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

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

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 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
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	Resolved	Sariel Xilo (t)	23 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	8 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Urselius (t)	15 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	New	Kautilyapundit (t)	6 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Old Government House, Parramatta	Closed	Itchycoocoo (t)	4 days, 22 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	35 minutes
2025 Bangladesh Premier League	Closed	UwU.Raihanur (t)	2 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 04:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Dragon Age: The Veilguard

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sariel Xilo on 20:06, 5 December 2024 (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 Dragon Age: The Veilguard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sariel Xilo (talk · contribs) BMWF (talk · contribs) Wikibenboy94 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 1) Disagreement on if WP:SYNTH is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows MOS:INTRO/Wikipedia:Summary style & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows WP:VG/REC advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included. 2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus. 3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Current discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Prose Previous discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Review bomb context How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a full lock until the dispute is resolved. Summary of dispute by BMWF Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94 The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion: 1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to WP:SYNTH, and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did. 2. Including the Steam player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much Dragon Age: Veilguard has sold. 3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms". 4. The invoking of WP:SAID while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews". 5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both @Wikibenboy94 and I agree that there are no WP:SYNTH issues in the topline summary sentences removed by @BMWF in this edit and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute. In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age) I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Clarification by Moderator (Dragon Age) I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that User:Sariel Xilo is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of no harm, no foul applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Dragon Age) I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined above, I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed in the lead in this edit & in the reception in this edit), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age) Do two editors want moderated discussion? The filing editor has said that they agree to DRN Rule A and has made a statement about what they want to change in the article. Another editor made a statement at the beginning, but has not agreed to DRN Rule A. If they agree to those rules, I will open moderated discussion, and we will try to work on the various differences. If they do not either agree to the rules or make some other statement, I will close this discussion as declined due to lack of response. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I've pinged the two other editors in case they only watched this noticeboard for a week & haven't seen that a moderator opened the discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Dragon Age) Second statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age) It appears that two editors have agreed to moderated discussion, but that they have mostly agreed with each other and disagreed with the third editor, who has not responded on this noticeboard. Their statements of what they want to change in the article are not entirely clear, at least not to me. So what I will do at this point is to ask each editor to prepare draft versions of the sections that they think should be changed. I don't see a discussion in the current text of the article about review bombing, so that we can read a description of the review bombing. I will comment that the article is no longer fully protected. The full protection expired, and the article is now semi-protected. However, I have asked that the editors in this dispute not edit the article while we are discussing its improvement. I don't understand what the synthesis issue is, and I don't want to read through the history and previous discussion to determine what the synthesis issue is. So please state more specifically what the synthesis issue is if you want it considered, or let me infer it from the rewritten sections, or I might ignore it, which might be what you want. It seems that the two editors who have responded do not see a synthesis issue, so it can be disregarded if it isn't mentioned and the third editor doesn't describe it. Please provide your rewritten sections. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Dragon Age) Proposed text: Lead Dragon Age: The Veilguard released for PlayStation 5, Windows, and Xbox Series X/S on October 31, 2024. After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record. The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat. It was nominated for Game of the Year at the Golden Joystick Awards and Innovation in Accessibility at The Game Awards. Reception ¶1 Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions according to the review aggregator website Metacritic. OpenCritic determined that 68% of critics recommended the game. Veilguard was subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Reception ¶2 is not under dispute but here for additional context if needed. ¶2 Hayes Madsen of Rolling Stone called Veilguard a "fresh start for the franchise" with the game "practically a soft reset". Leana Hafer for IGN similarly commented that the "story feels like both a send-off and a soft reboot, in a way, which was paradoxically a bit refreshing and disappointing at the same time". She also found it "cool" that the Inquisitor returns as "a fairly important character". Andy Bickerton of NPR viewed the game as a "well-executed action RPG". However, he called the decision to not include prior player narrative choices a "letdown", noting that "it's easy to see how this squandered potential, along with the tonal inconsistencies, could have arisen out of Veilguard's near-decade of troubled production". Lauren Morton of PC Gamer thought a downside of perceived streamlining and eliminating the "most common RPG frictions" is that it "can feel more action adventure than RPG at moments". ¶3 Critics were mixed on the game's story. Matt Purslow from IGN thought that Veilguard was "at war with itself", as he felt that the game was not interested in exploring the franchise's past despite being its first direct sequel, and that the game sidelined major characters such as Solas and Varric. Malindy Hetfeld of The Guardian criticized the "surprisingly mediocre" writing in Veilguard, describing the protagonist Rook as more of a witty observer than a "person with opinions". She also found the "comically evil" new villainous gods disappointing compared to the more "compelling" Solas. Hafer opined that Veilguard has "weird" pacing, and that the overaching plot "is nothing particularly outstanding in its overall structure", with the only interesting factor being Solas. Madsen argued that Solas was "a secondary protagonist", with the game focusing on his choices, their impact, "and how your journey as Rook mirrors" his journey. Ash Parrish of The Verge appreciated how Solas' arc subverted her desire to kill him despite longstanding animosity; she praised BioWare for crafting "his story arc in a way that didn't soften his actions as villain backstories typically do, but in a way that I felt compelled to make a different choice". Reviewers were divided over how consequential player choices were to the narrative, with some finding major decisions "few and far between". The rest of the reception section for context on lead summary. While it uses similar summary style sentences as above (see bolded text), it is not under dispute. ¶4 Madsen praised Veilguard for its attention to detail when showcasing the player's iteration of Rook and the game's companions, calling the characters "wonderfully written and well integrated into the plot". Todd Harper of Polygon emphasized the companions as the heart of the game, noting that they were "weird and idiosyncratic in the best ways". Kazuma Hashimoto of Them commented that at a surface level companions feel like "fantasy clichés and tropes", but with earned trust reveal "mundane moments" that make them feel closer to "normal people"; he also praised both the romance and non-romance options for interacting with companions. Hafer appreciated that companions are each "stars of their own story" with "complex, memorable, likable, distinct personalities", but was disappointed that in combat they felt more like extensions of the player character. Parrish enjoyed the "fun banter" of companions, and praised the romance options in Veilguard, highlighting that unlike previous Dragon Age games, it explicitly indicates when the player becomes locked into a romance path. Conversely, Oliver Brandt of Sports Illustrated viewed the choice to make all companions romanceable regardless of player gender expression as "a small step back" from other Dragon Age games. Harvey Randall of PC Gamer highlighted a lack of nuance in Rook's romantic dialogue if a player chooses to discuss Rook's gender identity. Morton thought companions lacked nuance and individual characterizations, noting that "good people don't make great characters". She further criticized the lack of a "functional mechanism for disapproval" and interpersonal group conflicts. ¶5 Veilguard generally received praise for its inclusive character creator and representation of transgender and non-binary characters. Alyssa Mora of IGN emphasized the character creator's "body diversity" where "the options feel almost endless". Both Robin Bea of Inverse and Brandt commended Taash's story arc, with Brandt noting while BioWare has previously "touched on queer stories", Vanguard "goes one step further, unashamedly and unabashedly calling one of its most compelling characters nonbinary". Bea acknowledged the "smart writing" in Veilguard in addressing transgender representation. However, she critiqued the use of a coming out narrative as "low-hanging fruit", and thought Rook's gender identity was not fully explored beyond Taash's storyline and so did not "always feel like a fully-actualized trans character". Stacey Henley of TheGamer appreciated the deliberate use of modern language in Taash's story in comparison to Inquisition's Krem, though noted the language has been contentious with audiences as potentially "immersion breaking". Randall was more critical, noting how Veilguard "both failed and succeeded" in the narrative aspects focused on non-binary characters, and that the overall "scattershot, clumsy, and unpolished" writing impacts the "use of queer language in a fantasy context". They found the lack of a fictional etymology connecting the word to the cultures of Thedas problematic, reflecting wider story issues as the game seems "barely interested in the politics of its own setting". ¶6 Critics enjoyed Veilguard's graphics and level design but were divided on the game's combat. Bickerton felt that Veilguard's strongest feature was its action gameplay, writing "mastering combat and party composition is a thoroughly rewarding experience from start to finish". He also highlighted the game's "accessibility and difficulty settings" as being welcoming for more casual players. Hetfeld viewed Veilguard's combat as functional but repetitive, without "much room for strategy", and similar to numerous other games. Hafer called the boss fights the highlight of combat. Parrish praised the combo system, the new elemental effects on weapons, and the ability for player mages to switch between melee and ranged for a "kinetic, almost chaotic energy". However, she critiqued the length of encounters from the "wave after wave of tanky enemies with multiple health bars". Harper thought the combat was "hit or miss", and that the combo system was less complex than Inquisition and the Mass Effect games. Hafer stated that the game has "visual splendor", and Harper called it "graphically gorgeous". Parrish opined that the "companions and environments are arresting in their design". Bickerton thought the level design was an improvement on Inquisition's "bland open zones", and praised side quests for their depth and the rewarding of exploration with "useful loot and impactful plot points". Morton viewed each area's "incredible visual design" as a standout feature of Veilguard. She found it was better off for removing Inquisition's "giant zones" and having "more constrained maps of coiled corridors and clearings". References In the lead and reception ¶1/¶3, I bolded prose which I think should be included & did strikethroughs on what I think should be removed. The lead & reception ¶3 summary sentences were removed for being synth although I disagree with that assessment. It would be helpful to have an outside opinion review them. Additionally, reception ¶1 (in bold & underline) includes the review bomb sentence that was part of the original November consensus that BMWF argued against; when raising synth concerns, they removed it again. I believe it adds important context as news outlets contrasted the two platforms in articles focused on what was occurring at Metacritic (ie. the negative user reviews on Metacritic were very different from the user reviews on Steam). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC) I fully support all the proposed changes Sariel Xilo has outlined above and have no further issues to raise, so a draft version from me will be redundant. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Dragon Age) The two editors who have responded to my request to provide a draft of changes to the article are in agreement on revised language. The other editor has not commented because they have not edited in the past week. I will suspend the rule against editing the article to allow the edits for which there is a rough local consensus to be made. If there is no objection to the edits within a few days, I will close this case as resolved. If there is any objection, we will resume discussion, but will leave the revised edits in place. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look at the draft. Just to confirm, I should go ahead and implement the above in the article? Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Dragon Age) Fourth statement by moderator (Dragon Age) Yes. Make the agreed-on changes. If they are reverted, follow my instructions above. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Dragon Age)  Done per above instructions (see edit). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC) 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.

Autism

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Oolong on 15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Oolong (talk · contribs)
• Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk · contribs)
• Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk · contribs)
• HarmonyA8 (talk · contribs)
• TempusTacet (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• FactOrOpinion (talk · contribs)
• 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs)
• GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs)
• Markworthen (talk · contribs)
• Urselius (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.

On Wikipedia, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.

Wikipedia has quite detailed guidelines for what to do within medicine, or outside of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about whether something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.

This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.

A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?

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

Talk:Autism Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions] Related: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_228#Applied_behavior_analysis

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the route to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Wikipedia guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов

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

The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.

This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders). This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see list of quoted references.

Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Wikipedia policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.

In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.

While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.

Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan

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

Yes, as User:Oolong says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.

There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Wikipedia. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F104:371A:5F87:5238 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.

My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Wikipedia'). Oolong (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8

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

Summary of dispute by TempusTacet

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

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

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

I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oolong, let me expand on Robert's directions below: Please post your desired changes in the #First statements by editors (Autism) section of this page. It will be clearest if you use the "X to Y" style (as if this were the Wikipedia:Edit requests process) and show your exact suggested wording. You can use Template:Text diff if you'd like to contrast your suggestion with the current paragraph.

(I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion

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

The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by Robert McClenon below, as well as DRN Rule A, and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the Zeroeth statements by editors section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.

Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0

(Pardon. My mobile IP keeps changing). I completely agree to the viewpoints supported by user @Oolong. I also want the people to know that there is no such division between "pathological symptom" and "non-pathological symptom". They are same features of a communication and socialization "disorder" where more than one neurotype is involved. It is the same, impairing symptom that can be credited to either neurotype, but unfortunately attributed to the cognitive minority solely. Although the article covers some aspects of neurodiversity perspective, still its language is too much negative and pathological, which isn't very helpful or uplifting for Autistic individuals. Too much importance given in biological causes and "epidemiology", while the more useful sress should have been on accommodation, accessibility, and AAC (Alternative Augmentative Communication). Trying to conceal the harmful effects of ABA therapies is misleading and un-encyclopedic. 2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo

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

Comment in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: Editor is "done with the discussion" and will not be participating. --Oolong (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Autism 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 (Autism)

I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on Autism and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;

• Be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
• Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a wall of text is likely to ignore it.
• Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
• Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
• Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.

In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).

I don't yet know whether DRN is the right forum to resolve disputes about autism, but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?

I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.

Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.

I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is Autism and Scientism (published in the Middletown Centre for Autism Research Journal) and Autism, Wikipedia and Epistemic Injustice, posted here and published in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. Oolong (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Autism)

I asked for specific statements of how the lede section should be revised, and what changes should be made to the body of the article. So far, the statements have not been specific. Please read Be Specific at DRN. I understand that one of the main issues is that the current article, beginning with the lede section, is focused on the medical model of autism, and that there is at least one other perspective on autism that is not medical. If sources that meet the ordinary standard of reliability describe other perspectives and provide evidence that these perspectives are supported by scholarly non-medical sources, then the lede section should describe all perspectives. Discussion of the non-medical perspectives should be supported by reliable sources, and discussion of the medical perspective and any aspects of the medical perspective should be supported by medically reliable sources. That is, discussion of non-medical perspectives is not required to meet the medically reliable standard of sourcing, but the sources must meet the ordinary standard of reliable sourcing.

If an editor thinks that the article should be revised to reflect multiple viewpoints, I will ask that they provide a revised draft of the lede section. We can wait to work on the sections of the body of the article until we have settled on the lede section, and then the body of the article should follow the lede. We need to start with something specific, in this case, a revised lede section. I will also repeat my request that each editor provide links to all of the previous discussions of how to revise this article, so as to provide a better overview of the issues.

I would prefer that statements go in the sections for the purpose, such as First statements by editors (Autism), because that is what they are for. However, I will not enforce rules about where to make statements, as long as basic talk page guidelines are met.

After I see at least one specific proposed revision to the article, preferably a draft rewrite of the lede section, I will know better whether DRN is a place to discuss the issues. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Robert McClenon! That helps clarify matters, including the question of evidence required for non-medical perspectives, which has been a source of much contention over the years.

@Димитрий Улянов Иванов has has said that he won't "have the time to consistently respond within 48 hours. Hopefully that is not a strict requirement" - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there?

I will see if I can draft more detailed proposals tomorrow in the appropriate section; as I said earlier, part of the problem has been that the clash of viewpoints (with a supporting clash of readings of Wikipedia guidelines) has caused so much friction that it has been difficult to move on to the details of the rather large (and very overdue) project of rewriting and restructuring most of the page! I do at least have some fairly solid ideas about the lead, but of course, ideally the lead should reflect the rest of the article... Oolong (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oolong@Robert McClenon I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample):

" Autism, Autism spectrum condition (ASC), Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or Autism Spectrum (AS) is a set of neurodevelopmental conditions, which have been described variously as a disorder, a condition, a valid human neurotype, and a socio-cultural misfit. No two Autistic persons are same, differing in their abilities and inabilities in multiple dimensions, and usually show a spikey or highly uneven cognitive profile. Many Autistics are capable of reading, writing, speaking clearly, or taking part in logical arguments, while having unnoticed deficits in working memory, information filtering, gross or fine motor skills issues, executive functions, sensory issues, trouble making eye contact or reading facial expressions etc. On the other hand, in some Autistics the deficits or differences can be immediately visible. In such cases the strengths might be unnoticed or ignored. Although an Autistic person may fall somewhere in between- and described better through a multidimensional approach than a unidirectional or linear "mild" vs "severe" categorization. Autistics often use repeatitive behaviour as a means of coping mechanism, and often requires structure and predictability to cope up. Autism is sometimes classified as a hidden disability or an invisible disability, as its features could be not immediately noticeable, and in some cases highly masked or camoufledged. Autistics may differ in the amount and nature of support they need in order to thrive and excell. Autism has close overlaps with specific learning disabilities (Such as dyslexia or dyscalculia), Personality disorders (Schizoid personality disorder, Pathological Demand avoidance), etc. that makes it often hard to differentiate from other psychological diagnoses. Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. "

2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Autism)

1. what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same

The overall framing of the lead is very much within the medical model of autism, taking for granted various things which are hotly contested in the wider world - particularly among autistic people, but also among researchers in this field.

Let's take the opening paragraph.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or simply autism, is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by repetitive, restricted, and inflexible patterns of behavior, interests, and activities; deficits in social communication and social interaction; and the presence of high or low sensory sensitivity. A formal diagnosis requires that symptoms cause significant impairment in multiple functional domains, in addition to being atypical or excessive for the person's age and sociocultural context.

I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted.

Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted:

The autism spectrum, often referred to as just autism or in the context of a professional diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests. Other common signs include unusual responses to sensory stimuli.

Note that for the most part these terms convey the same information, without assuming a particular interpretation is the correct one. Condition is often thought to be a slightly less value-laden equivalent of disorder, although arguably the difference is marginal. The hypothesis that autistic people have inherent deficits in social communication and interaction has been disproven quite convincingly (see double empathy problem); the difficulties, however, certainly remain in many contexts, and are in practice all that diagnosticians can go by on this front. There are all sorts of issues with applying the term symptom to the ways that autism manifests, starting with the assumption that they're problems, as opposed to e.g. coping strategies or objectively neutral characteristics.

I recently edited the third paragraph simply to accurately reflect views associated with neurodiversity, correcting text based on blatant misunderstandings; variations on these edits have now been reverted at least four times, including after they have been restored by other editors. These reversions have not been accompanied by sensible edit summaries, instead claiming for example that they are ideologically motivated, and that my references (an academic textbook and a peer-reviewed paper researching community views) are somehow inadequate. I am aware that these reversions are starting to suggest that administrators' noticeboard for incidents may be a more appropriate venue for resolving these issues.

The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for applied behavior analysis

Above entered by Oolong

Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change.

Classification goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both diagnosis and signs and symptoms.

We need to cover common aspects of autistic experience somewhere (see Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions for some of these; there are many more) and it is not clear if they can fit in the above section, although they may be at least as important, just because they are not adequately covered by the current editions of diagnostic manuals.

Possible causes should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise epidemiology.

Management is an awful framing; autism is a fundamental difference in a person, not an illness to be managed. I note that this heading is absent from the gender dysphoria entry. Perhaps it would be constructive to replace this section with something around access: access to healthcare, education, workplaces and so on.

Prognosis probably doesn't warrant a section at all: it's lifelong. If it's going to be there, it needs to be completely rewritten.

History and especially society and culture probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article.

Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough?

--Oolong (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Autism)

My explanation about source reliability is my own interpretation, based on the principle to use common sense. Other editors may disagree, but it is the rule that will be in place while I am moderating this discussion.

The unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account if they wish to take part in this mediation. Their IPv6 address has changed between the time that this discussion was created and the time of this post. It is both difficult to remember IPv6 addresses and difficult to communicate with shifting IPv6 (or IPv4) addresses.

The requested rewrite has no references. It also includes a statement of opinion that is not a summary of existing knowledge and is therefore not encyclopedic. On the other hand, the first sentence of the proposed rewrite is, in my opinion, a good starting point for a rewrite of the lede. The later sentences about differences between different autistic persons are, in my opinion, a good idea to be included somewhere in the article, but not necessarily in the lede paragraph.

In the above paragraph, I am taking a more active role in trying to lead this discussion than I usually take. If the participants agree with my taking an active role, I will write a new set of rules providing for a semi-active role by the moderator. If the participants would prefer that I be less active, I will step back somewhat, and will implement DRN Rule A.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So I have issues with the proposed lede change, with interpreting the scientific consensus classification as a "medical model", among other issues. I'd like to clarify these per my involvement here, but I need time to formulate a reply. I saw an article stating that editors must reply within 48 hours but I cannot consistently do this with my time constraints. May I ask if this will be a significant issue and if it's a requirement can it not be so strict under the circumstances? Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The provision about responding within 48 hours is in DRN Rule A, which is a standard rule but is not always used, and I have not yet specified what rules we are using, so there isn't a 48-hour provision at this time. Will 72 hours work better? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

72 hours should be fine in general. I plan to respond quicker than that if I can of course, my only concern is that I occasionally am not free to reply within 72 hours as sometimes I won't be able to until the weekend. Apologies if this is causing some issues. I'm much more free now with Christmas over so I think it'll mainly become an issue if our discussions extend much into January. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"The requested rewrite ... includes a statement of opinion." - Which part is a statement of opinion? I am not disputing your assessment; rather, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Autism)

Please read DRN Rule G. This is the new set of rules for this mediation.

Please sign all of your posts. It is more important to sign your posts than to put them in the correct sections, although both are a good idea. If you forget to sign your post, the rest of us may not know who posted it.

In the proposed lede by the unregistered editor, the last sentence reads:

Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments.

That is true but not encyclopedic, because it does not summarize existing knowledge. It states a moral principle that governs development of the encyclopedia, and should also apply in the larger society. It is also not in a form that is verifiable because it is not attributed to anyone but in wikivoice.

I would still like a list from each editor of links to all the previous discussions about the issues that are being discussed here. I know that some of the discussions have been mentioned in various statements, but I would like each editor to provide a list, in one place, without commenting on the discussions, and without concerning about whether another editor is also listing the same discussions. I just want this for background material.

Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk)

Third statements by editors (Autism)

I am making a rather late entry into this process and am not sure if putting this here is correct. There are a number of aspects that I would like to comment on. I think that anyone with any knowledge of autism will have noticed that autism is not merely, or even primarily, a medical condition, even though it is diagnosable by clinicians and has diagnostic criteria. It has sociological, disability, cultural and identity dimensions. I have had two brain-involving medical conditions, autism and stroke. I have an identity as an autistic person, but no identity as a stroke survivor. Both are medical conditions, diagnosable by clinicians, but only autism has the additional, extra-clinical, dimensions I have described. The Wikipedia article has suffered, in my opinion, from too great an emphasis on the medical aspects of autism, to the extent that some editors have excluded the other aspects of autism from prominent parts of the article, such as the lead, or treated them as though they were unsupported by reputable references, or were 'fringe' in nature. Furthermore, too literal use of pathologising phraseology, gleaned uncritically from diagnostic manuals, introduces wording to the article which is unnecessarily offensive to autistic people, when less offensive wording, while retaining the original meaning, could have been employed. Efforts to moderate the offensive wording have been repeatedly reverted.

I have noticed that deafness, a condition which, like autism has cultural, communication, disability and identity dimensions, is treated in a way within Wikipedia (Deafness) that gives equal treatment to the purely medical and the sociological aspects. Though the deafness article is very much shorter than the one on autism, it struck me that the treatment of the subject might act as a useful paradigm. Urselius (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Vellalar

– New discussion.

Filed by Kautilyapundit on 05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sri Lankan Vellalar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilyapundit (talk · contribs)
• Luigi Boy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.

Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.

We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.

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

Talk:Sri_Lankan_Vellalar

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.

Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy

First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:

- Terminology differences

- The inclusion of the mythology section

Terminology Differences

The root of the terminology issue stems from my edit, where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were WP:FRINGE.

To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:

- Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the Akananuru.

- Tamil: வெள்ளாளர், romanized: Veḷḷāḷar represents the caste name in contemporary usage. This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste Vellalar often uses this term Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.

Inclusion of the Mythology Section

The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.

The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.

Third-Party Opinion

Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed WP:FRINGE or not WP:RS, the concerned user should raise the issue on WP:RSN. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.

Sri Lankan Vellalar 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 (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the participants want moderated discussion and if this does not involve a question about the reliability of sources. Please read DRN Rule D and the general sanctions concerning South Asian social groups. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, first, whether they agree to DRN Rule D and that discussions of South Asian social groupings are subject to special rules. Each editor is then asked, second, what changes they want to make to the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Each editor is asked, third, whether there are issues about the reliability of sources. If I determine that there are issues about the reliability of sources, or if an editor states that there are such issues, I will close this discussion until that question is resolved at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Old Government House, Parramatta

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Itchycoocoo on 06:47, 24 December 2024 (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 Old Government House, Parramatta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Itchycoocoo (talk · contribs) The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Is a dispute regarding using non-copyright material used within the article Old Government House, Parramatta that extends to >90% of material from another website. The User who posted much of this material contends that "The material is CC-BY licensed, as stated in the edit summary and correctly attributed, which is, and has always been, usable on Wikipedia, and was added as part of a massive project by a number of Australian editors to import quality CC-BY content from a number of heritage sources." I think that this material should be placed subject under WP:EL/ External Links, and follow the clearly defined rules of WP:COPYPASTE/ Copying text from other sources, WP:Plagiarism & WP:PARAPHRASE guidelines. Ignoring the numerous uncivil issues appearing on the Talkpage, the view is using material like this is legalistically quite correct regarding use of non-copyright material, but in my opinion, it exceed any 'fair use' of material in which it is almost completely paraphrased and could even be considered as plagiarism. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Old Government House, Parramatta#This is a mess How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Could someone clarify and advise how and to what extent such external material can be used in Wikipedia pages? Knowing this would be able to improve the page and remove some of the text it doesn't seem relevant. Summary of dispute by The Drover's Wife Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Old Government House, Parramatta discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Old Government House) I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Firstly, I would like to ask the editors to read Wikipedia:DRN Rule B and state their acceptance of it. This ruleset allows back-and-forth discussion, however, I would like to remind you to stay civil. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article; we won't be discussing conduct issues. It is my understanding that The Drover's Wife wants the current state of the article to remain. Is this correct? I would like to ask Itchycoocoo what changes do you want exactly and why? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) I don't really see what "dispute" exist here – this user hasn't even attempted to edit the article other than slapping a copyvio tag on it, and no one has tried to stop them from editing. I have even explicitly invited the user to be bold and edit the article, which they haven't done. Itchycoocoo seems to believe the article is a copyright violation and/or plagiarism, despite three users (myself, The Drover's Wife, and Wizardman) explaining that it is fine to add open-licence text to Wikipedia. The editor is welcome to take their issue to a different noticeboard such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems but they will get the same answer. Otherwise, again, they are free to make whatever edits they want to the article. I T B F 📢 02:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Old Government House) Firstly, thank you for taking this issue up. I do accept Wikipedia DRN Rule B, and will avoid unnecessary interaction with the other editor. You state "It is my understanding that The Drover's Wife wants the current state of the article to remain." I don't think that is the case, and as others are pointed out, there are many irrelevant statements relating to the subject, which can be used elsewhere or in other pages. I will be very happy to do such culling. But the issue is about using non-copyright text 'free use' to such an extent that it is place there near its entirety. It appears that any material that is deemed free use without copyright under CC – BY licenses can be used within Wikipedia pages. This is acknowledged. However, elsewhere under paraphrase, copypaste, and plagiarism, it suggests that the amount of text using whole webpages should not extensively used by Wikipedia editors. e.g. According to WP:Copypaste "With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism." I think the issue is a grey area. Using portions of an external webpage, whether a copyright or not, should be adopted sparingly and not cart blanch as example by this article. In my opinion, the entire adopt the text should be scrapped, and should be written by a Wikipedia editor, but still extracting some of the CC – BY material either in quotes, as suggested in Close paraphrasing "With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism." Q: My question to resolve this dispute is how much of CC – BY license usage of another site can be used in a Wikipedia page? Is 100% acceptable, say 50%, 20%, or maybe just 5%? If it is 100% acceptable, then the pasting of all of this material is acceptable to Wikipedia standards. However, looking at the other Wikipedia policies, it seems to me that significant section taken from any website is needed, really should be placed in quotation marks, and used to support statements made in secondary sources written by Users. The alternative is to just place it as a simple external link, for readers who want to read the more extensive knowledge in more detail. Based on the discussion and debate, if I do do this, I fear that it will simply be reverted to the original text in the alternate website. I would also like to add some new information that is occurred in the last year or two, has there been significant developments in the building and its grounds. Using the non-copyright source means it will have to be modified fairly severely and still read as if it were encyclopaedic. Perhaps the other editor in this dispute may have some useful suggestions on improving this article with these thoughts in mind. They are clearly an experienced editor, so any ideas would be welcome. Thanks. Itchycoocoo (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) 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.

Imran Khan

– New discussion.

Filed by SheriffIsInTown on 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)
• WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk · contribs)
• Veldsenk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The content removed in this diff had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, Reham Khan is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled Reham Khan (memoir), published by HarperCollins. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Wikipedia article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Wikipedia editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored.

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

Talk:Imran Khan#Reham Khan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources.

Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001

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

Violates several key Wikipedia policies especially Wikipedia:BLP, which states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

While the book was published by a reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, she lost the case and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, suggesting a potential motive for bias.

The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Veldsenk

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

Imran Khan discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - Is this dispute at least partly about the reliability of sources? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard first, before any other content issues are discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a biography of a living person? If so, it might be answered more quickly at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  The matter concerns a BLP, but I’ve observed requests on that noticeboard being archived without a response. Since we are already on this noticeboard, with a request filed and another editor having responded, it seems more practical to build on that progress and resolve the issue here, rather than moving to multiple noticeboards. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

2025 Bangladesh Premier League

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by UwU.Raihanur on 02:58, 27 December 2024 (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 2025 Bangladesh Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved UwU.Raihanur (talk · contribs) 103.59.179.16 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I’ve been trying to add factual, sourced information to the 2025 Bangladesh Premier League article, but my edits are being reverted without explanation by another editor who hasn’t engaged in discussion despite multiple attempts. I’d like neutral input to resolve whether this edit complies with Wikipedia’s policies. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to resolve the dispute by initiating discussions at the following locations: Talk:2025 Bangladesh Premier League User talk:103.59.179.16 Despite these efforts, the other editor has not engaged in meaningful dialogue. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would appreciate input from neutral editors to determine whether my edit complies with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and relevance. A third-party perspective can help decide whether the reverted information should remain in the article or if adjustments are necessary to address any concerns. Additionally, guidance on how to handle the lack of engagement from the other editor would be helpful. Summary of dispute by 103.59.179.16 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The editor 103.59.179.16 has reverted my edits to the article multiple times without providing an explanation for the reversions. Despite my attempts to engage in discussions on their user talk page and the article talk page, they have not responded. The disputed content includes factual information about the 2025 Bangladesh Premier League, which is supported by a reliable, verifiable source. The other editor has not presented any concerns regarding the reliability or relevance of the information, nor have they participated in the discussion to clarify their reasons for the reverts. 2025 Bangladesh Premier League discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.