Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Summary of dispute by GorillaWarfare

Platner's service in Iraq is already described in his biographical article; EasternShah has been pushing to include Platner's presence at the Abu Ghraib prison specifically. EasternShah's first stated reason to include it was that Abu Ghraib was quite a significant location in the Iraq War. I pointed out that "Abu Ghraib was quite a significant location in the Iraq War" because of the human rights abuses. If Platner was uninvolved in them, why is his presence there noteworthy? They then argued it should be included because:

I think it should be included because Abu Ghraib was a place were horrible atrocities took place, and many people do bad things because of peer pressure. Many bad incidents have happened because of peer pressure, especially in the context of the American invasion of Iraq, such as the Mahmudiyah rape and killings. However, Platner was responsible enough in that moment, surrounded by such grave ills, not to take part in any of those things. What an upstanding citizen, and someone perfect to be senator! That's why I think it should be included.

This is a poor argument for inclusion and smacks of POV-pushing.

In my view, Platner's presence at the prison is not widely described in RS and seems to have been a fairly minor feature in his military career. In order to mention it in the article, explain to readers why the Abu Ghraib prison is noteworthy, and then explain that Platner was not involved in the human rights abuses for which it's known, I think we'd end up giving a lot of weight to a fairly insignificant detail. My feeling is it's not worth including unless reliable sources begin covering it in greater depth. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Generalrelative

I'm not sure I have much to add to what GorillaWarfare has stated above, other than to concur, and to state that EasternShah's statement below is misleading on a couple of points.

1) Originally... Before this revert, GW and I had already made it clear on the talk page that if this material is to be included it needs to be rephrased to clearly indicate that Platner had nothing to do with the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and a minimal argument for relevance / due weight needs to be made. Despite numerous requests, ES has been unable to provide such an argument. While this conversation was ongoing, ES proceeded to edit war a long string of provocative comments back into the BLP lead, including the Abu Ghraib reference. It was only then that I reverted the entirety of the additions with the edit summary Rolling back contested material. Please refer to WP:BLPRESTORE.

2) The argument that Platner has not received that much publicity is demonstrably and wildly false. GW has already pointed ES to the article's 78 sources. The fact remains that very few of these sources even mention that Platner was once present at Abu Ghraib, so it seems undue for us to do so.

Generalrelative (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Additional comments by EasternShah

Originally, Generalrelative removed the content citing WP:BLPRESTORE, which states When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. The Abu Ghraib been covered in a reliable source, it doesn't damage the neutrality of the article, and there aren't other reasons like article size to exclude the fact from the article. The WP:UNDUE claims are very minor in my view. Platner has not received that much publicity, as he hasn't even been elected to senate yet. The second argument that was quoted above was to demonstrate that a reader could take a favorable or negative view of content, which doesn't automatically make it negative. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I want to add Two years after the first humans rights abuse was reported, with which he was uninvolved with, he patrolled the Abu Ghraib prison. An attack occurred whilst he was there.<ref name=':22'> after He attended the Marine Corps School of Infantry, then deployed to Iraq in 2005. The article is not so large, and the source which supports the claim is already used in the article for other claims, so a fact would be omitted for no reason. According to WP:SIZERULE, the average article should be between 9,000 to 8,000 words maximum, while Platner is currently at 2,270 words. Biographies do not warrant multiple news citations (or a book/academic article) for every sentence if the subject has not garnered so much media attention (if they are not very high-profile). Examples of high-profile individuals would be major religious figures, historically significant people, leaders of nations (or large sub-national divisions), celebrities, etc. I think Platner is not high-profile, since he is just a veteran and oyster farmer right now, not even an elected senator. Furthermore, I think the various sources used in the article already mostly repeat what other sources say, such that, if we WP:MINEd the sources for information, the article would not become too long. Therefore, the point about the fact not being mentioned in many sources is not worth much. I would support removing the Abu Ghraib mention from the article, instead adding it to a child article, if/when Platner is elected and gains more media coverage for his non-veteran activities. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Graham Platner discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator (Graham Platner)

I am ready to act as the moderator if two or more editors want moderated discussion and there is a content disagreement. Please read DRN Rule D and the statement that biographies of living persons are a contentious topic. Please state concisely what language you want to add to the article or remove from the article, or what language you want to keep in the article that another editor wants to remove, or what language you do not want to add to the article that another editor wants to add. Do not explain why you want to change the article or leave the article unchanged. We can discuss that later. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator (me) and the community.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Graham Platner)

Summary of dispute by Revirvlkodlaku

Summary of dispute by CurryTime7-24

Hiroo Onoda discussion

Revirvlkodlaku and CurryTime7-24: you two haven't discussed that dispute all that extensively. Might I suggest the simpler, faster, and more informal third opinion process? If DRN is what both of you really want then I will do it.

CurryTime7-24: I will also add that participation in a DRN discussion and the result of a third opinion are both voluntary, non-binding processes. They are generally not the place to go if you believe the other editor will refuse to engage in a dispute. DRN volunteers are not judges—while we may help "arbitrate" content disputes, we have no more power over content than you do. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 05:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a fair evaluation. I am happy to discuss the issue with CurryTime7-24, though so far, they have seemed more eager to assert the correctness of their position than to engage in a good-faith discussion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Snowmanonahoe Thank you for your reply. Although slower, at least DRN is more structured, would be more strictly mediated so as to prevent further aggravation of both parties, and would provide more clarity in the event an RfC is needed. My concern is that because WP:3 is also non-binding, it will probably end up back here anyway. However, if you still believe this issue would be better discussed via the third opinion process, I have no problems with following your advice. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku and CurryTime7-24: to reiterate, dispute resolution, especially DRN, requires everyone involved to assume good faith. This is not going to go anywhere if you both continue to accuse each other of bad faith argumentation. Fill in the "summary of dispute" subsections above. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Snowmanonahoe Thank you. I'm a little confused by your comment and would appreciate your clarification: what did I say that was seen as an accusation of bad faith argumentation against the other editor? Whatever it was, it was unintended and I apologize for it. I will add that this matter isn't so important to me as to risk further inadvertent irritation of other editors. So if needed, I'm also willing to just drop the matter entirely and let the other party's edits stand. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24, probably this: "My concern is that because WP:3 is also non-binding, it will probably end up back here anyway". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You called Revirvlkodlkau's singular response on the talk page to your concern a "refusal to heed your request for a third opinion". Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@SnowmanonahoeThank you for the clarification; your meaning had been unclear to me. To be fair, it wasn't a "singular" reply. Not counting the informal palaver via edit summaries, we had two rounds of discussion before I made the comment you quoted from. Those had been preceded by my initial comments at the talk page, which concluded with my request. Of course, I could've also taken the initiative to seek arbitration myself, but I waited on them for some reason. Anyway, I'm getting off-topic here and, again, I'm willing to just drop this discussion and let the other party have their preferred way. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I have missed something, because I didn't start out looking into this dispute, because Snowmanonahoe is handling it. But I don't see discussion of changes to the article. I see that there is discussion of whether to request a third opinion rather than mediation at DRN. I think that the real question is whether the parties are ready for any sort of dispute resolution, because I don't see discussion of content. I don't think third opinion will work, because the third opinion volunteer won't know what they are being asked. (I have been there, as a third opinion volunteer who had difficulty in getting the editors to ask an answerable question.) The approach that is "least unlikely" to work may be for Snowmanonahoe to ask specific questions until they can get the parties to explain what they disagree about. Is there a reason why neither editor has filled out the summary of dispute section? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to having an open discussion with CurryTime7-24 on the topic. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)