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
Federal subjects of Russia	In Progress	PharaohCrab (t)	29 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 4 hours
SCUM Manifesto	In Progress	TaqPCR (t)	16 days, 1 hours	OzzyMuffin238 (t)	20 hours	TaqPCR (t)	19 hours
Bitch (album)	In Progress	Zirthes (t)	11 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Pillowdelight (t)	1 hours
Air India Flight 171	Closed	Amitrao17 (t)	10 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Jimmy Savile	New	Macxcxz (t)	10 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 5 hours
The Alternative (Denmark)	Closed	Helper201 (t)	10 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Direct Democracy Cyprus	Closed	Helper201 (t)	10 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Melania Trump	New	Thedarkknightli (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours
fractional reserve banking	New	Reissgo (t)	2 days, 15 hours	None	n/a	Reissgo (t)	2 days, 15 hours
Stranger Than Heaven	New	The boss 1904 (t)	1 days, 21 hours	None	n/a	The boss 1904 (t)	1 days, 21 hours
Head tie	New	Deetailz (t)	18 hours	None	n/a	Deetailz (t)	18 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.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 72 hours are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 1.

Current disputes

Federal subjects of Russia

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by PharaohCrab on 02:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Federal subjects of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

PharaohCrab (talk · contribs)
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

about a year ago user Kwamikagami added diacritics to the map in Federal subjects of Russia in order to aid in pronunciation, about 2 months ago I removed them because they were confusing to me and seems unnecessary, and then earlier this month Kwamikagami re-added them, I reverted then was reverted back and Kwamikagami started a discussion on my talk page. we had a few comments then Kwamikagami stopped responding while they were still active, I then reverted the edit again mainly to get attention and we continued the discussion on the article talk page. after some more words Kwamikagami once again stopped responding and then today I pinged them to continue talking. but it soon became clear that none of us were changing our mines so I have brought this to arbitration to bring this dispute to an end.
my main arguments have been that the diacritics are not explained in the article so a reader could be confused and think their proper names had diacritics and a pronunciation guide was not necessary and isn't present on comparable articles. I also argued that if we were to include a pronunciation guide an IPA column in the table that accompanies the map would be better for the job.
kwami's arguments are mainly just that they believe a pronunciation guide is in fact needed and IPA cannot work. though Kwamikagami themselves could do a far better summary of their arguments.

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

a discussion between me and Kwamikagami has occurred both on my user talk page and the article talk page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

a neutral party is needed to review both sides of the debate and way in on what they think is the better option as so far me and Kwamikagami are the only users who have participated in this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Kwamikagami

This is a high-traffic article that no-one else seems to have a problem with. The Russian provinces are constantly in the news because of the war. I often come to this article to remind myself where they are and how to pronounce them, often several at a time, which the map is perfect for.

Readers should be able to read this article, aloud or in their heads. Not all of us find that a nuisance, but integral to reading. We can't do that if the names are not pronounceable, and making up nonce pronunciations in our heads while reading can be difficult to unlearn when we later decides that we don't want to sound ignorant. All we need to fix this is the accent mark. This is equivalent to marking long vowels in Latin, which will give the reader the expected English pronunciation even when we can't find it in a dictionary.

If the problem is the lack of a note explaining the diacritic, as PharaohCrab says, one can easily be added.

Reading Russian names in transliteration is difficult without an indication of where the stress falls. The same is true of Russian in orthography. That is why Russian dictionaries use an acute accent to mark stress, even though they mostly don't bother to indicate pronunciation otherwise.

As for IPA, that would require an additional column in the chart, and would mean that the map could no longer be used alone, but one would have to check first the map and then the table just to learn how to pronounce a province, and then repeat that process for every province one is reading about.

Russian IPA is overkill. Anyone who can easily read it is most likely already familiar with Russian, in which case they don't need it, assuming only that stress is indicated.

English IPA would be OR. At least, I'm not aware of any RS on how to pronounce the Russian provinces in English. (There are some ad hoc attempts to render Russian pronunciation in English respelling, but that's not a RS for English pronunciation.) Without a RS, we can't tell readers how to read Russian names in English. But we can provide the location of the stress, which is enough. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Federal subjects of Russia 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 notified the other editor on their user talk page. Notice on the user talk page is required in connection with all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- PharaohCrab, You can draft your own notice or use the {{subst:drn-notice|name of DRN case}} template. Thank you. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 20:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  done! thanks for letting me know to do this PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 20:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought that it would do that automatically sorry. what template should I use to do this? PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 20:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

I am ready to serve as the moderator if moderated discussion is in order. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please read DRN Rule A. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave unchanged in the article that another editor wants to change. Comment on content, not contributors.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

First statement by Kwamikagami

To leave the stress marks in the names on the map, to indicate pronunciation. There is currently a key, the lack of which seems to have been the principal objection of the proposer. Failing that, create a duplicate map that includes pronunciation. (A copy of the current map, either in this article or in a redundant stub on the federal subjects of Russia.)

First statement by PharoahCrab

To remove stress marks in the names on the map and perhaps replace it with an IPA column (in russian)

Second statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

Please sign your statements. The bot that generates the summary looks for signatures. It doesn't read the headings.

It appears that the only disagreement is how to indicate the pronunciation of the names of the 78 first-level administrative subdivisions of Russia. Is that correct?

There doesn't appear to be a page in the Manual of Style concerning Russian names (including place names). I would like to ask for advice from other editors who work with Russian articles by asking for advice at WikiProject Russia. I will ask for that advice unless there is an alternate suggestion for how to get third-party advice.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

I'm talking about pronunciation for English-speaking readers of the article, not for Russian. Adding a column in IPA would violate OR. I'd like the pronunciations on the map so readers don't need to go back and forth between the map and the table. IPA won't fit on the map. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

Is there an alternate suggestion for how to get third-party advice, or should I ask for an opinion at WikiProject Russia?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

That might work.

I know we once had a discussion about including an acute accent in either the transliteration of Russian names or in the Cyrillic itself, as you'll find in a Russian dictionary, and people thought that might be confusing for people. But that was specifically for the header of the lead, where there wasn't really room to explain, and anyway the names were accompanied by IPA which indicated the stress. Here we do have room to explain, and there isn't room for IPA. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking WikiProject Russia does seem like a good idea. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 15:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

There is an essay Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words. While it is not promoted to a guideline it does hae valid points. --Altenmann >talk 06:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

I have asked for an opinion at WikiProject Russia, but have not gotten a reply. I have seen the essay that an editor provided. It doesn't seem to answer the question. I am willing to provide a binding Third Opinion or Fourth Opinion. I am not willing to provide a non-binding opinion, because then the editor with whom I have disagreed is likely not to accept it, and then we will have exhausted our dispute resolution options. I would like to avoid an RFC, but an RFC is the way to resolve content disputes that cannot be resolved otherwise. Do the participants want a binding Third Opinion, should I prepare an RFC, or is there another idea?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, If necessary, we should prepare an RFC, and if there are any conduct disputes, file an ANI report. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 20:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

People need to be able to read our articles. I need that resource myself. If we do not allow that with this map, then we need a second map that does, either below it or through a link. I'd be willing to accept any of those options, per your binding opinion on whether the accent is acceptable on the main map here. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

I started preparing an RFC on how to indicate the pronunciation of the subdivision names. I only understand one of the options and not the other option. I see that one of the editors wants to include the stress marks on the map. It isn't clear what the other editor wants to do. Do they want to simply omit the stress marks, in which case the reader may not know how to pronounce the place names, or do they have some alternative idea for indicating the pronunciation of the place names? I know what Option A is, which is the stress marks, but I don't know what should be shown as Option B. What is the alternative to the use of the stress marks?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

From PharaohCrab's edits it would appear that they simply wanted to delete the stress marks. Anything more than that I don't know.

Seventh statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

I have prepared a draft RFC, which is available for review at Talk:Federal subjects of Russia/RFC on Stress Marks. Please review it, and reply here (in this DRN) with any comments about it. Please do not comment in the draft RFC or vote in the draft RFC, because it is not a live RFC at this time. When there is agreement that it is the RFC that we want, I will launch it by moving it to the article talk page.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

I think people who just skim the request might not catch that it's specifically about the map, and respond that stress marks shouldn't be used, assuming that we're asking about the table. (Which BTW I would agree with.)

So maybe a more overt title like "Request for Comment: Stress marks on Russian names in the map of federal subjects of Russia".

Also, it's not clear that we're talking about English. So maybe, "Should stress marks on the map be used to aid in the pronunciation of the place names when reading the article in English?"

That's not quite right, but we're not proposing an indication of the Russian pronunciations, which people would rightfully argue should be indicated in the table in IPA, not on the map.

I'm not sure the RfC conveys the reason for wanting to do this.

— kwami (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

I have revised the draft RFC, which is available for review at Talk:Federal subjects of Russia/RFC on Stress Marks. I think that this revision addresses the concern of Kwamikagami. Please review the revised draft and comment here (in this DRN)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

Ninth statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

If there are no more comments about the draft RFC, I will launch the RFC, and it will become a live RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

Tenth statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

I have launched the RFC, which will run for thirty days.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

Eleventh statement by possible moderator (Federal subjects of Russia)

Please take part in the discussion in the RFC. There are comments and questions that should be addressed by the editors whose dispute is resulting in this RFC. If you voted or commented in the draft RFC, your comments or vote have not been carried to the live RFC, so you should vote or comment again.

I will close this case after I see that the editors who are in the dispute are taking part in the RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I commented and then you changed it to inactive. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kawmikagami - No. You commented in the draft RFC. That wasn't and isn't the live RFC. The live RFC is at Talk:Federal_subjects_of_Russia#Request_for_Comments:_Stress_Marks_on_Subdivision_Names. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh statements by editors (Federal subjects of Russia)

SCUM Manifesto

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by TaqPCR on 21:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

SCUM Manifesto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The core dispute is whether or not "elimination of the male sex" through what is stated to involve what is self described as murder and "kill[ing] all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM" constitutes a description of androcide. And whether or not the literalness of the advocacy needs to be proven to include a wikilink.

Someone (not myself) added a link to androcide from the phrase "eliminate the male sex". Other users removed that saying it couldn't be added because it was not literal. I don't think whether something being discussed literal or not matters on whether it should be included.

edit: adding background that immediately after the quote is "It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody."

Other users mentioned that it was inconsistent with other views from elsewhere in the quote not being linked and I agreed so I added them together with it.

They said that we need a source that "eliminate the male sex" is "is the systematic killing of men because of their sex" or else that is original research so I found one discussing SCUM using androcide to describe eliminating the male sex.

Then they said that they never asked for sources and that they have sources that disagree. I asked what and they said the text itself (they had previously stated that primary sources should not be used for "interpretive claim[s]") because it says "Both destruction and killing will be selective and discriminate". I pointed out that the text said they would kill all men who do not join with them in either helping to kill other men, making men biologically unnecessary, or living in complete devotion to women. It also mentions that the "selective action" involves "SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking-up and killing until the money-work system no longer exists and automation is completely instituted or until enough women co-operate with SCUM to make violence unnecessary to achieve these goal"

Their latest statement is that it is not androcide because "entire groups of men will not be killed".

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SCUM_Manifesto#Androcide_/_Genocide

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a neutral view of whether "elimination of the male sex" through what is stated to involve what is self described as murder and "kill[ing] all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM" constitutes a description of androcide. And whether or not the literalness of the advocacy needs to be proven to include a link.

Summary of dispute by Sangdeboeuf

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

TaqPCR is conflating statements made by MrOllie with statements made by me as though they were made by the same person.

As I stated at Talk:SCUM Manifesto, I object mainly to inserting Wikilinks into direct quotations. Given the obvious hyperbolic tone of the manifesto and the fact that a number of scholars view it as satire (not to mention the mental condition of author Valerie Solanas), we cannot know what the author clearly intended. Therefore, any links (especially Easter egg links) within the quotation in the lead paragraph would effectively be putting words in the author's mouth.

I would be fine with including a brief summary of coverage by published, reliable sources that describe the manifesto as pro-androcide further down in the article. However, putting links to any such controversial topics in the very first paragraph would be WP:UNDUE. A single scholarly paper is not enough to establish the author's clearly intended meaning per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Relying on users' interpretations of language such as eliminate the male sex would be original research. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC) edited 20:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

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

Summary of dispute by OzzyMuffin238

Yeah, TaqPCR summarized it pretty decently. I thought that the actual meaning of the manifesto might reasonably be argued either way, but since these are interpretive claims, I am of the opinion that both claims ought to supported by secondary sources, and they shouldn't be framed as absolute statements of fact, but rather as interpretations of the primary source. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's obvious who wrote this, could you still sign your edit? It makes it easier to follow a discussion when somebody replies to you. Amatmilen (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the lack of signature the first time around; I was used to the autosign that works elsewhere on this site. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SCUM Manifesto 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please read the contentious topic status of gender and sexuality before discussing this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought including them here notified them. I'll do so now. TaqPCR (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Note - The other editors have not commented here, 72 hours after being notified by the filing editor of this filing. If none of the other editors makes a statement, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I replied yesterday. The timestamp only says otherwise because I hadn't signed it at the time. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note: ~2026-32748-52 added but not notified. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 22:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
added though I think that temp account has been abandoned TaqPCR (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (SCUM Manifesto)

I am available to moderate this dispute if there is a content dispute. The purpose of moderated discussion here is to improve the article. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes to the article another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Please read DRN Rule D and the rule that discussions of gender and sexuality are a contentious topic. If at least two editors make statements that are in disagreement with each other, we will proceed with moderated discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (SCUM Manifesto)

First statement by TaqPCR

I wish to include links, including to androcide, in the quote in this section of the lede to SCUM Manifesto (currently there are no links in the quote, current citations are present but not included here).

First published in 1967, it blames men for the ills of humankind and urges women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex". It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody.

I am open to some alternatives for the first 3 links if there are suggestions for better targets (especially automation I think there might be better targets). The point of contention however is the inclusion of androcide. I believe that the manifesto is clear that this is a wide ranging elimination of men followed by the remainder gradually dying out and their ultimate extinction which I think can be described by no other target. Additionally the term has been used in some discussions of the manifesto (some other sources also describe it as genocide but I believe androcide to be the more accurate target). The degree to which this is sincere I am uncertain of but I believe that the literal next sentence being that it is sometimes viewed as a satire already addresses concerns that it could be seen as POV pushing. I am open to including an additional citation(s) to justify the links after the quote but I do not believe it necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaqPCR (talk • contribs) 02:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't sign since I'm used to it being automatically added and in some of the above discussions it wasn't being included in cases such as this where the author is stated by the section title. TaqPCR (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming a literal construction, I think the following about the first three links:

"overthrow the government" would best be linked either to Coup d'état or Revolution rather than Anarchy;
"eliminate the money system" may be fine as-is unless there's a specific article on elimination of the money system as an objective of post-capitalism; and
"automation" is fine as-is insofar as the statement is talking about eliminating the need for commerce etc.

(I'm not counting this as part of my zeroth statement since it's incidental.) --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Later in SCUM she states "There’s no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders" and "SCUM is against the entire system, the very idea of law and government" so while a literal reading of the quote itself would probably link to those I think it's fair to say she meant "overthrow the government" in a more universalist meaning that makes sense to link to anarchy. There's definitely a reason sources describe her as anarchist a lot.
Yeah I agree I wasn't able to find a better one there either though I think it's pretty close except perhaps it could be merged with the next one
Automation I'm a bit iffy on because the article isn't really about the kind of utopian automation she discusses. An option would be linking the full phrase ("institute complete automation") to post-scarcity or one of it's subsections? Also if we link there we could combine it and "eliminate the money system" but I think I'm leaning against that.

TaqPCR (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by OzzyMuffin238

In light of @Sangdeboeuf's concerns, I would suggest leaving the quoted material itself alone, but inserting something after the quoted material to the effect of "it has been speculated that this remark may be about androcide" (complete with a secondary source to that effect), before adding: "…although some scholars have disputed whether the manifesto should be taken literally in this respect", together with a citation to the sources that offer non-literal interpretations of the manifesto. I'm obviously not married to the wording I used here; I'm just suggesting the general idea. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this specific wording looks like improper synthesis. Do we know that the quotation in the lead paragraph is what Ioanes (2022) is referring to? (Ioanes actually cites the edition using destroy the male sex before explaining that it is not a straightforward explanation for Solanas's shooting of Warhol). ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by volunteer (SCUM Manifesto)

There seems to have been WP:NPOV and WP:OR violatons that were restored and removed on a repeated basis. Because this concerns gender and sexuality, which is designated as a contentious topic, I would recommend that participants of this discussion read WP:CT/GENSEX. The proposed changes require community consensus, as per the standard set of restrictions in contentious topics. If MrOllie commented, it would help resolve this dispute. If it's needed, I will draft an RFC. If there are no objections to this, I will open it.

Thank you.🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 15:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (SCUM Manifesto)

First statement by Sangdeboeuf

I don't think an RfC is needed at the moment. As the anonymous account has so far not participated in any discussions, it's basically a WP:1AM dispute. Unless and until additional editors decide to support TaqPCR's proposed addition, we shouldn't waste more of the community's time with this. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say that I'm strictly "against" @TaqPCR; I actually do agree in principle that there ought to be a link somewhere in the article to androcide. The problem is the way he's suggested implementing it, which I think could be alleviated pretty easily. --OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but the specific proposal here (not to mention previous edit warring) has been about adding links to the quotation from the manifesto in the lead paragraph. I'm OK with adding relevant Wikilinks along with a summary of relevant secondary source coverage further down in the article, as I stated. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm skeptical that OzzyMuffin238's most recent suggestion comports with due weight. So far the only independent, reliable source supporting the connection to androcide has been Ioanes (2022), with the relevant quotation being: [T]he contradictory gender politics of the [SCUM Manifesto] itself have become an ambivalent, paradoxical resource for autotheoretical writers. In addition to advocating androcide, the manifesto draws on transphobic accounts of gender identity in its critique of patriarchy [...].

We shouldn't cherry-pick the reference to androcide from this discussion that focuses far more on transgender issues and autotheory, especially in the lead section. Nor should weasel words such as it has been speculated and some scholars be used to suggest that the issue is more substantiated than it is (let alone imply a connection not stated by any one source). However, I'd be fine with adding a brief, representative summary of the Ioanes source under § Reception. Indeed, that should have been done before proposing any additions to the lead section. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say that I wasn't married to my exact wording. But how about "Ioanes has interpreted the manifesto literally as 'advocating androcide', whereas scholars X, Y, and Z have argued in favor of a more figurative interpretation"?

As for WP:UNDUE, however, I frankly don't see a problem including Ioanes. Just because it's apparently solitary in the context of WP:RS doesn't mean it's WP:FRINGE; it is a plausible interpretation in light of a verbatim reading, which doubtless many ordinary readers (i.e. non-academics) have given to the work.

At any rate, I'm fine placing it in SCUM manifesto § Reception. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be UNDUE to put it in the lead section, especially in the first paragraph. Whether you or I think it's a plausible interpretation is not relevant. Looking at the entire source in context, the connection to androcide is still a minor aspect of Ioanes's argument, and the comparison with scholars X, Y, and Z reads like editorializing to me. Better to place Ioanes in their own paragraph summarizing their main thesis, not just this one aspect. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by TaqPCR

I have little knowledge about RFCs so on that topic I will largely defer to our volunteer's experience though I would like to look more into what it would involve if you still believe it the best choice.

I also am interested in the moderator's opinion as to whether we can link things regardless of whether they are viewed by sources as a literal endorsement or not. I understand that OzzyMuffin wants to add text to explain the disagreement on interpretation of whether the endorsement is literal or not, but I do not view that as important in linking "it", because what "it" is remains the same whether or not someone is literally endorsing "it" or not.

As to the idea that it is WP:Fringe to view SCUM as describing the systematic killing of men because of their sex.

Sources that describe SCUM or Solanas using Androcide/al:

aforementioned Loanes 2022
(The work also uses genocidal) "For present purposes, however, my interest lies in the fringe of female cultural performances that may be called 'androcidal feminism.' These cultural products envisage, and usually depict as desirable, a world cleansed of men and masculinities. Possibly the most notorious work of 1960s feminist agitprop is Valerie Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto" Genocides by the Oppressed : Subaltern Genocide in Theory and Practice page 189, edited by Nicholas A. Robins, and Adam Jones,

one of the authors, Adam Jones, is listed as Executive Director of Gendercide Watch as listed on his wiki page.

"[translated] the argument of a disability specific to the latter in order to justify her androcide project" Ledoux-Beaugrand, E. (2013). Littéralisation et lignée féministe: l’héritage du Scum Manifesto dans Les Mouflettes d’Atropos de Chloé Delaume. Nottingham French Studies, 52(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.3366/nfs.2013.0064
"Without endorsing this act, we might expect women to commit androcide as a natural response to ‘gynocide,’ given the basic human drive to retribution. If we consider Solanas from this perspective, her out- rageous call to ‘kill all men’ does not seem devoid of a vengeful logic." Addison, C. (2020). Radical Feminism and Androcide in Nawal El Saadawi’s Woman at Point Zero. English Studies in Africa, 63(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00138398.2020.1852683
"Valerie is the only western feminist that [Addison the author of the above quote] has cited who publicly endorses androcide as an antidote, deterrent, or punishment for patriarchy." Hafiza Rimsha Malik, Nimra Maryam, & Malaika Zafar. (2025). Exploring Women Oppression: A Radical Feminism Study of “The Story of an Hour, By Kate Chopin”. `, 4(02), 59–70. Retrieved from https://assajournal.com/index.php/36/article/view/929
"Vanessa Place's Boycott (Brooklyn: Ugly Duckling Presse [sic], 2013) had substituted all references to women with their male counterparts in her rewriting of fifteen iconic feminist texts, including Valerie Solanas's androcidal ‘SCUM Manifesto’." Milesi, L. (2015). CounterTexting One Another: Conceptual Poetics, Flarf, and Derridean Countersignature. CounterText, 1(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.3366/count.2015.0018

Sources that describe SCUM or Solanas using gendercide (I also note that Wikipedia uses androcide as the title for gendercide's male subsection instead of male gendercide).

"In the SCUM Manifesto, Solanas calls for women to commit gendercide against men to build a feminist utopia." Rose A. Owen; A World without Men: Valerie Solanas and the Feminist Uses of Violence. New Political Science 1 March 2022; 44 (1): 105–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2021.2024025
(discusses Owen from above, and directly states it interprets SCUM as seriously endorsing violence) "The SCUM Manifesto’s prescription of gendercide can look so absurd, so much like satire and ironic inversion, that it can be tempting to lean into its rhetorical style as a way of disavowing the stubborn fact that, at bottom, the SCUM manifesto endorses feminist violence." Duong, K. (2022). Violence: Introduction to the Special Issue. New Political Science, 44(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2031024
(also discusses Owen from above) "Although interpreted by some as a call for gendercide,[citation of Owens] Solanas’s intention was that the manifesto be taken up by women to use violence against men to enable the destruction of ‘the money-work system’ by which women are subjugated to men. However, there is no reason (in law, at least) why a state-driven gendercide, proceeding from the starting point that men to not have the right to life might be brought about and yet leave that system in place to be adapted by women as they see fit." Fletcher, R. (2024). Against a Dark Background: The Prevention of Femicide Act 2023 and the Problem of Legislating for Control. International Journal of Gender, Sexuality and Law, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.19164/ijgsl.v3i1.1576
"it is not Solanas’ literary anger or her call for male gendercide that ultimately caused her text to be dismissed in popular discourse" Malinowska, A. J. (2025). Valerie Solanas’ utopian world-building: Feminist poetics of anger and political violence in SCUM Manifesto (1967). Feminist Review, 140(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789251361129
(this is the literal opening sentence) "In 1967, Valerie Solanas wrote and self-published the SCUM Manifesto, which called for male gendercide" Liang, E. (2011). "The Shock Value of the SCUM Manifesto." Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 3(10). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=589

and many more

and the number which describe it as genocidal is far greater still (again many of the above sources also use genocidal as a description of SCUM so it is not a matter of believing in a different description but of term usage). I will also note that Sangdeboeuf was the one who changed the lede description from "genocide of the male sex" to "eliminating the male sex" before changing it to the quote and eliminating all category tags that link it to genocide despite that being the most popular term for describing it's "eliminat[ion of] the male sex". That includes "The Radical Possibilities of Valerie Solanas" by Fahs, a source they directly cited as justification for content additions/removals ("The decision to associate maleness with genetic deficiency frames her argument for male genocide") Though I do think it's somewhat off to describe it using wikipedia's definitions/categorizations for genocide, we must either accept that means that when an author describes SCUM using genocide they mean the Wikipedia topic androcide, or that SCUM should indeed be described using the Wikipedia topic genocide (but that would require a much larger rework than this). I don't believe there is any serious question as to whether sources agree that SCUM's "eliminate the male sex" refers to the topic that Wikipedia titles by the name androcide, whether they call it androcide, gendercide, or genocide. TaqPCR (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Thoughts? Going by the titles, it appears as though a couple of these commentaries are explicitly focused on androcide. If they're reliable, this seems to establish that TaqPCR isn't merely synthesizing. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to go through all these sources yet (a couple of which do not have links, making it even more time-consuming to find them), but I will say TaqPCR could have saved a lot of other editors' time by bringing these sources to the article talk page for discussion before filing an entire DRN case. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have confidence that would satisfy you when, after being given the first source, you said other citations said the opposite and when I asked what sources you replied saying the SCUM Manifesto itself and eventually made the statement In other words, entire groups of men will not be killed in the imagined future of the SCUM Manifesto. Thus proving MrOllie correct in that it is obviously not androcide. And when on my talk page I said that I agreed with your suggestion that we would have to link all of her positions and that I found a citation that you had asked for on you said I never said either of those things. at which point I decided to take your advice and seek dispute resolution. TaqPCR (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found a citation that you had asked for [...] When did I say that? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We go by the predominant views among reliable sources, not dictionary definitions I then gave you one and the next reply you made still talked about POV and NOR, I pointed out I literally just posted a source and you said Others have already provided citations that say the opposite. We don't pick and choose based on our personal POV, we go by the predominant views of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT. And while I suppose I could have spent the time making this giant list, at the time I really wanted to know what other sources you were talking about. And then you replied The manifesto itself with the following conversation ending with the aforementioned idea that In other words, entire groups of men will not be killed in the imagined future of the SCUM Manifesto. Thus proving MrOllie correct in that it is "obviously not androcide". Which is a statement I still cannot believe someone could have seriously said. TaqPCR (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are still arguing based on your personal point of view. That's not how we determine due weight. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm arguing based on the sources I listed. TaqPCR (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

POV or not, it's ultimately just an interpretive claim advanced by several reliable sources that are also secondary in nature, just like the other position. As I've said earlier, I think the best option were to simply include both points of view—although perhaps under SCUM manifesto § Reception, per Sangdeboeuf—and let readers decide for themselves how they want to interpret the text, as it's a question that may well remain open until the end of time. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we can expand the reception session with more discussion as to the extent she is serious about the goals of SCUM, but do you believe there is any question that one of the goals of SCUM within the manifesto is complete and total androcide? And do you think whether or not the advocacy is serious is important as to whether we link it in the quote? I feel as if including the quote and including the quote with links are not fundamentally that different and that we already cover the concerns about the quote being POV pushing in the next sentence. TaqPCR (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, my own personal interpretation (a literal one) is irrelevant. Given that there is at least a colorable argument that it's some kind of prank, or satire, I'm inclined at this point to believe that linking to androcide, except strictly to compare and contrast different scholars' interpretations of the text, is a species of suggestion that could indicate bias in favor of said literal interpretation. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, my own personal interpretation (a literal one) is irrelevant. To clarify, I wasn't asking whether you think she was advocating SCUM commit androcide seriously or as part of a satire, I was asking if you think there is any question that (satirically or not) what she describes SCUM as committing is androcide. Because I don't think there is any serious disagreement in the sources there. They may differ in the words they use and how seriously they take her, but I don't think any source argues against it being what Wikipedia categorizes as androcide.

As to the idea that linking it biases towards a literal interpretation, while I think maybe that's theoretically true, I don't think linking the article on child cannibalism in the lede to A Modest Proposal is meaningfully biasing the readers towards a literal interpretation. And in any case I think it's miniscule in comparison to including the quote at all which is why we already have the next sentence being It has sometimes been described as a satire or parody. TaqPCR (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh; I apologize for the misunderstanding. I personally don't see any question as to whether the words themselves are referring to androcide. By analogy, I think it might well be considered genocide if someone were to advocate eliminating a given religion, since, even if it were purely by conversion rather than murder etc., it would still result in the end of that religion and its attendant culture. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the genocide convention does explicitly include religious groups already and acts other than death are included in it including prevention of births (which SCUM does include by analogy of female only artificial reproduction) and forcible transference of children from one group to the other (Solanas doesn't really mention children/boys in terms of what will happen in SCUM) though interestingly I don't think adult forced conversion is covered under the genocide convention (which SCUM by analogy does advocate for). TaqPCR (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch (album)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Zirthes on 19:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Bitch (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am in a dispute with another editor, Pillowdelight, who is arguing that the record label "Nice Life Recording Company" should be worded this way in the lead section of the article in question, however I believe that it is acceptable to refer to the label as just "Nice Life" (without the 'Recording Company' part) instead. I used this wording for the record label when I originally created the article. They are making the argument that the label has been referred to as "Nice Life Recording Company" extensively by secondary sources, however from my own research, it is apparent that it has also been referred to as "Nice Life" just as many times if not more. This would support the consensus that there is not one common way that the label is referred to by secondary sources. Primary sources including the company's own website clearly refer to the label as just "Nice Life". There is no guideline on Wikipedia which states that the company has to be referred to as "Nice Life Recording Company" outside of its own article if there is not a singular common usage of the name by secondary sources. The label is commonly referred to as "Nice Life" within the lead of other articles such as Special and Cuz I Love You, as well as in the infobox of most album and song articles on Wikipedia where the work in question has been released under the Nice Life label.

Pillowdelight has also argued that including "Recording Company" gives context to the reader, however the sentence it is being used in starts with the introductory phrase "It was released through" which establishes context before the label is even mentioned. The full sentence in the lead is "It was released through Nice Life and Atlantic Records on June 5, 2026". I feel that there is no issue referring to the label as Nice Life and I have tried to reason with the other editor involved on the article's talk page but we have not been able to reach a resolution.

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

Talk:Bitch (album)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like an external opinion to be given on this which will definitively decide whether to use "Nice Life Recording Company" or "Nice Life" in the lead of the article in question.

Summary of dispute by Pillowdelight

As stated above I believe it should be stated as its full name as it is its literal name, in most cases from my time of editing music related articles you state the full name for the first time in the lead and or body and shortened anytime after. Many sources use both terms. Multiple other editors have joined the discussion and also agreed it should be written in full name and have tried explaining that wording it as simply "Nice Life" could be confusing to readers as we are supposed to be as descriptive as possible especially for the lead.

Summary of dispute by SNUGGUMS

I haven't engaged in this as much as other editors, but what Zirthes shows no concern whatsoever for is how only using "Nice Life" gives a false impression it's all the label ever is called. We shouldn't mislead viewers unfamiliar with the label how "Recording Company" is part of the title into thinking it just goes by two words. Something that I recommended was giving a full mention when first introducing it in lead and body, which at least gives people a better sense of what they are when "Nice Life" on its own is a vague description in comparison. If anywhere, a tangential and fallacious debate the user and Pillowdelight went into on what sources more often refer to this as seems more appropriate for the label's own article, as common name affects article titles more than what they get linked as within other pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch (album) discussion

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

First statement by volunteer (Bitch album)

I am ready to work this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Then my first question is whether there are any content issues other than whether to spell out the name of the record label or to use the short form. If there are any other issues also, then please state what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If the name of the label is the only dispute, then I don't think that moderated discussion will be useful, but I will offer two ways to try to resolve the dispute. The first is that I am willing to offer a binding Fourth Opinion. (I won't offer a non-binding Fourth Opinion, because if I did, and one of the editors disagreed, we would then need to find another volunteer moderator.) The second is that I am willing to prepare a Request for Comments. So, if all of the disputing editors agree to a binding Fourth Opinion, I am willing to offer my opinion. Otherwise I will prepare an RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Note: Please make sure to comment in the correct section. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 22:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLDly moved the comments to the correct section. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 15:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Bitch album)

I'm open to anything, but ideally would prefer to have someone who's heavily more experienced in music/album related articles. Everyone who's participated on the albums talk page has stated it should be stated in long form. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a RFC as I believe this is a wider issue that would require the opinion of multiple editors. It is not as black and white as the other editors involved in this are making it out to be in my opinion. I don't believe it matters if they are experienced in editing music-related articles, that would just potentially introduce some bias. Zirthes (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, RFCs aren't ideal when those tend to be time-sinks that drag things out for longer than necessary. They should be avoided as much as possible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by volunteer (Bitch album)

We would like to avoid an RFC. So here are some alternatives:

1. If the editors in this discussion agree to a binding Fourth Opinion, I will provide a binding Fourth Opinion.
2. If the editors want a binding Fourth Opinion from an editor with experience with music and album articles, I will place this dispute on hold and will request that an editor at a WikiProject provide a binding Fourth Opinion.
3. If the editors want to try discussion, I will provide a section in this DRN for back-and-forth discussion for about four days.
4. Any editor may suggest another method of resolving this dispute.

I will prepare an RFC if I don't hear an alternative suggestion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Bitch album)

I'm open to any of those suggestions. I just think this is being dragged on at this point. Every editor who had participated in the discussion on the albums talk page has stated it should be stated long form with only one editor disagreeing. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Bitch album)

I feel strongly about an RFC because of the complexity of the dispute which I feel is beyond just this one article, as the "Nice Life Recording Company" has been worded in different ways in multiple song and album articles. I don't think that one additional opinion will be sufficient to resolve the dispute, and I don't believe that an editor with experience in album and song articles will be looking at this from a neutral point of view. This dispute would require the opinion from at least a few editors who don't have any potential bias to the wording of record labels. Zirthes (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by volunteer (Bitch album)

User:Zirthes writes: I feel strongly about an RFC because of the complexity of the dispute which I feel is beyond just this one article, as the "Nice Life Recording Company" has been worded in different ways in multiple song and album articles. Do you mean that you want an RFC, or that you do not want an RFC? In either case, please explain what the complexities are.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Bitch album)

I feel strongly about wanting an RFC. The complexities are that it has yet to be proven that "Nice Life Recording Company" is the most common spelling for the record label by secondary sources. Primary sources such as the label's website refer to the label as just "Nice Life". There are multiple other articles of works by the same artist which just refer to the label as "Nice Life" in the lead, such as Special, Cuz I Love You, My Face Hurts from Smiling and this usage in those articles has been long-standing. All these sources by major publications [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] simply refer to the label as "Nice Life" in the first mention. User:Pillowdelight has argued that the label is worded in full (as 'Nice Life Recording Company') on the Spotify page for album which is the focus of the article in question, but so has Atlantic Records which is worded as Atlantic Recording Corporation. Atlantic Recording Corporation is commonly referred to as just "Atlantic Records", as it is in the lead of Bitch (album), with no issue. This is why I don't believe this is a black and white issue and I would like ideally more than one additional opinion on this. Zirthes (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by volunteer (Bitch album)

The draft RFC is available for review at Talk:Bitch (album)/RFC on Label. Please do not comment or vote in the draft RFC, which is not a live RFC. Please comment on the draft RFC here, in this DRN. I will launch the RFC after Zirthes answers my question about complexities, and so explains why the RFC is necessary.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Bitch album)

Just to clarify, I never once used Spotify as the only source that refers to it as "Nice Life Recording Company". I provided MANY reliable sources on the albums talk page. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - I even provided a Billboard article from when it was very first announced when it was being launched where it is referred to as its full name. [17]. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by editors (Bitch album)

There has been inconsistent wording of Nice Life Recording Company in multiple album/song articles on Wikipedia, as it has been referred to as Nice Life, Nice Life Recording Company, Nice Life Recordings, and Nice Life Records in various articles. This is another reason I wanted an RFC to determine which of these would be preferable to use in the future to prevent further issues like this. Zirthes (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by volunteer (Bitch album)

The draft RFC is available for review at Talk:Bitch (album)/RFC on Label. Please do not comment or vote in the draft RFC, which is not a live RFC. Please comment on the draft RFC here, in this DRN. I will launch the RFC within 24 hours if there are no other comments.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statements by editors (Bitch album)

B - its official name is its long form name. As mentioned previously by user Snuggums it can be confusing and misleading to readers if not in long form. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Air India Flight 171

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Amitrao17 on 00:08, 13 June 2026 (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.

Location of dispute

Air India Flight 171 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The summary text originally read:

Crashed shortly after takeoff; fuel cutoff causing both engines to shut down; under investigation

However, based on the main body of the article, and the AAIB Preliminary report at https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf a more accurate summary would be:

This I boldly changed to:

Crashed shortly after takeoff from apparent loss of thrust; under investigation

Later this was reverted. In response I started a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Air_India_Flight_171#Reverted_edit_in_summary_restoring_unverifiable/unsupported_crash_causation_language

Some further discussion and reversions have resulted in the original summary text (above).

The dispute is whether the preliminary report (which is the only authoritative source of information about the crash) warrants a summary which states "fuel shutoff _causing_" engines to shutdown. Based on the text of the preliminary report, it is not warranted.

The relevant text in the preliminary report is:

The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off. In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

Investigation is continuing and the investigation team will review and examine additional evidence, records and information that is being sought from the stakeholders.

Since the investigation is "continuing", it is an overreach to summarize the event as fuel cutoff "causing" engine shutdown, which is inconsistent with the article itself.

How should the summary text read?

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

[18]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Weigh in on whether the summary of the article should use the words "fuel cutoff" and "causing", and whether this is a true summary of the article, and an accurate assessment of the current state of the investigation.

Summary of dispute by JCSigma2000

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

Summary of dispute by Aviationwikiflight

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

Summary of dispute by Electricmemory

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

Air India Flight 171 discussion

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

Volunteer Note - After one week, none of the other editors who were notified of this case have responded. Unless there is at least one response very soon, this dispute will be closed as declined by the other editors, and I will advise the editors to continue normal discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimmy Savile

– New discussion.

Filed by Macxcxz on 09:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Jimmy Savile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is whether or not to describe Jimmy Savile as a sex offender in some way in the opening sentence of the article. As of now, the first two sentences of the article do not mention his offending.

The arguments made for it are in the spirit of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, arguing that Savile is now known just as much if not more for his sex offending than his general celebrity status, and as such should be reflected in the opening sentence of the article as a highly notable part of his biography.

Arguments against this refer to how Savile's crimes were not known until after his death, and so the opening sentence is intended to reflect the chronology of his life. It is contended that the sexual assault allegations being mentioned in the third sentence is acceptable. Other arguments made include that, since Savile was not convicted of sexual offences, presumably on the basis of WP:BLPCRIME, it would be inappropriate to call him a sex offender in the opening sentence.

Counter-arguments to this are that it is simply not necessary for the opening sentence(s) to reflect the chronology of his life/death/legacy, and it should just be based on what Savile is known for. In terms of Savile not being convicted, I argued that there are plenty of instances on Wikipedia of people not convicted of crimes, but whom were concluded to be criminals by police/inquiries, who are called as such, including numerous posthumously identified serial killers. Other parts of the article rather definitively call Savile a sex offender anyway, with good sourcing to back them up.

I have attempted to mitigate the issue by suggesting that the opening sentence could explicitly state that his offending was revealed posthumously, to better fit the "chronology" argument, but did not get much reception on this matter.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile#%22Known_for%22

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like for volunteers to weigh in on the arguments presented and help to mediate differences in views between editors.

Summary of dispute by Srshouse

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

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm

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

It's a no from me. As various users have pointed out ad nauseam, Savile was never arrested, charged or convicted for any sexual offence during his lifetime. His reputation collapsed within 18 months of his death after numerous people came forward with stories about his behaviour. The problem with saying that Savile was a sex offender is that it takes the allegations out of context. Savile was wrongly regarded as a national treasure and living saint during his lifetime, but it all collapsed after his death. A person with an attention span longer than the proverbial goldfish can read this in the opening paragraph and the entire lead section. And there is an separate article devoted to the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Microxstephn

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

Summary of dispute by Pigeondisco

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

Summary of dispute by Roger 8 Roger

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

He is currently refered to in sources as both - a DJ and sex offender, and in better sources as both together, so that is how we should describe him, as the current lead does, even if over three sentences. Whatever weight we give to either of the two, it makes more sence to start with the DJ, not just for chronological reasons. He would not have become as infamous as a sex offender if he had not been a DJ. I think the lead is fine just as it is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

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

As per Roger 8 Roger above. I think the lead section is fine as it is. I have already given fuller reasoning at the Talk page. I wholeheartedly agree with Macxcxz that it's a biography not a Daily Mail article. And don't forget we also have a whole other article called Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by ~2026-16916-71

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

Summary of dispute by ~2026-34116-24

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

Jimmy Savile discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Jimmy Savile)

This article content dispute will not be a subject of moderated discussion, for at least two reasons. First, three of the six other registered editors who were notified by the filing editor have responded by declining to take part in discussion. Second, there are a total of nine editors in this dispute, the filing editor, six registered editors (three of whom have declined to take part in discussion), and two temporary accounts. Moderated discussion with a large number of editors is seldom effective at reaching rough consensus. The usual way of resolving a content dispute with a large number of editors is a Request for Comments, at least if the content dispute is well-defined, and in this case, the content dispute appears to be well-defined. So I have a question for the filing editor, which is whether they want to prepare and submit a Request for Comments. The editors who have responded want to leave the article as it is. So, does the filing editor want to prepare and submit a Request for Comments?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into an RfC. Thank you for your time. Macxcxz (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 0.1 by volunteer (Jimmy Savile)

I am willing to prepare a neutrally worded RFC if any of the editors ask for assistance. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Jimmy Savile)

The Alternative (Denmark)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Helper201 on 12:05, 13 June 2026 (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.

Location of dispute

The Alternative (Denmark) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Helper201 (talk · contribs)
FellowMellow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

What should be in the infobox.

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

Talk:The Alternative (Denmark)#Infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Identify what should and should not be in the infobox and whether the citations used are appropriate for what is disputed.

Summary of dispute by FellowMellow

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

The Alternative (Denmark) discussion

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

Volunteer Note - This case was filed one week ago and the other editor was notified, but has not responded. Unless there is a response, I will close this case as declined by the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Direct Democracy Cyprus

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Helper201 on 12:07, 13 June 2026 (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.

Location of dispute

Direct Democracy Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Helper201 (talk · contribs)
FellowMellow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over what should or should not be in the ideology section of the infobox.

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

Talk:Direct Democracy Cyprus#Uncited ideologies in the infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Identify what should and should not be in the infobox and if the sources being used are appropriate for the claims being made.

Summary of dispute by FellowMellow

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

Direct Democracy Cyprus discussion

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

Volunteer Note The other editor appears to have conceded the dispute before this request was filed Amatmilen (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - This case was filed one week ago and the other editor was notified, but has not responded. Unless there is a response, I will close this case as declined by the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Melania Trump

– New discussion.

Filed by Thedarkknightli on 23:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Melania Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Sorry for the pretty late DRN case! There's a dispute over how to format |birth_place= and a consensus to link "SR Slovenia" in the parameter. AML KING thinks we should write |birth_place=Novo Mesto, SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, with which I disagree, given MOS:GEOLINK. Moritoriko thinks that, given GEOLINK and Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 87#RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question, we should write |birth_place=Novo Mesto, then part of SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, with which AML KING disagrees. I personally think we should write |birth_place=Novo Mesto, then in SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, given GEOLINK, the linked RfC, and MOS:IBP. However, I'm also fine with |birth_place=Novo Mesto, then part of SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia or |birth_place=Novo Mesto, SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia.

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

Talk:Melania Trump#Linking SR Solvenia in infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing an independent fourth opinion.

Summary of dispute by AML KING

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

Summary of dispute by Moritoriko

I only commented because it was on the 3O board, I have no further opinion or comment.

Melania Trump discussion

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

Volunteer Question - Where has there been any discussion about how to format her birthplace? I don't see any discussion, and am about to close this dispute as premature. Have I missed something? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it took place from April 3 to April 23. Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The discussion on the article talk page is not recent. Please resume discussion on the article talk page and see if this dispute can be resolved. I am leaving this case in a waiting state, and will open it if discussion remains lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, I believe we've reached a consensus on the article's talk page, so please feel free to close this case. Cheers, Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fractional reserve banking

– New discussion.

Filed by Reissgo on 07:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is about the opening paragraph in the lede, particularly the first sentence. My claim is that the first sentence is factually incorrect. Other editors claim it is true and it should stay as is. Related issues have occurred on this page repeatedly over 15 years(!) so I wrote a short essay outlining the background to this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reissgo/The_fractional_reserve_banking_dispute

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

The section "Explanation of new first paragraph in lede" in the talk page + the comments in the edits and undo's themselves.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

avatar317 and mrollie are both requesting "consensus", so I am hoping that if some others comment then perhaps a consensus will be seen to have come about.

Summary of dispute by avatar317

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

Summary of dispute by mrollie

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

fractional reserve banking discussion

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

Stranger Than Heaven

– New discussion.

Filed by The boss 1904 on 02:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Stranger Than Heaven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

The boss 1904 (talk · contribs)
TrainTrash (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On June 17, 2026, user TrainTrash made an edit to the Stranger Than Heaven article, in order to "clarify" that two actors involved in the game, Bunta Sugawara and Tupac Shakur, are not actively performing in the game, due to them being deceased and their involvement only being in the form of digital likenesses. Originally, the Premise section of the article listed characters and their actors, in the format of "Character name (Actor name)". For the characters employing the deceased actors' likenesses, the format was "Character name (Likeness actor name/Voice actor name)", followed by a footnote to clarify the roles of each actor. TrainTrash's original edit added a separate sentence at the end of the paragraph to specifically note that the game uses the likenesses of said actors. Following further discussion, they agreed to a third user's proposed edit that the characters in question should be listed as "Character name (voiced by Voice actor, likeness by Likeness actor)".

As a regular editor of the article in question, I found that both edits were unnecessary, as there are already footnotes to explain that the actors are indeed not "acting" in any capacity, that only their likenesses were used; plus, there is also a dedicated paragraph in the Development section to explain how their appearances are handled. The edit, therefore, was redundant, and did not meaningfully improve the article in any way. Furthermore, the section was about the premise of the game, and the listing of actors is just for easy identification of the performers; the topic of likenesses itself is not the primary focus, and the proposed edit could potentially derail from the section's primary purpose, which is about the game's characters and settings.

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

Discussion has taken place on the article's talk page:

Talk:Stranger Than Heaven#Re: Sugawara/Tupac credit

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As the dispute is about stylistic change to the article's content, I believe that one or several third parties can provide more insight into this matter, so that we can quickly resolve the issue without going into an endless debate.

Summary of dispute by TrainTrash

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

Stranger Than Heaven discussion

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

Head tie

– New discussion.

Filed by Deetailz on 05:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Head tie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Deetailz (talk · contribs), Sohvyan (talk · contribs), Dolpina (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Both Sohvyan and Dolpina have constantly removed multiple peer-reviewed sources on the head tie and head scarf pages. Dolpina gave reasons that these sources were fictional, self published, or could have been lifted off of TikTok. I engaged them on the Head tie talk page that those assertions were wrong. They went ahead to invite some independent editors, among them was Kowal2701 who confirmed that "the sources appear to support the content and be reliable for it." Despite this confirmation, the warring has not stopped. Sohvyan went ahead to remove not just these sources alleging that these claims were not made in the published articles but that Ichafu isi (Igbo head tie), and Falalla (Hausa Head tie) are not nationally equivalent to gele (the yoruba head tie). To clarify, this is not a gele page, this is a head tie page covering all head tie practices across the world. Sohvyan also noted that Premium Times was a blog and thus cannot be used as source, and proceeded to cite an article published in IDOSR. I looked up IDOSR.org and they claimed open access, indexed in scopus and this article with an ISSN of 2579-0765. This journal was not on DOAJ, nor scopus, even the ISSN does not exist. This article was used while discredit Ozah (Cambridge University Press, JSTOR 41201378), Nwigwe & Morgan (IKENGA, 2013), Ndu-Udeji (2021) CMS Dictionary of Ibo Language (1923), Adichie (2023, Hodder & Stoughton), Aduba (2024, Hodder & Stoughton) and Premium Times (2025). It is important to note that this edit warring became intense after Admin Turelio also commented on the talk page that Ichafu isi is listed as an indigenous Nigerian variation of the head tie. Removing Igbo and Hausa, while retaining only Yoruba violates WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. Using unregistered journal (IDOSR, not found in DOAJ, Scopus or the ISSN portal and removing Cambridge University Press violates WP:RS

Please, instead of edit warring and unsubstantiated sock accusations, let all us reach a consensus here.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Head_tie#h-Deetailz_and_self_published_sources,_unscholar_"_sources_"_and_inaccessible_sour-20260611170600

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

That all sourced content representing all Nigerian ethnic groups are equally restored and well represented per WP:NPOV.

Summary of dispute by Deetailz; Sohvyan; Dolpina

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

Head tie discussion

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

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Splits Moves Protection Batch Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames Report violations Requests for comment Request rename Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards