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
2025 Moldovan parliamentary election	In Progress	Basque mapping (t)	27 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours
David and_Stephen_Flynn	New	Calmsea123456 (t)	21 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours
Ricky Hatton	In Progress	Rusted AutoParts (t)	15 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	U-Mos (t)	22 hours
Vladimir Lenin	Closed	Thedarkknightli (t)	13 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Political status_of_Taiwan	New	JaredMcKenzie (t)	11 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours	JaredMcKenzie (t)	13 hours
N1 (rocket)	Closed	NoTimeForUs (t)	3 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours
Military–industrial complex#Connotations	New	Uhoj (t)	2 days,	Mesocarp (t)	3 hours	Apfelmaische (t)	30 minutes

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

2025 Moldovan parliamentary election

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Basque mapping on 09:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 2025 Moldovan parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Basque mapping (talk · contribs)
• Slomo666 (talk · contribs)
• Miki1234568 (talk · contribs)
• Number 57 (talk · contribs)
• Polish kurd (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute on the 2025 Moldovan parliamentary election article on whether the infobox at the top of the article should be TIE or TILE. The discussion has also sought to include the rest of the articles of Moldovan parliamentary elections for the sake of maintaining consistency. Main arguments in favour of TIE were that it allows more information to be shown (number of votes, the previous results, pp swing and the image of the party leader), that most of the legislative election articles across the world use of TIE, and that Moldova does not have that many parties to need TILE. Main arguments in favour of TILE were that TIE would leave a blank spot, that TIE takes more space, and that each country may have a different standard depending on local circumstances.

After some days of bringing forward arguments, the discussion has stalled without any signs of the parties giving up.

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

Talk:2025 Moldovan parliamentary election/Archives/2025/October#Infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At this point, the discussion needs an independent third party that can help come to an agreement or close the matter indisputably.

Summary of dispute by Slomo666

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

Summary of dispute by Miki1234568

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

Summary of dispute by Number 57

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

• This is simply unnecessary. There was a discussion about the infobox, there was no consensus to change it. It's not a dispute needing resolution; the editor bringing the matter here simply doesn't like not getting their way (as they wanted to change it). Number 57 15:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Polish kurd

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

2025 Moldovan parliamentary election discussion

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

• I will look over this. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 16:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

(Basque mapping—Slomo666—Miki1234568—Number 57—Polish kurd) From what I have looked on the talk page, there seems to have been no effort made yet to seek a Third opinion. Shall we seek one before proceeding ay further with this DRN request? Also, all participants are reminded that infoboxes and historical elections are contentious topics. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 02:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like that. I think we are a much too small group and I had hoped more people (be they frequent editors in the elections topic, or readers, or people working on stuff related to Moldova/Moldovan politics) would comment on our discussion, but was dissappointed to see such a low turnout. I had also considered an RfC, but my general position is that there are too many of those already, so I would like to avoid them as much as possible. PS I was not aware that infoboxes were contentious. (I read there had been some disputes, but I did not know it was this bad) Slomo666 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:3O can only be used in a dispute between two editors. I'll repeat what I said above – this was a discussion that ended in no consensus, which happens in plenty of discussions. There is no need for a dispute resolution process here. Number 57 13:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As pointed out by Number 57, I thought 3O was reserved for discussions that did not involve so many users. However, if you consider this case suitable for a 3O, I support giving it a chance. Basque mapping (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As someone who does 3Os, this is not suitable for one, and I would remove this dispute from there if I saw it pop up. Xan747 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

(Basque mapping—Slomo666—Miki1234568—Number 57—Polish kurd—Xan747) My sincerest apologies - I am relatively new to 30, DRN, etc. and only have recently started helping around here. Yeah, upon a second look this does not seem to be suitable for a WP:3O as there have been more than 3 parties in the discussion. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 01:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, your willingness to pitch in and help is certainly welcomed. Xan747 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@~delta So, which is the way forward here? Basque mapping (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Question by Volunteer (Moldovan Election)

@Basque mapping, Slomo666, and Miki1234568: Is there still an article content dispute?

If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

We would like to change the infobox election template to the more expressive version, Number 57 and Polish Kurd do not. Slomo666 (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion, it ended in no consensus. Bringing it here is forum shopping to get a different outcome, and I don't understand why this hasn't been closed. Number 57 20:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is still a content dispute. We want to change the infobox of the Moldovan legislative election article series from Template:Infobox legislative election to Template:Infobox election, while Number 57 and Polish Kurd oppose the change. Basque mapping (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Moldovan election)

I am ready to serve as the moderator. Please read DRN Rule D. Please read the ArbCom ruling that infoboxes are a contentious topic. If there was previously a discussion on the article talk page that ended as no consensus, bringing the dispute to DRN is not forum shopping, and is a reasonable next step. Are there any content disputes other than about the infobox? Will each editor please state concisely what they want done to the article that another editor wants to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Moldovan election)

Thank you Robert (may I address/refer to you as Robert?).

While there may be other subjects that have not been closed, I am not part of those (all the topics I was a part of were either resolved bilaterally or were left unanswered) and I don't think those need to be brought into this discussion, although perhaps I am unaware of how this is for the other editors.

As far as I can tell, the description of the dispute is rather unanimous in the section above (one "side" wants TIE and the other prefers TILE) and I think there does not need to be any more explanation of this, except perhaps when it comes to the arguments from both sides.

In my opinion discussion until this point went in a very civil way:

An edit was made, another editor restored despite agreeing on the substance with the first editor. A discussion on the talk page (initiated by myself) saw a small majority in favour of the change, but no clear consensus, with very low participation/turnout in the discussion. The dispute was then brought here. I have slightly changed my view since, but this is not related to the content dispute itself.

I do not know really how DRN works, (this is my first time here) and am somewhat afraid that we might not be able to resolve this without a RfC, as we seem deadlocked, but I prefer trying other processes first.

Slomo666 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• As Slomo666 says, this is a fairly simple disagreement over whether to keep the current infobox type ({{Infobox legislative election}} or TILE) or change to ({{Infobox election}} or TIE) for Moldovan parliamentary election articles. I believe the current type should be kept. Number 57 15:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As we have already made clear which is the contentious change, I will try to state the case for TIE following the WP:COHERENCE argument:

Apparently, there is not a clear guideline on when to use each infobox, and it should be discussed case by case. However, the closure comment in a similar discussion for South Africa stated TIE's format suits an election of this kind with a small number of impactful parties. Moreover, contrary to South Africa, Moldova has never had more than six parties with parliamentary representation. It has been argued that the fact most legislative elections across the world use TIE does not matter because each country should be discussed independently in accordance with local circumstances. However, my response to that arguments is: what differentiates Moldova from those countries? Basque mapping (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Moldovan election)

It appears that the main content issue, which may be the only content issue, is which of two infobox templates to use. The two templates are Template:infobox election (TIE) and Template:Infobox legislative election (TILE). Is it correct that this is the main content issue? Are there any other content issues? Please read the ArbCom ruling on elections. The previous decision that I said to read was incorrect. Another ArbCom case that is applicable is the second ArbCom ruling on infoboxes. I don't think that sanctions will be necessary, because the discussion has been civil. Is my understanding of the issue correct?

I agree with the editor who says that they would prefer to resolve this without an RFC. However, if the editors do not agree, an RFC will be necessary. My review of the MOS and other policies and guidelines and the template documentation does not answer the question of which infobox to use. So my next questions are: Is each editor willing to use Template:infobox election? Is each editor will to use Template:infobox legislative election?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

David and_Stephen_Flynn

– New discussion.

Filed by Calmsea123456 on 09:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• David and Stephen Flynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I’ve been trying to add a short, neutrally worded paragraph about the Flynn brothers’ business milestones — specifically their collaboration with Jamie Oliver’s Food Tube network and the opening of a plant-based café at Dublin Airport. The information is based on reliable, independent sources including The Irish Times, The Irish Independent, and Dublin Airport’s official website.

Each time I’ve proposed or added this content, another editor (User:Bluethricecreamman) has reverted it under WP:PROMO, saying it’s promotional. The text itself is factual, properly sourced, and intended to balance the article, which currently focuses mainly on controversies. I’m seeking help in reaching consensus on whether this short, sourced content can be included in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

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

I’ve discussed this issue extensively on the article’s Talk page and at the NPOV noticeboard, but there hasn’t been input from uninvolved editors. Here’s the main discussion link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_and_Stephen_Flynn#RFC:_Adding_a_short_%E2%80%9CBusiness_Growth_and_Expansion%E2%80%9D_paragraph

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would help if a neutral moderator or group of uninvolved editors could review the proposed text and sources, and offer feedback on whether it meets neutrality and due-weight standards. I’m open to revising the wording further if needed, as long as the page can reflect these well-documented aspects of the subject’s career.

Summary of dispute by Bluethricecreamman

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

Multiple other editors including on WP:NPOVN have told this one editor that plain addition of purely promotional language is too much.

There was an editor who added a bibliography, which seemed appropriate. Would be against anything like what calmsea is suggesting. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I will also add we are getting to a point where it may no longer be a dispute about content but about user behavior if Calmsea does not WP:DROPTHESTICK User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@~delta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Request_for_wider_input_–_balance_concerns_on_David_and_Stephen_Flynn_article User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I'm in favor of the current version. I think there is a pattern of Calmsea generally wanting to add promotional language to the David and Stephen Flynn article unilaterally.

• In 2025, The Happy Pear launched thirteen chilled and ambient products on Ocado including plant-based pestos, hummus, granolas, and snack packs. [1]
• their first cookbook, The Happy Pear: Recipes and Stories from the First Ten Years, which reached number one on the Irish nonfiction bestseller list. [2]
• In 2019, they opened a fully plant-based Happy Pear café in Dublin Airport’s Terminal 1, the first of its kind at the airport. [3]

I think i could agree to a compromise, but generally haven't seen anything but promo language, and have objected to such from calmsea. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

David and_Stephen_Flynn discussion

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

• I will look over this, wait a sec ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 16:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  • From a look at the disputed content, most of it looks reasonable as a factual account of their business dealings - however, it should be part of the Careers section and not in a separate section. The 2025 item looks like trade press so not worth including. They might be controversial for other reasons, but that doesn't mean readers shouldn't see details of their business. News of their profits (or lack of) should be included.[4] Fences&Windows 23:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman can you please provide a link to the NPOV/N discussion? ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 20:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Question by Volunteer (Flynn)

@Bluethricecreamman and Calmsea123456: - Is there an article content dispute? If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Yes, there’s a content dispute around including a short, factual paragraph under “Business Growth and Expansion.”

The text I proposed is very simple — it mentions two verifiable milestones:

• The Flynn brothers joining Jamie Oliver’s Food Tube network (Irish Independent, 2015).

• The opening of their plant-based café at Dublin Airport (Dublin Airport official site, 2019).

Both are covered by reliable, independent sources. My edits have been reverted as “WP:PROMO,” but the intent isn’t promotional — it’s just to ensure the article reflects these well-documented parts of their career. I’m happy to adjust tone or wording if needed for neutrality. Thanks Calmsea123456 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Flynn)

Please read DRN Rule D and the contentious topic restriction on biographies of living persons. Do the other editors agree to the addition, or disagree?

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ricky Hatton

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Rusted AutoParts on 07:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ricky Hatton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs)
• Dotsdomain (talk · contribs)
• Martinevans123 (talk · contribs)
• U-Mos (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over whether the date of death of Ricky Hatton is uncertain. Initially, due to the reporting on Hatton's death detailing he was "found" on the 14th of September, there was uncertainty about the date of death as all reporting was stating as "found" or "death announced". On September 26, the BBC published an article about Hatton's funeral procession. In it, they included the funeral notice they were citing in visual form. On this notice it gave a death date of September 14. Dotsdomain and Martinevans however still took issue with the sufficiency of this, asserting points like "It's possible to obtain a burial/cremation permission certificate without specifying the date of death", "funeral home notices fall under WP:SPS, and a general accusation of the BBC having bias and not being infallible.

I disputed these three positions; I found the burial certificate assertion to be based on WP:OR, as there is no evidence this was the case for Hatton's burial certificate, I found funeral home obituaries don't fall into the criteria outlined at SPS, and highlighted BBC was deemed generally reliable through Wikipedia:RSPBBC. Their arguments to me didn't merit a disqualification of the source, and due to the first discussion thread moving in a circular direction I elected to close the thread. U-Mos opened a new thread a week later, restoring the circa as a "compromise". In this time Hatton's coroner inquest began, The others editors had particularly been seeking this out for definitive proof. In the Coroner's Office's filing of the inquest week, they list DOD as the 14th. Dotsdomain still rejected this. Third party resolution needed.

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

Talk:Ricky Hatton#Ricky did on Died 14th September 2025, Talk:Ricky Hatton#Date of death, post-inquest opening (16 October)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Due to the fundamental disagreement, I feel at this stage outside parties are needed to weigh in on the topic. I just see the discussion returning to a circular one should it just remain amongst the currently involved parties.

Summary of dispute by Dotsdomain

In my view the overwhelming consensus on the talk page indicated that including a definitive date of death for Hatton (at this stage) would be premature. Once a Coroner orders a post mortem/inquest, the Registrar has no official role until the Coroner, either makes a decision or restores the Registrar's role in the process. Clearly the Coroner requires more time to assess toxicology reports or expand on their results and other relevant matters. My research indicates that Coroners, when publishing Inquest listings use a provisional date provided by the reporting authority, in this case the police, of the date the body was discovered.

The Funeral Directors' good-faith publication in advance of the Inquest, wrongly relied upon the date Hatton was found, as no other verifiable official date was or could be available because the Coroner had not even begun to consider any of the available evidence. Following the funeral, during the adjournment hearing of the Inquest, a finding of death by "hanging" was publicly released, but not much else.

It's been the view of most talk page editors that we shouldn't speculate on the Inquest outcome, until the facts are established. These are sensitive matters particularly for the immediate family and jumping to any other conclusion, on the date of actual death, if and when the Coroner decides to rule which of the three selected dates (12, 13 or 14 September) is published is unhealthy.

In the meantime circa 14 September 2025, seems to be a description used on certain other subject profiles.

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

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

Note: Editor has been away from Wikipedia since October 8. Potentially will not be participating in discussion. Rusted AutoParts 02:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by U-Mos

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

This strikes me as primarily a WP:PSTS matter. There are two primary sources that indicate an exact date of death of 14 September, as described by Rusted Auto Parts. While I couldn't say whether Coroner's Offices ever list dates of death with "circa" or indicate uncertainty in another way, or just give the best approximation in cases such as this pending the inquest's findings, I agree that this is entering into speculative territory. However, the weight of secondary of sources remain clear that the date of death is not certain – from closer to the time ([5]), and made more clear by the timeline by the inquest at its opening in the last week ([6][7][8]), reliably confirming that he was not seen after 12 September. It seems clear to me, per PSTS, that this creates a circumstance where we should not definitively list an exact date of death, because secondary sources tell us that this is not certain.

There is one secondary source, from prior to the inquest, that mentions in passing "As of his death on Sunday 14 September". I'm going to again quote MIDI here from the talk page discussion, because I think they put this very well: What other sources do we have for the precise date? Should we cherry pick a single source that gives specific information, ignoring those that don't corroborate it? While this is no longer a breaking story, WP:RSBREAKING guidance seems pertinent – "seek multiple independent sources which independently verify". Are we able to do that with what the sources currently say? My view is this is one reliable secondary source that briefly contradicts multiple others on this matter: in this instance, not only are the other sources more numerous, they more centrally concern the timeline of Hatton's final days, and in the majority of cases come from after the inquest's opening, when more detailed information became available. Taking all this into account, I continue to believe that a "circa" caveat next to the 14 September date is most appropriate at this time, given the information we have available through reliable secondary sources. U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Ricky Hatton discussion

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

I have to assert that the statement "The Funeral Directors' good-faith publication in advance of the Inquest, wrongly relied upon the date Hatton was found, as no other verifiable official date was or could be available because the Coroner had not even begun to consider any of the available evidence" is original research. There is no evidence that the funeral directors based the inclusion on the date the death was announced. It feels as though there's a conflation that due to the inquest still looking to determine cause of death, this makes all information around his death undetermined. Rusted AutoParts 17:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ricky Hatton)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion to resolve this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, the ArbCom ruling on biographies of living persons, and the designation of biographies of living persons as a contentious topic. The policy on biographies of living persons also applies to very recently deceased persons. Are there any content disputes other than what date to list as his date of death? I am willing to conduct moderated discussion. However, what the editors may want is the advice and opinions of editors who are experienced with biographies of living persons, and of recently deceased persons. I would suggest that the editors ask for an unbiased opinion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I will leave this case on hold to allow the editors to request advice at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Ricky Hatton)

I am not aware of any further content disputes on this article. I am happy for RAP to raise this on the BLP noticeboard (and in fact have suggested that as a step previously). Otherwise more than happy for you, Robert, to moderate this discussion. U-Mos (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Ricky Hatton)

Is there still a content dispute about the date of death in the infobox? The infobox currently reads c. 14 September 2025. If there is any objection to that date, please state what you want it to read, and we can discuss. If there is no objection stated, I will close this dispute as resolved.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Ricky Hatton)

I do not object to the current reading of the infobox, per my statement above. U-Mos (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove the day, i.e.14 and just use the month and year, September 2025 in the infobox, until the final Inquest Verdict, next year. There is no guarantee the Coroner will rule on a specific date as there is a possible 3 day window, in which the death occurred.

If removing the day, '14' is agreed, then c or circa is no longer required. Dotsdomain (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel the disagreement still stands. The issue is, is the date known (based on the available funeral notice and coroner filings), or is the date not known (meaning the funeral notice and coroner filings are not sufficient)

I feel an uninvolved party's input is needed in regards to this. My stance would be rendered negated if these sources are established as insufficient and thus the circa would be retained. But if the sources are deemed usable, then I find it incorrect to continue excluding them and marking the date with a circa when the date is sourceable. I was seeing above I may have placed this discussion in the wrong location so if that's deemed the case, I'll move it to the appropriate spot. Rusted AutoParts 02:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by possible moderator (Ricky Hatton)

If there is still a content disagreement about what date to show in the infobox for Hatton's death, then we should ask advice at the biographies of living persons noticeboard about what to display in the infobox. I would like each editor to state, one more time, what they want the infobox to say. If there is only one statement, I will close this DRN and will say that there has been a rough consensus. If there are two or more different opinions, I will open a thread at BLPN.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Ricky Hatton)

• My preference is for the current reading of "c. 14 September 2025". I would also accept "September 2025" only, but not "14 September 2025", as I do not believe we can reliably give a definitive date at this time. U-Mos (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• My belief is that because we have funeral notice and a coroner filing giving a definitive date, and that the concerns raised in regards to it (for me) don’t really disqualify the sources as usable, the date can be put in as 14th September without the circa. Rusted AutoParts 16:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Ricky Hatton)

I have opened a thread at the biographies of living persons noticeboard about what to display in the infobox. We should wait for input from editors there who are experienced with biographies of recently deceased persons.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Ricky Hatton)

I think it would be necessary to have the sources in question be mentioned on that thread. The BBC article and the Southport coroners court, to note why one side (me) is in favor of the date being listed with those sources, as well as why the other side is in disfavor of those sources. At present I feel why the date sans the circa should be included isn't being reflected in regards to why. I am weary of commenting on the thread, as you said it should be seen to by other editors, but I feel it's appropriate to have the how of why this dispute is occurring. Rusted AutoParts 19:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Something like "On 14 September 2025, Ricky Hatton was found deceased, with the reporting from the media writing it noting this as such. It was noted Hatton had been found, and that last contact with him was on 12 September. On 26 September, the BBC reported on his funeral procession, providing in it the funeral notice from the funeral directors giving a death date of 14 September. Editors have taken issue with this, with feelings around the notice only using the date he was found and not being based on a determined DOD and feelings that funeral home notices fall under self published source territory. In the week of October 13, the Southport Coroners Court published their inquest schedule, with Hatton's occurring on the 16th. In this inquest filing, the Coroners Court cited 14 September as the DOD" However, in the time since this copy of the Southport Coroners Court listings for the week of 13 October has become unavailable, this is no longer a point that can be used.

Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Ricky Hatton)

I have opened the thread at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. The instructions say: Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. I encourage the editors here to offer their opinions in the discussion at BLPN.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Ricky Hatton)

Relying on a Coroners Court initial listing date as the official date of death, is clutching at straws!

The listing date shown, is merely the date, the Court was advised, of the death of Ricky Hatton, by Manchester Police.

The Funeral Director's self published announcement (pre-Inquest) carries no evidential weight without corroboration from a definitive trusted source.

I propose we suspend this dispute resolution process and await the Senior Coroners decision. There is nothing to be achieved by reaching a pre-emptive decision here, that may or may not be overturned in the near future, by a largely unimpeachable official authority whose main role is to establish the facts of any unexplained death which may get referred to them.

1. We DO know the exact date that Hatton's body was found, i.e. 14 September 2025.

2. The likely date of death appears to be one of three, i.e. 12, 13 or 14 September 2025.

I would argue that original research is still being applied in your first two assertions but that's besides the point now, the Coroner's Court source I was using is no longer active so this angle of the discussion is no longer involved. The dispute has been summarized and sent over to BLP for other input so we'll let that play out. Rusted AutoParts 05:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No further questions at this time. U-Mos (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Ricky Hatton)

The two editors who disagreed about what should be shown as the date continued to disagree rather than relying on advice from another noticeboard. So the next step is a |Request for Comments on the date in the infobox. Will each editor please state how they want the date displayed in the infobox? Do not explain why. You will do the explaining to the community in the RFC. Just tell me what you want the option to be in the RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenonI'm sorry but your tone and style is unwelcoming and the phantom "advice" you hinted at, has not materialised, at least not anywhere that I can access.

In the circumstances, I shall withdraw from this contributing process with immediate effect.

Good luck. Dotsdomain (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Ricky Hatton)

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Ricky Hatton/RFC on Date of Death. This is a draft RFC for review. Please do not vote in the RFC at this time. Voting in the RFC will take place after it is moved to the article talk page and launched to become a live RFC. Please comment on the draft RFC here, in DRN, not in the draft RFC. After any comments have been addressed, I will launch the RFC. I have struck my comment that was discourteous.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Ricky Hatton)

No questions or comments at this time. U-Mos (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Ricky Hatton)

"12–14 September", following the recommendation at the BLP noticeboard. (I am unsure where the conclusion that I am unwilling to follow advice from that noticeboard has been derived from.) U-Mos (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

12-14 September 2025 Dotsdomain (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Thedarkknightli on 23:11, 21 October 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 Vladimir Lenin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Thedarkknightli (talk · contribs) Absolutiva (talk · contribs) Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There's an ongoing dispute over how to format the infobox. Absolutiva and Nikkimaria think we should write "Russian Empire" as simply "Russia" in |birth_place= and omit "Russian SFSR" in |death_place= because of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, etc., while I disagree and consider this a misuse of the guideline. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Vladimir Lenin#Infobox formatting How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By providing an independent fourth opinion. Summary of dispute by Absolutiva Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As I attempted to concise infobox places for historical matter per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Similarly, Mike Novikoff frequently removing Russian SFSR from infoboxes (per template guide edit) to most prominent Russian people, including Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Vysotsky and Vasily Utkin. There are multiple discussions about the exclusion of RSFSR via: Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 17#Geo links in infobox Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 20#Omit Russian SFSR from infobox WT:RUSSIA#RfC: Omission of Russian SFSR from biographical infoboxes User talk:Mellk/Archive 4#Russian SFSR In the Russian Empire, for inside Russian places just simply "Russia", for prominent people like Peter the Great and Igor Stravinsky (per edit). Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Vladimir Lenin 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 (Lenin) I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties to the dispute request moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D, the ArbCom ruling on Eastern Europe, and the statement that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. Are there any content issues other than the dispute over the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC) No, there aren't. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Lenin) First statement by possible moderator (Lenin) Is there a content dispute at this time? The infobox lists his place of birth as being in the Russian Empire, and his place of death as being in the Russian SFSR. Does anyone want either of those changed? If so, we will discuss. If not, I will close the dispute as resolved. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Lenin) Second statement by possible moderator (Lenin) Is there a content dispute at this time? The infobox lists his place of birth as being in the Russian Empire, and his place of death as being in the Russian SFSR. I would like each editor to state what they want the infobox to say. If there is agreement, we can close the case. Otherwise we will discuss further. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Is there a content dispute at this time? No. I would like each editor to state what they want the infobox to say. Let's retain the current formatting, which I don't see a compelling reason to tweak. Are there any other questions? No. Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Lenin) 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.

Political status_of_Taiwan

– New discussion.

Filed by JaredMcKenzie on 17:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Political status of Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JaredMcKenzie (talk · contribs)
• Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs)
• Amigao (talk · contribs)
• Aaron Liu (talk · contribs)
• Sheherherhers (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns whether including sourced statements[9] about Taiwan’s constitutional and legal status violates WP:SYNTH or WP:DUE. Since filing DRN, I have added similar, though not identical, arguments.[10][11]

The proposed content is neutrally worded and info is supported by leading academic and legal sources, including the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (hosted by Oxford University Press). All parties appear to acknowledge the spirit of the edit: that the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution continues to claim the mainland as ROC territory and that Taiwan has never made a formal declaration of independence - but the disagreement concerns whether including these well-sourced facts constitutes original research or undue weight.

Horse have argued that this would constitute synthesis or violate due weight, tho no specific policy provision or example of improper synthesis has been demonstrated. Arron noted that the sources support the material[12] and that the edit is acceptable with minor rewording [13]

At one point, horse suggested the edit was not the same topic because the legal status supposedly differs from the political status [14] But in the legal arguments section, this represents due weight and is highly relevant to the topic.

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

I discussed source at RSN; later found new sources, and Alaexis confirmed them as acceptable. User Gotitbro said content isn’t controversial and should appear in any encyclopedic source on modern China, but recommend attribution for TC. [15] Have discussed on article talk & Horse say sources don't support edit; but Arron confirmed they do. Horse left, leaving remaining issues unclear.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the first obstacle to consensus is to help identify what specific policy question is being disputed (in this case, WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE). We cannot agree if edits violates those policies and need help. I believe if we can agree it does not, I believe consensus on inclusion can be reached and further dispute avoided.

Summary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back

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

• The edit history [16] should make it obvious that the issue here is behavioral not a content dispute... JaredMcKenzie has exhausted the patience of every editor who has engaged with them long before any consensus can be arrived at. Also note that @Wikipedialuva and Sheherherhers: were also involved in discussion over this topic on the talk page but have not been notified, for context IP editor 49.181.203.101 is JaredMcKenzie[17]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The heading says Summary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back. It doesn't say to discuss the summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Funny how you say behavioural. You kept falsely saying sources don't support and is original research. I kept telling you that it does support. (That's not behavioural to tell you that you are wrong). Then Aaron took the minimum time to look at sources and also told you that you're wrong and that sources do support. Soon afterwards, you realise you can't use that excuse anymore and refuse to engage. I am not the one here with bad behaviour. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Also it's abuse of policy in making false reasons to remove an edit. In the past, you claimed SYNTH, original research, due Weight, etc. * ALL of those reasons are wrong. It's only after Aaron stepped in and replied to you to say my edit is supported by the sources, you stop using these false reasons. But you stop replying in thread altogether. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

And you wonder why nobody ever sticks around to hear you out... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I think my one mistake is make replies bit too long. However at least I genuinely try to resolve and asked you to specify if any part of my edits broke policies. You oft claimed I broke policy like undue Weight[18] and original research[19]. To date, no clear specific explanation has been given to which parts of my edits are allegedly unsupported or undue, apart from one instance at the very end, which was incorrect[20] and refuted by a neutral party Aaron.[[21] so continuing to suggest otherwise is misleading.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems you are grasping at straws. You also keep changing your reasons - at one point, you even insisted the edit was not the same topic because the legal status supposedly differs from the political status [22] - which I do not agree with. In my view, particularly in the legal arguments section, this constitutes due weight and is highly relevant to the topic. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note that despite the ongoing DRN JaredMcKenzie continues to make substantially similar edits to the page in question[23][24]. I will not revert due to the ongoing DRN despite there being some pretty silly errors, for example the source they are trying to use is the not "Oxford Public International Law" but Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law where the entry is attributed entirely to Björn Ahl who appears to be an expert in China, not Taiwan (they don't ever actually appear to have published about Taiwan besides for this encyclopedia entry). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Amigao

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

Summary of dispute by Aaron Liu

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

Political status_of_Taiwan 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 (Status of Taiwan)

I am ready to act as the moderator if there are any content disputes about this article. The purpose of moderated discussion at DRN is to improve the article, so we should Focus on Content. Please read DRN Rule A. If there is a content dispute, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Discuss edits, not editors. If you have concerns or complaints about the conduct of an editor, sometimes discussing the content issue can cause the conduct issues to subside.

Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be happy for you to act as moderator. I do want to propose specific changes. This is my first DRN discussion so I'm learning the process.

The main issue is the article needs urgent improvement when it had an extensive section in "Legal arguments" for "Taiwan's independence"[25] that presents only one side - with subchapter stating "Taiwan already is sovereign and independent". Despite none of its cited "arguments" establish that Taiwan is now independent sovereign state under international law, and most are unsourced, let alone have strong sources so don't know who is saying it establish legal independence. They may need to be removed as it possibly violate key content policy, but as it stands, the section creates an imbalance and gives a misleading impression that there exists no credible legal views to the contrary. I already removed two instances of flawed unsourced original research [26][27] but I believe the section as a whole still needs balance. I've added and want to retain well sourced material[28] from the Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law, which explains that legally Taiwan is not independent nor deemed a sovereign state under international law. Actually I am not even aware of any serious scholar who argues that it is legally independent as all leading experts I seen states the same as Max Planck encyclopaedia.

That is why I want to restore well-recognised Legal views from this edit[29] - minus its second sentence - which minimally explains that Taiwan has never declared independence and that its constitution does not recognize itself as such - provided it meets neutrality, verifiability, and due weight standards.JaredMcKenzie(talk) 01:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Status of Taiwan)

One editor has made a statement describing the changes that they want to make to the article. Other editors have not responded, but it appears that they disagree. So at this time I am asking User:Horse Eye's Back, User:Amigao, User:Aaron Liu, and editor User:Sheherherhers whether they agree with the proposed changes. I am also asking User:JaredMcKenzie to describe the changes that they want to make to the article on the article talk page.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Actually, Sheherherhers hasn’t participated in this particular thread. They reached a resolution with me on a different dispute but never participated on this particular one. User:Amigao briefly suggested giving attribution, but didn't explicitly oppose the edit. If there absolutely have to be attribution, I suppose I can do that. I haven't heard Aaron saying he rejects the entire edit. It appears both Aaron and Horse have already resolved the sourcing concerns, and agree the proposed edit is supported by sources and is at least correct in substance. They both voiced there need to be "some rewording". Arron explicitly recommended removing the entire second sentence only.(Not the whole thing)[30] On this, I am happy to accept that. I asked horse whether he had particular issues with wording of the edit. I have not heard back since. I'm specifically requesting to restore just this edit[31] (with its second sentence removed) as requested per Aaron's feedback.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

N1 (rocket)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NoTimeForUs on 00:22, 1 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 N1 (rocket) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved NoTimeForUs (talk · contribs) Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I (NoTimeForUs) provided a short clarification on the KORD system on 7L, with as citation a first-hand testimony book that was already used throughout this article. But another user (Tito Jugoslavchenko) calls the author of this book "some dubious drunk old man" although Chertok is perhaps the most reliable and and consistent author of testimony of the soviet space age era, as he was one of the main actors of this period. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:N1_(rocket)#Use_of_KORD_on_7L How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Settle on the fact that Chertok's memoir is indeed a valid source when he claims the KORD system was used on the N1-7L flight. Summary of dispute by Tito Jugoslavchenko Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. N1 (rocket) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Preliminary Comments by Volunteer (N1 rocket) The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor on their user talk page of this filing. Notification on the user talk page is required for all noticeboard filings. It appears that the question, or the main question, is the reliability of s source. If there is a question about the reliability of a source, I suggest that the question be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC) OK, I've now declared the dispute in the proper section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:N1_(rocket)#Use_of_KORD_on_7L) and added a link to this dispute resolution noticeboad, as well as in our talk page. NoTimeForUs (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC) I don't know where this comment should go here, but Tito Jugoslavchenko has been blocked 72 hours for personal attacks, related to their behaviour in this dispute. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Preliminary Comments by Editors (N1) 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.

Military–industrial complex#Connotations

– New discussion.

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 [32] [33] [34]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help us interpret the policy and the guideline that were cited[35][36] 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: [37],[38],[39]; PositivelyUncertain [40],[41],[42], [43]; Apfelmaische [44]). 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)