page 6, and Aspin even puts forward the view that the American and Soviet military-industrial complexes are "mutually supporting", in that the achievments of one help to promote the other, on page vi. The book also doesn't appear to use the word "pejorative" anywhere, although I'm not sure what everyone would say about how significant that is given the counters of this debate so far.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't go on now, but I wonder if this dispute will ultimately hinge on close examination of the sources in question like this. We also might want to make sure everyone is in agreement about what "pejorative" means precisely in this context. We should probably wait for everyone else to state their positions before we all get into the meat of it though.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)04:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially that the MIC is real and significant. To me,pejorative use means usage of the term in a way that prejudices the reader against the MIC, i.e. criticism not backed up by evidence, relying on appeal to emotion or insinuation, etc. Older sources more often had this problem, but newer ones keep getting better. For example,Salisbury 2024, which saysMIC is "almost always used in a pejorative manner", concludes on page 209-210 with some remarks very relevant to this discussion. I'll also stop here for now, to give space to Uhoj and any other participants.Apfelmaische (talk)04:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. "The phrasemilitary-industrial complex is usually used as a pejorative." is acceptable to me.
2. Apfelmaische said he wants coverage of specific complaints. Here's a draft for consideration.Draft:Potential_dangers_(military-industrial_complex)
3. I propose adding:Draft:Connotations_in_Russian_(military-industrial_complex)
4. Is there any objection to addingLedbetter's full quote back in? This was agreed to months ago, but was just deleted for some reason.

Regarding red lines, I'm fine with anything that's directly supported by quality sources. If some sources say one thing, but others contest it, then the various POVs should be included and presented as opinions. If quality sources say something and there aren't any sources that contest it, then it should be stated as a fact. I oppose original research and editorializing; particularly if used to make facts out to be opinions or vice versa. I oppose use of self-published sources.

One area where the rubber looks like it's going to meet the road is Apfelmaische's statement that he won't accept any version that doesn't treat our subject as "real". Now, I'm not entirely sure what he means by "real", but it appears to be on a collision course with one of the sources he cites:

Indeed it is unclear whether a "military-industrial complex" should be regarded as "a fact" or as a product of ideology, in the sense of a definition of "reality" linked almost wholly with critics of American policies.^{[1]: 251-252}

A further problem is that there's little agreement on whatthe military-industrial complex is among sources that advance the opinion that such an entity exists. So, I'm fine with describing the views of folks who believe thatthe military-industrial complex is a well-defined entity, but it needs to be clear that these are contested opinions rather than facts and we should discuss the various options that have been put forth asthe military-industrial complex.

Youseem to assume that I want the article to read likethis. That's very far from how I'd like to see this article develop. It's the result of working in a hostile environment where deletions were unopposed, but only a few additions weren't immediately reverted. This is a big topic that deserves a big nuanced article describing the full spectrum of viewpoints.Uhoj (talk)16:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have mischaracterized my position. I don't require a version that exclusively paints the MIC as real. I simply won't accept the implication that there is no (or little) real component to it, especially by treating it primarily as part of conspiracy theories.

I agree that the definition of MIC is vague. That's one reason we need to be careful not to cast it as mainly conspiracy theory: "Defenders of the complex find this lack of a theoretical framework useful ... “complex” is usually translated to mean “conspiracy,” and great sport is made of people who are still so naive as to believe in devils."^[2]

In that vein, I very much appreciate the new direction you're going with thepotential dangers draft, both in terms of content, and the way you're doing it. I strongly endorse this new approach of working in draft space, and getting consensus before publishing any major changes to article space. I will have input on this draft later.Apfelmaische (talk)19:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apfelmaische It should go without saying that you're more than welcome to edit the drafts directly, as is anyone else.Uhoj (talk)16:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, thank you. It will take time, I have a busy work week and will need to get/learn sources.Apfelmaische (talk)19:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhoj, @Apfelmaische, let's stay focused on content right now. Uhoj, I was just trying to give you a bit of friendly advice on the side there at the outset; if you don't agree with it, you're welcome to ignore it. I'm not going to argue over it with you. As for assuming anything about your position, note that in the reply you're citing I said "I don't know if Uhoj still wants the article to read like this or not yet, of course", something I think you might be overlooking. Thanks for describing your position and offerring those drafts for the group's consideration; I can see you've been working hard on this.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)03:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will do!Apfelmaische (talk)03:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no worries, I know everyone's feelings are running a bit high at this point.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)03:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delay in responding. Myrecent comment on the talk page might shed some light on my concerns about overemphasis on "pejorative" or "trope". It might take a while to fully express my thoughts and position(s). Some of the argumentsApfelmaische has given here are closer to my own, but you can see in the diff I just gave that I did disagree on inclusion of the full Ledbetter quote. --David Tornheim (talk)00:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the link there; I've read over your comment and am getting a better overall sense for the countours of the pejorativeness question—which, it should probably be noted, is the main question we're considering here, in terms of how this case was opened. We shouldn't really try to take up every single dispute that exists around the article here or this going to turn into its new talk page. So, if you feel that comment adequately captures your position on that question, you don't necessarily have to say more; I'll consider anything you want to provide that you think will help clarify your stance, of course, but don't feel any obligation.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)03:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Your Party (UK) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk ·contribs)
• AndyTheGrump (talk ·contribs)
• Rambling Rambler (talk ·contribs)
• Orange sticker (talk ·contribs)
• Czello (talk ·contribs)
• GothicGolem29 (talk ·contribs)
• Bondegezou (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The question is, in effect, how many MPs does Your Party have, and how should it be referred to in the infobox? There are 6 MPs publicly and openly affiliated with Your Party at a senior level. However, they are not listed as such on the House of Commons website (see: State of the Parties). The reason for this is not exactly clear, but (and I can provide sources for this upon request, not sure if I can put them in this textbox) it is convention to write to the speaker when you change your party affiliation in parliament, so one can presume (but not explicitly know) that they've not done that.

So the existing situation has it at 0 with a note saying 'no MPs have taken up the whip'.

The problem is that there is no such thing as 'taking up the whip'. There is no formal mechanism or procedure through which this is done, and no status that is conferred by it. The letter I mentioned before is a convention that helps with updating Hansard + the website, but it is NOT parliamentary law in any sense. There is no legal status for smaller parties in parliament, as the sources I cited in the discussion state explicitly. There is no substantive difference in HoC terms between 6 MPs who haven't written the letter but who are publicly affiliated with and involved in YP and 6 who have. However, it is also true that most reputable sources refer to them as 'independent' still. As such, I advocated for either putting it at '6' or, to compromise, keeping it at 0 but to change the note emphasising there are 6 affiliated MPs, they've just not been classified as such on the website (presumably bcs they've not written to the speaker?), and removing the notion of having 'not taken up the whip' because there is no such process. It doesn't exist and it's a meaningless phrase.

Others disagree with this, saying there is such a thing and that if you can't provide a source for them having 'taken up the whip' you can't remove it. No consensus for anything in the discussion thread.

Edit: I must unfortunately re-iterate that the claims given by a couple of users that there are "no relevant sources" = falsehoods, as I have made clear in my statement. I will attach relevant links for third parties shortly in the discussion section below. It is with great regret that I must conclude that several users involved--it is obvious who--have simply not read anything I have written. I encourage you to realise that this whole drama is over nothing more than wanting the note on the infobox to reflect the fact the 6 MPs in question are publicly affiliated w/ the party and that it makes no sense to say they have not 'taken up the whip', and that asking for a source about 'taking up the whip' makes no sense because there is literally no such thing. I will attach links as soon as I can.

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

Extensive discussion in the talk page.Talk:Your_Party_(UK)#I_don't_understand_why_the_decision_was_made_to_say_they_have_'0'_MPs_because_'they_have_not_taken_the_whip'._It_makes_no_sense!

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide external mediation that is detached from the passions of certain users who were uncivil and failed to assume good faith + who threatened disagreeing users when they disagreed. The page is locked up otherwise as an attempt to 'be bold' was instantly reverted (partly my error)

I ask politely that users read the main links in the talk thread to have an informed position on the discussion of 'taking the whip' and to inform themselves of the MP's open affiliation w/ YP, which is not disputed

Given that we appear to have no source stating that the MPs in question have in fact signed up to the party, only sources that indicate that theyintend to, we cannot suggest that theyare party members per multiple core Wikipedia policies (and incidentally making any nit-picking about the exact meaning of 'whip' irrelevant). And since local discussions - here, on the article talk page, or anywhere else - cannot override such policies, there is no meaningful dispute to 'resolve', and I will not be participating further unless such sources are produced.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that LevatorScapulaeSyndrome has now at least attempted to provide sources, I should point out that 'Politics UK' very likely does not meetWP:RS criteria, since it seems to accept user-generated content.[17] As for the two remaining sources, for Corbyn and Sultana, they seem to be discussing (andeditorialising about) the ongoing dispute between the two more than making any specific statements regarding what exactly the two will be doing in parliament. If wedo accept those sources, we are then stuck with the issue of the remaining four, and frankly I see no reason why Wikipedia should attempt to make any definitive statement on this question at all right now: in fact policy rather suggests it shouldn't, given the lack of clarity. This will no doubt sort itself out soon enough, if we get proper sourcing for the four, which would, perWP:BLP policy if nothing else, seem to require directly-cited evidence that they each had actually stated that they were members, and were acting as such in parliament.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "one person v many"WP:IDHT situation by the person opening this quite frankly no-hope DRN claim. After many hours of insisting on their preferred changes the opener has found no support quite simplyfor having provided no reliable source to support their edits. Instead they have repeatedly accused others of bad faith and lying[18][19] while also edit-warring their preferred version because they didn't get their way.[20]

The infobox note quite simply repeats what is sourced in the main article, that Your Party currently has no MPs sitting for them (i.e. have not taken the whip in common parlance). This will remain the case until such time reliable sources are provided to show they have MPs.Rambling Rambler (talk)15:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I provided recent sources which show that one of the MPs in question is still being referred to by secondary sources as an independent MP, OP has been asked multiple times to provide sources for their position but will not, instead trying to useWP:OR/WP:SYNTH to support their position. All other editors in this discussion besides OP seem to agree, there is strong consensus that that party currently has 0 MPs. There is general consensus that the reason for this is that they have not "taken the whip" is accurate and this wording would be widely understood.

This is a dispute about a note on the Your Party article. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome wants to change the note from "No mps have taken the Whip" to 6 MPs are publicly affiliated with Your Party, but are not listed as representing it on the House of Commons website"(As a side note a temporary account has just deleted the note and I will not restore it as that would be edit warring but I whole heartedly object to it being removed Struck as the edit removing the note got removed.) In the talk page discussion there was no consensus for the proposed change with multiple people objecting to that wording with concerns about length and sourcing being raised by me and others and several users objected to any change to the current note. They did a bold edit after a long discussion without consensus to try insert their change and I reverted.GothicGolem29(Talk)15:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this post is not to post my summary, but to provide some useful links for volunteers involved in supporting the dispute given the discordant claims between the disputants. I fear the claims of 'no sources being provided', while false, will 'poison the water' of the discussion and unduly influence volunteers. The intention is to use resources provided in the unwieldy talk section of YP for the ease of volunteers and I will not be giving my opinion in any way.

Context: Dispute as to whether MPs can 'take up the whip'

Resources provided by LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (claim: there is no formal mechanism such that there cannot be a source for them 'taking up the whip' and it is illegitimate to base the outcome of the dispute on that; there are only informal and not universally used mechanisms. there is no special status for any party bar the largest 2 opposition parties, and no formal difference between 6 independents and a 6-strong parliamentary group bar an informal convention around standing orders -- this is disputed).

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/141350/html/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmproced/534/report.html

https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/publications/britains-political-parties/ andhttps://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/political-parties-and-constitution

https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/1510/1/U117335.pdf

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/is-it-time-to-rethink-small-party-rights-in-the-commons/

(It is hard to cite a source for the lack of formal procedure other than saying 'it's not there').

Context: Dispute over Status of the 6 Your Party-affiliated MPs

Resources provided by Orange (claim: reputable media sources refer to them as independent -- undisputed so far)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvejvy3mj8o (independent is used here)

https://archive.is/ud70K ('Independent (Your Party)' is used here).

Resources provided by LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (claim: the 6 MPs are affiliated with Your Party -- This is disputed)

Jeremy Corbyn --https://archive.is/ud70K

Zarah Sultana --https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/31/zarah-sultana-sets-sights-on-replacing-labour-your-party-jeremy-corbyn

Other 4 -https://politicsuk.com/whose-party-the-your-party-dispute-explained/ ("They arejoined in the Your Party by four independent MPs elected in 2024: Shockat Adam, Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan and Iqbal Mohamed).

No other users (including several claiming 'no sources have been provided) have provided sources.

--LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk)20:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite baffling. I don't believe anyone is disputing that the 6 MPs areaffiliated with the Party - it says as much in the lead, mentioning them as supporters; we are just arguing that this is not an official affiliation as theyhave yet to take the party whip. Here are some examples of the phrase "take the (party) whip" being used to mean a person in an elected role officially representing that party in the relevant capacity:[21][22][23][24] This example shows that being a member of a party is not homologous to having the party whip:[25]. Until this happens, the 6 MPs will continue to stand as independents in the House of Commons and that is why all reliable sources and the official UK Parliament website still refer to them this way.[26] and none of @LevatorScapulaeSyndrome's sources above call anyone a Your Party MP, in fact they are instead careful to word it correctly, e.g.Sultana is the only female MP currently associated with Your Party.Orange sticker (talk)21:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to serve as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please readDRN Rule A. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you want to take part in moderated discussion, please state what changes you want to make to the article, or what changes another editor wants to make that you disagree with. If you do not want to take part in moderated discussion, please state that you do not want to take part in moderated discussion.

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will address the moderator and the community.

Please do not post anything with a Level 2 or Level 1 heading. A Level 2 post has been changed to Level 3. A Level 2 post becomes a separate topic.

Are there any questions?Robert McClenon (talk)21:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes how do I do a level 3 heading is it like this === example ===?GothicGolem29(Talk)22:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeHelp:Wikitext. A Level 3 heading has three equal signs before and after it. A Level 4 heading has four equal signs before and after it. A Level 2 heading precedes a new case.Robert McClenon (talk)11:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The change I am opposing is changing the note on Your Party in the infobox from "No mps have taken the Whip" to "6 MPs are publicly affiliated with Your Party, but are not listed as representing it on the House of Commons website" because including whip in the note is not misleading and this is unnecessary lengthening of the note when the current one is fine.GothicGolem29(Talk)13:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I am misusing this, I'm not really sure what the process is.

The change I want to make to the article: Make one of the two changes:

-Set the number of Your Party MPs in the House of Commons to 6 for the reasons outlined extensively here and in the original talk page. I acknowledge this is contentious and perhaps falls into original interpretation, though, even if I think it is the most correct, so I have tried to form a consensus option that recognises their formal affiliation with the party while noting that reputable sources still refer to them as Independent for now.

Thus, the more realistic and sensible option would be, to me:

-Keep the number of MPs at 0, but alter the note to state something along the lines of "6 MPs are publicly affiliated with Your Party, but [are not formally recognised as a parliamentary grouping by Hansard or the House of Commons website]." The wording of this is a bit crude, hence the square brackets, and I came up with ideas that were shorter and more succinct in the original talk discussion.

What others have proposed that I disagree with:

-Keeping it as is with it just saying 'no MPs have taken up the whip'. I believe (and you will see extensive sourcing and arguments in the relevant areas) this is wrong because the term 'taking up the whip' has no parliamentary meaning and is a mechanism of *some* parties, but it is not one that Your Party has, meaning there is no formal or substantive way of differentiating between MPs 'affiliated with' and effectively leading Your Party and MPs forming a 'formal parliamentary group'. The mechanism of 'taking up the whip' as is currently present simply doesn't exist. To exclude the widely recognised reality (that you can even see in the party's legal registration docs in the case of Corbyn and Hussain) that these MPs are affiliated with the party from the infobox is thus misleading and unjustified, and what some have said about it being in the lede is irrelevant, for it is not Wikipedia policy to exclude things from the infobox for that reason. It is hard for me to see how this 'compromise' idea is problematic in any way, especially when I have proposed a short and concise version of it in the chat. They would, in effect, 'forever' be at 0 MPs if we kept things as they are because there is no barrier to actually cross.

It is difficult for me to understand why a milquetoast change as such has been so fiercely opposed (when I have provided the HoC's and Hansard's own reporting showing the legal ambiguity herein!), and I suspect if I'd just done it without any discussion, then nobody would've even cared!

-That there is such a thing as 'taking up the whip' or that it makes sense in this context, as per Orange's reply to me 'sources for volunteers' thing. None of the examples he cited relate to the more amorphous process of independent MPs coming together to form a brand new party. "Taking the whip" is here not a parliamentary procedure (as I have shown at length), it's one specific to the main parties and it occurs outside of parliament + is purely a party procedure. It makes no sense in this context because there is no mechanism through which they would "take up" the whip of the party they founded.

LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk)21:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out that a new wording has been introduced byBondegezou which appears to be finding agreement. I suggest that this dispute resolution be closed and we just stick with Bondegezou's, as this process all seems rather unnecessary. —Czello^(music)08:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I pray for this thing to be over because it is exhausting and, I must say, has greatly dampened my enthusiasm for contributing :').LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk)10:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all, I didn't even see there was this process ongoing. I just boldly came up with what I thought was better wording. My edit has been supported byCzello,Orange sticker,LevatorScapulaeSyndrome and an IP editor, but remains opposed byGothicGolem29.Bondegezou (talk)11:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is agreement to use the footnote provided byUser: Bondegezou. If there is no disagreement, I will close this dispute as resolved.

I have a comment forUser: LevatorScapulaeSyndrome. Sometimes a more concise explanation or statement is better. Providing a long dump of sources or a long dump of you position does not always clarify the discussion.

Is there agreement with the footnote?

Are there any questions?Robert McClenon (talk)19:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree to the proposed new footnote. I see no reason to remove the Whip part from the footnote it is a commonly used term to refer to MPs per multiple sources and I think it should be kept. I would be willing as a compromise to include in the footnote a line that says that those MPs are associated with the party as well as saying no MPs have twken the whip(though the editor who proposed the new footnote objected to that previously.)GothicGolem29(Talk)03:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide a source that uses the term "whip" in reference to an MP associated with a party not currently represented in parliament.~2025-33097-68 (talk)03:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the new footnote, I believe that while saying the MPs have not taken the whip is correct, it is jargon and so the new version is better. I note that the position under discussion is temporary and will very likely change by the end of the month and would be happy for this dispute to be closed.Orange sticker (talk)08:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to again send my thanks to the volunteer moderators. I fully acknowledge your suggestion, and I recognise I can get a bit carried away with how much I write. Verbosity is an undeniable flaw of mine, and I'll continue to try and limit it in the future. It's something that I've always struggled with, as daft as that sounds. It's hard to remember that not everyone has the same obsessive thinking patterns as me when I'm in the flow of things and hyper-focused (my neurodiverse ass needs to work on it).

I am fine to close the dispute now considering how low stakes it is. I have small quibbles with it, but they're too small to waste time on. I thank User: Bondegezou for their action and I am very tired of this all now. If I have upset anyone I apologise, I have tried only to improve things. I see there is one person still disputing Bondegezou's solution, but I have nothing new to add beyond my already present arguments which I believe address their disagreement already. I guess there is not consensus, but we're pretty close now! I regret bringing it all up and not just changing it myself straight away + causing this time waste for my fellow humans.

It appears that one editor disagrees, and is not satisfied with the footnote. I have an opinion, but will only offer my opinion if the participating editors agree to abide by it. If I offer an opinion, and there is disagreement, this dispute will have to be failed, because I will no longer be able to mediate, and I don't expect another volunteer to take over this dispute. If there continues to be disagreement, I will have to prepare aRequest for Comments. So I will ask each editor to restate exactly what they want to change, or leave the same, in the article

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)04:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Robert McClenon's question, I desire Bondegezou's edit to remain. To GothicGolem I would say this: initially I felt that LevatorScapulaeSyndrome was the barrier to consensus, now I believe that has moved to you. Why are you insistent on the word "whip" being used? Does Bondegezou's statement not get across the same message, but without the jargon? Let's bring this dispute to a close, please. —Czello^(music)07:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I just want this to end and to keep Bondegezou's edit. I have nothing else to add beyond that which I have already put at length. I have no opinion on the moderator, whom I am thankful for, putting their opinion, and I'll leave that up to others. I feel GothicGolem's remaining dispute is not worth keeping this up because, even by their logic, changing it back doesn't really improve the page in any way, whereas from mine (and others') view the change is a distinct improvement. I beg of us all, let's just end it here and keep Bondegezou's edit. I yearn for a time when this is just a distant memory.

To GothicGolem--I appreciate you are disagreeing in good faith, but I believe my opposition to it has been outlined in enough detail that I needn't re-state it. I haven't got anything new to say that wouldn't just be repeating the position I've already outlined.

• I still object to excluding whip from the footnote so yes I would like your opinion on this Robert McClenon and I agree to abide by it.
• In response toCzello the reason is that this is a word commonly used by reliable sources about MPs and in my view there is no reason to remove it so I object to removing it.
• In response tooUser:LevatorScapulaeSyndrome I disagree I think including a word that is commonly used by reliable sources about this process is a improvement as it makes the the note more specific about the process rather than just saying they are associated with the party.GothicGolem29(Talk)15:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In response tooBondegezou I disagree that it isWP:OR given the amount of reliable sources that talk about whips in regards to MPs.GothicGolem29(Talk)13:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with the first part of their comment saying it is synth but in response toBondegezou question: The role of chief whip not existing(which it does not) doesn't mean the whip itself doesn't exist it just means either no one gets the whip or the leader has to give the whip instead.GothicGolem29(Talk)00:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current footnote reads, "5 MPs currently sitting as independents in Parliament are associated with the party". I am fine with this. It clearly explains the situation.GothicGolem29's wording using the term "whip" is more jargon-y and I cannot see any reliable source using the term "whip" about Your Party, a party still in the process of being formed, so I think his suggested wording is also misleading. There is no Your Party whip to be taken (yet). Talking about "taking the whip" isWP:OR here.Bondegezou (talk)11:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In response toGothicGolem29, I have not seen any RS talking about a whip for Your Party. Yes, other parties have whips and sources obviously talk about MPs taking or not taking the whip when it comes to other parties, but it isWP:SYNTH to use that language about the nascent Your Party. Here's a simple question: who is the Your Partywhip? It's no-one, the role doesn't exist.Bondegezou (talk)19:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the term 'whip' is political jargon, and that it in particular might not be understood by American readers, who nonetheless might be interested in British politics. It is my opinion that some other phrase, such as the language in the note, should be used.

Are there any other questions at this point?Robert McClenon (talk)06:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No questions as I said I would abide by your opinion this can probably be closed now thanks for your work as moderator.GothicGolem29(Talk)
• As an update Zarah Sultana is now listed as a Your Party MP on her parliament website so now there is no need for the note(already been removed) so this can definitely be closed.GothicGolem29(Talk)23:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Dmitri Shostakovich (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Thedarkknightli (talk ·contribs)
• CurryTime7-24 (talk ·contribs)
• Absolutiva (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

There's an ongoing dispute over whether to link "Saint Petersburg" and "Moscow". Absolutiva and CurryTime7-24 think we shouldn't, citingMOS:OVERLINK, while I disagree, citingWP:IGNORE and arguments inWT:MOSLINKS#OVERLINK vs GEOLINK.

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

Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich#De-linking "Saint Petersburg" and "Moscow"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing an independent fourth opinion.

Moscow and Saint Petersburg are respectively the largest and second largest cities in Russia. Both are "major examples of ... settlements or municipalities" that the guidelines inMOS:OVERLINK discourage from linking. Other editors disagree with this interpretation.CurryTime7-24 (talk)03:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Saint Petersburg" and "Moscow" are likely major, but largest cities in Russia, should not be linked. Unlike other major cities like "London" or "Beijing" should not be linked (for example,Arthur Conan Doyle, which "London" remains unlinked perMOS:OVERLINK guideline).

• Comment - I support the general principles ofWP:OVERLINK, but in this case, Ido think that "Saint Petersburg" and "Moscow" should be linkedsomewhere in the article, preferably in the first invocation. This is because they are so important to the topic. -Darouet (talk)02:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please readDRN Rule A. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to those rules. It appears that the main question is whether to link two cities in the infobox. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what changes you want to make to the article (whether to the infobox, the body, or anything else) or what changes another editor wants to make that you want to leave the same.

Are there are any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)02:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No questions from me for now.CurryTime7-24 (talk)03:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither.Thedarkknightli (talk)20:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any article content issues other than whether to linkSt. Petersburg andMoscow in the infobox? If so, please state concisely what the other issues are.

Are the editors willing to let the moderator decide the question, or do they want further discussion that may lead to an RFC?

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)04:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No other article content issues for now. I'm willing to let the moderator decide the question. I don't have any other questions for now.Thedarkknightli (talk)01:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darouet that there should be one link to each city that need not be in the infobox. I seeSt. Petersburg linked at the beginning of the article.Moscow should be linked somewhere in the article, for the convenience of a reader who wants to read about the city. It would be better not to have the links in the infobox.

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)04:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No other questions for now.Thedarkknightli (talk)08:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Battle of Maritsa (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Aeengath (talk ·contribs)
• Botushali (talk ·contribs)
• Himaldrmann (talk ·contribs)
• Donner60 (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

This concerns a place name in a sentence describing where an army assembled in 1371 before a battle.When I expanded the article, I wrote it as "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" following the two English sources that narrate that specific event. Another editor later changed it to "Shkodër" which started the dispute.

The question is which form fits best Wikipedia’s naming practice. My view is that, perWP:PLACE andWP:V, the article should mirror what reliable English sources use for the event being described followed by the modern name. The other editor prefers a later or modern form taken from broader regional works that do not narrate the 1371 battle directly.

A version using Scutari (Shkodër) with a note for Skadar was suggested as a compromise, but that seems to apply the name from a later period to an earlier event. The variation arises because over the centuries the city changed hands multiple times with each period using a different historical form.

A Third Opinion request was discussed but not closed and the editor handling it has been inactive since 28 October.

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

Talk:Battle of Maritsa#Skadar vs. Shkodër in 1371 context

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Input from uninvolved editors or a moderator on howWP:PLACE andWP:V should be applied here would resolve this. Specifically we need clarification on whether the event-specific usage found in cited English sources (Skadar) should take precedence over later or broader forms (Scutari, Shkodër) when describing this 1371 battle. This would help establish a consistent approach for articles covering this period as well as other historical ones currently being worked on.

• Both "Skadar" & "Shkodër" are used in relevant sources:
• "Skadar" is (a) a name definitely used at the time in question (i.e., it is not anachronistic), and (b) more common inEnglish-language sources that deal specifically with this battle/campaign. However, that is only two or three sources total, IIRC (userAeengath will know the exact count)—it's rather niche—and so I attempted to look around a bit more... but found that:
• "Shkodër" is (a) not anachronistic either, and (b) (possibly: see below) more common inEnglish-language sources that deal in general with the area at roughly the relevant time-period. However, this is a slim lead (& my attempted survey was not exhaustive).
• It seemedto me that "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" is maybe the more informative option: as it appears that neither "Skadar" nor "Shkodër" would be anachronistic, and are similarly prevalent in the sources, why not throw 'em both in?...
• ...however, userBotushali raised good points in that the letter of the guidelines would seem to suggest going with the local (/ local historical) name in such a case as this (i.e. one wherein no toponym has a definitive lead in English); and that using "Shkodër" + a footnote would be similarly informative.I, personally, am fine with this suggestion too.
• I'm not sure which standard ought be used in assessing English-source-usage: "sources dealing withthis particular battle/campaign" vs. "sources dealing with the medieval Balkansin general". AdminRosguill suggested that, in general, the more specific category ought be used—but that this might also depend on how natural/significant that category is, which may here be questionable (see:their Talk page under "WP:UEGN").

[Note:Apologies for my failure to close the "Third Opinion"; I am just really not sure what the best solution is! But I will try, if closing would be useful still.]

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk)08:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the parties agree on the guideline or guidelines to be used in determining the names of the battle and more importantly in this case, the place where or near which it occurred. The dispute is about which of the many names for the place over the years, and even today, which is best used under the guidelines. The problem has seemed to me to be that there are only a few sources and they are not consistent. Also, the omission of one or more might not present a clear picture. So I think this is an unusual case where multiple names should be mentioned even though a primary name should be used in the body of the article.
My only contribution was to propose a compromise under which all the names would be mentioned in some fashion with an explanation of the differing sources and perhaps an alternative or two mentioned in a footnote to the primary one, or perhaps even two with one in parenthesis, which should be used in the article. I consider this a rather unusual case. I am not sure any precedent would be set but I think it is a legitimate matter of concern that the proper guideline be followed, even in an unusual or difficult case. I have no absolute preference for a result. My thought is that the naming should be the best or most accurate under the guidelines. I see no problem with secondary explanations at least in a footnote. I think mentioning the various alternatives over the time period is probably helpful for identifying the location in this article. I will be satisfied with whatever conclusion is made by the moderator and/or the consensus of commentators who state their reasons.Donner60 (talk)04:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification on the user talk page is required when posting to anyt noticeboard.Robert McClenon (talk)01:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Thanks for the reminder. I’ve now notified all involved editors on their user talk pages. -Aeengath (talk)08:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please readDRN Rule D andthe designation of Eastern Europe and the Balkans as a contentious topic. If you participate in discussion, you are known to have read about thecontentious topic. Are there any article content issues other than the names ofShkodër? There is a link in the article from the name of the city to the article about the city. Is there a reason why this article needs information that goes beyond the article?

I am asking each editor to state exactly what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)04:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Robert McClenon. Here is the information you requested.

• There is no content dispute other than the place name in one sentence describing where an army assembled.
• The article does not need any extra information about the city. The only question is which name to use in that one sentence, following the sources that support it.
• The specific change I request is to restore the name used in the English sources that describe the 1371 campaign. Both sources that narrate the event (Fine 1994; Shopov 2006) use Skadar, so the sentence would read:

“His army was in Skadar (modernShkodër) preparing for action when Uglješa summoned him.”

• No newer or event-specific English sources use a different name. This follows usualWP:PLACE practice of “historical name (modern name)” and meetsWP:V since the wording reflects what the reliable sources actually say.
• No further issues from my side. I am happy to proceed under moderated discussion.

–Aeengath (talk)15:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, @Robert McClenon!

• The argument is solely over what place-name to use in the sentence quoted by @Aeengath.
• I believe @Botushali wanted something like the below, citing (a) aWP:UEGN guideline to use local names when there is no clearly-widely-accepted English name, + (b) concern that the "modern-day Shkodër" parenthetical may imply that the city was not also known as Shkodër at the time:

---

[...] His army was inShkodër^[a] preparing for action when Uglješa summoned him.

---

• As a compromise, @Donner60 suggested that we go withScutari in the body (as the likely best-known name for the place in English, albeit an anachronistic one), and move bothShkodër &Skadar to the footnote.
• So long as we either use both names in the main body, or have an explanatory footnote, 'sall fine by me!¹

¹(for that reason, this'll[...probably–] be my final comment; just wanted to round out the picture here by sort of "speaking for" Botushali/Donner, in case they don't show up—with the caveat that I am, well, notthem–)

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk)04:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank @Robert McClenon for volunteering to moderate this discussion.

• "The summary of dispute by Donner60", above, sets out my contribution to the discussion and views about the outcome. I will only repeat the last sentence here: "I will be satisfied with whatever conclusion is made by the moderator and/or the consensus of commentators who state their reasons." My opinion is that this is a somewhat unusual and difficult question in the context of this article. Even though the guidelines are not disputed, as I understand the discussions, the application of the guidelines to this article are not agreed upon. I think it will be useful if some other opinions are expressed by other editors but of course, that is voluntary and may well not occur. Thanks to all who have proceeded in these discussions with civility and have backed up their conclusions with reasons.Donner60 (talk)03:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking each editor to state exactly what they want the article to indicate as the name of the city. I am also asking each editor who wants additional information besides the name of the article about the city why that information needs to be in this article, rather than being in the article about the city.

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)08:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you@Robert McClenon, answers below:

• The city should appear in the article as "Skadar (modernShkodër)" on first mention and as Skadar in later mentions. This is the form used in the English-language sources that support that sentence.

• No additional information about the city is needed in this article. The modern name in parentheses should be enough for reader clarity. I am of course open to a brief footnote explaining that the city has appeared under different names in different periods if other editors find it helpful to readers.

-Aeengath (talk)10:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Joseph Putz (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Bgrus22 (talk ·contribs)
• ~2025-31245-28 (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I have a draft that I wish to move into main space. I have tried blanking the redirct to make room for the article of a prominent military figure who was a commanding officer for the spanish civil war and WWII, locatedhere. The aforementioned blanking got me introduced to the user~2025-31245-28. We spoke on his talk page which I have linked. but will do so again [[27]]. We argued about how to proceed at which point I opened up a redirect for deletion[28]]. He then went there and despite in our previous conversation my mentioning I was ready to publish and indicating in the rfd stating I was doing the final move made moves to preserve this redirect. I have noticed other users complaining about this strange accounts behavior, which may be worth investigating. When I confronted him about this he accused me of aspersions.

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

[[29]], [[30]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I want to publish my page on Lt. Col. Putz, can y'all get this person to stop blocking my attempts and figure out whats going on?

I will try to understand this, if that is even possible, in a few hours when I have time. Until then I merely reiterate it is not necessary to blank a redirect before overriding it, and it is undesirable to do so perWP:No blank pages. When one is ready to publish over a redirect it can and should be done directly with no intervening blanking required.~2025-31245-28 (talk)19:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I looked this one over and still don't really understand it. I made no moves to preserve the redirect with my comment at RFD[31]. In fact I was willing to enertain the idea there might exist a reason to delete despite the irregularity.

It would appear User:Bgrus22 simply does not understand that redirects can be directly overwritten with content without blanking them first. I am tempted to simply override the redirect for them since the terms of the license could be satisfied by providing attribution in the edit summary, a name or pseudonym being all that is required, but it is usually better to teach a man to fish than to give a man a fish.~2025-31245-28 (talk)01:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bgrus22 - The unregistered editor is partly right, because you were (throughgood faith but serious error) attempting tohijack a valid redirect to an existing article,J. J. Putz. Redirects should not be blanked except in extraordinary circumstances. This was not an extraordinary circumstance. Redirects should not normally be blanked even if they are thought to be incorrect. Normally issues about redirects should be taken toRedirects for Discussion. If you had tagged the redirect for a deletion discussion, a more experienced editor would have given you the advice that I am about to give you. The redirect was there for a purpose, becauseJoseph Putz is a valid search term forJ. J. Putz. You want to create an article about another person for whomJoseph Putz is a name. This requiresdisambiguation. You should already be familiar with disambiguation, but maybe you have seen it without understanding it. What I have done is to move your sandbox toDraft:Joseph Putz (soldier). If your draft is then either accepted by a reviewer or moved to article space, the redirect atJoseph Putz should be changed to a disambiguation page.

The advice from the unregistered editor to overwrite the redirect is wrong. The redirect is there for a purpose. It should neither be overwritten nor blanked. It is there for a purpose.

This is not the sort of dispute thatDRN is intended to resolve, but the dispute will be resolved if my advice is followed.

Are there any questions?Robert McClenon (talk)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for taking the time to address this! I did put it in redirects for discussion as I said, this unnamed user seemed to derail my attempt despite our previous discussion in their talk page. I also offered to put in the template that goes in the top of a page "this page is for x, for the topic y please go here" although I will admit I did not name it the best but he seemed to understand what I meant.

Why make it under (soldier) when the baseball player is not known by that name while the soldier is known by his name and is more prominent amongst academic works? I think that it makes for a lower quality page when we have the tools to provide a link via template, like used at the top ofhere.Bgrus22 (talk)06:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon I have no interest in this matter other than ensuring that pages are not improperly blanked. TheWP:RFD outcome, which I did not directly support, was to use one of two given methods, either overriding or AFC. You have suggested a third option, perhaps out of some dubiety regarding theWP:PTOPIC, which was not given in the RFD closing statement but is nonetheless procedurally regular and so unobjectionable from my perspective; others may differ.

I intent to continue reverting any attempts to blank the page and my edits to do so are covered byWP:3RRNO, otherwise you can do as you wish i.e. retarget, DABify, or convert to a properly sourced article; it makes no difference to me.~2025-31245-28 (talk)15:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bgrus22 - Thank you for readingthe disambiguation guideline, which you should have done before attempting to blank the redirect. You say that the soldier should be theprimary topic forJoseph Putz. That is a plausible argument. The disambiguation guideline does not describe a procedure for resolving questions about what is theprimary topic. If you say that the soldier should be the primary topic, you should add a hatnote to the draft for the baseball player, such as {{About|the soldier|the baseball player|J. J. Putz}} , and then overwrite the redirect with the article about the soldier, including the hatnote. That will maintain the ability of readers to find the baseball player by enteringJoseph Putz. It is necessary for readers to be able to find the article on the baseball player by enteringJoseph Putz.

You were wrong in trying tohijack the redirect, and the unregistered editor was right in restoring the redirect. The soldier can be the primary topic if there is a hatnote to the baseball player.

Are there any questions?Robert McClenon (talk)18:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed my proposed solution about linking to the baseball player on the draft page you moved my sandbox version over to. How would you say it looks? I understand what you are saying that the editing history of the original link needs to be preserved. I am still confused about why there was so much trouble to get the original redirect removed to make space for a new page that was needed (assuming that internal wiki and external google results are a good metric for necessity).Bgrus22 (talk)22:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I have no further questions, thanks.~2025-31245-28 (talk)01:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bgrus22 - You write:I am still confused about why there was so much trouble to get the original redirect removed to make space for a new page that was needed (assuming that internal wiki and external google results are a good metric for necessity). I have tried to explain to you that by blanking the redirect, you were removing information that was useful for navigation purposes. If you don't understand that, perhaps you should ask other editors atthe Teahouse to explain to you about navigation and disambiguation. I am not planning to review the draft because I have becomeinvolved and am no longer neutral. I do not understand why you do not understand why the removal of the redirect was problematic.

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)22:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that somewhere on Joseph Putz there should be a way for people interested in the baseball player to get directed over there. What do I do next with this draft page though?.Bgrus22 (talk)23:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgrus22 asked what they can do now. They can submitDraft:Joseph Putz (soldier) for Articles for Creation review, or can move it to article space.

Are there any questions?Robert McClenon (talk)18:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Lazman321 (talk ·contribs)
• 3df (talk ·contribs)
• Oknazevad (talk ·contribs)
• Maplestrip (talk ·contribs)
• Noleander (talk ·contribs)
• Vacant0 (talk ·contribs)
• Man-Man122 (talk ·contribs)
• Binksternet (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over whetherTetris should be defined in the lead as a video game with multiple versions/variants or a video game series.

Although it seemed the dispute was resolved by RfC back in June, recent activity resulting from a now-withdrawn FAC has proven otherwise. Furthermore, the dispute on what to defineTetris has manifested on theList of video games considered the best andList of best-selling video games talk pages for years, long before the dispute started on theTetris talk page proper. To keep the user list concise, the users I have listed either reviewed the GAN or FAC nominations, as both nominations ignited the dispute in the first place, or participated in the latest discussion on the talk page.

What to defineTetris in the lead poses a serious dilemma. On one hand, the vast majority of sources refer toTetris in general as a video game due to the gameplay usually being consistent acrossTetris games, which multiple users have likened to chess. SinceWP:DUE recommends emphasizing the majority view andTetris being a video game is the majority view, some could argue that the lead should refer toTetris as a video game. On the other hand, theTetris article currently serves asWP:broad-concept article, encompassing multipleTetris games that would generally not be considered a "version" of the originalTetris gameplay. Since those games are more akin to entries in avideo game series, some could argue that the lead should refer toTetris as a video game series.

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

Talk:Tetris/GA1,Talk:Tetris/Archive_3#Pre-RfC_discussion_on_definition,Talk:Tetris/Archive_3#RfC_on_definition_of_Tetris,Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetris/archive1,Talk:Tetris#The_article's_lede

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like help in resolving this dispute, either mediated consensus-building, a compromise, or a new RfC with a clear closing comment.

I was the GAN reviewer. During the review, I mentioned that the article was ambiguous as to its subject and recommended that it be made explicitly aboutTetris as a media franchise. A third editor raised concerns about this change and the question of what the article’s subject was – a video game with many versions, or a video game series – was brought to RfC. I have no opinion regarding this question and did not participate in the RfC, but it informed my review. After it was closed, I found that the article did meet criteria and passed it. I would not have found consensus if I had closed that RfC, but I also did not anticipate the question being raised again.3df (talk)11:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris is somewhat unique among video games because it's not a series as conventionally used in the subject field (like say, Mario, Sonic,Call of Duty or any of of the thousands of series) where each game is treated as a distinct creative work.Tetris is pretty consistently treated in sources more as a game genre like solitaire, poker, or minesweeper, where there's a general concept and mechanic that is consistent across all versions yet each release has its own particulars, but unlike those generic games,Tetris is a particular bit of still-copyrighted and trademarked intellectual property (can't actually be calledTetris without a license). And then within the whole shebang there are actually specific series of versions, like theTetris: The Grand Masterseries, but they're still considered versions ofTetris as a general description. The issue here is that no matter which version on whatever platform is being played, reliable sources and common vernacular all say the person is "playingTetris". We should follow the sources and do the same.oknazevad (talk)21:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Tetris" is three things. It is a 1985 video game for an old soviet computer. It is a series of video games that share many elements with that original game (many of which are also just called "Tetris"). And it is an archetype of a game; a genre if you will. Tetris is likePoker,Tennis,Minesweeper, orSnake: a single game with many variations. Our Wikipedia article conflates the series and the archetypical game, and we struggle with how to phrase the result. If I make a flashgame that is Tetris, and call itTetris, people will point to it and say it is Tetris, but it is not part of theTetris franchise.

It is very atypical for Wikipedia to refer to any video game in the way that we may refer to poker or tennis, because we approach them more as creative works like films with a clear singular release. The only other example like this that we have is Minesweeper as listed above, but that article isn't about a franchise. Sources seem to approach Tetris as a singular game with many variants, but they may also approach it as a licensed series of works. Which perspective should Wikipedia take? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris was nominated forFA. I volunteered to review it, and observed that the lead was very confusing to lay readers. And I said so. I have no opinion on the ideal scope of the Tetris article (sources clearly use the word "Tetris" in several conflicting ways). I have nothing more to contribute here in DRN.Noleander (talk)22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it as short as possible. I was a reviewer at FAC and found the article to be written weirdly. Anyone familiar with how video game articles are supposed to be written would know that theTetris article is not stylised like a standard video game article, but as a series. The lede, however, did not reflect that (the lede read likeTetris was a single video game). My issues were resolved during the review by the nominator, but the changes were quickly reverted. I don't think that the article is ready for FAC in its current state mainly because of this. The average reader won't understand what the article is about by reading the current lede. I do not have any other opinions on this issue besides this one. Video games that feature same or similar gameplay (eg.,FIFA) are treated as a series on Wikipedia therefore I don't see a reason why wouldTetris be treated differently.

To keep it brief: There's a dispute as to whether the lede for the Tetris article should describe it as a series or as a game. Despite how some may (with reason) see this point of view with skepticism and confusion, the fact is that the majority of sources, although there's some confliction, seem to describe Tetris as a game with a multitude of variants, rather than a series. In my view, the article's lede ought to be kept that way, in keeping with said sources. Other volunteers here seem to think that another RfC should take place and that it'd do some good. This seems like the most reasonable place to go from here.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMan-Man122 (talk •contribs)11:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premature venue jump. This dispute can be solved with a new RfC on the Tetris talk page, with a slightly tighter focus aimed at whether the game should be described and classified primarily as a series. Yes or no.Binksternet (talk)21:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - Is this discussion being brought here for assistance in formulating an RFC, or is there some other reason why this request is being made here rather than continuing to discuss at the article talk page?Robert McClenon (talk)23:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Sorry, this is my first time here, so I'm not sure what the norms are. I brought the discussion here because I'd like the dispute to be resolved by any means necessary, and the recent discussion wasn't leading to a clear consensus. I think that's partly my fault, as I might'veWP:BLUDGEON'd it without me realizing. In any case, I am worried that even if discussion dies down withTetris remaining in whatever state it's in, if I ever nominate it for FAC again, the dispute would just reignite like last time.

I am open to another RfC, as that might be the best way to resolve it, though resolution will heavily depend on the closing comment. The prior RfC had a closing comment that didn't make it clear what the ultimate consensus was. If you or any other volunteer is willing to assist in formulating a new one, I'd greatly appreciate it.Lazman321 (talk)23:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as a moderator for the purpose of discussing whether a new RFC is needed. It appears that that is the concern being raised by the filing editor. Please readDRN Rule A, which will govern discussions here, but discussion will be limited to whether any RFCs should be formulated, unless an editor states that there is an article content dispute. I will not moderate or mediate any dispute aboutFeatured Article status, because that should be done in accordance with theFeatured Article procedures.

I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to accomplish by discussion here. In particular, please state whether you think that a new RFC is needed. Any editors who do not respond to this request will be assumed to be declining to take part in this discussion, but may join later if they wish.Robert McClenon (talk)05:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new RfC is needed. Users from both sides participated in that RfC in similar numbers, and the closing comment didn't really pick which side had the stronger case, saying that the consensus was "a bit mixed". The closer did say that a majority of the participants supported definingTetris as a video game, but that majority is very slight, and consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not a vote. I think a problem with the RfC that led to the unhelpful closing comment is that only three options were proposed: definingTetris as a game, a series, or a genre. Each option, as prior discussions have demonstrated, have inherent problems, meaning any RfC on this matter should leave room for discussing potential compromises in order to mitigate said problems.Lazman321 (talk)06:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I share Lazman's view on the necessity for a new RfC.Man-Man122 (talk)

I see that my question of whether each editor thinks that a new RFC is needed was insufficient. I am asking each editor who thinks that a new RFC is needed to specify exactly what is the purpose of the new RFC and what the new RFC should ask. Should the new RFC ask the community to rank the choices of a video game, a video game series, and a genre? Should the new RFC ask the community to choose between a video game and a video game series? Try to be clear as to why a new RFC is desired and what a new RFC will ascertain.

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)20:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies. I believe that the new RfC should be put forth to determine whether or not Tetris is referred to as a game or a series in its article. I personally think that the RfC should ask the following:Should Tetris be defined as a video game or a series of video games?Simple enough, in my view. Although I do think that it's still susceptible to the kind of deadlock of the last RfC.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMan-Man122 (talk •contribs)01:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, because this is such a binary decision, and because I don't imagine it would be easy to convince "the other side" in either direction, a binary vote would be the best way to handle this issue. I would like to hear if people think that isn't acceptable, or if people think there's a third option here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)07:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a brief read over this dispute and have found myself disappointed.Since WP:DUE recommends emphasizing the majority view and Tetris being a video game is the majority view, some could argue that the lead should refer to Tetris as a video game. No, if there is a dispute in sources, we areobliged todescribe disputes, but not engage in them. Describing it in wikivoice as one or the other is engaging the dispute. This should not go to an RFC, especially if what is presented is a binary "treat it as this or this", and we are trying to establishwhich side has the stronger case.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)08:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any reliable sources discussing this issue directly that we can refer to? That would be helpful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)08:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I found your comment that sources "approach Tetris as a singular game with many variants, but they also approach it as a licensed series of works" compelling, can you provide sources that you were referencing to support it?Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)08:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several Web-sources describing Tetris as a singular game with "versions":NYT,Polygon,Verge,Retro Gamer, as examples. I'm actually struggling finding sources calling Tetris a series or a franchise, but here's an example:Denofgeek. Here's a source that refers to both "Tetris games" and the "Tetris brand" (in the context of Tetrisphere), but it's not very useful I thinkIGN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)11:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be looking atWP:BESTSOURCES to make such a determination. That being said, if these sources are representative, I would only think the characterization of Tetris as a franchisedue for a footnote at most. As presented it is barely if even a minority view.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |edits)11:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC like the one Man-Man122 and Maplestrip propose would be the simplest, but given the deadlock, I believe the RfC should also provide a potential compromise option. Perhaps a footnote at the opening sentence, but I am open to other suggestions.Lazman321 (talk)16:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe that a footnote would be the best compromise option. I was actually about to suggest that on the talk page, but the message I was replying to was replaced with the other one about being cautious about bludgeoning while I was typing. I don't think I have any other compromise suggestions.Man-Man122 (talk)07:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, is that that? Do we just start a new RfC?Man-Man122 (talk)18:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by prior DRN threads, usually it'sRobert McClenon who drafts and starts the new RfC.Lazman321 (talk)04:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I usually draft and launch RFCs is that I have experience in wording them neutrally, and non-neutral RFCs are troublesome and sometimes have to be discarded. However, at this time, it would be useful if each editor would propose the draft wording of the RFC that they think will be the next step toward improving the consensus aboutTetris. Please propose an RFC (or more than one RFC, if you think that multiple RFCs are in order at this point).

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)11:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my proposal:

Any thoughts?Lazman321 (talk)18:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I think this works the best.

I do worry a bit that the wide range of options could lead to further deadlock, but I'm confident that the compromise options will serve their purpose.Man-Man122 (talk)12:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to provide the options with and without endnotes? Why can't see limit the choice to the two forms with endnotes? That will reduce the likelihood of a deadlock.

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)08:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

I have discussed the matter on the relevant talk pages.Iss246 (talk)18:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• City College of New York (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Graywalls (talk ·contribs)
• Iss246 (talk ·contribs)
• ElKevbo (talk ·contribs)
• Epicgenius (talk ·contribs)
• Melchior2006 (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement about inclusion of contents that are not factually incorrect but whether it is due. I have already raised concerns that certain items Iss246 wishes to include amounts toWP:TRIVIA and undue, but they continue to restore it.

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

Talk:City_College_of_New_York#Continued_addition_of_flowery_and_hagiographic_contents_based_on_CCNY.EDU_associated_sources

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide input on the inclusion or help read consensus and advise on applyingWP:ONUS in this situation on including contents such as "and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)". I believe it would be helpful to have someone referee the content inclusion worthiness disagreement based on the university page itself. It no longer qualifies for 3PO, because several other users have already provided input.

This is the story. City College and other units of the City University of New York have an Honors College. Acceptance to the Honors College means a student gets free tuition. Many other institutions that have an honors division also provide for free tuition. But CUNY and City College, which is part of CUNY, offer something else, something unique, namely, access to NYC cultural institutions such as museums, Broadway theaters, concert halls, etc. Of course, NYC is rich with such institutions, which makes the University's passport to those institutions unique and difficult to duplicate by colleges and universities located elsewhere. I don't understand why Graywalls is policing me. Over and over, he deletes my additions to WP. And of course there is all the tedious back-and-forth with him about the deletions and my defending the additions. I would be happy if he were to edit one of my additions to improve the writing or add an appropriate source. That I would appreciate. But he doesn't. He just tears out what I write. He does this again and again, which makes writing for WP so demoralizing along with his tedious arguments on talk pages. Many times when I make an addition to WP, he intervenes to reverse it. He often engages in deleting additions made by many other contributors to WP. My preference is that he conduct a little research and make another contributor's writing better.

I will give you a straightforward example of what I mean by trying to make someone else's addition to a WP entry better. I was reading the WP article about the writer and editorTina Brown. Yeah! Sometimes I read a WP article just to appreciate the content. I did that with the Tina Brown article after I read a transcript of Lulu Garcia-Navarro's interview of Brown. Toward the end of the article, there is a mention that her late husband Harry Evans was knighted but there was no source. I therefore looked for a potentially appropriate source, read it to be sure it was appropriate, found it to be a reasonable source, and wrote it into the WP article about Tina Brown. That is what I mean by helping a previous contributor, rather than tearing out the sentence as if it were an offense to the encyclopedia. Isn't that better than tearing down the writing of someone who had previously added to the article?

I will tell you what would please me. For a six-month period, Graywalls does not edit articles to which I contribute and I don't edit articles to which Graywalls contributes.Iss246 (talk)23:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors have engaged in extensive edit warring in the article and disrespectful, unproductive sniping in the article's Talk page. I agree with some of each set of edits to the article - some details should be added to the article but some that have been added are promotional and overly detailed. These two editors need a complete reset with one another. More importantly, we need them to stop edit warring. Continued edit warring should result in a block from editing this article; they're both experienced editors who know better.ElKevbo (talk)14:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone affiliated with the university system of which the article subject is part, I've commented on the talk page a few times, as I didn't want to make edits to the article myself. In brief, since late October, Iss246 and Graywalls have been engaged in a slow edit war regarding content added by Iss246 and backed up mostly by primary sources. The disputed content includespopular culture mentions,notable alumni content,information about doctoral programs and donations, andcontent about faculty. On the talk page, numerous editors have been skeptical of the use of primary sources and other content that doesn't fall under the essayWP:UNIGUIDE. –Epicgenius (talk)22:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have had many disagreements and we have both been long-time editors of WP, what I would like is that Graywalls desist from editing WP pages that I tend to edit and that I desist from editing WP pages that Graywalls tends to edit. I recently read that there are more than 200,000 active editors of the English Wikipedia. Given that number, I don't think either of us will be missed as editors of the other person's work on WP.Iss246 (talk)23:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with your proposal. I created the request seeking neutral evaluation WRT to contents dispute. It's expected that we all adhere to discussion consensus.Graywalls (talk)03:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I am suggesting is a reset in the spirit of the suggestion ElKevbo made.Iss246 (talk)14:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to act as the moderator for this dispute if the editors want moderated discussion about article content issues. Please readDRN Rule A. The scope of this discussion will not involve any proposal for aninteraction ban, or for any voluntary agreement that is similar to an interaction ban. If two editors frequently edit the same articles, they should resolve any content disputes by discussion or bydispute resolution, and should learn how to resolve content disputes by discussion.

The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. I would like each editor to state concisely what changes they want to make to the article that another editor does not agree to, or what changes they do not want to make to the article that another editor wants to make.

If the responses to my question about desired changes to the article identify any disagreements, we will try to resolve them. If there don't appear to be any content disputes, I will close this discussion.

Are there any questions?Robert McClenon (talk)05:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove "and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)" from prose and would like neutral evaluation of consensus based on what's discussed already in talk.Graywalls (talk)12:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, I would like to retain the expression "and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)" because it is accurate. Acceptance to the Honors College means a student gets free tuition. Many other institutions that have an honors division also provide for free tuition. But CUNY and City College, which is part of CUNY, offer something else, something unique, namely, access to NYC cultural institutions such as museums, Broadway theaters, concert halls, etc. Of course, NYC is rich with such institutions, which makes the University's passport to those institutions unique and difficult to duplicate by colleges and universities located elsewhere. But I don't say anything about other institutions to keep from playing a "comparing game" among institutions of higher learning. Also note that I am no longer using the word "passport" in the article as a concession to Graywalls because he doesn't like it.

I also suggested a cooling-off period. I propose that for a six-month period starting the day we settle this matter, Graywalls does not edit articles to which I contribute and I don't edit articles to which Graywalls contributes. A six-month period is not forever. But with more than 200,000 WP editors, many editors are available who can contribute to entries I contribute to like that of the City College of New York.Iss246 (talk)21:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. What I am seeing is that, whether you want it or not, I'm not seeing consensus in favor of including it and perWP:ONUS, if you can not establish consensus, it stays out. What I'm asking here is for a neutral evaluation of consensus at talk page, then acted on consensus by an uninvolved party; so neither you nor me. I'm completely opposed. I believe it's fluffy trivia. At least one other editor is also in favor of omission. In your inclusion argument, I see nothing beyondWP:ILIKEIT backed by your personal values "unfairly removed" specifically referring toSpecial:Diff/1322371500. So, I feel consensus is not there to include it based on a thorough discussion that's already been had. Since I'm involved in it, I'm asking someone else to read the consensus and at on it accordingly.Graywalls (talk)01:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. One editor does not make a landslide vote. If the editors are not familiar with the subject matter in the article, they may desist from making a comment or voting.Iss246 (talk)16:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See "Statements" section ofWikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR.Graywalls (talk)18:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a sentence indicating that a unique facet of the honors program, namely, the facet that involves students getting access to NYC cultural institutions, is an unnecessary change, as per the owner behavior page.Iss246 (talk)20:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to retain the expression "and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)" because it is accurate and unique. Acceptance to the Honors College means a student gets free tuition. Many other institutions that have an honors division also grant free tuition. But City College offers something else, something unique, namely, access to NYC cultural institutions. Of course, NYC is rich with such institutions, which makes the access that the University underwrites unique and difficult to duplicate by colleges and universities located elsewhere.Iss246 (talk)20:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. When I said that we will not be discussing any restriction on editing that is similar to aninteraction ban, I meant that we would not be discussing any restrictions on editing that are similar to an interaction ban. The six-month restriction idea is similar to a voluntary interaction ban. The purpose ofDRN is to resolve article content issues. When a rule says: "Comment on content, not contributors", it means that discussion should be about the article, not about what not to edit.

I see that there is one specific article content issue, whether to leave the phraseand access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.) from the21st century section. Will each editor please state concisely why they think that this phrase is or is notdue orundue emphasis in accordance with the principle ofbalance? Are there any other article content issues?

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)05:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that it is undue, because while not wrong, it's a minutiae trivia/amenity guide backed only by the schools website. PerWP:NOTEVERYTHING andWP:NOTAWEBHOST. Other participants also not supporting the inclusion tips it against inclusion perWP:CONSENSUS and in that situation,WP:ONUS says that we default to omission. This in my opinion is comparable to including the statement that a restaurant offers a punch card that lets you redeem 11th meal for free after 10th purchase. Which, even if verifiable, doesn't guarantee inclusion; unless consensus determines otherwise.

Graywalls (talk)05:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A statement for the editors/moderators. The deletion of the sentence indicating that a unique facet of the honors program, namely, the facet that involves honors students getting access to NYC cultural institutions, is an unnecessary deletion. I recommend retaining the expression "and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)" because it is both accurate and unique. Acceptance to the Honors College means a student gets free tuition. Many other institutions that have an honors division also grant free tuition. But City College offers something else, something unique, namely, access to NYC cultural institutions. Of course, NYC is rich in cultural institutions, which makes the access that the University underwrites unique.Iss246 (talk)15:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is one article content issue, and that is the removal of the phraseand access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.). I don't see a compromise. If either of the editors can offer a compromise, we should consider it. It appears that an RFC is called for. I will prepare a draft RFC for review within 48 hours.

Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)01:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I already compromised by deleting text. For example, as a concession to Graywalls I deleted the text that included the term "cultural passport" although that is what CUNY called the benefit in question. I deleted the text for no other reason than the fact that Graywalls objected to it. Not that I think the locution is bad or wrong. I wanted to show some good will. Editor, you please tell me if I can continue to use the expression.Iss246 (talk)21:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Ergur (talk ·contribs)
• Katzrockso (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Myself and another user have spent spent more than the course of a month discussing whether the Trie article ought to use "pseudocode" (a non-standardised high-level description of an algorithm that resembles a programming language) or a proper Java implementation. This other user has justified this on the grounds of MOS:ALGO and WP:PSEUDOCODE, but as brought up by the WP:3O user involved, this alone does not bind every article to its supposed guidelines, and that my arguments should be addressed for their merits. Meanwhile, my arguments were that the Java implementation was sufficiently descriptive and simple enough for readers, fewer noise words, and can be backed up by actual demonstration by compiling said code. Then, this user began to consciously cease to respond to the talk page, despite being prompted for a response from both myself and the user from WP:3O, and as per the words of the WP:3O user, such actions were WP:STONEWALLING any changes to the article. After more than a week of silence from that user, as well as someone else who weighed in and gave an opinion favouring the other user but failed to substantiate or reason for said opinion, I invoked WP:SILENCE and proceeded with restoring my changes. However, said changes were reverted yet again, and I argue that this constitutes edit warring, as I had given ample time to respond and consistently requested actual justifications rather than deference to WP/MOS pages.

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

• Talk:Trie#Java implementation vs "pseudocode"
• A request at WP:3O

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like either the other user to be made to engage respectably and meaningfully with the discussion at hand, or cease entirely with the dispute. I feel as if I have reasoned extensively with the other reason and implored them to see reason or at least engage with discussion meaningfully, and they have WP:STONEWALLED every attempt to do so, and it feels as if they are deliberately delaying responses to the talk page to prevent an agreeable conclusion.

An IP editor rewrote all the code ofTrie from pseudocode to Java and I reverted the changes.This lead to a discussion on the Talk page.It spanned a long time, but it was not productive.

I relied a lotMOS:ALGO which has a bias toward pseudocode, "when possible."Initially, I made my a case against Java, claiming it is noisy and that the implementation by the IP editor yields a weaker algorithm;One that only works on a specific alphabet.I made the point that this shows one benefit of using pseudocode,namely that it allows you to ignore the lower level details (such as mapping the alphabet to${\displaystyle \{1,2,\dots ,n\}}$) and focus on what matters.The IP editor replied "How or why is this a problem?"; a reply I felt summarized the discussion up to that point.

At this point I felt the discussion was becoming more hostile than I wanted, so I didn't respond until they pinged me.I wanted to wait for more people to comment on the issue, but the IP editor wasn't on board.

In total, there were three people who replied to the proposal with a definite stance; all of them were opposed.

I have been accused ofWP:SILENCE andWP:STONEWALLING.I fail to see how the prior could possibly apply; There is clear evidence of disagreement.The latter, I think, is because I kept telling the IP editor to readMOS:ALGO.I did this, however, because the case for pseudocode was made well there and I saw no point in copy/pasting it into the discussion.The IP editor did not counter the points made inMOS:ALGO, they only cherry-picked quotes from there that agreed with them.

I have tried to assume good faith from the IP editor so far, but at this stage I am ready to claim they have beenfilibustering.At no point did they directly reference the code they wrote; Most of their arguments can be boiled down to "Java is more descriptive than pseudocode."Also, some of their other points would fall underWP:FIXFIRST. — xoErgur (talk)06:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this discussion at the third opinion noticeboard, where I commonly give third opinions. I have no technical expertise or any substantive knowledge of coding or programming languages, so I did not provide an opinion on the merits of the question, but I commented on the process of the discussion. I pointed out that the editors opposing such a change did so almost entirely based on the manual of style, specifically,MOS:ALGO, and thatMOS:ALGO merely points to a consensus within a Wikiproject (Wikiproject Computer science), but provides norequirement that any given page follow the local consensus from that WikiprojectThere are no universally accepted standards for presenting algorithms on Wikipedia. On that basis, I objected to arguments that consisted solely of appealing to the Wikiproject consensus with no significant engagement with thepoints made by the IP (now temporary account) editor. By appealing to the wording ofMOS:ALGO where it states the "consensus within the wikiproject", I alleged that some of the editors wereWP:STONEWALLING, because they did not engage with the specific arguments put forth by the TA editor.WP:STONEWALLING statesStatus quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion. I don't believe that referring back toMOS:ALGO's declaration of aWP:LOCALCON without engaging with the points raised constitutes "good-faith discussion" or "a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions". If editors from Wikiproject Compsci want to elevate their local consensus to a project-wide requirement, that is certainly a reasonable proposition and I personally would not oppose (or support) such a motion. But until that is the case, I don't think it is right for editors to appeal to the local consensus of a Wikiproject when a good-faith objection to the content of an article exists and reject it on those grounds. The WikipediaWP:MOS consists both of hardline "this is the correct way to write this on Wikipedia" requirements and softer "this is the recommended way to write this on Wikipedia" suggestions.MOS:ALGO's bias towards psuedocode is the latter, and objecting to a change away from the recommendation cannot be based solely upon appealing to that recommendation, as it is not a strict hardline requirement.Katzrockso (talk)00:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - It will be difficult to conduct moderated discussion if the filing party has a changing temporary account. Can the filing party eitherregister an account or at least maintain the same temporary account for the duration of discussion?Robert McClenon (talk)18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I will use this temporary account. Thank you for volunteering.~2025-36699-87 (talk)02:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page as an independent opinion.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)13:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Monsieur Patillo (talk ·contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk ·contribs)
• Skitash (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Despite all the sources provided to answer Mr. Bitton's questions, he opposes any mention of the hypothesis of a Berber origin for the name Algiers, disregardingWP:NPOV.The discussion is currently stalled, so please mediate to help us reach a consensus. Skitash has participated very little in the discussion but considers himself involved as well.

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

Talk:Algiers#WP:UNDUE,_origin_of_the_name

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To help facilitate an impartial discussion, which, using encyclopedic principles, can lead to a consensus based on sources and WP:NPOV

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Wikipedia noticeboards

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Pages that should not be manually archived