Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Military–industrial complex#Connotations	In Progress	Uhoj (t)	33 days, 11 hours	Mesocarp (t)	3 days, 3 hours	Mesocarp (t)	3 days, 3 hours
Battle of Maritsa	In Progress	Aeengath (t)	23 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,	Aeengath (t)	3 days, 21 hours
Joseph Putz	Resolved	Bgrus22 (t)	22 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,
Tetris	In Progress	Lazman321 (t)	21 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 days, 21 hours	Lazman321 (t)	2 days, 9 hours
City College of New York	In Progress	Graywalls (t)	20 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,
Trie	In Progress	~2025-35909-34 (t)	12 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 22 hours	Example (t)	2 days, 16 hours
Algiers	Closed	Monsieur Patillo (t)	9 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours
Francis Amasa Walker	New	Gramix13 (t)	7 days, 13 hours	Mesocarp (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Gramix13 (t)	3 days,
Brant Pinvidic	Closed	Jadu23 (t)	5 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 23 hours
Black Japanese	Closed	NotJamestack (t)	5 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,
Bolzano	New	Simoncik84 (t)	4 days, 14 hours	None	n/a	Simoncik84 (t)	4 days, 14 hours
Austria-Hungary	New	DalidaEditor (t)	4 days, 6 hours	None	n/a	DalidaEditor (t)	4 days, 6 hours
Henry Todd_(mountaineer)	Closed	Lhotserunner (t)	3 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 1 hours
List of NCAA Final Four results (Philippines)	New	Linsanity (t)	3 days, 20 hours	None	n/a	Linsanity (t)	3 days, 20 hours
Brant Pinvidic	Closed	Jadu23 (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours
Pizza effect	New	Gotofritz (t)	1 days, 16 hours	None	n/a	Gotofritz (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Talk:Formula One#Primary_unit	New	Avi8tor (t)	1 days, 13 hours	None	n/a	Pyrope (t)	1 days, 11 hours
Nasserism	New	~2025-38106-20 (t)	1 days, 8 hours	None	n/a	~2025-38106-20 (t)	1 days, 8 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Current disputes

Military–industrial complex#Connotations

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Uhoj on 18:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC).

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 over this 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 consider military-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 describe Military–industrial complex as pejorative.

References

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.

Summary of dispute by Apfelmaische

Apologies for the slow reply. This is a dispute about WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:DUE, about the claim that the phrase military-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)

Summary of dispute by David Tornheim

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 in this 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)

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 your last paragraph. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Summary of dispute by PositivelyUncertain

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

Military–industrial complex#Connotations discussion

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

Notified: Talk:Military–industrial complex, User talk:Apfelmaische, User talk:David Tornheim and User talk:PositivelyUncertain. Uhoj (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Military–industrial complex connotations)

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 it needs 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 consider military-industrial complex to be non-pejorative" necessarily, but rather that they assert that plenty of sources that discuss the idea do it without 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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

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 as synthesis, but even if a given source says "it's almost always used as a pejorative" for example, they may not truly mean in 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's non-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 on Rapid 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 as intrinsically 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)

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)

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

Mesocarp: I re-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 version YET AGAIN.

This is tiresome, and it is to the point where it seems that it might be worth bringing it to WP: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)

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 of tendentiously 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 a lot 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 making any 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)

Zeroth statements by editors (Military–industrial complex connotations)

Zeroth statement by Apfelmaische

Given the evidence provided by Uhoj here, I would prefer something like "The phrase is often used as a pejorative." I would accept usually in place of often. 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)

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 maybe this diff adding a "Usage" section. I take it that you are maybe especially opposed to phrases in it such as:

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

Am I right in that—that, regardless of sourcing, you feel that statements such as these are insufficiently impartial in wikivoice, and maybe in need of in-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)

There is a definite trend in older literature, especially during the Vietnam War, to use the term pejoratively. Brandes 1997 and Bradford 2010 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 (see Uhoj'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 for due weight issues. Roland 2021, for example, mentions in three sentences that MIC is used pejoratively, but also writes 200 pages of analysis and history about the actual MIC. Apfelmaische (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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, explicitly not 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)

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 says MIC 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)

Notes

Zeroth statement by Uhoj

1. "The phrase military-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 adding Ledbetter'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.

A further problem is that there's little agreement on what the 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 that the 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 as the military-industrial complex.

Withdrawn non-content remarks

----

@Mesocarp You say people have been extending a lot of patience and goodwill towards me. That's partly true, but I'm not sure it fully captures the situation. Like the editor with a long history of bullying who spent two months mocking my every contribution. Was that good will? You seem to think so given that you reference that time period as an example of patience and goodwill. Maybe other disputants think so. But, that's not how the community at large viewed that sort of behavior.

One of the disputants here defended the bully and tried to get me sanctioned, failed, and then followed me to this article, which he'd never edited before, to summarily revert all my edits and raise a posse. That was likely all done in good faith towards the project, but I'm skeptical these were expressions of patience and goodwill towards me, as you put it.

You seem to assume that I want the article to read like this. 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)

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."

Withdrawn non-content remarks

Your conduct has been troubling. You remain very persistent in getting your way, and you've been quick to engage processes, such as this dispute, when consensus doesn't develop in your favor. You previously bludgeoned discussions, but you've been better about that recently—for which I thank you. Overall, I feel your behavior has worn down editors, [14][15][16] sapping time and energy that could have gone into improving articles. I'm not the only editor who has expressed this opinion. I believe this behavior speaks to your passion for the project, which could be a positive thing if harnessed differently.

In that vein, I very much appreciate the new direction you're going with the potential 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

Zeroth statement by David Tornheim

Sorry for my delay in responding. My recent 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 arguments Apfelmaische 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)

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)

First statement by moderator (Military–industrial complex connotations)

Hi folks, sorry for my delay in carrying the discussion forward here—I had to go off my meds for a couple weeks for logistical reasons and I'm a lot more groggy and out-of-it without them, hampering my Wikipedia abilities. That problem is now solved and I should be properly dependable for the rest of this discussion.

Anyway, we've now heard from @Apfelmaische, @Uhoj, and @David Tornheim about their positions on the pejorativeness of the phrase "military-industrial complex". @PositivelyUncertain (I almost thought your handle was PositivelyUnicorn for a second ;^^) and @Volodia.woldemar, if either of y'all would like to add statements to the above section following the criteria I set out y'all're more then welcome to do that and I'll make note of it here.

So, my hope was that we could first find some sort of common ground between everyone, or if not, at least we could hone in on whatever the gap might be more precisely. Let's consider what we have so far.

• Apfelmaische
  • "would prefer something like 'The phrase is often used as a pejorative'",
    • "would accept" something like "The phrase is usually used as a pejorative",
    • "would not accept 'The phrase is pejorative'", and
  • would "strongly prefer that context be given for pejorative use" with concrete examples of the complaints being made in the relevant sources.
  • He is also opposed to any framing of the MIC that paints it as not "real and significant", expressing the view that "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."
• Uhoj
  • says that "'The phrase military-industrial complex is usually used as a pejorative.' is acceptable to [them]", although
  • they are "fine with anything that's directly supported by quality sources", stating that
    • "[i]f some sources say one thing, but others contest it, then the various POVs should be included and presented as opinions", whereas
    • "[i]f quality sources say something and there aren't any sources that contest it, then it should be stated as a fact".
  • They also object to a framing of the MIC as unambiguously real, putting forward the view that
    • "there's little agreement on what the military-industrial complex is among sources that advance the opinion that such an entity exists", so
    • although they are "fine with describing the views of folks who believe that the military-industrial complex is a well-defined entity", their position is that
    • "it needs to be clear that these are contested opinions rather than facts".
• David Tornheim
  • feels sympathy with Apfelmaische's position more-or-less, for example as far as Apfelmaische's proposed definition of "pejorative" for this purpose.
  • He has expressed opposition to calling the concept of the MIC "pejorative", and the view that it is even less appropriate to call it a "trope", but
    • has found it acceptable to include a quote from a source calling it "a rhetorical Rorschach blot" for which the "utility" and consequent "mass appeal" of the phrase has "[come] at the cost of a precise, universally accepted definition".

So, at least from what I can see here, this brings the debate maybe a little more into relief. Uhoj would accept having the MIC phrase deemed "usually pejorative", Apfelmaische would prefer "often pejorative" but might accept "usually", and David Tornheim is mainly against it being labelled "pejorative" unambiguously. This maybe suggests that "usually pejorative" would be sort of acceptable maybe to all three of y'all but not really anyone's first choice, and I kind of wonder if it would really settle things or just leave ground for further argument.

On this point, there is the issue of what "pejorative" actually implies. Apfelmaische and David Tornheim seem to agree that pejorative usage implies usage intended to bias the reader, i.e. criticism or complaint that goes beyond matters of substance into pure rhetoric, and Uhoj at least has not disputed that characterization from what I've seen. Apfelmaische has objected to the characterization of the MIC phrase as "pejorative" on the basis that this implies much of the criticism of it is spurious, whereas he has cast a picture where older sources (say '50s–'70s) often have tendencies in that direction but newer sources tend to be more neutral in their treatment. He has also put forward that in any case many sources discuss it as something "real" that deserves serious analysis and not simply a kind of bogeyman conjured up by the author out of "pure ideology". David Tornheim has expressed broad agrement with these positions. Uhoj has acknowledged that some sources might treat it as something real, but points out that other sources have cast it as a kind of murky concept that elludes solid definition, stating that we can characterize the positions of the sources that try to seriously analyze it without having to take their views as fact and we shouldn't exclude the views of the sources that present it as murky.

Something I will note here is that even if there is some obvious friction around the question of whether to call the MIC phrase "usually pejorative", "often pejorative", "not pejorative", or the like, the preceding paragraph actually appears to me to present a fairly harmonious situation, taken apart from that question. Uhoj's stance that the sources don't all speak with one voice seems to be true from what I've seen so far, and Apfelmaische's statement that many sources try to seriously analyze it also seems to be true from what I've seen. I have a suggestion from this place.

Is it really necessary to even resolve the question of whether or not to say the MIC phrase is or isn't used pejoratively or to what extent or the like, especially at this stage? Might saying anything flat-out about that be synthesis, given the wide variety of sources we apparently have? We've seen both here and from the talk page discussion that there's a huge number of sources available on this topic—to be honest, I have the feeling that the MIC article is maybe a lot shorter than it really ought to be ideally, given that, for example, a variety of people have found ways to write whole PhD theses just on certain aspects of this topic. We have 70-odd years of academic literature on the MIC from a variety of fields, much of it book-length. I think it's worth considering the idea that if we really have grounds to say anything about how pejoratively the phrase is used directly in wikivoice, it might only become clear after a lot more material is added to the article, and I think we should be open to the idea that it might turn out to just not be feasible for us to take our own position on that.

I generally agree with Uhoj's stance that if we have sources which express different or contrasting views on some point, we should try to simply characterize those different views rather than favor one or the other. Really, I get the impression we're all in agreement about that, naturally, since it's a key aspect of maintaining neutrality. Maybe the thing to do at this point is for everyone to just take up a source of their choice, read the whole thing thoroughly and attentively, summarize its conclusions in the article plainly, and repeat, at least for a while? The talk page debate has had a little bit of like, fast conclusions being drawn from rather cursory-seeming examinations of large numbers of sources at once, I would say, and I think it might help to just slow down and take a more sources-first approach for a while without trying to answer any specific editorial question aside from that. The whole article might look significantly different after a period of this. If it turns out eventually that there's a good way to characterise the overall pejorativeness of the MIC phrase, it will probably be fairly obvious from the article text at that point and less the subject of fierce debate.

Thoughts? ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 02:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Military–industrial complex connotations)

First statement by Uhoj

Glad to hear you're feeling better.

Regarding:

Might saying anything flat-out about that be synthesis, given the wide variety of sources we apparently have?

No, we have 18 high-quality sources that each explicitly state the conclusion "pejorative" with qualifiers ranging from "more often than not" to "always". No sources are being combined. No new conclusions are being reached. We are simply picking from a narrow range of existing qualifiers.

Regarding:

there is the issue of what "pejorative" actually implies

I'm not seeing the issue. Sources use the word pejorative. We don't have to understand or agree on what that means or implies if we use the same word.

That being said, I'm game to table it for a while in favor of expanding the article. Apfelmaische and I have been working on Draft:Potential_dangers_(military-industrial_complex). Are there any objections to adding that to the article now?

Are there any objections to adding Draft:Connotations_in_Russian_(military-industrial_complex)? --Uhoj (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Uhoj I don't think this is the right place to discuss those drafts in detail; you filed this case as about the pejorativeness of the MIC phrase specifically so I'd say we should stick with that. The article talk page looks like the right place to consider those drafts since they don't appear to directly impinge on the pejorativeness question, as you suggest. If you want to "table [the issue of pejorativeness] for a while", then since it seems like the other editors here are in agreement with each other about it, I'd say we should probably close this case as inconclusive for the time being. If you return to this dispute later and it seems like the conditions merit DRN, you'd be welcome to return here and open a new case. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 00:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Battle of Maritsa

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Aeengath on 11:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC).

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)
• Edwin Herdman (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, per WP:PLACE and WP: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 how WP:PLACE and WP: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.

Summary of dispute by Botushali

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

Summary of dispute by Himaldrmann

• 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 in English-language sources that deal specifically with this battle/campaign. However, that is only two or three sources total, IIRC (user Aeengath 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 in English-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 seemed to 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, user Botushali 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 with this particular battle/campaign" vs. "sources dealing with the medieval Balkans in general". Admin Rosguill 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)

Summary of dispute by Donner60

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)

Battle of Maritsa discussion

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

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

@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)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Battle of Maritsa)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and the designation of Eastern Europe and the Balkans as a contentious topic. If you participate in discussion, you are known to have read about the contentious topic. Are there any article content issues other than the names of Shkodër? 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)

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 (modern Shkodër) preparing for action when Uglješa summoned him.”

• No newer or event-specific English sources use a different name. This follows usual WP:PLACE practice of “historical name (modern name)” and meets WP: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)

Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa)

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) a WP: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 in Shkodër preparing for action when Uglješa summoned him.

---

• As a compromise, @Donner60 suggested that we go with Scutari in the body (as the likely best-known name for the place in English, albeit an anachronistic one), and move both Shkodër & 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, not them–)

Cheers,

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

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)

First statement by moderator (Battle of Maritsa)

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)

First statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa)

Thank you @Robert McClenon, answers below:

• The city should appear in the article as "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" 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)

I prefer "Skadar, also named Shkodër then" based on review of policy and relevant RS, which I summarize in about 1350 characters (that would answer your second question also). As an uninvolved editor who hasn't had a chance to review this until today, and considering related discussion is ongoing, may I add that summary? --Edwin Herdman (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Battle of Maritsa)

Two editors have said that they want the article to say that his army was in "Skadar (modern Shkodër)". Is there any disagreement?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa)

I support using "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" in the article. That wording reflects the English sources supporting that sentence. I have no further issues. -Aeengath (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Battle of Maritsa)

There appears to be agreement. Unless there is disagreement, I will close this dispute.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa)

No further questions from me. The wording "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" reflects the sources and has consensus here so I support closing the discussion. Thank you for moderating. -Aeengath (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Tetris

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Lazman321 on 21:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC).

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 whether Tetris 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 define Tetris has manifested on the List of video games considered the best and List of best-selling video games talk pages for years, long before the dispute started on the Tetris 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 define Tetris in the lead poses a serious dilemma. On one hand, the vast majority of sources refer to Tetris in general as a video game due to the gameplay usually being consistent across Tetris games, which multiple users have likened to chess. 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. On the other hand, the Tetris article currently serves as WP:broad-concept article, encompassing multiple Tetris games that would generally not be considered a "version" of the original Tetris gameplay. Since those games are more akin to entries in a video game series, some could argue that the lead should refer to Tetris 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.

Summary of dispute by 3df

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

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 about Tetris 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)

Summary of dispute by Oknazevad

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 called Tetris without a license). And then within the whole shebang there are actually specific series of versions, like the Tetris: The Grand Masterseries, but they're still considered versions of Tetris 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 "playing Tetris". We should follow the sources and do the same. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Maplestrip

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

"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 like Poker, Tennis, Minesweeper, or Snake: 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 it Tetris, people will point to it and say it is Tetris, but it is not part of the Tetris 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)

Summary of dispute by Noleander

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

Tetris was nominated for FA. 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)

Summary of dispute by Vacant0

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

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 the Tetris article is not stylised like a standard video game article, but as a series. The lede, however, did not reflect that (the lede read like Tetris 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 would Tetris be treated differently.

Summary of dispute by Man-Man122

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man-Man122 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

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

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)

Tetris discussion

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

• 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)

@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've WP:BLUDGEON'd it without me realizing. In any case, I am worried that even if discussion dies down with Tetris 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)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Tetris)

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 read DRN 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 about Featured Article status, because that should be done in accordance with the Featured 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)

Zeroth statements by editors (Tetris)

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 defining Tetris 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: defining Tetris 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)

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

First statement by moderator (Tetris)

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)

First statements by editors (Tetris)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man-Man122 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 are obliged to describe 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 establish which side has the stronger case. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 think IGN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Second statement by moderator (Tetris)

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 about Tetris. 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)

Second statements by editors (Tetris)

Here's my proposal:

How should Tetris be defined in the opening sentence?

• Option 1: A video game
• Option 2: A video game, with an endnote describing the sources that consider it a video game series
• Option 3: A video game series
• Option 4: A video game series, with an endnote describing the sources that consider it a video game

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

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)

Third statement by moderator (Tetris)

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)

Third statements by editors (Tetris)

There is a chance some people could object to the compromise. After all, per the middle ground fallacy, if one option is correct and the other is incorrect, a compromise between the two is still incorrect, which is an argument someone could invoke during the RfC. That's why I included the non-compromise options. However, if all of you believe the non-compromise options should be excluded, I won't object. Lazman321 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Given that a bot has attempted to archive this thread twice now, would you prefer I just start the RfC now with only the compromise options regardless of what I just said, or do you want to discuss the potential RfC further? Lazman321 (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Tetris)

If another editor has prepared a draft RFC, I would like to review it to verify that it is neutrally worded. Otherwise I will prepare the draft RFC. Please let me know where the draft RFC is.

I have inserted a Do Not Archive date.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Tetris)

I back the draft RfC that was presented by Lazman, and I have no further questions.Man-Man122 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

City College of New York

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Graywalls on 22:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC).

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

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 to WP: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 applying WP: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.

Summary of dispute by Iss246

Please keep it brief - less than 20F00 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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 editor Tina 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)

Summary of dispute by ElKevbo

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)

Summary of dispute by Epicgenius

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

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 includes popular culture mentions, notable alumni content, information about doctoral programs and donations, and content 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 essay WP:UNIGUIDE. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Melchior2006

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

City College of New York discussion

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

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)

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)

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (CCNY)

I am willing to act as the moderator for this dispute if the editors want moderated discussion about article content issues. Please read DRN Rule A. The scope of this discussion will not involve any proposal for an interaction 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 by dispute 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)

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)

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)

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 per WP: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 beyond WP:ILIKEIT backed by your personal values "unfairly removed" specifically referring to Special: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)

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)

See "Statements" section of Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR. Graywalls (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

First statement by possible moderator (CCNY)

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 an interaction 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 of DRN 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 phrase and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.) from the 21st century section. Will each editor please state concisely why they think that this phrase is or is not due or undue emphasis in accordance with the principle of balance? Are there any other article content issues?

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

• I believe that it is undue, because while not wrong, it's a minutiae trivia/amenity guide backed only by the schools website. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Other participants also not supporting the inclusion tips it against inclusion per WP: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)

First statements by editors (CCNY)

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)

Second statement by possible moderator (CCNY)

It appears that there is one article content issue, and that is the removal of the phrase and 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)

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)

Third statement by possible moderator (CCNY)

I have prepared a draft RFC, which is available for review in Talk:City College of New York/RFC on Honors College. This is not a live RFC at this time. Please do not vote in the RFC, because it is not a live RFC. Please do not comment in the RFC, because comments should be here, in the DRN, until the RFC is launched and becomes a live RFC.

Does the RFC accurately reflect the content dispute?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to resolve the dispute. I wondered if the disagreement between Graywalls and me should be addressed in one place rather than in two places, here on the DRN and on the City College talk page. We are already here on the noticeboard. We could make a second addition to the talk page (one is already there) to ask editors to come to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and make their judgment known. Iss246 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it accurately reflects this one content dispute. Graywalls (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statement by possible moderator (CCNY)

I am somewhat puzzled by the question about discussion at the article talk page. If there are editors who have been editing the talk page or who have been editing the article, they should be invited to this discussion, and they should be listed here. If you have a statement about the article on the City College of New York, discuss here.

Does the RFC accurately reflect the content dispute?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I will write a note on the CCNY talk page to invite editors here. Iss246 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I may have missed some, but I notified three other active talk page participants to the DRN at the very beginning. Graywalls (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Trie

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by ~2025-35909-34 on 18:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC).

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.

Summary of dispute by Ergur

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

An IP editor rewrote all the code of Trie 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 lot MOS: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 $\{1,2,\dots ,n\}$) 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 of WP:SILENCE and WP: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 read MOS: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 in MOS: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 been filibustering. 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 under WP:FIXFIRST. — xo Ergur (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Katzrockso

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

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 that MOS:ALGO merely points to a consensus within a Wikiproject (Wikiproject Computer science), but provides no requirement that any given page follow the local consensus from that Wikiproject There 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 the points made by the IP (now temporary account) editor. By appealing to the wording of MOS:ALGO where it states the "consensus within the wikiproject", I alleged that some of the editors were WP:STONEWALLING, because they did not engage with the specific arguments put forth by the TA editor. WP:STONEWALLING states Status 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 to MOS:ALGO's declaration of a WP: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 Wikipedia WP: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)

Trie discussion

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

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

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

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

I have responded to each of your claims. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I gave an opportunity to respond to each of my responses, and this was spurned, and deferred to the age-old "third parties have disagreed with you, but still refuse to elaborate on why". I'll bring up again that just because I can get a thousand people to spam "Norway is located in the Southern Hemisphere", it does not compel any change unless there is truly undeniable evidence that this statement is in fact true. It's quite telling that no one who has disagreed with me has actually made any attempt to engage the comprehensive arguments I have given, and even those that have always seem to defer to MOS:ALGO or WP:PSEUDOCODE (which as explained earlier, does not silence my points). ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Trie)

I am ready to act as the moderator in this case. Please read DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Are there any content issues other than the programming language to be used to illustrate the algorithms? If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If you have an issue about how to illustrate the algorithms, please state concisely what your view is.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it should be mentioned that, since filing here, the IP editor has presented a counterproposal on the talk page. — xo Ergur (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Trie)

Is the unregistered editor taking part in this moderated discussion, or not? They say, on the talk page, that they will implement their counterproposal if there is no objection to it. If there is moderated discussion here, there should not also be discussion on the article talk page.

Is there agreement to the counterproposal?

Is the unregistered editor taking part in this discussion, or are they discussing separately on the article talk page?

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Algiers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Monsieur Patillo on 17:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 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, disregarding WP: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 Summary of dispute by M.BItton Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Skitash Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Algiers 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.

Francis Amasa Walker

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Gramix13 on 16:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Francis Amasa Walker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gramix13 (talk · contribs)
• Smellyshirt5 (talk · contribs)
• Sdkb (talk · contribs)
• Concordhistory (talk · contribs)
• SecretName101 (talk · contribs)
• Melchior2006 (talk · contribs)
• Robminchin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The locus of the dispute is about using Anne Hyde's book Born of Lakes and Plains: Mixed-Descent Peoples and the Making of the American West in Francis Amasa Walker § Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Discussion on the topic was sporadic on the talk page from 2022 to 2023, leading to a {{POV}} template being placed on the article without resolution to the dispute. The article was recently brought to Good Article Reassessment due to this dispute remaining unresolved as compromising the article's GA status under WP:GACR6#4.

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

Talk:Francis_Amasa_Walker#Work_as_Commissioner_of_Indian_Affairs Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Francis_Amasa_Walker/1

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm looking to reach a consensus on the dispute to save the article's GA status, and I hope that having the participants of both discussions talk out the issue here will help to come to a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Smellyshirt5

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

Summary of dispute by Sdkb

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

Thanks for bringing this here, Gramix13. I've never had a chance to do a deep dive into Walker's legacy (apologies), but I came across his removed bust at the MIT Museum, discovered that his article at the time was out of alignment with the description of his reputation there, and added a bit to address that, along with the neutrality tag in case there was more. I'm willing to leave it to others to judge whether additional tweaks are needed to address the posthumous shift in his reputation, and happy to see the tag removed if nothing else is needed. I've copied the description from the MIT Museum below in case it's hard to read from the photo.

Description of bust at MIT Museum

In January 1898, on the one-year anniversary of the death of MIT president Francis Amasa Walker, the MIT community gathered to install this bronze bust in MIT's main lobby. The sculpture commission was a student initiative, conceived of and paid for by students. Their devotion inspired MIT alumni and others to raise funds for an even grander tribute on MIT's new Cambridge campus: Walker Memorial, a building dedicated to student life. Attitudes toward Walker could not be more different today.

In January 2018, students in a new class, "MIT and Slavery," created shock waves when they revealed that MIT's founder, William Barton Rogers, had enslaved six people when he lived in Virginia. Since then, students, faculty, staff, and alumni have also drawn institutional attention to the flagrant bigotry of Walker's appalling views on race, immigration, and indigenous people. His vitriolic writings and genocidal urgings would likely have remained obscure without the efforts of these insistent voices. The students' work today has been the needed catalyst to draw attention to earlier calls by MIT's Black community in the 1970s and 1980s to cease venerating Walker.

The MIT Museum has intentionally removed the Walker bust from its pedestal.

Sdkb ^talk 16:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Concordhistory

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

Summary of dispute by SecretName101

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

Summary of dispute by Melchior2006

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

Summary of dispute by Robminchin

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

Francis Amasa Walker discussion

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

I'll definitely look more into depth into this matter if I find time to become further versed. My contribution to this particular article has so far been only in the realm of formatting, as far as I can discern. Such as adding an infobox to its lede. So I have not really versed myself with literature dedicated to its subject.

Excuse the length of my initial response here:

I have not looked overly-deep into Walker's life and relevant yet. At this point, I would presume it would be against the interest of neutrality to make no or too-little mention of the more critical takes offered by Hyde's newer work (which was authored a notable and reputed academic author, published by an established publisher, garnered praise from outlets such as the New Yorker). However, there could very much be an interest in avoiding reshaping the entire article to align with Hyde's takes. Particularly where Hyde's conflicts with earlier-published works on Walker are not persuasively/relatively equivocally debunked by her. Where both Hyde's newer takes and older takes both hold genuine merit, it may be worth incorporating both in to offer more more diverse take on Walker. Also, even where Hyde's has debunked previous accounts , it may be worth that there were long commonly-held understandings that have since shifted due to recent literature and re-analysis.

A cursory look at the current article does reveal that it seems Hyde is not entirely alone in (relatively) recent revisiting of Walker's attitudes and ideology on race with Leonard's 2005 and Mae's 1999 journal articles; Garfinkel's 2021 article; and Malcolm 2022 news report being cited for this as well. I have not read those works yet, though.

I would imagine it is possible that there may have been a extended gap in new substantial literature on Walker. If this is so, a lot of previous scholarly analysis of him was written in a very different eras from today, and may hold biases more common of such eras.

@Concordhistory: did note that they believed a number of Hyde's characterizations were inconsistent with Walker's words and actions. I definitely would flag this as (if it is with merit) an important concern. It is very much possible for Walker to have both at times demonstrated a friendlier attitude towards indigenous people, and at other times demonstrated a more virulent attitude towards indigenous people. And if so, appropriate note can and arguably should be made in the article.

I will note that there is a a service in accurately-summarizing and contextualizing the life and work of prominent individuals. Sometimes a new work emerges on a figure, and changes our modern understanding of who that person more-fully was, and what the influence their work/actions more-fully was. I would definitely like to see if other academics largely praised any new takes Hyde brought about and the research she cited, and/or whether there has been compelling academic criticism of her book.

If the article does ultimately make more additions aligned with Hyde's work, I urge Concordhistory to bring up individual points of concern as they arise. When they see an addition they think is a mischaracterization or is missing context, I'd love it if Concordhistory or others will bring to the talk page their arguments for what such additions may be getting wrong (as well as the sources they have used to conclude that), and proposals for tweaks and additional context to remedy such concerns. (and please ping me). That could aid in getting things right, and is the collaborative community-based approach this project ideally wants articles to be shaped by. Where substantial and merited division of thought on a subject exists, no Wikipedia article should be exclusively-shaped by any one individual's viewpoint.

SecretName101 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Francis Amasa Walker)

Hi folks, I'm willing to help moderate this discussion if desired. Something I do want to say at the outset is that Hyde is a serious and notable contemporary historian who specializes in this subject area, plus her book on this topic is quite recent, so that makes it an ideal source for the article in question here (see WP:HISTRS for common views on history sources, views which I share). There's really just no solid basis for excluding her position from the article outright because of that, whatever her views are. We can weigh how to couch the material from her book and how much prominence to give it and so on, but I don't think we should really focus on the question of whether or not it should be included at all—it definitely should per NPOV and I think the GAR reviewer made the right call there.

So, basically, my approach to moderating this discussion will be to focus the conversation on how we should represent her book in this article, as opposed to whether or not we should at all. If that isn't the sort of conversation y'all want to have, I can withdraw and someone else can take over. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 02:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Francis Amasa Walker)

Zeroth statement by Gramix13

Thank you for the offer to moderate the discussion, Mesocarp! I must confess that I haven't read any of Hyde's work relating to Francis Amasa Walker, so I don't have anything additional to contribute when it comes to what specifically to draw from the source. I do agree with SecretName101's statement that we should also consider including other contemporary sources on the subject, aside from Hyde's work. 83 of the 143 citations currently in the article (roughly 58%) come from Munroe, James P. (1923). A Life of Francis Amasa Walker. New York: Henry Holt & Company. (I am guilty of adding some of these citations myself when trying to ensure the article was fully cited per the GAR) That source, while fairly comprehensive when I was skimming it over, is over a century old, which might not reflect the knowledge we have on Walker today. I'm not bringing up this source to derail this dispute on the merits of this source, rather I think it emphasizes the need for more current and recent scholarship on Walker to ensure the article meets the GA requirements we have today. I don't have any arguments or further suggestions on what other sources aside from Hyde to include, but SecretName101's list might be a good starting point if others here have taken the time to read them. I am also not sure if bringing in all of these sources will be necessary to ensure the neutrality of this article, but I do hope that perhaps Hyde's work will be sufficient in this regard.

In short, I would be supportive of the approach you laid out here to discuss how to represent Hyde's book in the article provided that there are no raised objects about using her work in any capacity. Gramix13 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gramix13, I appreciate your comments. I'll note that I think the age of the Munroe source is a totally reasonable point to raise, speaking generally—American historical methods have changed immmensely since the 1920s, and as you point out contemporary historians are likely to have access to primary source material someone back then might not have had. Contemporary historians are also best-equipped to judge how far to throw the work of older historians; past a certain point even the work of historians from days gone by becomes primary source material in its own right and we shouldn't put much weight on it directly. Since the case here was started with a specific focus on Hyde, we should probably just stick to that question here, but in terms of how to couch her work I think it is important to note the work of other historians that echo her points, because it suggests that those points deserve more space and prominence in the article than they might have otherwise. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 04:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm totally fine keeping this discussion directly focused on Hyde's work then, and letting others include sourcing of more recent sources if they so wish outside of here. I'll leave it to others to comment on her work then since I have nothing else of insight to offer here. Gramix13 (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Bolzano

– New discussion.

Filed by Simoncik84 on 15:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Simoncik84 (talk · contribs)
• 1RightSider (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns whether the alternative name "Bozen" should be bolded in the lead of the Bolzano article. According to WP:MOS and specifically MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, boldface alternative names should be limited to names that have significant and established English-language usage. My position is that “Bozen” does not meet this criterion: its use in English sources is marginal, historically limited, and mostly confined to institutional self-designations rather than general English usage. The other editor argues that “Bozen” clearly qualifies as an English name and has repeatedly restored the bold formatting without consensus. Discussion has not resolved this disagreement, and we disagree primarily on the interpretation of MOS:BOLDALTNAMES and the weight that English sources should carry in determining bolded names.

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

Extensive discussion has taken place on the article talk page: Talk:Bolzano#Question_about_"Bozen"_as_an_alternative_name_for_Bolzano

A Third Opinion was requested, but the request was declined as out of scope for WP:3O.

Multiple replies have been exchanged on the talk page; despite efforts to stay civil and policy-based, no consensus has emerged.

These steps did not resolve the dispute, and the disagreement remains active.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I request neutral input on whether “Bozen” meets MOS:BOLDALTNAMES criteria for bolded alternative names in English, and whether the current lead formatting complies with MOS. A clear policy-based assessment would help resolve the disagreement and avoid further editing disputes.

Summary of dispute by 1RightSider

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

Bolzano discussion

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

Austria-Hungary

– New discussion.

Filed by DalidaEditor on 23:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DalidaEditor (talk · contribs)
• OrionNimrod (talk · contribs)
• DeCausa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Misuse of infobox parameter

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

Talk:Austria-Hungary#Arbitrary edit and edit war

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If my position is going to be accepted, could a few editors please confirm it? That would hopefully prevent the other editor from continually reverting my edits.

Summary of dispute by OrionNimrod

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

Summary of dispute by DeCausa

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

Austria-Hungary discussion

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

Henry Todd_(mountaineer)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Lhotserunner on 07:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Henry Todd (mountaineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Drmies (talk · contribs) Lhotserunner (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A new wikipedia entry was submitted two days about the late mountaineer/criminal Henry Todd by his long-term friend XXXX, making him sound like an absolute saint! It's a rather offensive, garbled, almost unreadable entry that makes a mockery of his victims, and it also makes him appear as the great White savior of the Sherpas whom he abused mercilessly for profit. The entry also is an obvious conflict of interest given that XXXX is on the record as considering Todd a close friend and her "mentor." I have tried to correct this entry and make it more readable and accurate by citing respected sources including The New York Times, Forbes Magazine, and several books about Mr. Todd including "High Crimes" by Pulitzer Prize winning author Michael Kodak. Unfortunately, my corrections and improvements keep on getting taken down and the entry reverted to its first draft by a very hostile editor, "Drmies" who seems to have a personal stake in all of this and is making very odd personal attacks on me in the comments. Meanwhile, XXXX's Wikipedia entry for her friend is still unreadable and riddled with errors and slanders against Mr. Todd's victims and enemies. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lhotserunner#top How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please review my edits and lets make this Wikipedia entry legible and accurate! Summary of dispute by Drmies I think the editor's edits speak for themselves, including the BLP violations in the edits and the edit summaries. The other editor may have a COI, but so does this one, and they refused to disclose it. If the article is a mess, the solution is to edit it properly, following our guidelines, which is what I'm doing. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC) Henry Todd_(mountaineer) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Henry Todd) Howdy. @Lhotserunner, I'm not entirely sure this is the appropriate forum for what you're looking for here. DRN isn't really for having a moderator "review [your] edits", it's to have a moderator guide discussion between you and the other editors involved in a content dispute. You already know what @Drmies' position on your edits is. I think you also might have considered contacting @Timtjtim and @Illusion_Flame since they entered the discussion beforehand as far as I can tell, but in any case they made their positions pretty clear too. So, if you're looking for a review of your edits to this article, you've already gotten three, basically. The moderators here don't have any special authority necessarily, we're just editors like yourself that happen to enjoy dispute resolution. On that note, did you notify Drmies on their talk page? They found the dispute here somehow but I don't see anything about this on there. As you can see under "Do you need assistance?" it's important to do that as part of the request process. In any case, if you actually want moderated discussion between you, Drmies, and maybe Timtjtim and Illusion_Flame about what should be done with this article, I'm happy to facilitate that, if you're willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines of course. I will note on that point that what Drmies said about the importance of disclosing a COI is true. The edit summary of yours that they linked to does suggest that you may well have a COI, since you state there that you yourself wrote at least one published source on Todd and that it's cited in the article. Although not everyone on Wikipedia might consider that alone sufficient evidence to consider you as having a COI, it suggests that you may have had personal involvement with Todd in some capacity and/or have made writing about him part of your off-wiki career. At the very least, it would help you to build trust with all the participants to fully disclose the extent of your connection to Todd—you don't have to reveal details that would make it easy for other editors to identify you off-wiki but aside from that it would pay to be unambiguous. Also, especially if other editors have good reason to consider you an editor with a COI for this article, per WP:COIEDIT it behooves you to edit the article with great care if at all—typically you would just suggest possible edits on the article talk page and let other editors make them for you. People take COIs very seriously here, as a general rule; on that note, I would like to know the extent of your connection with Todd if I'm going to moderate the discussion here, because it's important context. ('"') (Mesocarp) (talk) (@) 04:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Ok, thanks for the detailed explanation. I think I have explained a few times (obviously not well) that I had no idea the woman who wrote this Wikipedia entry about her pal, Henry Todd, was going to put me and a few other in the bibliogramanymoutaineering journalist so if someone decides to put 57 entries to make their article look legit, it's gonna get intimate. I don't want to be there, there was nothing "sneaky" going on. I'd actually rather my stuff got edited out of her bibliography as this "article" is in complete shambles. It's been years since any editor dared call me a "liar" and swear at me, but I guess that's the nature of this forum! Zeroth statements by editors (Henry Todd) 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.

List of NCAA Final Four results (Philippines)

– New discussion.

Filed by Linsanity on 10:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of NCAA Final Four results (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Linsanity (talk · contribs)
• Howard the Duck (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added my edit, with references indicating that the NCAA still uses the Final Four format, though slightly modified from previous seasons. However, these edits were removed with the claim that the league no longer follows this format.

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

Talk:List_of_NCAA_Final_Four_results_(Philippines)#NCAA_Season_101_Final_Four_Format

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please verify whether the modified Final Four format, along with its references, is acceptable for including the scores in the list. I also observed that the page lacks sufficient sources, and the references added to the 2025 table row help provide additional citations for the page.

Summary of dispute by Howard the Duck

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

Philippines discussion

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

Brant Pinvidic

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jadu23 on 13:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Brant Pinvidic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jadu23 (talk · contribs) Mortdav (talk · contribs) MWFwiki (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello I am trying to get some help sorting out a small content issue on the Brant Pinvidic article. The Editors involved are: • User:Jadu23 ( Me ) • User:Mortdav ( Editor who reversed the edits ) • User:MWFwiki ( 3O Editor ) What happened is this: I updated the Lead and Awards sections to make them more neutral and properly sourced. I opened a talk page section to discuss it, but didn’t get any reply from User:Mortdav. After waiting for 48hours I asked for a Third Opinion, and the 3O editor said the edits looked fine and restored them. Later on the edits were reverted again, still without any discussion. Talk:Brant Pinvidic#Request for clarification and consensus: Lead & Awards sections In order to proceed normally I would appreciate some assistance in determining which version we should retain.Thanks. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Brant Pinvidic#Request for clarification and consensus: Lead & Awards sections How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Honestly, I just need some neutral guidance on which version should stay so we can settle this peacefully.If needed someone from DRN can tell us how to adjust the Lead Awards to keep them strictly neutral and properly sourced. Also since there were repeated reverts without any talk page discussion (and it’s a BLP page), maybe some temporary protection could help stop back-and-forth until consensus is reached. Summary of dispute by Mortdav Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MWFwiki Just here to second Jadu23's assertions, at least as far as I was involved. MWFwiki (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC) UPDATE: Drmies pointed-out several things to me which leads me to question my sanity... but I must pull all support for Jadu, unfortunately. The fact that I missed something so obvious means my opinion must be discounted for this. I would welcome a check regarding the possibility of an association with the other editor (as well as me against Jadu23 and Karieol51, to be clear). MWFwiki (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC) Note by Drmies The history of the article is full of socks and paid editors, and Janu23 is just the latest example of that--someone should run a check on them, and I have no doubt they'll find a match with User:Karieol51. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC) Brant Pinvidic 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.

Pizza effect

– New discussion.

Filed by Gotofritz on 13:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pizza effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DonBeroni (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The "Pizza Effect" is a phenomenon defined by an anthropology professor. The professor's understanding of pizza history was faulty, nevertheless the term stuck. For completeness I have been trying to add a short paragraph to point out that history of pizza doesn't necessarily match the anthropology professor's understanding, although this doesn't invalidate the concent of "Pizza Effect". Another user has been constantly reverting those edits.

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

Discussion in Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pizza_effect

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Prevent DonBeroni from constantly reverting the edits

Summary of dispute by DonBeroni

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

Pizza effect discussion

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

Talk:Formula One#Primary_unit

– New discussion.

Filed by Avi8tor on 16:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Formula One#Primary unit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Avi8tor (talk · contribs)
• Pyrope (talk · contribs)
• Mr.choppers (talk · contribs)
• SSSB (talk · contribs)
• DeFacto (talk · contribs)
• Tony Holkham (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A couple of editors at Talk:Formula/Primary Unit state that adherence to the "Wikipedia Manual of Style is a guide not policy" and another user states articles do not require SI units, despite the MOS stating that (outside the USA and UK) SI will be the primary unit.

I have suggested that because Formula One is about automobiles they should be following WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/ but they state it's about engineering and there not applicable.

Everyone needs some clarification on this issue.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Formula_One#Primary_unit

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I've cited numerous examples of the requirement per MOS and WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/ on the talk page, getting nowhere. We need clarification as to whether we follow the above Style manual and Conventions or not.

Summary of dispute by Pyrope

Avi8tor has repeatedly cherry picked and misrepresented the MoS, despite this having been pointed out to them a number of times. They wish to impose a convention that is simply not supported by reliable sources on this topic, not the least of which are the technical regulations published by the sport's governing body. They are a single voice trying to overturn long-established and well-supported consensus, and this sort of tedious forum shopping when they don't get their way is not the behaviour we should expect from a long standing editor acting in good faith. Pyrope 18:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mr.choppers

Avi8tor is deliberately selecting only part of the guideline. The full section reads (omitted text bolded): "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, mass and luminosity of the Sun etc.)". Bar is the unit used by F1 themselves, in the actual regulation quoted, and by all reputable sources.

Avi8tor is fully aware of the full MOS text from countless earlier discussions on the matter, dating back to 2021 - he even asked to change the MOS to reflect his preference. He has also been repeatedly told that WP:IDHT is not a good defense but keeps on making the same baseless arguments.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SSSB

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

Summary of dispute by DeFacto

As I see it, Avi8tor seems to have misunderstood MOS:UNITS, which clearly says that in articles which do not have strong ties with the UK or US, "the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic" (my emphasis), because, contrary to what they argue, the MOS clearly supports the use of the conventional units in the article in question. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tony Holkham

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

I am not "involved", but an observer. My feeling is that this is not a dispute, rather one editor reluctant to accept consensus. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

Talk:Formula One#Primary_unit discussion

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

Nasserism

– New discussion.

Filed by ~2025-38106-20 on 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• ~2025-38106-20 (talk · contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have made several attempts to include content on the Nasserism page documenting the discriminatory policies of many Nasserist governments, and the user M.Bitton first reverted all my edits. So I went to the talk page and made my case for my edits there. He deleted my initial contribution to the talk page on the grounds that it was not a properly formatted request for edit. (He claims I should have used a request for edit.) When I did make it into a properly formatted request for edit, he immediately shut it down on the grounds that it was a controversial edit. All my statements were backed up by properly cited academic sources. There is actually not any historical or academic controversy about the facts I was citing: it is only "controversial" because some people would be angry to read them. He has repeated deleted my comments from the talk page pointing that out.

This is very frustrating. M.Bitton only just cites policies to delete or shut down my edits but is not actually engaging beyond that beyond insisting my academically-cited sources have a POV. So I am left with no recourse but the dispute page.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nasserism#Edit_Request

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like for my well-cited edits to be accepted and for a third party to review M.Bitton's behavior of deleting my comments from the talk page.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton

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

Nasserism discussion

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

Social Democracy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Allmänbildare on 20:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Social Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Allmänbildare (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Editors disagree over how the lede of the “Social democracy” article should describe the ideological classification of social democracy—specifically, whether the lede should state that social democracy is a movement or ideology “within socialism,” or whether this framing violates Wikipedia’s neutrality requirements because sources differ significantly on this point. Summary of positions: One group of editors argues that a large body of political-science literature situates social democracy historically and conceptually within the broader socialist tradition. They support retaining wording in the lede describing social democracy as “within socialism,” citing academic sources and the historical origins of the movement. Another group of editors argues that many modern definitions and scholarly sources treat contemporary social democracy as a capitalist-oriented mixed-economy ideology distinct from socialism. They hold that the scholarly disagreement is substantial enough that the lede should not present “within socialism” as fact. A further view holds that “social democracy” has multiple meanings (historical movement, modern ideology, welfare-state model), and that the lede should acknowledge its socialist origins without asserting a single modern classification. Why DRN is needed: The article has been protected following repeated cycles of rewording the lede without consensus. Discussion and an RfC have not resolved the disagreement, and editors continue to interpret sources differently. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The issue has been discussed on the talk page of the article many times and a RfC has been made, without any success at resolving the dispute. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? What I am seeking from DRN: A neutral third-party evaluation of (1) whether the existing sources support unequivocal placement of social democracy “within socialism” in the lede, and (2) help guiding the editors toward a stable, policy-compliant formulation that accurately reflects the spectrum of high-quality reliable sources. Social Democracy 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.