This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 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).
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 16:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There is presently a dispute with regard to how to reflect destruction of cultural heritage and its extent in the lead of the article. I provided published sources and visual evidence supporting destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in the city of Shusha, and but information about that is being removed from the lead.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is presently a dispute with regard to how to reflect destruction of cultural heritage and its extent in the lead of the article. – This opening statement/premise is incorrect. The dispute isn't about "reflection/wording", it's about why recently introduced edit shouldn't be included in the first place. See the fulldiscussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think it is more about due weight and balance, since nobody is disputing that eurasianet is generally a reliable source. CMD kindly offered his assistance with dispute resolution. Everybody is welcome to join. Thank you. Grandmaster 18:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Volunteer Note - This dispute is on hold while User:Chipmunkdavis is mediating on the article talk page. If Chipmunkdavis wants to moderate the case here, it can be opened here. If the dispute is resolved, please make a note here to that effect and the dispute will be noted to have been resolved. This dispute can be reopened if necessary, but for now article talk page mediation is in effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Filed by QRep2020 on 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC).[]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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.
The dispute is about where to put the criticism. I suggested to integrate it to sections, since:
It is not about Starship itself
It provides context to these criticisms, and
Not every reaction about Starship are criticisms.
It is ok to put them to a seperate section, however, what I have seen is that the main point of the argument is that there are overwhelming amount of criticism, and I disagreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:CORG tells us: If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism... Indeed, reliable sources have provided substantial coverage of the controversies and criticism of SpaceX's Starship program—see: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Given this amount of significant coverage, a 'Criticism and controversies' section clearly appears to meet WP:DUE, and it is more appropriate and coherent to keep this content in a dedicated section rather than integrating it into the rest of the article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Summoned to this article via a Third Opinion request, which I offered here. The summary version: Avoid crit sections per WP:CSECTION, incorporate relevant criticisms into the article, cut the trivia. (note, Fcrary had a similar take here but was not named in this DR)
Response by CactiStaccingCrane: "ok doing it" diff.
Counter response by QRep2020: "Thats just an essay" diff.
So, yea, that was the discussion after I got there. Not much in the way of consensus building, or arguing of positions for that matter. Taking it all to DRN seems a bit premature, I mean editors could try and make their case on the talk page first, but thats just my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ping me if you need anything further, im un-watching these pages. Bonewah (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Are the editors still interested in moderated discussion? It appears that User:Bonewah says that they offered an outside opinion and will probably not be participating further, but they may participate if they wish. Read the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often do not resolve the issues, even if they make the poster feel better. It seems that at least one of the issues is whether to have a "Criticisms" section, or to include various criticisms and reactions in the individual sections. Do not respond to statements in the section for statements. Those statements are made to the community, and to the moderator for the community. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the section for that purpose. I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement in the section for statements, explaining what they either want changed or want left the same.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
A criticism section is appropriate as there are numerous reliable relevant third-party independent sources that cover critical remarks and discussion regarding the Starship project from academics, government officials, and others. Attempting to diffuse the material into other parts of the article would be an ad hoc measure especially given the other sections are mostly about technical specifications and historical details and not about political or environmental issues. None of the included criticism is trivial and readers will benefit from learning that legitimate concerns face the project in a concise, cohesive arrangement. QRep2020 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
My opinion is that many of the criticisms are accurate, however, they should be incorperated to the article because the surrounding information would give them some context. Most of the criticisms isn't about Starship itself, but rather about Starship's development, one of which criticize about SN8 launch should be mentioned directly to the dedicated history section. Otherwise, I fully support QRep's opinion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There are currently four paragraphs in the Criticism section. Is CacciStaccingCrane saying that the four paragraphs should each be moved into another existing section of the article? If that is the case, then we can discuss each of the paragraphs and where it should go. Please state whether the question is only about whether to distribute the four paragraphs into existing sections (as opposed to rewriting or deleting them). After we agree on that aspect of the scope of the issue, then we will proceed to discuss each of them.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It appears to be only about splitting up the existing Criticism section at the moment, but I will leave it to CactiStaccingCrane to confirm. QRep2020 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (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.
I hold that the current beginning of the second paragraph of the lede ("African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms both during the period of enslavement and after emancipation in the 1860's with segregation and other forms of discrimination.") is wrong because slavery was much worse than "restrictions on ... freedoms". I want to have it removed or changed so that it doesn't describe the situtation of the enslaved majority of African Americans in that way any more.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Either Robjwev has been unable to clearly explain their reasons for objecting or I have been unable to understand them. Maybe a moderated discussion can help to resolve that problem.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The current overview describes what black Americans went through before and after emancipation. I Agree that enslavement was beyond brutal, but not all enslaved had similar experiences. Not all of the enslaved were on plantations; some enslaved were sex slaves, a majority of women, some men. They faced a lifetime of rape and brutal treatment at the hands of the enslaver and the brothel clientele. Other enslaved were in breeding farms; the fathers were their enslavers themselves. The enslaved were used as lab subjects to advance science and medical fields.
But furthermore, the enslaved with specialized skills were given various forms of autonomy; some could purchase freedom. Others traveled abroad with their enslavers only to be forced back into enslavement. Some enslaved were explores that mapped the way west. During enslavement, black cowboys wrangled cattle to the slaughterhouses autonomously and had limited exposure with their enslavers.
The editor fails to understand that not all black Americans suffered the same enslaved history; some enslaved escaped north, were freed by enslavers, were the second generation freed, and on some occasions were slave owners too. Northern black Americans or Africans who immigrated to the United States from Europe faced restrictions on their livelihood. Political, social, and economic freedoms difficulties and violence that restricted their movements. Not mentioning them because their struggle did not apply to most black Americans is like not acknowledging Black American history because they are not the "majority" in the United States.Robjwev (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am willing to mediate this discussion, Do both editors agree to participate in this process and agree to the following rules:
1- Editors are to remain civil at all times
2- Editors are to keep their answers concise- approximately 1 paragraph per post is a good goal to shoot for.
3- Editors agree to keep the discussion on content rather than behavior
If you both agree to these parameters- we can start- although, since there are only 2 of you involved- I do want to let you know that WP:3O is a faster available option to get someone to come give an uninvolved editor's opinion and possibly break a stalemate.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
– This request has been placed on hold.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.