This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
The page is continuously edited to include incorrect information that are not even supported by the references the editors use. I listed the facts with countless high-quality references, but these were all ignored. A previous attempt by someone else to add the authors book to the description was removed due to "self promotion". This page is clearly run by people who seem to have a personal issue with the subject.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Ongoing COI with socking has been an issue at this article. I recommended that this editor go to Teahouse, but they decided to come here. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the name of the other woman out of the lead, as I think that may be what this editor is most objecting to, and it probably isn't strictly necessary there. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo)
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Jessica Nabongo article when the conditions are satisfied for moderated discussion. The listing of parties appears to be problematic. One of the editors who is listed does not appear to have been involved in the controversy. On the other hand, an editor who has edited the article has not been included. The other editors have not been notified. It is not necessary to notify Valereee, who has made a statement. All editors who have either made disputed edits or taken part in the discussion should be listed and notified.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
There are only two pieces of information in the article that are crucial to the lead: the assertion, and the fact the assertion is disputed by Spotts. At minimum, the fact the assertion is disputed needs to stay in the lead.
The support for the fact it's credibly disputed was removed in this edit by BubbaJoe123456 who had come in to do a copy edit and, while agreeing the content should be included in the lede, didn't think it needed to be cited and attributed there. I'd argued at the time that this piece of information needed a cite/attribution in the lead to a highly reliable source (an academic in a peer-reviewed journal) because it was that piece of info that was being edit warred over by COI/SPA editors, but agreed to let it go as a third editor, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, also thought it didn't need to be cited/attributed in the lead. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo)
So far only one editor has responded. I will begin moderated discussion when at least two editors reply, and those editors agree to the proposed rules and answer my content dispute question, and then only if there is a substantive disagreement between those editors. Please state 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. Also, please state that you agree to DRN Rule D.
An information about an ancient deity in Kemet has surfaced where the goddess Neith is described by ancient egyptians as 'Libyan Neith' shows the origins of this deity, user A. Parrot argues that this information is false and that Neith has purely egyptian origins while user Potymkin claims that Libyan Neith as described by ancient egyptians is the case, user A. Parrot presents Wilkinson and Lesko two egyptologists as proof that the deity is purely egyptian but after much reading reading on their works and presenting their books and page numbers in the talk page, even these egyptologists disagree with the point that Neith is purely egyptian and solemnly agree with Libyan Neith. after contacting Lesko via email she appears to be on board with Libyan Neith. the matter requires final settlement as neither party wants to concede.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Neith was worshipped in Egypt for more than 3,000 years, and the earliest evidence about her dates to the very murky Protodynastic Period. The sources describe her origins as uncertain; Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE by Susan Tower Hollis says (p. 115) that Neith "presents the biggest puzzle of these goddesses".
At particular issue are two passages from books in the article's source list. Lesko 1999 says (p. 47) "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian." Wilkinson 2003 says (p. 157) "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the western Delta."
Potymkin insists the article should describe Neith as Libyan or "Egypto-Libyan" and regards these passages in the sources as supporting that position. I believe the article should say scholars are uncertain about Neith's origins but describe a Libyan origin for her as a viable hypothesis—not a certainty. Potymkin continues to mischaracterize me as insisting Neith was "purely Egyptian". A. Parrot (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Neith article .
Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to follow these rules and whether you want moderated discussion.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Robert McClenon for offering to help to make wikipedia articles more comprehensive I am happy that you are able to provide some of your time for this issue, in the Neith article I would like to keep the following statement in the lead of the article: "was an early Libyan deity worshipped by Libyans and ancient Egyptians. She was adopted from Libya (or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located). Her worship is attested as early as Predynastic Egypt, around 6000 BC." along with all of its relevant sources, this is due to sources I provided from UNESCO library, World History Encyclopedia which their publications are recommended by many educational institutions including:
Closed due to failure to identify other parties. The filing editor has not listed or notified any other editors. There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor should resume discussion on the article talk page for 24 hours, with the objective of focusing the disagreement. If there is focused but inconclusive discussion for at least 24 more hours, a new request can be filed here, listing and notifying the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I started this article in August 2, building the content on my draft. My purpose was to rectify what I had previously exposed in Talk:Global catastrophic risk as a confusion "between a hypothetical event, diversely imagined and theorized along history (both in religious thought and outside it), with a specific (yet not monolithic) framework that emerged in the very recent period and became known mainly as 'existential risk', especially in philosophical literature". I decided to create this article as rigorous as I could, using mainly sources that explicit stated the intellectual history of this field, which I found a sufficient amount. I then put the draft in the review process, in which it was soon approved and published in the mainspace. From that very moment I started to receive dismissive statements in the article talk page, the first section of which was, symptomatically, named only "What?", from which the editor started to insist on some points that, frankly, could only come, I think, from someone that didnt take the time to read the article and neither the sources. This user, for example, stated both that "this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it." and also that "I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach.". Confusing and contradictory. Given the space, I cant really cover the whole discussion, but I would like to make clear that i invited the users multiple times to provide sources which minimally contradict the presentation of the topic, and until now none has been presented. Its extremely frustrating to see that I took all the effort to based the article on reliable sources and somehow I am loosing against superficial analogies, ad hoc rules and a kind of questioning which has no openness to answers. I really wish that a independent editor could review the article and the discussion to help us find a solution for this.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion has mainly evolved around one section Talk:Existential risk studies#What?, but today I found out that one user has created another section proposing the move of the article to the draft. I engaged with every point, and used the sources available to substantiate my position, as well as reviewing the article which is considered to be overlapping with this one. I tried to engage with one user in his talk page, but they didnt answer at all User talk:GreenC#Existential risk
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I am having a hard time even understanding what is the point of the discussion beyond the attempt to discredit it. But I think that some flashing point are the quality of the article, its reliability on the sources to state what it states, and also the relation of 'existential risk' to 'existential risk studies'. If we are to believe in the sources, then existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies, which means that the redirection should be changed to it, but my edit was reverted.
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.
Closed as not recently discussed. There has been discussion on the article talk page, but mostly more than three months ago. Resume discussion on the article talk page, with at least two statements by each editor over a period of more than 24 hours. Do not allege that other editors are vandalizing the article unless you are ready to report it to the vandalism noticeboard. Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack; don't do it. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Criminal Charges section, since renamed Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office. No other political party in the UK has this section, but each party in the UK has members who have had these issues. Therefore, it is not consistent with other Wiki articles about political parties in UK. The section was included out of political motivation during an election campaign period, made very prominent, and mainly used to deliver a smear campaign via social media during the election period. Either add the same section for all other parties in UK or remove it from this page to be consistent across all wiki pages about political parties in UK. When I have previously removed the section it was added straight back and lies where then published on wiki naming me as Tom Hollis/Ashfield Independent, which is not true. As per talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashfield_Independents Criminal Charges
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
NB - Criminal Charges section, since renamed Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Remove the section entitled 'Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office' Or add this section for every other political party in the UK mentioned on wiki. Then stop this article from being vandalized.
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.
Closed for two reasons. First, the filing party has listed the other editors, but has failed to notify them. Notification of the other editors is required. I would remind the filing editor and wait for them to notify, except for the second reason. Second, this does not appear to be an article content dispute of the sort that is usually discussed in DRN. I often begin a discussion by asking each of the editors what part of the article they wish to change, that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Such disputes can sometimes be resolved by compromise, and can sometimes be resolved by an inquiry to the Reliable Source Noticeboard or by a Request for Comments. If there isn't an article content issue, the case may not be right for DRN. In this case, there appear to be questions about whether the article should be draftified for more work, and there appear to be questions about whether the article should be blanked and redirected. Both draftification and redirection are alternatives to deletion that can be considered by an Articles for Deletion discussion. Either resume discussion on the article talk page, or request an outside reviewer from a WikiProject, or submit an AFD nomination. If there is a specific content dispute, please refile it here, stating what the issue is, and notifying the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I started this article in August 2, building the content on my draft. My purpose was to rectify what I had previously exposed in Talk:Global catastrophic risk as a confusion "between a hypothetical event, diversely imagined and theorized along history (both in religious thought and outside it), with a specific (yet not monolithic) framework that emerged in the very recent period and became known mainly as 'existential risk', especially in philosophical literature". I decided to create this article as rigorous as I could, using mainly sources that explicit stated the intellectual history of this field, which I found a sufficient amount. I then put the draft in the review process, in which it was soon approved and published in the mainspace. From that very moment I started to receive dismissive statements in the article talk page, the first section of which was, symptomatically, named only "What?", from which the editor started to insist on some points that, frankly, could only come, I think, from someone that didnt take the time to read the article and neither the sources. This user, for example, stated both that "this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it." and also that "I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach.". Confusing and contradictory. Given the space, I cant really cover the whole discussion, but I would like to make clear that i invited the users multiple times to provide sources which minimally contradict the presentation of the topic, and until now none has been presented. Its extremely frustrating to see that I took all the effort to based the article on reliable sources and somehow I am loosing against superficial analogies, ad hoc rules and a kind of questioning which has no openness to answers. I really wish that a independent editor could review the article and the discussion to help us find a solution for this.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion has mainly evolved around one section Talk:Existential risk studies#What?, but today I found out that one user has created another section proposing the move of the article to the draft. I engaged with every point, and used the sources available to substantiate my position, as well as reviewing the article which is considered to be overlapping with this one. I tried to engage with one user in his talk page, but they didnt answer at all User talk:GreenC#Existential risk
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I am having a hard time even understanding what is the point of the discussion beyond the attempt to discredit it. But I think that some flashing point are the quality of the article, its reliability on the sources to state what it states, and also the relation of 'existential risk' to 'existential risk studies'. If we are to believe in the sources, then existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies, which means that the redirection should be changed to it, but my edit was reverted.
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.
Hello. Riley Gaines is contentious topics page as she has spoken out about the trans women in sports debate. There are editors who have used biased sources and misleading words throughout the article have been edited. However, one user keeps reverting my one edit specifically, where a group she has worked with constantly labelled anti-trans when in fact there is no proper source to describe them as transphobic. Their website and secondary sources about them would characterize them as a pro-woman advocacy group or a political entity with diverse investments in the debate. Anti-trans is an opinion label.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I believe this article is ideologically biased as has some problematic sourcing. As it’s part of a contentious articles debate, editors have used this page to express their opinions on the matter. There is a repetitive use of the words anti-trans to refer to groups that are not transphobic. Plus, it looks like editors will only keep content if it’s about how Riley is advocating for the exclusion of trans women in sports and any criticism related to it but not the support, so it’s not balanced.
– New discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.