This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: ((subst:drn-notice)). Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace ((DR case status)) with ((DR case status|open))
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add ((DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~)) beneath the case status template, and add ((DRN archive bottom)) at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put ((DRN case status)) on your page. Click on that link for more options. Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Current disputes
Anti-gender movement
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ergo Sum on 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Closed as fizzled out. One editor responded briefly to my request for statements six days ago, and the other editors have not responded. Editors should resume any discussions on the article talk page. Editors should be aware that discretionary sanctions are applicable. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here, and another volunteer or I may be less patient than I have been. Report disruptive editing at Arbitration Enforcement, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is an ongoing debate on the talk page about how scholarly opinions should be framed in the lede. (Forgive my use of the word "opinion" as that is itself the talk page debate. I'm just not sure how else to phrase it). The question is whether the scholarship should be presented in the voice of Wikipedia as conclusive/statements of fact or presented as opinions in the manner of "some scholars critique X in such as so manner" or "some scholars say" or "critiques/opponents of the anti-gender movement say" etc. My opinion is that these scholarly opinions are opinions nonetheless and should be presented as such. Two other editors argue they should simply be presented as "the" scholarly position on the matter. I believe (and hope) I have characterized the dispute charitably to both sides. I welcome User:Buidhe's correction if I have not.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Input from other experienced editors can generate more substantive discussion and reach a conclusion of how to phrase this topic.
Summary of dispute by buidhe
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Newimpartial
If I understand Ergo Sum correctly, they are saying that the discussion of the "Anti-gender movement" by social scientists needs to be taken out of Wikivoice, and attributed to "some scholars" or "opponents" of the movement, because certain other scholars - namely, Catholic theologians - support the movement. My own view is that the support of Catholic theologians for the anti-gender movement should be noted in the article, but should not affect the WP:NPOV of the article which needs to reflect on-topic scholarship, not theology. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my position. Ergo Sum 03:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Buidhe
The issue is that Ergo Sum has yet to come up with any reliable sources written from the perspective of Catholic theologians about the anti-gender movement. Personally I suspect that such sources don't exist, since theology is not the study of political movements (even those that originate in religion). All we can do in this case is report what reliable sources say about the anti-gender movement, per WP:OR. If a source doesn't discuss the anti-gender movement, it can't be considered. And when most or all RS agree, unnecessary qualifiers should not be introduced in order to downplay the support in actually existing RS for certain claims, as that would violate WP:WEIGHT. For another example, many scholars would agree that some event being a genocide is an opinion. But we shouldn't write "Some historians say the Armenian genocide happened, but the Turkish government disagrees."
I think Catholic teaching on sex and gender is a separate topic that is only partly related to this article (for one, the CC existed for 2,000 years, the anti-gender movement only since the 1990s). In articles about Catholic theology, citing Catholic theologians who write about sex and gender, but not about the anti-gender movement, would not be original research. (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Mathglot
I was a late arrival to the TP discussion, and just added myself here. What is being brought here as a content disagreement looks to me more like incomplete mastery of policy and guidelines, notably WP:Verifiability and WP:DUE. I personally don't see how presenting views about content is going to go anywhere here; seems to me it will quickly devolve into questions about interpretation of those two policies, and perhaps others. I also question whether appropriate criteria have been met before bringing this here; the WP:DR page lists many avenues of approach to resolve disputes before coming here, and I'm unsure if any of them have been tried. But if the criteria have been met, then I'm willing to take part. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-gender movement discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing party has notified the other editors. One of the other editors has erased the DRN notice, which means that they have seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Anti-gender)
I will try to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read the ground rules. You are expected to have read and to understand the rules. If you are not sure about the rules, ask questions rather than ignoring the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not post overly long statements that make you feel better, but that are too long to understand quickly. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of the discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about the other editors. Discuss edits, not editors. Now: Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph summary of what you either want changed in the article, or what you want left the same that another editor wants changed?
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (Anti-gender)
I see no changes that are necessary to the lead, which fully complies with policy, in particular, WP:NPOV.
Most of the dispute, such as it is, takes place at Talk:Anti-gender movement#Re: NPOV in lede. Claims made there that the Lead is POV are incorrect, and based on a faulty understanding of policy. One post there (diff) attempts to place publications in scholarly journals into the position of being one participant in a dispute, and therefore requiring double-quotes and WP:INTEXT attribution. Excerpts:
Just because one author or one journal makes a scholarly assertion does not mean other scholars agree... that can't be written in the voice of WP because it's clearly a POV
and then goes on to place Catholic theologians in the position of an equal and opposing view to scholarly journals taken collectively as a monolithic whole:
In the same way that e.g. "gender ideology" scholarship relates to left-wing politics on gender, so does the "anti-gender ideology" scholarship relate to conservative anti-gender ideology politics.
Both of these assertions are incorrect, and reflect a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.
Articles in independent, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals are not participants in a dispute or a movement.
When articles in scholarly journals represent the preponderance of reliable sources on a topic, summarizing their content does not require INTEXT attribution or double-quotes. The majority view may, and should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
Conversely, Catholic theologians are a main participant in the dispute. They originated the dispute.
One cannot equate fully independent scholarship from a multiplicity of reliable sources with pronouncements of the principal creator/participant in a dispute. The Lead is fine as it is, and majority opinion scholarship should not be characterized as a "side", nor should it be placed in quotation marks or have in-text attribution. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second Statement by Moderator (Anti-Gender)
I will reply to the one statement that has been made by a participant and will restate my introductory request. A content dispute is any dispute over the wording of any article in article space that is read by readers. Mathglot says that this is an issue about the understanding of policy, which is almost certainly true; but if an issue about policy affects what an article should say, then it is a content dispute that is based on a policy question. And the purpose of the policies is to govern the content of the encyclopedia that is read by readers. So it is a content dispute, at least if there is a question about the wording of the lede section or any other part of the article.
I asked the editors to state, in one paragraph, what they wanted changed, or left the same, in the article. One editor has discussed the policy reasons for what they want left the same, without stating what language in the article is in question. The other editors have not yet replied.
So I will ask each editor, again, to provide a one-paragraph summary of what they want changed or left the same. An additional explanation of why they want that, supported by policy, is optional at this point. I will want reasons, but first we will define what text of the article is being disputed. (That is my choice as the moderator of this discussion. Another moderator might approach this differently.) Be concise in stating what the issue is about the wording of the article.
Also, do not edit the article while discussion is in progress.
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second Statements by Editors (Anti-Gender)
In response to Robert McClenon's request for a definitive restatement of each editor's desire outcome, here is mine. My proposal is essentially this edit: 1) rephrase from "scholars" to "some scholars" in the second paragraph because "scholars" alone suggests unanimous scholarly opinion, which is not the case, 2) move the sentence about "empty signifier" etc. to the second paragraph so that criticisms of the movement are kept together and identified as criticism rather than written in wikivoice (in the spirit of WP:CRITICISM), and 3) remove the Graff 2016 ref and the statement it supports as both are clearly POV and do not qualify as an RS (explained in greater detail on the article talk page). Ergo Sum 20:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Newimpartial - My view is that the correct treatment, per WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:WEASEL and WP:FALSEBALANCE, is to (1) retain "scholars" rather than "some scholars" in the first instance; (2) maintain the location of the "empty signifier" sentence as it is, to maintain a distinction by topic rather than marginalizing the RS on the subject by labeling them as "criticism"; and (3) retain the Graff 2016 ref as it clearly qualifies as a RS on this topic - which the sources Ergo Sum agrees with, the Catholic theologians, do not, at least when it comes to factual descriptions of gender identity and the existence or otherwise of "gender ideology".
My view is also that it may well be appropriate, per WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE, to include citations from Catholic theologians in the article, but only on the question of whether or not Catholic theologians support the anti-gender movement, and not on questions (such as whether "gender ideology" is a real thing or an imagined conspiracy) on which they have no expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third Statement by Moderator (Anti-Gender)
It appears that there are four points of disagreement as to the wording of the article:
1. Whether to say "scholars" or "some scholars" when stating that the movement has been characterized as moral panic.
2. Whether to move the reference to an "empty signifier".
3. Whether to remove the Graff reference and the statement that it supports.
4. Whether to include statements by Catholic theologians supporting (or not supporting) the anti-gender movement.
I will comment that the name of the movement is confusing, because, if I understand correctly, the movement is not opposed to the concept of gender, but rather is opposed to another movement or viewpoint known as gender theory. The so-called anti-gender movement supports a traditional view of sexuality that is based on Catholic religious teaching. However, Wikipedia should use the name that is used by reliable sources. So we have to be very careful to avoid increasing the existing confusion. Do all of the editors agree with this understanding?
Are there any other article content issues? Please be concise.
Are there any questions?
Are there any issues about the article that do not have to do with article content? (If so, we should identify and discuss them, but article content is more important.)
Will each editor please state, briefly, what their policy-based reasons are for 1, 2, and 3.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third Statements by Editors (Anti-Gender)
Third Statement by Mathglot (Anti-Gender)
Skipping the four points for now, and responding to your understanding:
yes, to "confusing", and to "supports a traditional view of sexuality based on Catholic religious teaching".
no, it is not *primarily* about being opposed to gender theory, although it includes that. It's more of a loose grab-bag of stuff. This quotation from the article does a good job of capturing the sense of it:
[a] catch-all term "for all that conservative Catholics despise" —A. Graff (2016)
Back later to respond to your points. Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. The filing editor has been blocked for two weeks. An RFC is still recommended as the way to resolve this question. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I want to add a guide to pronunciation at the start of the article.
"The AA battery (pronounced eɪ eɪ or double A) is..."
The pronunciation I have added is used in dictionaries and is linked to a Wikipage. For example, "AA" could be read "2A" or "aah", so adding this info is useful. Also, the AAA battery Wikipage has the reading "triple A".
Someone keeps reverting my edits.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Get some more opinions of other people to build a consensus.
Summary of dispute by Wtshymanski
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
AA battery discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor says that they want to get the opinions of other editors. That can be done with a Request for Comments. If the filing editor wants assistance in preparing the RFC in a reasonable neutral way, that assistance can be provided if it is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - If there is a request for assistance in preparing an RFC, the assistance will be provided, and this case will be closed. Otherwise this case will be closed without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Talk page, this dispute had appeared to reach a consensus via compromise, after input from two other editors, and was reworded satisfactorily to the editor that objected in the first place (me) until another user reverted that compromise edit.
From what I can see, the first sentence of the Efficacy section clearly violates WP:RS/AC by stating there is a "scientific consensus" about this controversial topic, when there is not, that I can see anywhere in the "sources" or anywhere on the internet. But the lack of source material indicates to me that this is an attempt to synthesize statements by individuals to justify some kind of "gut feeling" about the topic. Here is the issue: according to WP:RS/ACA "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view ... Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."
Currently, the article says this: "There is a general scientific consensus that alternative therapies lack the requisite scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved." and then lists citations, which do not even remotely support this, as far as I can tell.
I am bringing this here not because I'm waving the flag for any particular view. Personally, I deeply respect science and the scientific method, and I am strongly against "quacks". But to state on Wikipedia, for the general reading public, that there is a "scientific consensus", when there is not, is not something I'm comfortable with as an editor.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This is a controversial topic, and I believe making the statement "there is a scientific consensus" should bring scrutiny and outside help, as per P:RS/AC, this statement must be supported, and I believe it currently is not.
Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bonewah
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Shibbolethink
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Alternative medicine discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. Also, there appear to be two related discussions on the article talk page within the last few days, and the filing editor has listed the editors in one of the discussions. The other discussion is closely related, and the filing editor should also list and notify one other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listed 4 other editors above, in the section where it asked for that. Is that not sufficient? Thanks for your assistance. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - I have added an editor who also took part in the second discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that that second discussion with the user you added is a completely separate issue, and not one I'm intending to dispute here. I'm only disputing the "scientific consensus" issue, so I don't think that user needs to be included, right? Thanks. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - The scientific consensus referred to at the beginning of the Efficacy section has a tautological aspect to it, so that there is a scientific consensus, as a result of the definition given of alternative medicine. If the therapy can be demonstrated to work, then it becomes scientific medicine. If the therapy has not been demonstrated scientifically to work, but there is a scientific hypothesis as to why it should work, that is being tested, then it is experimental medicine rather than either alternative medicine or scientific medicine. So if there isn't a scientific consensus that a particular therapy or approach is ineffective, it may not be alternative medicine after all. The statement is true, even if it has a tautological aspect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two main points:
1. I proposed a change to a quote in the article to make a quotation appear less slanted and negative towards the subjects. It is just a minor tone change.
2. The use of "spreader of disinformation" in the article implies the subject deliberately and knowingly lies, about a subject concerning public health no less. The, admittedly reliable, source provides no evidence for such an extraordinary claim. This is libel, or close enough, in a BLP without any solid evidence to support it.
Discussion of these issues was shut down before any consensus was reached. Even after a user voiced support for point 1 and another user acknowledged that "disinformation" is problematic per point 2.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There is still a discussion to be had about the points and their resolution is far from clear. Ideally, I would like to be able to simply continue the discussion in the relevant talk page, but that soon proved impossible. So if the discussion could continue here, with input from other editors as a bonus, that should help a lot.
Summary of dispute by Adakiko
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Same questions repeatedly asked different ways and on different venues. The discussion is not going anywhere and is unlikely to produce any changes to articles. WP:WoTAdakiko (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Yegourt
Although I'm interested in following the dispute or RFC on this topic, please don't let my silence from blocking your progress on it. I don't feel very strongly about Bret Weinstein anyway. It is unfortunate that both of Dylath's discussions promptly got closed in the Talk page, so I'm not surprised to see them arrive here. In any case I feel that the discussion should continue. An RFC might be better, but given the double-close I'm not too sure if that would go anywhere productive either. Robert, I think "a mediator conduct moderated discussion" would be the most suitable assistance here. Yegourt (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Hemiauchenia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The "fears" thing is a sourced quotation and is good. Gorski's quote is accurate to the source and WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The OP has now launched an RfC. Since this is now at five (!) noticeboard and a RfC I'm unwatching here to reduce the clusterfuckage on my watchlist. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As Adakiko said on the Talk page, that discussion was going nowhere. It was just a repeat of
1. "the reliable source is wrong",
2. "but it is a reliable source",
3. GOTO 1, reworded.
There was no hope that that situation would change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Sjmantyl
Fundamentally this is about guilt by association. Practically anyone who express doubt in official guidelines about Covid-19 is lumped together. Just see how many sources are grouped in main criticism: [[2]] This includes both those trying to 'do science publicly' as well as ,well, kooks.
I believe Bret Weinstein is trying to work under good faith. He is reputable scientist with proper tract record of publications. In podcasts he has revisited topics and issued corrections, demonstrating attempt of getting issues right. Current article gives the appearance of malicious intent. Thus, I suggest settling for neutral tone would be in order.Sjmantyl (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by XOR'easter
I've participated in other conversations on that Talk page but watched this one from the sidelines. In my view, Hob Gadling's summary is accurate. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bret Weinstein discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - It is not entirely clear what sort of assistance the filing editor is requesting. Are they requesting that a mediator conduct moderated discussion, or are they requesting assistance in preparing a Request for Comments, or some other form of assistance? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Comment - The filing editor states that their effort to discuss certain issues was shut down, and that use of the article talk page soon proved impossible. I have reviewed the efforts at discussion on the article talk page, and I see that a gatekeeper closed a discussion of the issues being raised here. One section was closed with the note that it was relitigating a closed discussion. I was unable to find an RFC or similar closure of the issue of the use of the term 'misinformation'. The gatekeeping appears to be a violation of talk page guidelines and appears to interfere with efforts to discuss article content. However, DRN is not a conduct forum. The problem with the article talk page can be dealt with in either of two ways. The gatekeeping of the talk page can be reported at WP:ANI, but that will end any discussion here. Alternatively, I can try to facilitate discussion here at DRN in place of the article talk page, which should not be necessary but apparently is necessary. Do the editors want facilitated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Filing Editor Comment - Thank you for looking into it, Robert McClenon. The entire premise of this DRN is that I want a discussion, but it does not look like it is going to happen here. Based on your helpful breakdown of the situation, I will do both. I will lodge a complaint about the conduct of Hemiauchenia in WP:ANI regarding WP:TPG violation and also start an Request for Comments regarding the use of "disinformation" in the article. Dylath Leen (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DRN obviously isn't going to help. I'm not sure if I'm "involved" enough to be a party, but I don't plan to participate here. There is a talk page discussion which seems to be working fine; if Dylath doesn't get his way and keeps complaining a block is the needed outcome, not more discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Comment - I have asked Dylan for a brief description of the dispute and have looked through it since the beginning. I agree that the phrase he wants to reword may not seem neutral to some, but it is a quote from the source. Even if the source may not be telling the truth, it is the only "reliable" one available. I suggest that the filing editor prepares a Request for Comments because a DRN will most likely not help. I hope that this conflict does not result in any blocks MrAgentSochi (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)MrAgentSochi[reply]
WikiProject Afghanistan
– New discussion.
Filed by Danre98 on 01:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a disagreement over whether Nastaliq (via ((Nastaliq))) should be used in Afghanistan infoboxes and leads for the native spelling.
A user posted on WikiProject Afghanistan, asking for help reverting edits adding the native spelling in Nastaliq. A user that has been adding the native spelling in Nastaliq responded. The discussion has been ongoing, but hasn't been very constructive and is not close to a consensus.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think a mediator mediating the discussion would lead towards a constructive discussion.
Summary of dispute by Xerxes1985
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I’ve said everything on the previous discussion linked by Danre98 already. The user is constantly adding the Nastaliq writing style to all Afghanistan related articles, this is not the standard script being used in Afghanistan, it’s rather a calligraphic version used in art, book covers, maybe sometimes newspaper titles or similar things, but not the standard script for text. The same is the case for Iran as well, hence why all Iranian related articles have their native names in a standard Perso-Arabic script written on WP, same is the case for Afghan related articles until this user joined. On the other hand in Pakistan the Nastaliq style is the standard script and hence it’s used on WP for Pakistan related articles as well, the user made clear in the discussion that “this is the exact reason why he’s doing all those edit [wars]”, he believes that “we” as Iranics should reclaim that script since it was a person from Iran who invented it and changing the script on all Afghan related articles to Nastaliq is according to him one method for that. This is just pure POV pushing and his personal preference and WP:OR. A good analogy would be that the standard Perso-Arabic script was invented by a person from what is now Tajikistan (See: Rudaki), does that mean we should remove the Cyrillic script from all Tajikistan related articles and add a perso-arabic one? I’ve warned the user countless of times and tried solving it per talk page discussions, but he never listened and just kept on editing. This needs to be stopped
Xerxes1985 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by WikiEditUsername7
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hello everyone,
I would like to just outline a couple of important points in summary:
I have tried to remain calm, cool, and professional throughout the course of our "discussion" on the talk page. Unfortunately, since the jump Xerxes1985 has been the opposite of that. From the beginning Xerxes1985 has been self-admittedly aggressive, rude, unengaging, and unwilling to reach consensus on the talk page. From the beginning all Xerxes1985 has done is threaten to ban me. For what may I ask? I have done nothing but make well sourced edits on pages that desperately needed them.
The initial reason why Xerxex1985 did not want the script to be used was because it did not "meet the standards of Persian script on WP". I asked for those standards to be shown to me so that I could take a look at them and follow them, but they were not. Danre98 later pointed out on the talk page that in fact "there is no standard about how to include scripts" on WP.
After we concluded that there was no standard related to the use of Persian/Arabic/Pashto/etc scripts on WP, Xerxes1985 moved the goal post for the first time and shifted to pointing out that "Iranian" and "Persian" articles in their entirety were not utilizing the script. That is blatantly false. May I ask that the those involved in resolving this dispute check out the page on the Persian alphabet for reference. Please take a look at the infobox on the right hand side. The entire alphabet, letter by letter is written in Nastaliq script. Once you are finished there, go and take a quick look at the pages of Ferdowsi, Hafez, and Omar Khayyam. These are some of the most famous Persians in all of history. Every single item on Ferdowsi's page that is in a non-english language is in Nastaliq. Look at all the pictures on those pages of the manuscripts, books, and poetry. It is all written in Nastaliq.
Next, Xerxes1985 moved the goal post for the second time. The discussion was shifted and Xerxes1985 began to claim that I was the first person ever to utilize the script on pages about Afghanistan/Afghans and no one before me had ever used such a script on those pages. Again, this is 100% false and is a blatant lie. I was most definitely not the first person to add Nastaliq script on those pages. There were already plenty of pages utilizing the script before I ever added it anywhere. Go and check out Ahmad Zahir's (possibly the most famous Afghan of all time) page for reference. Before I ever made a single edit there, the Nastaliq script was being used in the infobox on that page and on many more pages.
I am not trying to "reclaim" anything as Xerxes1985 is claiming. Xerxes1985 is trying to twist my words. There is no POV pushing or WP:OR here. The only reason why I ever mentioned that was because Xerxes1985 tried to break the connection between Nastaliq and the Persian/Pashto speaking world. He falsely claimed that Nastaliq was not used in Afghanistan at all and is only used in the Urdu language and only used in Pakistan. That is when and why I said that Nastaliq was in fact Persian in origin and it can, should, and has be used on pages regarding Afghanistan/Afghan.
Lastly, but also most importantly, unlike Xerxes1985, I actually tried to find a middle ground and reach a consensus. I proposed that in the lead section we use the default script and in the infobox we use the Nastaliq script. For example, the native language spelling of the city of Kabul in the lead section would be written as کابل and then in the infobox it would be written as کابل. Please note that both of these are identical in meaning, identical in spelling, and identical in language. Unfortunately, the middle ground was not accepted and no consensus was reached. No counter was even given. It was Xerxes1985's way or the highway.
Bottom Line: I want to stress what we are actually "disputing" here. This is a dispute over font... Using کابل vs کابل DOES NOT change the meaning of the word. It is the same language... The same spelling... The same meaning... It is just a slightly different font... Of all the things that the dispute resolvers could be doing to benefit WP, they are instead here trying to resolve this dispute over font... Not even the font of an entire page... Just the font for 3-4 words per page on some articles about Afghans and Afghanistan.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - User:Xerxes1985 I have looked through the talk page discussion and it is clear that you have been talking in anything but a neutral tone. You've admitted to being aggressive and rude but continue to talk in that way. Here is just one of the many examples: You are lucky for now that I am inactive, but be sure, there is a lot of trouble waiting for you once I am gonna be back, you’re going to be reported as well. No matter who is right or wrong there is no reason to be talking this way. If anyone continues to do so then I will report you at WP:ANI (this goes for both of you). I will try to remain cool while mediating this discussion and forgive me if I don't respond right away. But I will take any necessary actions if you refuse to cooperate and I truly hope that you reach a consensus. If anyone else wants to mediate this discussion then feel free to do so. MrAgentSochi (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)MrAgentSochi[reply]
MrAgentSochi I will respond to that in a bit, but can you PLEASE tell the user to STOP removing MY comment and edits on this page ? Regardless of if my comment is placed right or wrong, he is NOT allowed to move MY comment on a talk anywhere else or delete it, this is completely against the WP rules. Xerxes1985 (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of computer algebra systems
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Drhuang8 on 06:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. One edit by each disputant is not "extensive". The listing party should respond to the other editors on the article talk page and discuss the matter, making reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, until the matter is resolved or until stalemate occurs. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of computer algebra systems discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
