Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Bengali dialects	In Progress	Msasag (t)	65 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Flavan-3-ol	In Progress	Elemimele (t)	34 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 days, 19 hours	Ggck2 (t)	12 days, 6 hours
Stranger Than Heaven	New	DarryLaz (t)	14 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	TrainTrash (t)	9 hours
Childhood nudity	New	Paprikaiser (t)	9 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours	Paprikaiser (t)	9 hours
Ibram X. Kendi	New	Cyragui (t)	7 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 21 hours
Sexism in academia	Closed	Amerail (t)	6 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 21 hours
green bonds, sustainable finance, swaps, modern portfolio theory, iBoxx	Closed	Vagabondreturns (t)	6 days, 3 hours	None	n/a	DMacks (t)	6 days, 1 hours
Jean Sibelius	In Progress	Thedarkknightli (t)	3 days, 3 hours	Ducktanium (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Gawaon (t)	22 hours
Up (film series)	New	Halbared (t)	1 days, 9 hours	None	n/a	Halbared (t)	1 days, 9 hours
Genetics	In Progress	Example (t)		None	n/a	Example (t)

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Current disputes

Bengali dialects

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Msasag on 07:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bengali dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Msasag (talk · contribs)
• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs)
• Jacklincoln47 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over the classification of certain language varieties (Rangpuri/Kamtapuri, Sylheti, Chittagonian, Surjapuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese (Goalparia dialects), Assamese (Kamrupi dialects), Odia (Northern dialects)) on a map file (File:Bengali dialects2.png) and its versions (like File:Bengali dialects.png) across multiple articles. The map currently classifies these as dialects of Bengali.
1. 3/4 users agreed that these language varieties should be excluded from the maps on Bengali dialects. The 4th user and creator of the maps agreed only to remove the Kamrupi and Goalpariya dialects and the Hojai district of Assam.
2. It should be noted that these varieties have recognition as distinct from Bengali by modern linguists, ethnologue etc. Surjapuri and several others lack Bengali linguistic identity among any speakers. Several also have formal recognition from government (Kamtapuri/Rangpuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese, Odia).

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

File talk:Bengali dialects2.png#Issues with maps

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm hoping an uninvolved editor can help evaluate whether the sourcing provided is sufficient grounds to exclude these varieties from maps specifically about Bengali dialects.

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

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

Summary of dispute by Fylindfotberserk

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

Summary of dispute by Jacklincoln47

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

This DRN request is premature, but I will leave it open rather than closing it because the problem can be remedied. The discussion has been in the wrong place. The discussion has been on the file talk page of a map rather than the article talk page. I am marking the file talk page to show that the discussion is being moved to the article talk page, and am asking the editors to resume discussion on the article talk page for between 24 and 48 hours. One reason is to see whether any other editors offer opinions, and another is for the editors to restate, on the article talk page, what the issues are. I will check on the discussion in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted the summary on the article talk page as requested, pinging the involved editors. Msasag (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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

First statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

Is there an interest in moderated discussion about Bengali dialects? If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave alone.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I'm interested in continuing.
What I want changed: The map and its versions (used across several articles on Bengali dialects) currently includes several language varieties as dialects of Bengali. Based on discussion and sourcing so far, 3/4 users participating (@Fylindfotberserk and Chaipau: and me), have reached agreement to exclude Assam (Kamrupi dialects, Goalpariya dialects, Central dialects, that are considered as Assamese and the western Goalpariya variety is also considered as Kamtapuri), including Sylheti language speaking southern part of Assam and other Sylheti speaking regions (Sylhet division of Bangladesh, northern Tripura), Odisha (Odia dialects), Bihar (Surjapuri language), Nepal (Rajbanshi language), the Kamtapuri/Rangpuri speaking region (northern West Bengal and Rangpur division of Bangladesh) and the Chittagonian language speaking region (Chittagong division) from the map. I also proposed marking Noakhali language as disputed on the map if not excluded. The map's creator @Jacklincoln47: agreed to remove all the areas from Assam's Brahmaputra valley but asked for continued discussions on Kamtapuri/Rangpuri, Sylheti, Chittagonian and Noakhali. As we've noted in the talk pages, the former three languages have enough resources that support that they're distinct languages, plus Kamtapuri/Rangpuri also has a formal official status and recognition as distinct language by government of India.
No other questions from me. Msasag (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

One editor has stated that they want to make some changes to the article, and the other editors have not replied. This should be treated as possible silent consent, and I will put this case on hold. Make one set of changes, and if there is no objection, make another set of changes in 24 to 48 hours, and so on. If the changes are objected to or reverted, come back here to discuss with the other editor.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have made one set of changes. Msasag (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The changes I made to Bengali dialects and "template:Bengalis" as per the silent consent were reverted by @Snusho:. Per your guidance, returning here to discuss. Msasag (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

To maintain Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View, the longstanding wording with an asterisk that had been used on Wikipedia for many years should be retained, including the statement that their status is disputed. However, there are some issues concerning the language/dialect boundaries and names in certain areas of Assam and northern Odisha on the map created by Jacklincoln47, and those issues should be addressed. Nevertheless, these three languages or dialects should not be removed from the map. At present, I have removed both the map you added to the lead of the Bengali dialects article and the previous one in order to avoid disputes. Snusho (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Apart from what I stated earlier, about Sylheti, Chittagonian and Rangpuri/Kamtapuri having enough resources that they should be removed, agreeing with @Fylindfotberserk and Chaipau:, and the formal recognition of Rangpuri/Kamtapuri as an official and distinct language (therefore it has the same official status as for eg, Bengali, Assamese or Odia). Plus it belongs to the Kamarupi branch (along with Assamese) while the other two belong to the Gauda-Vanga branch (along with Bengali), as per Toulmin (2009, p220). I'd also like to add that these 3 languages along with Noakhailla have their own ISO recognition as well (syl, ctg, rkt and oak). The comparison Snusho made on the talk page with regards to the (west) Goalpariya variety on the Assamese dialects map where it's mentioned that it's also sometimes considered as a distinct language, doesn't hold as it doesn't have any ISO code, and enough resources on being distinct. Plus as I stated earlier, asterisks are almost invisible on maps, therefore I and Fylindfotberserk suggested shading the area on the map, and write about the disputed status on the map itself, which I had done with Noakhailla (as it seems to have less resources) when I replaced with the new map. Msasag (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The majority of linguists commonly consider these three to be dialects of Bengali, although some also regard them as separate languages. Therefore, both perspectives should be represented neutrally. Although Northern Rangpuri is included in the Kamrupi branch, the majority of linguists, the Government of Bangladesh, and the people of Rangpur consider it to be a dialect of Bengali. The Government of West Bengal made Rajbanshi and Kamtapuri two separate additional official languages, but, as I mentioned on the talk page, these two are not actually separate languages from each other.

On the other hand, the Goalpariya variety is commonly considered a variety of Assamese. In the Assamese varieties map, undivided Goalpara district has been included within Assamese, with a note stating that it is also sometimes considered a separate language. Both Rangpuri and Goalpariya are regional varieties of Kamtapuri. The Varieties of Arabic article includes a map of Arabic dialects, each of which also has an individual ISO code. Various Balochi dialects and Marathi dialects, such as Varhadi dialect, also have their own codes. However, they have not been excluded from the list of dialects. Therefore, it should be stated that these varieties are sometimes considered dialects and sometimes languages, as was the case previously. The map that had been used in the dialect section of the Bengali language article for many years, up until 9 March 2026, has been restored, and their status has been indicated separately below with an asterisk. Snusho (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Snusho: Rajbanshi represents the Rajbanshi language (Nepal) (ISO rjs) which is also spoken in the Darjeeling and nearby bordering areas. It has structural differences from Rangpuri/Kamtapuri (ISO rkt). And your argument doesn't invalidate the fact that they are officially recognised languages. And officially recognised language shouldn't be treated as a dialect of another language. The "most linguists" that you're talking about happen to be mostly Bengali speaking and from the colonial era to the 20th century. In the colonial era, even Assamese and Odia were treated as dialects of Bengali.
The old map that you put even includes Assamese (Goalpariya and Kamrupi varieties) and Ho speaking areas.
ISO treats Arabic and Balochi as mscro languages and the varieties as individual languages under them. It doesn't treat Bengali as a macro language, and no individual languages are listed under it. So that comparison doesn't hold. As for Varhadi dialect, it should be corrected as well.
Regarding Goalpariya dialects, as I stated before, it doesn't have any ISO code, and no recognition as a distinct language, still I had decided to mention it on the Assamese varieties map that the "Western Goalpariya" is sometimes seen as a distinct language for the sake of keeping wiki unbiased. I think I should edit that part because I found no sources that explicitly state that it's a separate language. The "East Goalpariya" varieties is always included under Assamese, even in those colonial Bengal based classifications. Toulmin (2009) also stated that it has a dual/intermediate origin from both proto Assamese and proto Kamta. The point is that Goalpariya cannot be compared with Sylheti, Kamatapuri/Rangpuri, Chittagonian and Noakhailla which have their own ISO codes and Rangpuri/Kamtapuri has a government recognition as an official and a distinct language as well.
I still stand with Fylindfotberserk and Chaipau that Kamtapuri/Rangpuri, Sylheti and Chittagonian should be excluded from being put under "Bengali dialects". Noakhailla may be kept, with shading the area and mentioning its disputed status on the map. I had to repeat my points which I'll avoid. Pinging @Fylindfotberserk and Chaipau: in case they have an opinion on this. Msasag (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

In West Bengal, “Rajbanshi” does not refer to the Rajbanshi language (Nepal). These are two distinct languages. In West Bengal, the local dialect spoken in areas such as Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri is referred to as Rajbanshi. The term Kamtapuri is also used to refer to the same language/dialect. For political reasons, the two were given separate names and designated as additional official languages. In Goalpara as well, the names Rajbanshi, Kamtapuri, Deshi, and Goalparia are used interchangeably to refer to the same language/dialect. The dialects of the western and southern parts of undivided Goalpara district were classified by Grierson and other linguists as Rajbanshi/Rangpuri dialects of Bengali, while East Goalpara was classified as a dialect of Assamese. Although Toulmin (2009) states that East Goalpara/Eastern KRDS (the Bongaigaon variety) has a mixed ancestry from both Proto-Assamese and Proto-Kamta, he classified it as an Eastern KRDS lect within the KRDS lects, while Assamese was separately classified as descending from Proto-eastern Kamrupa. Dhubri, Gossaigaon, Bogribari, and Kokrajhar in undivided Goalpara were classified as Central KRDS. Rangpur, Thakurgaon Jalpaiguri and surrounding areas were classified as “Central KRDS” within the extent of Central KRDS. Therefore, there is nothing incorrect about showing eastern and southern Goalpara on the map as these regions represents the Rangpuri/Rajbanshi language/dialect. On the other hand, the Assamese varieties map shows the entirety of Goalpara, which is incorrect from the perspective of linguistic classification. The old map did not show the Ho language area; rather, it represented the local Western Bengali dialects spoken in those areas. For example, if you look at the Santali language article, the areas covering the districts of Purulia, Jhargram, Medinipur, Birbhum, and Bankura are coloured to indicate the distribution of the Santali language. This does not mean that the entire area is Santali-speaking. By “the majority of linguists,” I am referring to linguists who speak both Bengali and non-Bengali languages. In the early period, the British government considered Assamese a dialect; linguists did not. The map in the Dialects of Polish article includes the Silesian, even though Polish is not a macrolanguage. There is also debate over whether Silesian should be considered a Polish dialect or a separate language, and this is indicated through a note in the article. Similar disputes exist regarding some Bengali dialects as well. Rangpuri is considered a dialect of Bengali by the Government of Bangladesh as well as by the people themselves. Therefore, for the sake of neutrality, information regarding the disputed status of these three languages/dialects should be retained on the map in the article. Snusho (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The term Rajbanshi is used by the Rajbanshi ethnic group for their languages in the whole KRDS lects speaking area. As Toulmin (2009, p7) discussed, it's seen as a caste centric term, while in Nepal the term Rajbanshi language is used for a specific KRDS lects spoken in the Nepal-West Bengal-Bihar border area. The term Kamtapuri is preferred in India to include other ethnic communities speaking the language. Again that doesn't invalidate the fact that Kamtapuri/Rangpuri is officially recognised as a distinct language and such a language should not be considered as a dialect of another language. Toulmin didn't classify KRDS lects as a single distinct language but a cluster of lects. A lect is different from the political classifications of language and dialect. Toulmin used proto-East-Kamarupa synonymous with Asamiya (Assamese) and showed East KRDS (Bongaigaon) is descended from both pEast Kamarupa (Asamiya) and pWest Kamarupa (proto Kamta) (Toulmin p240). Which makes it an intermediate variety descending from both Assamese and Kamtapuri. Politically it's recognised solely as Assamese. Toulmin uses the term "Extended Central KRDS" and mentioned that it represents the lects of West Bengal (excluding North Dinajpur) and Bangladesh (Toulmin 2009, p242). He also mentioned that Central KRDS extends upto Gossaigaon in Assam (p243). Using Toulmin to include several Assamese varieties in a map for Bengali dialects when Toulmin doesn't call KRDS lects as Bengali dialects is WP:OR. If the Assamese map seems incorrect to you, then the Bengali map is much more incorrect because it doesn't include just parts of one branch like Assamese, but 4 whole distinct branches.
Grierson didn't include West Singhbhum district under Bengali, but between Oriya and Bihari groups. Bengali speakers make just 1.8% there today and seem to be recent migration. That area should be excluded.
William Robinson, a linguist who published an Assamese grammar, called it a dialect of Bengali. In the late colonial era, Bishnupriya Manipuri was called a dialect of Assamese by linguists like Grierson. But things change over time. Maithili was recognised as a distinct language after being clubbed under "Bihari" by then linguists and then "Hindi". Language classifications must be up to date, especially for officially recognised languages.
Silesian also needs to be corrected just like Varhadi.
Sylheti, Chittagonian and Rangpuri/Kamtapuri should be excluded from a map on Bengali dialects. I'd ask @Robert McClenon: for his opinion as this talk is going repetative. Msasag (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Snusho, I agree with @Msasag, and I have said the same things previously.

• The KRDS lects cannot be part of Bengali because of official recognition now. Whether Goalpariya is Asssamese or not is outside the scope of this discussion.
• Sylheti too is its own language. The discussion has happened here, with the involvement from WikiProject Linguistics, with inputs from @Uanfala
• I have not followed the Chittagonian languages too closely myself, but I think the situation there is very similar to the one in Sylheti - as Suniti K Chatterji himself remarked in 1926.

FYI, @Fylindfotberserk, @Austronesier, @Robert McClenon.

Chaipau (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Suniti Kumar Chatterji, in his classification, classified western Goalpara as part of the Rajbanshi dialect, while Grierson classified the southern and eastern parts of Goalpara as belonging to Bengali. I gave Toulmin’s dialect boundary as an example because you kept bringing up her work. Just as Toulmin did not place the KRDS lects among the dialects of Bengali, he also did not classify them as dialects of Assamese. In his classification, she treated Assamese and the entire group of KRDS lects separately. But in the Assamese varieties map includes areas of both central KRDS and eastern krds. As I mentioned earlier, I am referring to the issue of linguistic classification where different linguists have different opinions. In the case of Singhbhum, Bengalis constituted the single largest community in the undivided Singhbhum district. That is why Chatterji, Shahidullah, and Sukumar Sen all mentioned it. The Dehan dialect and Eastern Assamese are shown across a fairly large area on the map of Assamese varieties, even though the proportion of Assamese speakers in Cachar district is less than 1%. The reason the Goalpariya dialects are being brought up here is that it is being claimed that they are Assamese dialects and that showing parts of Goalpara on the map of Bengali dialects is supposedly an error. First of all, there are numerous language and dialect articles on Wikipedia where the classification is disputed among scholars. For example, the map in the Punjabi dialects article includes Saraiki, Hindko, Pahari-Pothwari, etc., whose status as languages or dialects is disputed. Similarly, there are disputes over the status of varieties such as Kagoshima and Hachijō among the Japanese dialects. Nevertheless, Wikipedia maintains a neutral position in these articles by stating that these varieties are considered both languages and dialects.

The same kind of wording existed, and still exists, in the Bengali language and Bengali dialects articles. Even these disputed language or dialect wikipedia articles also mentions about the disputed linguistic status after discussion. Bishnupriya is a Bengali and Meitei creole lect, and it is considered a language in both Bangladesh and India. The situation is similar with Maithili, as it is recognized as a language in both Nepal and India. The situation is not the same for Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri. Although the previous West Bengal government granted some recognition to the spoken variety of the Jalpaiguri–Cooch Behar region, the Rangpuri variety is commonly considered a dialect by the Government of Bangladesh, the people of Rangpur, and also various modern dialectal studies on Bengali dialects by linguists. Sylheti and Chittagonian, on the other hand, have no official recognition as separate languages in both Bangladesh and Assam. Therefore, we should maintain a neutral position on Wikipedia by respecting all relevant perspectives and reflecting the different viewpoints, just as the article does now and did in the past. This kind of neutrality per WP:Npov is also maintained across similar Wikipedia articles. Pinging @MS Sakib, @Yahya, @আফতাবুজ্জামান, @Cerium4B. Snusho (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've agreed to remove the areas in Odisha and Assam and I also agree with Snusho that Sylheti, Chittagonian and Rangpuri/Kamtapuri should be kept since they're already marked with asterisks to indicate that they're disputed. I think it would therefore be reasonable to retain these areas while removing the ones in Odisha and Assam, as discussed. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The current map of the Bengali language is universally, officially, nationally, and widely recognized in reputable publications. Keep it as it is. It already states that some dialects are sometimes considered separate languages as well. There is no need for this discussion at all. Rizwan (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

There has been extensive discussion between the filing editor and another editor who was not originally a party to this discussion. So my question is for for User:Msasag and User:Snusho. Do you want to engage in moderated discussion? If so, read DRN Rule D and the contentious topic rules about South Asia. Also, if so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Do any other editors want to take part in moderated discussion?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The same points are being repeated over and over again in this discussion, without leading to any resolution. I have been arguing for maintaining a neutral position on Wikipedia by taking all perspectives into account. In other words, the disputed status of the three language varieties should remain represented on the map in the same neutral manner as it currently is in the dialect section of the Bengali language article. Another user is arguing for presenting only one-sided perspective, namely that the three varieties should be removed from the map altogether. On Wikipedia, there are various language and dialect articles where the status of particular varieties is disputed among scholars. In those articles, a neutral position is maintained in accordance with WP:POV.

Therefore, I am suggesting that the old map should remain as it currently is for now. Jacklincoln47 created another map that shows the various district-level dialects in greater detail, but it includes some areas in northern Odisha, which is somewhat inaccurate. If they correct those inaccuracies in the map, their map could also be incorporated in the future. Snusho (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes. I want to engage in moderated discussion. I've read DRN rule D and rules related to South Asia. I want the languages: Sylheti, Chittagonian, Rangpuri/Kamtapuri, Surjapuri, Rajbanshi, other Bengali-Assamese languages and varieties of Assamese and Odia to be excluded from being mentioned as Bengali dialects anywhere on Wikipedia (eg, in Bengali dialects, Bengali language) for the reasons I and 2 other users have discussed here and on the talk pages (reasons such as ISO classification, official recognition, recognition from modern linguists). And to exclude areas from maps where Bengali wasn't historically spoken as per sources (areas such as West Singhbhum district, Assam, Odisha, Bihar and any other areas of recent migrations) since the topic is about geographical distribution and classification of Bengali dialects. Msasag (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

It appears that a major issue is whether various languages should be included in the list as dialects of Bengali. It also appears that there may be an issue about some of the maps.

If you think that one of the issues is whether certain languages, language varieties, or dialects should or should not be listed as dialects of Bengali, please identify the languages, varieties, or dialects that you think are in question, and also state whether you think that they should be listed or omitted. If there are issues about the maps, please state which map or maps are at question. If you have already said this, please say it again, because when lengthy statements are made, it isn't always obvious exactly what is being said.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The 'dialect' section of the Bengali language article has included an old map for many years. In the dialect list below it, the linguistic status of Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri is stated neutrally with asterisks: “these varieties are sometimes considered dialects of Bengali and sometimes considered separate languages.” In the discussion above, I, Rizwan, and Jacklincoln4 have expressed our agreement that these should remain as they are.

Maintaining a certain longstanding version after multiple edits over the years by multiple users is also a de facto consensus, even though there has not been an RfC.

Additionally, in the list provided below this map, the varieties shown in the different coloured areas are specifically identified by name as regional varieties of the Bengali; it does not refer to dialects of any other language at all.

Furthermore, the map created by Jacklincoln47 has currently been removed from both the Bengali language and Bengali dialects articles because parts of northern Odisha and eastern Goalpara in Assam had been included in it. He has said that he will correct the errors in his map. Snusho (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The maps made by Jacklincoln47 included Sylheti (ISO syl), Chittagonian (ISO ctg), Rangpuri/Kamtapuri (ISO rkt), Surjapuri (ISO sjp), Rajbanshi (ISO rjs), Kewat (ISO kyv) and dialects of Assamese (Goalpariya dialects, Kamrupi dialects, both ISO asm) and the dialects of Odia (the northeastern dialects, ISO ory) as Bengali dialects. There are multiple maps that they made (File:Bengali dialects.png, File:Bengali dialects2.png, File:Vanga dialects.png, File:Varendri dialects.png, File:Manbhumi dialects.png). Jacklincoln47 agreed to remove the areas in Odisha and Assam here.
I and two other users agreed to remove all the above mentioned languages and dialects/varieties.
The article Bengali dialects also mentioned Chakma (ISO ccp), Tanchangya (ISO tnv) and Hajong (ISO haj) as dialects of Bengali, which should also be excluded. Snusho replaced those with another incorrect map (File:Bengali dialects political map.svg) which includes all the above mentioned languages and dialects except for Odia. Plus it included an area with recent migration (the West Singhbhum district).
I and 2 other users agreed that the Bengali dialects map should look like (File:Bengali varieties.svg) which I had added to the articles after the silent consent as per your suggestion.
I'd also like to inform you that User:Snusho made an edit on Bengali dialects on August 26 () after having started the moderated discussion on August 24, which is mentioned as not to be done by DRN rule D, rule no. 7. Msasag (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon: For clarification, I am making one more comment here. I had already stated at the very beginning of the discussion that Jacklincoln47’s map had been removed from both the Bengali language and Bengali dialects articles. Yesterday, I noticed this map was included “Regional dialects differences” section of the Bengali dialects article also. So, I removed it. DRN Rule 7 expresses concern about edit warring, but nothing of that sort is happening here, because Jacklincoln47 himself has said that he will correct the errors in the map.

In the map created by User:Msasag, Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri were removed, even though they are variously considered varieties of Bengali, although their status is disputed. Removing them is contrary to WP:Pnov. Furthermore, in that map, the southern part of undivided Dinajpur was included within the Rangpuri/Kamtapuri area, which is incorrect, as this area is classified as North Central Bengali. The western part of undivided Sylhet was also excluded, even though Mymensingh and Comilla varieties are the predominant spoken varieties there. Southern Tangail and the southern part of Kishoreganj belong to the Dhaka dialect, but they were incorrectly included within the Mymensingh dialect. However, I agree with removing the sentence in the “Phonological variation” section of the Bengali dialects article that mentions Chakma, Tanchangya, and Hajong in a sentence, because they are considered distinct indigenous languages by the Government of Bangladesh and by their respective speech communities. The current map (File:Bengali dialects political map.svg) File:Bengali dialects political map.svg) includes South Goalpara because parts of this region have been described as belonging to the Rajbanshi/Rangpuri variety of Bengali. Undivided Singhbhum has also been placed within Western Bengali in most of the linguistic classifications. Snusho (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

I am still trying to understand what the content issues are. I think that there are at least two sets of issues. The first is what dialects (or languages or language varieties) should be identified in the article, and how they should be grouped. The second is issues about the maps. So I am asking each editor, first, to list, concisely, what dialects you think should be listed, and whether they should be organized into groups.

I am, second, asking each editor to describe any issues about maps.

I am, third, asking each editor to describe any other article content issues that are not about the taxonomy of dialects and are not about maps.

Fourth, are there any other articles that this content issue also applies to, such as Bengali language? If so, we will focus on Bengali dialects first. If not, we will focus on Bengali dialects.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The Odia-Bengali-Assamese languages (Odia language and Bengali-Assamese languages) are divided into clusters of varieties. Each cluster includes several varieties, some of those are considered as languages (politically, linguistically), others are not and thus dialects of those languages.
Those that are considered as separate languages either politically or linguistically, should be excluded from being mentioned as Bengali dialects on maps and different articles.
The clusters as per the colonial era Bengali linguist Suniti Kumar Chatterjee (1926, p140) are: Radha, Varendra, Kamarupa and Vanga.
Fitting his classification against today's recognised languages and unrecognised varieties, in the Radha group he included the Odia language, and the varieties of southern West Bengal (including Standard Bengali) and bordering areas of Jharkhand. In the Vanga group, the varieties of Central and Eastern Bangladesh, the Sylheti language, the Chittagonian language, the Noakhailla language, the Chakma language, the Tanchangya language and the Bishnupriya Manipuri language are included. Chatterjee didn't mention the Hajong language but Grierson (1903) included it under "Eastern Bengali group" (synonymous to the Vanga group). In the Kamarupa group, the Assamese language, the Rangpuri language, the Surjapuri language, the Rajbanshi language (Nepal) and the Kewat language are included. Finally, the Varendri group includes the varieties of Rajshahi division of Bangladesh and the Malda and Murshidabad districts of West Bengal. None of the varieties of this group are recognised as distinct languages and are politically considered as Bengali dialects.
So the varieties that can be mentioned as Bengali dialects are Varendri and those varieties of Vanga and Radha groups which aren't considered as separate languages from Bengali (either linguistically or politically).
Now coming to the maps, all, including Snusho, considered the maps by Jacklincoln47 to be incorrect. Therefore Snusho replaced some of those with the map File:Bengali dialects political map.svg. This map is also inaccurate because it includes the recognised languages mentioned above, except for Odia. It isn't based on Chatterjee's classification completely and the creator didn't mention the source(s) used. It also includes the West Singhbhum district where the small Bengali population (1.8%) is of recent migrations. Areas of recent migrations shouldn't be included as well.
My objection is with the recognised languages being mentioned as dialects of Bengali. How the unrecognised varieties are classified is out of my concern.
Regarding your 3rd question, I've no issues.
Coming to your 4th question, the articles are Bengali dialects, Bengali language, Eastern Bengali dialects, North Central Bengali dialects (as it includes some Rangpuri language and Surjapuri language areas) and Western Bengali dialects (it includes parts of West Singhbhum district and some Odia dialects). Msasag (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Most linguists have classified Bengali dialects by including them in four groups (Rarhi, Barendri, Vanga/Bangali and Kamrupi). Sylheti, Chittagonian and Rangpuri language or dialect are politically considered as dialects of Bengali. Linguistically, many linguistics consider them as Bengali dialects while some others call them separate languages. Even most of the people who speak these language/dialects consider their own lect as a dialect of Bengali. So I have argued in favor of mentioning them on the map and clearly mentioning the disputed status, as it is now.

Everyone has agreed that the map made by Jacklincoln47 is incorrect, so I am not saying anything about it until it is fixed. The map made by Msasag has completely excluded Sylheti, Chittagonian and Rangpuri, which is the main reason for objection. There are also some other errors regarding dialect boundaries. And the old map currently included shows the southern part of undivided Goalpara of Assam as Rajbanshi/Rangpuri dialect of Bengali, which Msasag is objecting to, but in linguistic classification, the eastern and southern parts of Goalpara district are considered as Rajbanshi-speaking. And the entire Singhbhum district is classified under Western Bengali, although in present-day West Singhbhum there are fewer Bengali speakers.

This content issue also applies to some other articles. Assamese language and Goalparia dialects (since maps included in these two articles include Rangpuri speaking areas), KRDS lects and Rangpuri language article (because they include various areas of North Central Bengali dialects). Snusho (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

We are getting nowhere. My first question now is: Did you read DRN Rule D in detail? What part of Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. didn't you understand? I can't ask what part of the article an editor wants to change if the editors are changing the article while I ask the questions.

I see that there are two main content issues. The first is what dialects (or languages or language varieties) should be identified in the article, and how they should be grouped. The second is issues about the maps. I think that there aren't any other content issues.

I asked, as my first question, for concise statements as to what the groups of dialects or language varieties were. The answers were not concise. This may mean either that the dialects and varieties cannot be listed concisely, because there are many of them and their interrelationship is complex, or because the editors provide long answers to questions that can be answered concisely. So my new second question is: Can there be a concise listing of the dialects or language varieties of the Bengali language? Question 1.5 is, if the answer to the first question is yes, then please provide the concise listing.

My third question is: In your opinion, can the maps that are currently in the article be retained, or should they be replaced?

I don't want to fail this discussion, but I see two problems. The first is that the article is being edited. The second is that the answers to my questions are not concise. So do not edit the article, and please provide concise answers to my questions.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I didn't edit the articles since the moderated discussion began, but I had informed that Snusho did. I had tried to provide more context.
2. Yes, a concise list can be made.
1.5. Under Bengali dialects, (i) keep the Radha group excluding Odia dialects and West Singhbhum district. (ii) Keep the Vanga group excluding Sylheti, Chittagonian, Rohingya, Noakhailla, Chakma, Hajong, Tanchangya and Bishnupriya Manipuri languages. (iii) Keep the Varendra group entirely (without including areas of Kamarupi group).
3. Yes they should be replaced. Msasag (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Since the moderated discussion began, I have made only one edit to the Bengali dialects article. I have already explained the reason for this above.

2. Bengali dialects have been classified in different ways by different linguists. However, I will try to provide a brief list. 1.5 The dialects are Central Bengali/Eastern Rarhi, Western Bengali/Western Rarhi, Northern Bengali/Varendri, Rangpuri/Rajbanshi, and Eastern Bengali/Vanga (which includes Sylheti and Chittagonian variety). However, in the recently added map in the Bengali language article, Sylheti and Chittagonian are shown separately, with their disputed status explicitly stated below the map. I believe they should be retained in the dialect list and on the map in the same way, with their disputed status clearly mentioned.

3. The map currently included in the Bengali dialects article should be retained, since there is currently no available map like this that represents all of these aspects simultaneously. The map should be replaced with a revised version of the map from the Eastern Bengali article after removing Hojai district. The map in the Western Bengali article should be replaced with a revised map after removing the northern parts of Odisha. The map in the Rangpuri language article should be replaced after removing the areas of the Varendri dialect. The map in the Varendri dialect article should be retained. The map in the Assamese language article should be replaced after removing the Rangpuri/Rajbongshi variety areas. Snusho (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

I still don't think that we are making much progress. So I will revise my questions. I am not sure that DRN is the proper forum, because I am not sure that there is a well-defined content disagreement, only a vaguely defined content disagreement. I will continue to see whether we can determine what the disagreements are, or whether we should end this case and go back to normal editing and normal discussion.

I will first ask about the maps. I see six maps. I will ask each editor to comment on each of the six maps first. Should the map be kept, deleted, or replaced? The maps are:

• 1. Dialect map according to Chatterji.
• 2. Dialect map according to Chatterji & Sen.
• 3. Dialect map according to Grierson.
• 4. Dialect map according to Sarkar.
• 5. Dialect map according to Shahidullah.
• 6. Dialect map according to Haldar. (Eastern Bengali)

Also, should any new maps be added?

I will then ask about the families of dialects. The article lists six families of dialects.

• 1. Eastern Bengali dialects
• 2. Central Bengali dialects.
• 3. Southern Bengali dialects.
• 4. North Central Bengali dialects.
• 5. Western Bengali dialects.
• 6. Far Northern Bengali dialects.

The first question is whether each of you agrees that those are the six families of dialects, or whether you think that any families of dialects should be added or moved. The next question is whether the text about each family of dialects should be revised, and, if so, how..

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The disagreement is regarding whether to mention the recognised languages (those I mentioned earlier) as Bengali dialects or not. I support the latter while Snusho the former. Coming to your questions,
(1.1) These maps are outdated as many of the "dialects" have been recognised as separate languages. They only show how certain individual authors (all Bengali, except Grierson) had classified, rather than how they should be classified now. For example, all the varieties of the Kamarupi cluster are considered as distinct languages now. Those maps can be kept to show how different authors had classified. No. 1 includes West Singhbhum that should be removed. No. 2 Synchronises two authors, including Chatterjee, so it should be removed. No. 3 can be kept. No. 5 should exclude West Singhbhum. I couldn't find sources for No. 4 and 6.
(1.2) Yes, the new map File:Bengali varieties.svg should be used as the primary map to show which varieties are still considered as Bengali dialects.
(2.1) No. 6 ("Far Northern Bengali dialects") should be removed as it covers the Kamarupi varieties which are all recognised as distinct languages. No. 1, 4 and 5 should be modified to exclude the non Bengali speaking areas.
(2.2) Yes, they should exclude the varieties that are considered as distinct languages now. Msasag (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The disagreement here concerns the linguistic status of several language varieties, namely Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri. Many linguists, Bangladesh Government consider them dialects, while some consider them separate languages. Therefore, my position is that, in accordance with WP:NPOV, they should be retained in the article with their disputed status clearly mentioned, as is currently done in the Bengali language article.

Of the six maps currently included in the Bengali dialects article, all of them should be retained. The names of two linguists, Suniti Kumar Chatterji and Sukumar Sen, are written below Map 2. This attribution is not correct. This map should currently be retained as the primary map, with the disputed status of the three aforementioned varieties clearly mentioned below it. I provided some examples of Wikipedia articles (Polish dialects, German dialects, Punjabi dialects etc) above where, similar to the Bengali language article, a neutral position is maintained regarding the classification of various disputed language varieties. The map created by Msasag completely excludes these three varieties, so it should not be included in this article. It also has issues concerning the dialectal boundaries.

As for the dialect groups, I believe all of them should be retained. Each of these groups is still widely regarded as comprising Bengali dialects by both government sources and the linguistic literature. Snusho (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

Is the main question about the text of the article whether to include varieties that are normally classified as distinct languages? If so, this is a question about the scope of the article, and also about how the term 'dialects' is used. Are there any other content issues about the groups of dialects? I will try to address that question separately from the question of the maps.

There are six existing maps, and one map that is proposed to be added. My first map question is whether any of the existing maps should be kept. My second map question is whether the new map should be added.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:
(1.1) Yes.
(1.2) Apart from excluding areas where those recognised languages are spoken, areas of recent migrations should also be excluded, such as West Singhbhum district. This would also apply to the Hojai district for both being recent migration and speaking a recognised language, i.e, Sylheti.
(2.1) Map 3 can be kept without modification. Map 1 and 4 can be kept only if modified, otherwise removed.
(2.2) Yes, the new map should be added as the primary map to show the actual varieties still counted as dialects of Bengali. There are also versions of this new map where only single dialect clusters are shown and can be added to articles and sections dedicated to that particular dialect cluster. Msasag (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Issues have been raised regarding both the text and the maps in these articles. My position is that the three aforementioned varieties should be mentioned in the articles, with their disputed status clearly stated, since they are still recognized as dialects by various linguists and by the Government of Bangladesh.

I have no issues concerning the dialect groups. I also believe that all of the maps should be retained, because the regions shown on the maps have been included according to linguistic classifications. In the new map created by Msasag, Sylhet, Chittagong, and Rangpur have been removed, which reflects a particular point of view. There are also numerous errors concerning the boundaries of the North Central Bengali and Vanga dialects. Therefore, this map should not be included. Snusho (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

It appears that one of the main issues, or the main issue, is about the scope of this article. The question in particular seems to be whether this article should include language varieties that are normally considered to be separate languages related to the Bengali language, or whether this article should not include those varieties. Is that correct? If one of the issues is about the scope of the article, a next step will be to develop a Request for Comments so that the community can decide on the scope of this article.

In the meantime, we will also discuss the maps, because the questions about the maps appear to be independent of the scope issue.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:
(1) Yes. Whether those recognised languages related to Bengali be mentioned as Bengali dialects or not.
(2) Sure. We will also discuss the maps. The main issue with the map(s) is linked to the content, i.e, whether the recognised languages should be mentioned as Bengali dialects on the primary map(s) or not. And secondly, the other maps based on classifications by individual authors (this isn't my primary concern as they don't determine how the language varieties are treated/categorised today, i.e, as separate languages or dialects of Bengali) are accurate as per the sources or not. Msasag (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I don't think there are any significant issues concerning the scope here. This is because, for a long time, the classification or lead of this article, as well as maps added by various users, either mentioned the three disputed varieties (Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri) explicitly or included a note below the map with an asterisk stating that “these varieties are sometimes considered dialects and sometimes languages.” Therefore, just as the neutral term “variety” is used at Bengali language#Dialects, I think the same term should be used here to refer to these disputed varieties, as was done in older versions of the Bengali dialects article. I would also like to point out that although there is disagreement among different linguists, the Bengladeshi Goverment and majority of speakers of these three language varieties/dialects themselves also recognise their speech varieties as regional Bengali dialects.

It should also be noted that the map, the scope of the article, and the classification of the dialects are all interconnected. None of these aspects is independent of the others.

I have no further questions from my side. Snusho (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

There appears to be agreement that the principal issue is whether this article should include several language varieties that are considered to be distinct languages by most twenty-first century linguists. So I have at least two questions.

First, what language varieties are the subject of this discussion? What language varieties are in dispute because they are considered to be distinct languages rather than dialects?

Second, do substantially all scholars consider these language varieties to be separate languages, or is the status of these language varieties the subject of disagreement by these scholars? Are there linguistics who considered them to be mere dialects?

After I see the names of the language varieties that are said to be langauges, I will compose the RFC on whether the scope of the article will include those languages.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:
(1.1) The language varieties are: Bengali (ISO ben), Assamese dialects (Kamrupi dialects and Goalpariya dialects, both ISO asm), Sylheti (ISO syl), Chittagonian (ISO ctg), Rangpuri/Kamtapuri (ISO rkt), Noakhailla (ISO oak), Surjapuri (ISO sjp), Rajbanshi (ISO rjs), Chakma (ISO ccp), Tanchangya (ISO tnv) and Hajong (ISO haj). Some other articles I had mentioned also include Kewat (ISO kyv) and northeastern dialects of Odia.
(1.2) The language varieties that are considered as distinct languages rather than dialects of Bengali are all of the above except for Bengali.
(2.1) Most modern scholars and linguists don't consider these as dialects of Bengali. Most of these are considered as distinct languages and a few as dialects of Assamese and Odia (those I mentioned above). Assamese, Odia and Rangpuri/Kamtapuri also have official status in India.
(2.2) A few modern linguists have mentioned Sylheti and Noakhailla as dialects of Bengali but they didn't give any linguistic reasons as to why. While linguists who considered these as distinct languages, many of them gave reasons. Noakhailla seems to be a bit understudied compared to Sylheti which is way more studied and recognised as a distinct language. Msasag (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The three disputed language varieties here are Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri. These three varieties are sometimes considered dialects of Bengali and sometimes treated as separate languages. As for Noakhailla, there is no dispute about its inclusion as Msasag agreed and it was also included in his map.

The names of several indigenous languages of Bangladesh—namely Chakma, Hajong, and Tanchangya—are mentioned in one section of the article which Msasag identified, and they should be removed. These are recognized as separate languages by both the Bangladeshi government and respective indigenous communities. Therefore, there is no dispute here regarding these languages either as I and Msasag agreed in the above discussion. The names of any dialects of Assamese or Odia, the Kewat language of Nepal, or the Bihari language Surjapuri do not appear anywhere in the Bengali dialects article as Bengali dialects. Therefore, there is no dispute concerning these either. However, there is a dispute over how far the geographical boundaries of the various language varieties should extend.

No, it is not the case that all linguists consider these three varieties—Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri—to be separate languages. There is disagreement among linguists on this issue.

Even in the present day, much of the research conducted so far on Bengali linguistics, Sylheti, Chittagonian and Rangpuri have been described as dialects of Bengali. Linguists including Grierson, Shahidullah, Sarkar, Sen, and Chatterji, as well as modern linguists such as Chung, Arpita Goswami and Rasinger, have considered Sylheti a dialect, while some other linguists consider it a separate language. Therefore, these three varieties should be retained in the Bengali dialects article, with their disputed status explicitly mentioned, as is already done in Bengali language#Dialects. Snusho (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

I apologize for not having worked this case for several days.

I think that we should break the RFC into two or more parts. The first question will ask whether the scope of the article includes language varieties that are considered by most linguists to be distinct languages. The other parts will ask whether to exclude specific language varieties. I have developed a draft RFC and have composed an initial draft that addresses the question of scope, and does not at this time answer the question of what languages or language varieties are involved.

Please do not vote in the RFC or comment in the RFC at this time, because it is only a draft, not a live RFC.

Should we launch the RFC as it is, in which case the community will decide on the scope issue, and decide on the specific languages later, or should we populate the RFC also with the identification of the languages that will be excluded?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I didn’t quite understand the point of dividing RFC into two parts. Suppose the first question asks whether language varieties that many linguists currently also consider separate languages should be included. If the community decides to exclude all of them, then what would be the point of asking the second question, whether to exclude specific language varieties? And if people decide to include them, then there would be even no reason to ask the second question.

More importantly, the RFC should explicitly mention the names of the varieties whose inclusion or exclusion is being discussed. The current disagreement in this discussion concerns the inclusion of Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri. As for the other language varieties, I had raised the issue of resolving the disagreement over their exclusion from this article in my previous comment.

In my view, the RFC should mention that these are also considered dialects of Bengali, since there is a strong viewpoint supporting this position.

For Option A, it should state that Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri should be included, and the classification section or the lead should mention that “these language varieties are sometimes considered dialects and sometimes languages.” This was my proposed position.

For Option B, it should state that these three varieties should be excluded entirely. This was Msasag’s position.

Then the community will decide whether they support Option A or Option B. Snusho (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have another question. There is also a disagreement in this discussion over the geographical boundaries of Northern Bengali, Western Bengali, and Rangpuri. Would there be a separate RFC to resolve that issue? Snusho (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I agree with your approach. The ISO recognition as distinct languages, and for some, the official status given by government (such as Rangpuri/Kamtapuri) may also be included in RFC if needed. And I apologise for the late reply. Msasag (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (Bengali dialects)

@Robert McClenon: The RFC should not be launched in its current form. Please mention Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri by name in the RFC, as these are the varieties being discussed. Then mention in the RFC that many linguists consider them dialects of Bengali, while many others consider them separate languages. It may also be noted that the majority of their speakers and the Government of Bangladesh regard them as dialects. It is not false to say that these three varieties are still considered Bengali dialects from various perspectives, nor is it false that they are considered languages from other perspectives. Therefore, give the community multiple options to choose from—whether they want to exclude them or keep them in the article with wording such as “these varieties are also considered separate languages.” This would allow you to determine both the scope of the article and the community’s views on the disputed varieties at the same time. Rizwan (talk) 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Twelfth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

I again apologize for not having worked this case much, and think that I am ready to resume work on it. There is one main dispute, which is whether to include or exclude the language varieties that are considered to be separate languages by most linguists, which can in turn be broken down into a general issue about the inclusion or exclusion of the distinct languages, which is an article scope issue, and the specific issues of various language varieties. I see at least three ways to structure the resolution of this matter.

Option A is to launch a single one-part RFC, currently available, on whether to include or exclude the language varieties that are recognized as distinct languages. We can then wait for the RFC to be closed. If it is closed to exclude the distinct languages from this article, we can then proceed to identify the languages that will be excluded, and develop one or more RFCs.

Option B is to develop a single large RFC, listing each of the varieties that are normally considered separate languages, and then launch the single RFC listing all of the varieties that are considered separate languages, and ask whether they should all be excluded.

Option C is to develop a tentative list of which varieties should be considered separate languages, and to include the list in an RFC for information purposes to give more information to the community in voting on the RFC. If the RFC is closed to exclude the distinct languages from the article, we can then review the tentative exclusions in more detail, probably with more RFCs.

I will begin pulling together a list of the language varieties that are considered to be separate languages.

Some of you have already provided your opinions as to which option should be followed, but please state them either for the first time or the second time.

There are also questions about the maps. I think that questions about the maps are dependent on the resolution of whether to include or exclude some of the language varieties. If there are any questions about the maps that can be addressed immediately, please describe them briefly.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: For some health issues, I'd like to reply after a few days if that's ok. Msasag (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

One editor wants to slow down their involvement in this case. So I will try to focus on what work can be done by the moderator and the other editors for the time being. I think that will start by listing the [[language varieties\\ that are thought by some linguists tp be Bengali dialects and by other linguists to be separate languages. I see that three of the language varieties that are considered by some linguists to be separate languages are Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri. What other language varieties are disputed?

I will also ask each editor whether they have a proposal on how to resolve this issue by restructuring this article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

In our discussion, Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri are the only three varieties that are the subject of the dispute. There is no dispute here regarding any of the other language varieties.

One issue that has been raised concerns a disputed map and the geographical boundaries of the varieties. There is disagreement over how far the geographical boundaries of Rangpuri, North Central Bengali, and Western Bengali should extend. According to most of the linguistic literature, western Goalpara is part of the Rangpuri-speaking area, North Central Bengali is also spoken in some adjacent parts of Bihar, and Western Bengali is spoken in the former Singhbhum district region.

To resolve the issues with this article, I propose that, in accordance with Wikipedia policies WP:Balance and WP:NPOV, the article's classification section should include a note stating that Sylheti, Chittagonian, and Rangpuri are sometimes considered dialects and sometimes languages, or this information could be indicated on a map.

For the issue of geographical boundaries, we can follow the boundaries used by the majority of linguists. There is currently some incorrect information regarding these boundaries. If you allow to edit the article, I can correct those inaccuracies and provide reliable sources. Snusho (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, these three languages have been agreed to be the subject of dispute. Apart from recognition from linguists, Rangpuri/Kamtapuri also has goverment recognition as a distinct language and an official status in India. Noakhailla has ISO recognition but not enough resources on linguists classifying it as a distinct language, which is why I suggested that it should be either excluded or kept but shaded on the map and its dispute status being mentioned. The issues with the rest of the languages I listed on the tenth statement is mainly with boundaries but also those languages. Like the current map (File:Bengali dialects political map.svg) used in the articles Bengali dialects and Bengali language extends Rangpuri/Kamtapuri eastwards including Assamese dialects (Goalpariya dialects the Kamrupi dialects) speaking areas. In Assam, Kamtapuri (regionally called West Goalpariya) covers only a small portion in the south westernmost part and is never considered as Bengali. The map also includes the West Singhbhum district which isn't supported by sources, and has only 1.8% Bengali speakers today, likely recent migrants. The map also includes the entirety of Tripura, including Kokborok speaking areas. Since we're excluding recent migrations, the Indo-Aryan languages and language varieties were spoken by a very small population, limited to the bordering areas (even today, 68% of Tripura, covering the TTAADC has more than 86% non Indo-Aryan speaking population). Grierson (1903) excluded all of Tripura from his "Bengali and Assamese" map. This current map on the articles also includes the entirely of Chittagong division. Chakma, Tanchangya and Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken in Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Bengali and Chittagonian speaking population is very recent event tied to ethnic cleansing of the indigenous communities and languages there (see , Chakma refugees). And there are some "dialect" articles still having Jacklincoln47's maps, as well as body text that mention the other languages that I listed, as Bengali dialects (I'm not sure about Snusho's stance on this).
I'm still ill so my contribution on this discussion will be slow until I get better, hope this is allowed. I can try asking another user to take my place (as we had an agreement) if they can. Msasag (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Fourteenth statement by moderator (Bengali dialects)

I have expanded the draft RFC by revising it to list three languages that are agreed to be distinct languages. The draft RFC is available at Talk:Bengali dialects/RFC on Language Varieties. Please review the revised draft RFC and comment on whether adding a second part to the RFC is useful. Please do not comment or vote in the draft RFC, because it is not a live RFC. Please comment here, in the DRN. Are there any other questions that should be addressed in an RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Flavan-3-ol

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Elemimele on 12:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Flavan-3-ol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elemimele (talk · contribs)
• Carrot juice (talk · contribs)
• Zefr (talk · contribs)
• GRuban (talk · contribs)
• Ggck2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute about whether to refer to a trial (acronym "COSMOS") on the dietary benefits or otherwise of cocoa-based flavan-3-ols

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

There has been enormous discussion on the talk page, for example Talk:Flavan-3-ol#How are we going to resolve this?, we are at an utter impasse, where basically every time the information appears, it gets reverted, there's a huge discussion, and it fizzles out because no one has the energy to keep fighting. Directly below this section of the talk page is a Third Opinion response from GRuban that has not been implemented.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need a mediated discussion to sort out whether or not the study is wiki-notable, with a view to reaching a defined end-point.

Summary of dispute by Carrot juice

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

I am not convinced the COSMOS trial is notable to be mentioned on Wikipedia because of lack of secondary sources that mention it. If this trial was notable it would be mentioned in plenty of review papers and news websites but hardly any coverage exists. Carrot juice (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zefr

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

As this issue has been extensively discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Flavan-3-ol; see years of history), I am not going to participate again. It is also relevant to see the history of the identical user Ggck2 and Ggux (recently unblocked - not justified, in my opinion: WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SPA). Zefr (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GRuban

I admit, I'm not sure why my 3rd opinion wasn't implemented. That's kind of the point of asking for a 3rd opinion. Was it implemented and reverted? I don't see that in the page edit history. --GRuban (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ggck2

Please note that I have a conflict of interest, which is outlined on [talk page].

There does not appear to be a standard approach regarding the inclusion of large studies: There are precedents for both: for example Mediterranean diet does not mention Predimed, but Hormone replacement therapy mentions the Women's Health Initiative is mentioned in an article on Hormone replacement therapy).

Large RCTs in nutrition research are unfortunately uncommon, which - in my opinion - makes this noteworthy. But flavanols are one of my main research interest, so this perception might well be biased.

One objection has been the outcome of the study, but I find this as criterion problematic, because it introduce a bias (something that has plagued scientific research for a long time): a large RCT with pre-specified will provide useful information, whatever the outcome. Mentioning the study does not need to discuss the outcome at all - an interested reader will be able to obtain the information from the relevant links.

Another objection has been funding, but there are many studies included in wikipedia articles with industry funding (e.g. for drugs or vaccines).

The study itself is mentioned under the "parent" study, the Women's Health Initiative - so this would just be a reference to an already existing entry. Ggck2 (talk)

Summary of dispute by Elemimele

To add a little detail: COSMOS was a very large study, of 21,000 adults, and led to a number of peer-reviewed publications, but did not demonstrate convincing benefits to consuming flavanol-enriched cocoa products. It was funded by Mars and NIH, but I don't know the relative proportions. Pfizer provided materials. The work was carried out by the Brigham and Womens hospital. The two schools of thought are: (1) a study of this size is extremely rare for a phytochemical, the publications from it are valid academic publications, and therefore it's worthy of a mention, even if it's just one sentence and a couple of citations, versus: (2) the study didn't demonstrate conclusive benefits and is therefore at best medically-irrelevant, and at worst likely to misinform our readers; furthermore because it is associated with Mars, we are compounding the bad medicine by allowing it to advertise a commercial sponsor. Elemimele (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Flavan-3-ol discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Flavan-3-ol)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want to take part in moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. It is my understanding that either the main issue or one of the main issues is whether and how to discuss the COSMOS study, based on the medically reliable source guidelines. Are there any other issues? If there are any other issues, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If the main issue or the only issue is the medical reliability of the COSMOS study as a source, we will ask for the advice of the volunteers at the reliable source noticeboard.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Flavan-3-ol)

Thank you for offering to mediate. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to make a start, as I have started this disagreement.

The key question is whether a single study of sufficient scale can be mentioned, even if it is primary research. This is not handled consistently across Wikipedia, and there were also different opinions in the discussion on the talk page. I think mentioning the existence of such a study - in a neutral way and without discussing outcomes - is appropriate as such studies are rare in nutrition research. Ggck2 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to mediate. (1) I am willing to participate following DRN rule A. (2) Ggck2 has summed up the situation well; the study is primary research, but the papers published as a result have been broadly cited in a range of what are definitely reliable sources. I see Flavan-3-ol as primarily a science article rather than a medicine article, and I personally do not favour any mention of its nutritional value based on the cosmos study. I merely think that the existence of the study should be mentioned. But the requirements for a medical article are, frankly, sane requirements for any article. (3) I checked and can confirm that no one actually attempted to implement GRuban's 3rd-opinion (that a brief mention was appropriate; see talk page). I apologise, I should have done so, before starting this DR. But (4) Zefr has, prior to the 3rd opinion, been adamant that it should not be inserted, and has previously repeatedly removed it. Since we're here (and Zefr's right, the issue has been discussed at great length), I would prefer to arrive at a decision to which we're all reconciled, and - if it's to be mentioned - wording on which we all agree, rather than just force something into the text against Zefr's wishes, based only on GRuban's assessment. Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with this approach. The addition I proposed has been:

The effect of cocoa flavanols, flavanols extracted from cocoa beans, on cardio-vascular health and other health endpoints has been investigated in the large scale COSMOS study.

Perhaps this can be used as a starting point. The reason for emphasising cocoa flavanols is to specify the type of flavanols (e.g. in contrast to those from tea) and has nothing to do with chocolate.

Ggck2 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Flavan-3-ol)

I am trying to understand the history of this dispute, and it appears that I am not the only editor who is puzzled. I see that a Third Opinion was requested. The opinion appears to have been, on 3 June, to include one sentence mentioning the large COSMOS study. Is that what the question was, and is that what the participating editors think was the Third Opinion? I see comments by various editors including the editor who provided the Third Opinion that it appears that the Third Opinion was never implemented. Is that correct? If so, why or why not? What was the point of requesting the Third Opinion if it wasn't even inserted and reverted?

I don't see any objection to implementing the Third Opinion. Should I close this DRN as resolved to implement the Third Opinion? If not, why not?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Flavan-3-ol)

You are right. It may have been premature of me to raise this DR without first implementing the 3rd opinion. My belief is that the third opinion didn't get implemented because Ggck2, who started it, got blocked before they could do anything.

But in any case, in the archive talk page Talk:Flavan-3-ol/Archive 1 there are three formal requests for comments, in the first of which Amadeus1999 (identifying themselves as volunteering a formal third-opinion), said " I would lean towards not including broad statements based on this one study. I would personally be okay with including it as a mention of purely encyclopedic value as WP:MEDASSESS does say we are not to take into account funding sources." (they said quite a lot else too, please read). Unfortunately this just led to further disagreement. It's hard to implement any 3rd opinion when we've got three inconclusive RfCs, two 3rd opinions (and other discussions, both on the current talk-page and spin-outs into COI noticeboard etc.).

I came to this party quite late. my feeling is: Ggck2 wanted cosmos included, and initially wanted some results included. Zefr was adamantly against. Other editors didn't like the idea of mentioning conclusions for various reasons (based on a single study, funded by mars, inadequately convincing statistics), but the two people who volunteered as 3rd opinions both said a simple mention that the study existed would be okay. Ggck2 seems to have back-pedalled on wanting some mention of conclusions, and is now happy to have just a mention the study exists. If I had to read the consensus, I'd say "mention the study, but do not mention its conclusions", but since that's my personal viewpoint too, I really, really don't want to be the final arbiter. Also, because that was the viewpoint back at the stage Amadeus999 got involved - and subsequent attempts to implement it failed - I don't dare implement it myself unilaterally now. Elemimele (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

A few concluding points:

1. As it stands, the COSMOS study is not notable in clinical research; it was a failed Phase II clinical trial, which any typical sponsor would have used to kill the program for further financing.

2. However, Mars Inc., is not a typical sponsor. It financed the COSMOS study (see conflict of interest and funding disclosures), and remains now in a dedicated 20+ year advertisement of CocoaVia, the main Mars flavanol supplement product which is currently promoted with misleading claims of cardiovascular and cognitive benefits (in no way are these claims confirmed in the scientific mainstream or accepted by any government regulatory agency or national clinical organization). Further existing Mars promotion of flavanol misinformation is here.

3. User Ggck2 is a researcher and advocate for flavanols as nutrients (false, unproven) and having health effects (false, unproven). He was a coauthor and was funded on this Mars-sponsored, COSMOS-related publication (see initials under Author contributions and Competing interests), so is entangled in the promotion and false commercial advocacy of flavanols by Mars.

4. Mars has been conducting public misinformation about the misbranded health effects of cocoa flavanols disguised as "science" for 20 years.

5. Giving any visibility to flavan-3-ols as related to nutrition or health by mention of the COSMOS study plays into the advertising and misinformation that Mars desires. We should stop wasting time on the failed COSMOS study and Ggck2's persistent misaligned advocacy, and abandon further consideration of this topic. Zefr (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Flavan-3-ol)

Are there any content issues other than the mention of the COSMOS study? If so, please state concisely what they are.

Please state concisely what your opinion is about how the COSMOS study should be mentioned. Some of the possible answers are:

• Do not mention the study. (That appears to be the current state of the article).
• Describe the study in one sentence. (That appears to have been the Third Opinion.)
• Describe the study, and its conclusion, in one paragraph.
• Describe the study at length, in a section of the article.

If there are at least two different opinions, it will probably be more useful to compose and launch an RFC than to try to reach a compromise.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Flavan-3-ol)

• Don't mention it. The COSMOS study is an advertisement for the Mars supplement, CocoaVia, which misleads consumers about the health outcomes of using the product. The study does not meet WP:MEDRS; discussing it is WP:UNDUE. Source quality should be tested at WP:RSN. Zefr (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• It is appropriate for me not to vote here - but I would like to correct a misunderstanding. COSMOS is a large RCT that is notable in this area of research. Mentioning it does not make a health claim. The study has been pre-registered and conducted in line with all relevant guidelines, results were published in journals hat meet all WP:MERDS criteria. Ggck2 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Issues with article: it requires some revision as there are some factual mistakes (e.g. including chocolate prominently as flavanol source), inconsistencies (misinterpretation of health claim assessments - they assess the submitted dossiers, not anything else) and contradiction (something can't have adverse physiological effects and no physiological effect at the same time). Suggestion: in line with other articles on polyphenols, neutral description of research and less emphasis on health effects. Ggck2 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  I should probably add that none of this is urgent - the article is fine as it is, but can be improved. I might have misunderstood Robert McClenon here. Providing more information will make it less likely that the article is misunderstood as an attempt to promote anything and rather a statement of current states of affair. Ggck2 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer (Flavan-3-ol)

I have drafted an RFC to answer the question of how much coverage to provide in the Flavon-3-ol article about the COSMOS study. The draft RFC is at Talk:Flavan-3-ol/RFC on COSMOS. Please review it. Please do not vote in the draft RFC at this time, because it is not a live RFC. Please do not comment in the draft RFC at this time. Any comments should be entered here (in this DRN). If there is agreement that this RFC should be used to resolve the dispute, I will move the RFC into the article talk page and launch it, and it will become a live RFC. If there is agreement without the RFC, I will mark the draft RFC as historical, and will close this DRN as resolved. If there are indecisive comments about whether there is agreement or whether an RFC is needed, I will launch the RFC, because I would rather have the issue resolved than have it continue to be discussed.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Flavan-3-ol)

• This DRN topic should be closed. There has been ample time, multiple discussants, and far too much time and talk page activity perpetuated by one COI user, Ggck2, on this primary source since 2021. Note spelling of flavan-3-ol. Thank you for your efforts, Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you, Robert McClenon. I agree with the RfC. I would suggest that neither I nor Zefr contribute to the RfC, as both of us clearly have strong opinion and are unable to maintain the necessary disinterestedness. While I have a COI, Zefr has continuously provided misleading information here (their description of the discussion, my alleged intentions and indeed the study are wrong). Ggck2 (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with the RfC. Yes Zefr's right about the title typo. There is one point of friction that we might be able to oil from the outset: Zefr is concerned that Mars are misrepresenting the outcome of the study to support their own commercial ends. My aim in following the example of the two third opinions (mention study but not outcome) was to avoid giving too much emphasis to the study, and avoid implying that cocoa flavanols have health benefits. But if it would partially placate Zefr's concerns, I wouldn't be opposed to including something suitable saying the study failed to indicate that cocoa flavanols will actually improve your health. Shall we leave this to the RfC, or is it worth clarifying that Option C doesn't imply stating a positive outcome, and doesn't imply a paragraph longer than two short sentences? I honestly don't want to turn this into a trumpet-blowing exercise for the proponents of flavanols; to me it's more about informing readers interested in flavanols as phytochemicals about what research has happened. Elemimele (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  Addressing Elemimele's comments:

  1 a). "informing readers interested in flavanols as phytochemicals". We have a Research section which summarizes the current state of science, and has been stable since May; 1 b). isn't that the definition of primary research? As stated in a talk page discussion Special:Diff/1357460291 in May by Carrot juice, "There is no reason for primary sources, they are against Wikipedia MEDRS guidelines... I do not support adding this trial if no significant secondary coverage is found"... and it is "a primary source and as a single trial not covered widely in reliable secondary source material should not be on Wikipedia."

  2) "saying the study failed to indicate that cocoa flavanols will actually improve your health." This would be opposite of the study's conclusion that the supplement "reduced CVD death by 27%" (in abstract), a statement in current use by Mars for its advertising (an odd public statement that a consumer may interpret "if I don't use this Mars cocoa powder, I may have a 27% increased risk of dying!"

  3) reviewing the Talk:Flavan-3-ol/Archive 1 shows at least 3 previous RfCs, with about equal proponents for mentioning COSMOS vs. those opposing, resulting in no consensus and no change to the article (note in those discussions from 2021 that Ggux is the same person as Ggck2, as revealed when Ggck2 was blocked indefinitely on 31 May with Special:Diff/1357168642 for COI editing and failure to disclose as the same user). The amount of time already invested caused by the persistence of Ggux/Ggck2 to have the COSMOS study included has occupied extensive time in dealing with his COI by regular editors and several admins over the past 5 years (see the plethora of back-and-forth since May on Ggck2's talk page).

  Let's avoid a rabbit hole of yet another RfC debate over just one primary source that is clearly a commercial promotion by Mars Inc. Zefr (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is no question whether this is a primary source - the question is whether a large RTC is in itself notable (especially as it is already described in a different article). Large RCTs are uncommon in nutrition and there are precedents for, and against, including studies in articles. WP:MEDRS does allow a statement along the lines of "a study took place".

  Including the outcome in the statement adds a certain complication, as there is more than one endpoint, and the discussion in the RfC would/could move away from the simple binary question (yes/no) to the question on how to interpret the results.

  I am neutral regarding the outcome, and I believe it would be best if Zefr and I would stay away from a RfC to allow an unbiased discussion.

  Ggck2 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  (1) We can't refuse to change our section on research on the grounds that it's stable because new research happens all the time, and knowledge moves forwards; we're not here to pickle the state of human knowledge at some point when an article is considered finished. (2) No neutral party has ever, formally, assessed whether there was a consensus anyway. In fact the two third opinions were both of a view that the study should be mentioned, which suggests that if there is a neutral consensus, the current article isn't following it. (3) We need to balance our views about Mars with our duty to report what's known. Mars can misuse data as much as it likes, but the data were collected, in a study whose size is extremely unusual, published and subject to independent peer review. If we allow Mars' actions to force us into suppressing all mention of it, we're allowing commerce and politics to get in the way of knowledge. (4) It's probably inappropriate of me to get into to-ing and fro-ing over the actual wording here; I glossed over the outcome before, and should have dealt with it better, but surely if we feel Mars is misrepresenting the outcome it's better that we summarise it correctly rather than merely keeping quiet on the issue? Elemimele (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  You're glossing over the conspicuous overall outcome of the COSMOS study: it has no WP:WEIGHT in the wider literature, and has had no impact on the nutrition or medical fields that were assessed.

  It failed its primary outcome measures. Ancillary COSMOS studies on age-related macular degeneration and bone fractures also failed to show a supposed protective effect of flavanols.

  Despite a 2022 publication date (4 years to evaluate, reassess and incorporate into advisories, if notable), no medical guideline, no national regulatory agency, and no systematic review has acknowledged the COSMOS study or recommended using supplementary flavanols as meaningful to health.

  MEDRS does not "allow a statement along the lines of "a study took place", but rather states: "Avoid primary sources: For biomedical content, the Wikipedia community relies on guidance contained in expert scientific reviews and textbooks, and in official statements published by major medical and scientific bodies."

  Across the board, mentioning the COSMOS study is undue. Zefr (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I am sorry, but I think there is some misunderstanding - and I hope I can clarify this. This is not intended to sway opinion in either direction, but I believe that good decisions require reliable information.

  - The main paper has been cited more than 200 times, and - if one includes all associated papers - the impact has been larger. Whether the impact is considerable or not is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but I think no impact might be an exaggeration. As Elemimele, a study of that scale is unusual in nutrition research.

  - Since this is a nutrition topic, medical guidelines are not necessarily the best indicator for relevance. There is also no role for regulatory agencies to get involved as there is no health risk or health claim involved, and there are currently no dietary recommendations for this kind of compounds in most jurisdiction (there are some exceptions).

  - The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) developed a recommendation for flavan-3-ols and explicitly mentions COSMOS: More recent evidence supporting the cardiovascular benefits derived from flavan-3-ols was published from the COSMOS randomized clinical trial evaluating a cocoa extract supplement (500 mg flavanols/d) in ∼21,000 older adults (41). Following a median treatment and follow-up period of 3.6 y, a significant 27% reduction in CVD deaths was observed as well as a significant 16% reduction in major cardiovascular events (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke, CVD death). Although it is critical to extend mortality follow-up, current results support long-term cardiovascular benefits through the provision of a flavan-3-ol–rich intervention. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9776652/; Please note that I am a co-author of this recommendation).

  Ggck2 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  This dispute continues because the two proponents, Elemimele and Ggck2, are professionally involved in studying flavanols; WP:NOTADVOCACY: "Content hosted on Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific ... or otherwise."

  Please close the case. Zefr (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Zefr - I believe this accusation towards @Elemimele is completely inappropriate. All they have done is to attempt to solve an impasse and have been nothing but patient and supportive.

  We should discuss content and not contributors - and you have been provided with detailed answers to your questions. One can disagree on facts without attacking other people. Ggck2 (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer (Flavon-3-ol)

Did I start by saying to read DRN Rule A? Yes. What part of Rule A.6, Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. did you skip or forget or fail to read?

Zefr wrote: This DRN topic should be closed.and Please close the case. Closed with what status or conclusion? If you wish to withdraw from this DRN, you may withdraw from the DRN, but I don't see a reason to shut down this DRN. I am a mediator, not a judge. If you think that Elemimele has a conflict of interest, you may bring your concern to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. At this point, my intention is to launch the RFC and then close the DRN. I have not seen a reason to close the DRN unless there is some means of determining consensus. If anyone thinks that this case should be closed, they may request the issue at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry for the back-and-forth, I won't do this again. (And I should have read the rules more carefully.

I support the RFC.Ggck2 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I also apologise for getting into a back-and-forth. Yes, I'm happy to go for the RFC. Elemimele (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Flavon-3-ol)

• Just in case this needs a proper fourth statement: I would be happy to take part in the proposed RfC. Elemimele (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer (Flavon-3-ol)

The RFC is running at Talk:Flavan-3-ol. Please vote in the RFC with brief statements.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you please advice: @Zefr has deleted my contribution to the RfC (where I clearly state my COI) with the comment "Reverted 4 edits by Ggck2 (talk): WP:NOTFORUM opinions from a declared COI-WP:SPA user". My question is: am I prohibited from contributing to the discussion? I have been attempted to be as neutral and factual as possible. Ggck2 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Stranger Than Heaven

– New discussion.

Filed by DarryLaz on 14:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

Dispute about the inclusion and focus on the late actor Bunta Sugawara and Tupac Shakur as the focal point of information of the game, when other games employ similar likenesses do not put focus as much in their Wikipedia articles.

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

Discussion in the Talk page, which was unresolved due to TrainTrash suddenly no longer responding when the dispute resolution request first posted by The boss 1904

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide clarification and resolution to the matter amicably.

Summary of dispute by The boss 1904

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

TrainTrash has previously voiced an issue they have with the page by pointing out how there was not enough clarity in stating that the characters featuring likenesses of the two dead actors are not "acted" by them, claiming that my edit was insinuating that the actors were playing the characters themselves; however, my edit originally had included footnotes to clarify that the characters in question use the likeness of one actor and are voiced by another, all neatly formatted. TrainTrash's edits did not visibly improve upon my original format, which led to the original dispute.

The current new dispute is TrainTrash wishing to dedicate an entire section in the page to focus on the so-called "Tupac Controversy", of which I do not believe has become significant enough to warrant extensive coverage on the page at this time. I feel TrainTrash's approach to this topic has been largely biased, because their edit does not approach this topic from a neutral point of view, choosing to only point out the negative reactions and commentaries from Western outlets, while brushing off other sources such as community sentiment, including both Western and Japanese ones. Their edit also neglects discussing the inclusion of Bunta Sugawara, which further shows the bias being displayed, even though the articles I previously sourced in the page had sufficiently discussed both Sugawara and Tupac's inclusions. The boss 1904 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TrainTrash

I added a "controversy" section that summarizes critics and journalists reaction to the inclusion of Tupac's likeness to the game (not Bunta Sugawara, Western critics have not discussed him much). My edit has been contested by both other editors, and removed in full, though I don't know their specific objections (besides the belief that its unfair to the game or out of proportion) as we've jumped right to dispute resolution.

The reason for this is they are annoyed with me after a previous topic (months ago) on the talk page: the "original" issue was a rather circular discussion on how best to format the cast list (I was in favor of spelling out the information in footnotes in the body of the text on the basis that a likeness of dead person is not a "cast member."). That debate had petered out. (The boss 1904 put in for a dispute resolution but did not notify me on my talk page; I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to keep up on all aspects and so it was closed.) Only myself and The boss 1904 were involved in that dispute, other editors long disinterested.

This seems to have colored their views on my edit and their accusation of bias, but I have no issues with trying to reflect a variety of views (including positive ones) on this issue. In their summary, The boss 1904 says that I have brushed off "community sentiment" but provided no sources and since we've just jumped straight to dispute resolution I have not had an opportunity to ask them what they feel should be included (I'd be more than happy to have more positive critical sentiment in in the text, this is what I could find).

Stranger Than Heaven discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

Is there an article content dispute? Will each editor please state concisely whether they want to make any changes to the article that another editor does not want to make, or whether they think that another editor wants to make changes to the article that they do not want? If there is an article content dispute, we will begin moderated discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

As previously stated by The boss 1904, the issue is the overemphasis of the casting of the character Amaru, with his likeness based on Tupac, by TrainTrash, which is indeed an article content dispute. The boss 1904 wanted to put focus on the game itself through edits that he had done, while TrainTrash wanted a dedicated section and/or further emphasis regarding Tupac's likeness as casting.

The edits done by TrainTrash appear biased and detracted from the core article and content of the page. Beyond the initial discourse surrounding the decision, there is no such development nor "controversy" surrounding his inclusion in the months following the announcement. TrainTrash's insistence on pursuing this matter also ignored the use of the late Bunta Sugawara's likeness in the game, which is done in a similar fashion to Tupac. For me personally, the issue regarding TrainTrash edits lie in the creation of a dedication segment for Tupac's inclusion, which detracts from the discussion, but also not large enough to be a "controversy" warranting its creation.

TrainTrash's reasoning in the editor statement is also slightly disingenuous, because according to the Talk page and history log of edits on Stranger Than Heaven, said edit regarding character credits has already been done accordingly and already matches recent standards set in individual game pages within the Yakuza franchise in Wikipedia (character name (actor name/voice actor name (if applies))), but simplified to avoid confusion, on top of clarification within the development section of the game. The issue began to surface when TrainTrash insistently tried to put focus on Tupac's inclusion, which started the dispute between the two parties.

For that reason, I issued this dispute resolution request, as the previous dispute was not resolved properly between the two parties, and the current new dispute between me and TrainTrash still has ties related to the previous unresolved dispute. DarryLaz (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

The key issue I have, as I have stated in my initial summary, is that TrainTrash's approach to coverage of the Tupac likeness usage within the videogame in question appears biased, leaning toward associating the subject matter with negative outlooks. Their edits do not seem interested in elaborating upon the developers' statements, but rather more focused on what Western outlets think of the inclusion. Simple Google searches would inform you that the sentiment is not shared across the board, and at best you can say that there's a notable divide in how people feel about this inclusion (e.g. this article which details some fan comments: https://parade.com/entertainment/tupac-character-stranger-than-heaven-video-game-fans-mixed-reactions).

I recognize that the inclusion of such a public figure as Tupac Shakur in a video game would spark some sort of debate, so I have been keeping watch of the situation to see how it evolves, before deciding whether to cover it in more details. Months have passed, and I have yet to see the topic being discussed any further beyond the initial reaction, which signifies to me that it is not yet a big enough deal. As I have also mentioned, things could change down the line, with more information coming out or even upon release and reviews begin to appear. At that point, I would gladly revisit the subject matter and debate once again whether it is really a noteworthy controversy, or just temporary outrage from a loud minority.

TrainTrash's previous edits also insinuate that there is an "ethical concern" regarding the usage of Tupac's likeness in the video game, to which I would like to counter that it comes off as inherently biased if you say there's a concern with one dead person's likeness being used (Tupac) but not the other dead person (Bunta Sugawara). Their last edit wiped almost all elaborations on Sugawara's likeness and how the developers chose to approach including him in their game, instead wording it to focus exclusively on Tupac, which I believe would be considered a serious omission of facts.

In short, I am against including mentions of the "Tupac controversy" because I am not yet convinced that it is an actual controversy. The boss 1904 (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The 1st dispute was the cast list: I wanted to format it as "Genzo Iwaki (voiced by Takashi Ukaji / likeness of Bunta Sugawara) and "Amaru (likeness of Tupac Shakur)" rather than how it reads now: "Genzo Iwaki (Bunta Sugawara/Takashi Ukaji)" and "Amaru (Tupac Shakur)" with a footnote containing more information. It is a minor thing, but I think it's worth being very specific here (especially considering the reaction to Tupac's likeness being used). Neither Tupac or Bunta Sugawara is staring in this game: their likeness are being used. Both other editors are in opposition.

The actual edit that prompted this dispute resolution (which we really have not adequately discussed on the talk page but which I am happy to have a moderated discussion if that's what's desired by the other editors) was my edit here. I expanded the original text about Tupac's likeness being featured in the game to a "controversy" section, as their are a large number of journalists and critics who felt the choice was gauche. The original text says that RGG "anticipated criticism" of the choice and has their response to it, but not the criticism itself, which makes it rather one-sided. Both other editors are opposed to this section in its entirety. TrainTrash (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

I forgot to say to be civil and concise, because the answers have not been concise. Please read DRN Rule A, and we will proceed as if this is an article content dispute. The purpose of moderated discussion at DRN is to improve the article. We are not here to talk about the other editors, only about the article. Please state, in one paragraph, what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave alone.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

As previously stated, I believe the edits done by The boss 1904 are already sufficient and clear enough in covering most of the information related to the game, and that adding a main section regarding the supposed "controversial" use of a specific person's likeness is unnecessary. Therefore, I am in agreement to leave the content present as is in the article today to be maintained. DarryLaz (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

To keep it as short as possible and to the point: I do not wish to have a dedicated section in the article about a "Tupac controversy". A few sentences acknowledging it is the most I'm willing to go for it, but otherwise the topic is not significant enough to warrant extensive coverage. If that should change in the future, I will revisit the topic and consider it. For now, I do not see the need. The boss 1904 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I wish to have a section on the controversy over the use of Tupac's likeness in the game (or, if not its own section, to include substantially the same information in the "Development" section). Both other editors oppose this inclusion. I'd also like to have the cast list clearly state that its the likeness of Bunta Sugawara and Tupac Shakur that are used for certain characters, rather than relegating this info to footnotes (Each other editor no longer lists this 2nd dispute in their most recent summery. If they no longer wish to discuss it we can set it aside in the interest of making this more straightforward). TrainTrash (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

It appears that either the main issue or the only issue is that one editor wishes to add a section about the controversy about the inclusion of the late Tupac Shakur. Are there any other issues? Is the controversy in particular about the paragraphs that were added on 14 September twice and then removed? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement explaining why they think that the addition or the removal of the section is consistent with balance and due weight. If there is no agreement, it will be necessary to run a Request for Comments.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

As I have previously stated, the choice to dedicate a large section of the page about the "controversy" is premature, as the topic had not yet warranted such coverage. At best, there are mixed views on the inclusion of Tupac in the game, and there isn't a majority consensus as to whether people are for or against it. To even label this topic a "controversy" and give it extensive coverage would be, IMO, giving it undue weight at the time of this writing. The boss 1904 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

My edit gives due weight to the issue: a number of critics and journalists in the included sources all describe a controversy and all have pretty strong opinions about the controversy in question. The existing page (without my edit) also references this controversy, but only has the game developer's response, which is unbalanced. The other editor says that there's a greater mix of opinions about the issue, which I am happy to include (w/ sources). I'm also happy to take feedback on any aspect of the edit (length, if should be its own section or just a paragraph on "Development," ect.), but the information itself is not "premature." TrainTrash (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Childhood nudity

– New discussion.

Filed by Paprikaiser on 00:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Childhood nudity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Paprikaiser (talk · contribs)
• WriterArtistDC (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the talk page of Childhood nudity, I raised specific concerns regarding passages that, in my opinion, misrepresent or inappropriately extrapolate their cited sources. Some examples include claims that communal showering on Kibbutzim was intended to promote gender equality when the source explicitly attributes it to sexual purity and de-eroticization (specifically the belief that physical closeness would reduce sexual desire and encourage abstinence by making peers view one another as siblings), assertions regarding Puritan modesty supported only by sources discussing general 17th-century hygiene, broad generalizations about cultural trends derived entirely from a single 1941 issue of Life magazine, inclusion of content based on the editor's own analysis when the cited source makes no mention of the topic except in passing (which means it just mentions naked children), and assertions based on WP:OR. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this, the article's creator and main contributor declined to address these specific points, stating that he and I interpret WP:SYNTH differently, and reverting my changes. Under WP:BURDEN, the responsibility to demonstrate policy compliance rests on the editor seeking to retain the text. However, to avoid edit warring, instead of removing the faulty material again I sought input at WP:ORN, but the thread received no response after almost two weeks.

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

Talk:Childhood nudity#Random deletions

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm hoping for an uninvolved editor to provide an impartial assessment of whether the disputed text complies with our policies, evaluating if they support the specific claims made in the text or if they constitute WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article has more instances of this, but I feel discouraged of making further changes considering the response to my current objections.

Summary of dispute by WriterArtistDC

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

When I proposed this dispute resolution on September first, I was willing and able to participate. However, for at least the next week this may not be possible. It should be noted that I continued to improve the article, so the talk page issues may have been addressed. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Since I was not made aware of the NOR noticeboard posting, I took the absence of any action as an end to the talk page dispute, and made significant changes to the article between Sept. 9 and 13.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

While I continue to be preoccupied by real life, this is a brief response to the dispute. On August 14, Paprikaiser made a series of deletions to the article without discussion or explanation, only edit summaries that did not explain the deletion. Observing "Assume Good Faith" I did not revert them but reviewed each; keeping some, reverting others, and doing research to improve the content to correct the problem. Not satisfied, Paprikaiser indicated that an edit war might be preferable to leaving the article as it was. I replied that dispute resolution was the only option.

There seems to be no understanding that WP has no rules, but guidelines that are the beginning, not the end of a discussion on improving WP content. This is perplexing, as this understanding must have existed for this user in order to have contributed so much to WP in the past. I could speculate as to why this article has come under such scrutiny, including an AfD, but that would be pointless.

These are some of the deletions made, and my response:

1. A reference to an English film in an archive that included a full transcript of the activity depicted. My edit merely stated the facts relevant to the article. The edit summary for the deletion was only "WP:OR" with no explanation of how cited content can be original research, so I reverted the deletion. The film is a primary source. The OR section WP:Primary is not always WP:Synth states - "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Photographs and films are primary sources in this sense; it shows that something happened, but makes no statement of the meaning or interpretation beyond what any viewer would understand. In some cases there are textural sources referring to the same facts, giving additional support.
2. A c.1950 photo of children in a kibbutzim bathing nude outdoors and a citation supporting this as a common practice at the time; both photo and text were deleted with the edit summary "Removed unsupported content". This was reverted.
3. The entire section on Islam was rewritten, improving it, with an edit summary "Updated content according to reference". I might have checked "Thank" but refrained.
4. A paragraph in the section "Late 19th and early 20th centuries" included the fact that LIFE magazine in the early 20th century used photos of nude boys swimming and showering (discretely posed) to illustrate text, noting that today such images would be eroticized. Another correct use of a primary source, this content has not been restored.
5. In the section "Precolonial and colonial eras" a statement about Native American children was removed along with the citation supporting it. The edit summary was again "Removed unsupported content" This has been restored with a better summary from the same source.

It becomes clear that instead of seeking to improve WP by working together to fix content issues, a decision has been made to remove content without discussion or valid justification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paprikaiser

Please feel free to relocate this comment if necessary, I am unsure if creating this section is appropriate.

WriterArtistDC's interpretation of the events is dishonest. I removed material providing plenty of reasons in my edit summaries, such as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:V, etc. Anyone is able to scroll down on the edit history and check by themselves. I also didn't say I preferred an edit war; in fact, I went out of my way to try to reason with WriterArtistDC, and never once did I try to remove again the material that was restored, despite the constant stalling. I haven't edited the page since that day. And I am not obligated to open a discussion to remove material that doesn't comply with our policies; per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility of demonstrating policy compliance lies on the editor restoring disputed material. In the original discussion I provided plenty of reasons as to why the material was inappropriate. I will briefly quote myself.

• A source describing an historical depiction where children happen to be naked is not automatically a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject. Merely referencing a film's scene without the source explicitly analyzing or discussing it in the context of childhood nudity makes its inclusion off-topic, and relies on editor choice to decide what counts as a relevant instance. Unless a secondary source explicitly connects this specific film to the broader topic of childhood nudity, including it constitutes WP:SYNTH.
• The kibbutzim content and picture are not supported by the source. In the article, the section asserts that this practice was done with the intention of promoting gender equality, but the source explicitly states the ideological rationale was sexual purity and de-eroticization, specifically the belief that physical closeness would reduce sexual desire and encourage abstinence by making peers view one another as siblings. Taking a policy specific to the HaShomer HaTza’ir Shomria school and framing it as a blanket statement about Israeli kibbutzim overgeneralizes the source in violation of WP:SYNTH. And because this work is an educational history focused on kibbutz pedagogy and collective upbringing, pulling out a passing detail about communal showering remains off-topic under WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:DUE. This interpretation of the source was also made by another uninvolved editor recently, who removed the material. WriterArtistDC restored it again, adducing that since the article was undergoing a review, the content should remain as it is. I disagree with that interpretation, as material violating policy should not be kept for any reason. But once again, I refrained from enforcing this to avoid an edit war.
• The LIFE content remains in the article. Citing a single LIFE issue cannot verify a broad claim that the magazine routinely published photographs of naked boys. Using a primary source to assert editorial trends without a secondary source doing so is pure WP:OR. A second LIFE source used quotes a boy calling waiting in line an example of democracy and calls the showers a melting pot; it does not state that nudity itself was symbolic of social equality, which is what the section does. It also fails to mention that this is a quote from a child.
• In the Precolonial and colonial eras section, content was removed precisely because the source did not support it, exactly as the summary mentioned it. The original sentence said In warm weather, Native American children might not wear clothing until puberty. with the source not mentioning this at all. Considering that the sentence was not restored and the source was used to support an entirely different sentence, this indicates that my interpretation was correct.

I am also getting sick of the consistent bad faith interpretation of my behavior as is it clear that I have been extremely patient while dealing with this, abstaining from restoring material and seeking external input in not one but two noticeboards. In the original discussion, WriterArtistDC has made jabs at me implying that because I !voted to delete the article in the unsuscessful AfD, I am unfit to improve it ("The only valid option is unbiased participation. I have observed the guideline "assume good faith" in having any discussion with an editor who recently voted to delete the entire article with little discussion by "redirecting", whatever that might mean in this case. I assume not a merge into, or that would have been suggested.") or that my concerns are not about the content but about them in particular ("This discussion has passed the point of meaningful resolution, and has moved from issues of content and guidelines to speculation about motives"). I will wait for an impartial review of the content. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Childhood nudity discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

I have a two-part question about whether assistance is being requested and can be provided. First, is there an article content dispute? Will each editor please state concisely whether they want to make any changes to the article that another editor does not want to make, or whether they think that another editor wants to make changes to the article that they do not want? If there is an article content dispute, we will begin moderated discussion. Second, is there a request for third-party review of the article and changes to the article. If both editors request third-party review, I am ready to review the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, another voice is welcome. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There is an article content dispute, I want to remove material that in my opinion is not supported by the sources it is citing, or does not belong in the article. WriterArtistDC wants to keep it, although no justification has been provided as to why the material complies with our policies. The article has been edited and new material has been added since then, but the specific issues I highlighted remain untouched. I was clear in the talk page discussion that it was useless to keep participating at that point. Per WP:NOTSILENCE, that cannot be construed as an implicit agreement. I would welcome a third-party review. Paprikaiser (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

It appears that both editors are asking for a third-party review. I don't have a standard set of rules for a third-party review, so, for now, please read DRN Rule X. I will ask each editor what parts of the article they want commented on, which probably means the parts of the article that have been edited. Please be concise in describing what you want reviewed, even if the text that you want reviewed is lengthy.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for following up. I would appreciate a focus on the specific sections where I have identified issues or attempted corrections:

• Cultural differences (Introduction, England, France, Israel, Japan, United States>Precolonial and colonial eras)
• Depictions (In fine art, In popular media)

The material in these sections either fails to accurately reflect the cited sources (violating WP:V or WP:SYNTH), constitutes WP:OR, or falls under WP:OFFTOPIC. I can go into specifics for each section, although I have already outlined concrete examples both here and in the talk page discussion. Please let me know if you would like me to detail them further and I'll be happy to oblige. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I have explained the inclusion of the content targeted for deletion many times on the article talk page and above. In particular there is a quotation from the OR page about Primary sources not being SYNTH, which applies to content involving photos, film and artwork. Yet no counter-argument is made, "violated" guidelines merely being pointed to by name rather than explanations of how they apply to particular cases. Oddly, one subsection that continues to be deleted, Childhood_nudity#Israel, is one of the best supported by a photo and an academic book: Balberg, Mira (2024). "Here on Earth: A History of the Kibbutz". eScholarship. San Diego, California: UC San Diego. Retrieved 2026-08-18.. Rather than suggesting alternate wording for this content, it is deleted. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

I have reviewed the exchange in somewhat more detail than earlier, though not in depth. I see that another previously uninvolved editor, User:FeydHuxtable, has offered some thoughts. It appears that User:FeydHuxtable has more experience with the subject matter than I do. I am inviting and encouraging them to take part in this discussion, either to provide the third-party opinion that is being requested, or to provide another opinion that I will review, in which case my review will be a fourth-party review. User:FyedHuxtable - Are you ready to provide the third-party review, or do you want to provide another opinion that I will review?

I am reminding the editors to be civil and to assume good faith. The discussion has mostly been collaborative, but there have been minor lapses, so we need to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise.

I will be reviewing the sections of the article in more detail again.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:

Since User:FeydHuxtable made an edit to Childhood nudity removing the same well-sourced section on Israel that I have referred to above, and then responded on the talk page regarding my reversion of that edit pending the outcome of this review using condescending language regarding me, and support for Paprikaiser, I could not accept any review of the article by FeydHuxtable as a valid third party decision. WriterArtistDC (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

There are no questions on my end. Thanks for the reminder, I will do my best to follow your advice. And I would appreciate additional input by FeydHuxtable, if they feel comfortable doing it. Paprikaiser (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Ibram X. Kendi

– New discussion.

Filed by Cyragui on 16:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ibram X. Kendi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cyragui (talk · contribs)
• Pengortm (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I edited Dr. Kendi's article to summarize a lengthy section on allegations of financial mismanagement and work culture problems at the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University after correcting some vandalism on his Wikidata item. Since Mr. Kendi was cleared of any financial mismanagement and the third-party investigation resulted in organizational restructuring rather than any punitive action regarding culture, I thought the section quoting accusations made against him in the media were given too much weight. I brought this up on the talk page a few months before making any changes. When I made edits, another user disagreed with these changes and thought I had given too much weight to the investigation, and not enough to the media sources quoting folks making the allegations. This user added the information back, but moved it up to the introductory paragraphs for Dr. Kendi's article. I discussed this with the user on the talk page because I think it makes the article biased by inappropriately weighting the accusations, and we are in disagreement about an appropriate resolution. Others have suggested compromises, such as creating a new article for the BU Center for Antiracist Research and moving the information there.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ibram_X._Kendi#Length_of_Center_for_Antiracist_Research_at_Boston_University--Mismanagement_Allegations_Section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We asked for a third opinion, and it was closed procedurally because others have chimed in on the discussion. We could use help deciding how best to move forward in a way that is fair, appropriately weighted, and truthful.

Summary of dispute by Pengortm

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

Ibram X. Kendi discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - There are two problems with this filing. The first is that only one other editor has been listed, but there were multiple editors involved in the discussion, and that is why the Third Opinion request was declined. The second is that the other listed editor has not been notified of this filing. Please add the other editors to the case, and then notify all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Sexism in academia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Amerail on 01:31, 22 September 2026 (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 Sexism in academia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Amerail (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article has a large bias in favor of women; it does not list the many issues men experience in Academia. The article is factually "Gynocentric". In an attempt to bring neutrality to the article, I raised a neutrality concern and brought it to the talk page, where I listed the neutrality concern, along with a list of issues that men experience that would perfectly fit the article and restore neutrality to the currently single-sided article. User MrOllie is not allowing me to maintain the neutrality concern, consistently reverting it and accusing me of listing my personal grievances in Wikipedia, when all the listed issues I wrote in the talk page are factual issues. They further proceed to go to my talk page and accuse me of using the talk page like a sort of chatroom service. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? No discussion exists as they keep wiping my discussion from the page in question, preventing me from discussing it. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I want them to simply stop reverting my concern flag on the page, and stop accusing me of bringing my own grievances and opinions onto Wikipedia when I am listing factual problems/issues that need adding into the article to achieve neutrality. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sexism in academia discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. @Amerail: One problem is that your post at permalink is what is known as a WP:FORUM violation. It lists several complaints about a current situation with a suggestion that the points should be covered in the article. If comments of that kind were permitted, talk pages would soon resemble Twitter. The procedure here is to present a proposal for a specific change, with a source (reference). The proposal should be of the form "add text something like [ proposed text]" in section [name of section] supported by [link to source]. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC) While I understand the underlying concern, there isn't really any other way to get the point across that the article IS almost entirely one-sided in what is supposed to be a neutral article. I have added my sources to each recommendation and reworded the talk article, feel free to share improvements. My overall point firmly stands: The article is biased, I'm just sharing topics that can help make it "un-biased". Amerail (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC) That is why your post was removed. Generic "should do better" posts do not benefit the encyclopedia. A list of complaints is not helpful. Either provide a concrete proposal or post complaints on another website. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC) They aren't complaints, but recommendations on what could be added. I don't understand how hard it is to fathom that idea on Wikipedia. Amerail (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC) Per WP:DUE, at most a few sentences on reverse sexism and that's it; the ratio between systematic sexism against female versus occasional reverse sexism is something to keep in mind of. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 06:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC) ? Amerail (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC) This seems premature until Amerail (or anyone else) identifies a concrete suggestion of content to add/remove from the article. If the contention is that the entire article is out of sync with what reliable sources say, you should present a bibliography of reviews of literature that support this (in particular, reviews of literature that include summary assessments that directly contradict the article's content and framing would be particularly persuasive). I note that none of the (accessible) sources that Amerail links at Talk:Sexism in academia seem to use the phrase gynocentric, raising the question of why Amerail is presenting their general complaint in such terms. signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 23 September 2026 (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.

green bonds, sustainable finance, swaps, modern portfolio theory, iBoxx

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Vagabondreturns on 21:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Green bonds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Sustainable finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Swaps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Modern portfolio theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) IBoxx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Vagabondreturns (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute concerning removal of contributions citing single-author academic publications I am seeking input from uninvolved editors regarding the removal of a number of my previous contributions by MrOllie, which have been described in edit summaries as "COI / refspam". The disputed references are to academic publications written by the same author, and I recognise that this creates a potential conflict-of-interest concern. I would like to focus on the editorial question: what should happen to the actual content that was added? My concern is that the existence of a potential COI has apparently been used as a reason to remove a broad range of contributions without separately establishing that the underlying material is unsuitable for the relevant articles. The disputed edits are not all the same. They concern different subjects and articles, and include relatively narrow additions to established articles with substantial existing sourcing. The material was intended to incorporate findings or information from subsequently published academic research. The questions I think need to be considered separately are: Does the cited publication reliably support the particular claim? Does the added text accurately represent the publication? Is the subject matter relevant to the article? Is there a reason, independent of the editor's identity, why the material should not appear in the article? If the material is potentially useful but the direct editing raises a COI concern, can it instead be considered through an edit request? In particular, I would appreciate an explanation of why material that is otherwise relevant, accurately sourced and proportionate should necessarily be removed solely because the contributor has a connection to the source. Additionally, contributions that were not associated with contributions citing the same author were removed in an en-masse reversion, owing to my lack of "independence". I direct you to the reversions on the iBoxx page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vagabondreturns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think the dispute could be resolved by having uninvolved editors review a representative sample of the reverted edits and assess them on their individual merits. In particular, I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether: the cited sources support the claims made; and the additions are relevant and appropriately worded I would appreciate direction on how these valid contributions could otherwise be made/disseminated through Wikipedia, as many other similar such contributions have Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. green bonds, sustainable finance, swaps, modern portfolio theory, iBoxx 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.

Jean Sibelius

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Thedarkknightli on 21:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jean Sibelius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thedarkknightli (talk · contribs)
• Gawaon (talk · contribs)
• Indrek (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute over whether to link "Grand Duchy of Finland" in the infobox. Nikkimaria and SergeWoodzing think we should not, given Talk:Jean Sibelius#RfC on place of birth format in infobox. Gawaon, Indrek and I disagree, given the current MOS:GEOLINK and that the RfC did not explicitly address this issue.

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

Talk:Jean Sibelius#Linking "Grand Duchy of Finland" in infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing an independent sixth opinion.

Summary of dispute by Gawaon

I came to this discussion after Thedarkknightli asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking about the interpretation of MOS:GEOLINK. The substantive conflict seems to be about whether to add a wikilink that MOS:GEOLINK allows but doesn't require, so the question cannot be resolved on the basis of our guidelines alone, since they accept either variant.

MOS:GEOLINK allows linking two adjacent territorial units if the smaller one is an extant place, while the larger one is a former country or entity, which in this case gives the form "Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire". In my view, this is helpful for the reader, since the Grand Duchy no longer exists. While a reader who clicks on the Hämeenlinna link can easily go to the Finland article, there's no easy way to reach the Grand Duchy of Finland article – hence the additional link here is genuinely useful.

As Indrek says below, and contrary to SergeWoodzing's statement, the prior RfC was not about whether the second-level entity should be linked. It was in fact not linked in any of the four options suggested in the RfC, which instead all followed the same linking pattern (only Hämeenlinna linked, nothing else), and the RfC question didn't explicitly mention linking. So no consensus against linking the secondary unit can have resulted from that RfC, since the option wasn't even offered.

I'd consider it helpful to add the link, for the reason explained above. Gawaon (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

My comments are being misquoted again. Tiresome! Can we all stop misquoting anyone here? That's not what we are here for. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I misquoted you – that was not my intention. I have struck out the reference to your statement; mine can stand on its own. Gawaon (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Indrek

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

I did not participate in the dispute, other than to state that, in my view, the RFC (linked here in the dispute overview) did not rule on the issue of linking. For the record, I don't see a problem with linking Grand Duchy of Finland, given it's a non-extant entity and MOS:GEOLINK expressly allows for such cases. Indrek (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

There was an RfC which asked "How should we format his place of birth in the infobox?". The answer the community arrived at was the present version; that's the version that should be retained. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SergeWoodzing

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

It is inaccurate to say in general, that I am against the extra link. A 3O was requested. I supplied it. My opinion there was that a recent RfC had specifically decided precise wording where no such link was included. I think I made that clear enough not to be misquoted and misinterpreted during a continued discussion (and here) which seemed to be aimed at my good-faith 3O opinion. Aim like that is not really normal and would tend to make one principally reluctant to try to help via 3O. Our guideline does not clearly advocate but does deem "acceptable" the sort of linking requested after the RfC was closed. It did not, I honestly felt, allow me to find it acceptable go against that recent outcome. Today, I have no objection to any format given as acceptable in our guideline. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Jean Sibelius discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Ducktanium)

From my understanding, SergeWoodzing no longer objects to linking the Grand Duchy of Finland in the infobox, provided the format is acceptable under MOS:GEOLINK. However, I am not aware of whether Nikkimaria maintains their objection.

Could each editor please state concisely whether they still object to the proposed linking format and whether there remains an active dispute over the article's wording?

I am open to any other questions. Ducktanium (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't object, of course. Gawaon (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Up (film series)

– New discussion.

Filed by Halbared on 15:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Up (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Halbared (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-42943-14 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Reliable sources refer to Up (film series) as a 'study, with one academic exert referring to it explicitly as a 'longitudinal study.' The category 'cohort study' has been on the page as a stable version for many years, a TA thinks it ought to be removed and a discussion has begun. A third user has removed he category (but not entered the discussion) and doesn't accept the WP:stable version is the one with the category. I believe a wider audience is required to see that synth/OR from a local consensus doesn't override an academic expert on the subject matter.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Up_(film_series)#Cohort_study?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like a number of eyes on to to weigh in on the subject matter.

Up (film series) discussion

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

Genetics

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by MSTL.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Gurjars in Himachal Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gurjars in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gurjars in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cdjp1 (talk · contribs)
• Gotitbro (talk · contribs)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute regarding the re-addition of genetics content to articles like Gurjars in Himachal Pradesh, Gurjars in Kashmir, Gurjars in Khyber, as well as the addition of genetics to a separate article (Genetics of Gurjars) I am seeking assistance in resolving this dispute. As far as I understood Kautilya3, Cdjp1, and Fylindfotberserk had agreed as a middle ground that genetics-related content should be removed from articles such as Gurjars in Himachal Pradesh, Gurjars in Kashmir and Gurjars in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and merged into a new article "Genetics of Gurjars", subject to certain conditions that the new article must be based on secondary sources and comply with WP:MEDRS. However, the editor who removed the content disagreed with the proposal raised by other editors to resolve this dispute. I've discussed this extensively with that user but failed to achieve any meaningful outcome. MSTL (talk)

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

I tried to resolve through these discussion here and here and spent days to find a solution.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could help facilitate a resolution to this dispute by engaging all parties involved and working toward a consensus.

Genetics discussion

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