Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 255

Archive 250

←

Archive 253

Archive 254

Archive 255

Archive 256

Archive 257

→

Archive 260

Sean Combs

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 162 etc. on 04:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Sean Combs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 162 etc. (talk · contribs) Cena332 (talk · contribs) HumansRightsIsCool (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Please see Talk:Sean Combs#Sean "Puffy" Combs. Sean Combs used the stage name Sean "Puffy" Combs in his early career. This was reverted and then brought to the talk page, where numerous reliable sources were presented. However, there is a so-called "consensus" not to include this stage name cited by two editors. This "consensus" is not based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline, nor is it based on any reference to reliable sources. Verified facts should be in the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Sean Combs#Sean "Puffy" Combs How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A second opinion is needed to break this impasse. Summary of dispute by Cena332 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HumansRightsIsCool Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sean Combs 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.

Romani people

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dandoghi on 18:14, 21 February 2025 (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 Romani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dandoghi (talk · contribs) Largoplazo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Good evening. I noticed in the past years that, despite the fact that Wikipedia has initially used the term Roma to designate the name of the Roma people, for reasons which are not clear, wikipedia decided (in absence of proper consultation with relevant individuals and institutions) to start calling Roma people as Romani, and indicate that actually Roma is a subgroup of Romania. This is simply not true. the overwhelming majority of Roma people call themselves Roma. The terms Romani is only used when referring to the Romani language. I edited the content (partially) to rever the term Romani to the correct term of Roma, which was rejected several times. I explained in sufficient details, over the past years, the reasoning for using the correct term Roma (deriving also directly from the very language we speak) but various editors have kept rejecting it, without providing any satisfactory and legitimate basis for doing so. I also remind that for centuries non-Roma people have called Roma as tigani, which is a derogatory term. We, the Roma activists and individuals, have fought in the past three decades to be names properly as Roma, and this is widely accepted officially by all governments as well as the intergovernmental organizations (EU, CoE, OSCE, UN), which all use the proper term Roma. Therefore, Wikipedia should follow both the will and right of self-determination of the Roma people themselves, as well as the long-established and official terminology used by governments and all international organizations, as ensure proper consistency in usage of the term Roma. I dispute the usage of the term Romania to designate the Roma people and kindly request that the page about the Roma people is names as such, and it uses the Roma term and terminology. Also, since it seems that people and Wikipedia editor can change the term so easily without any legitimate manage and process, we, the Roma, need for Wikipedia to make sure that the proper safeguards are in place. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dandoghi How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By reverting the improper term Romani, to the proper and official term Roma, and by ensuring that safeguards are in place so that editors do not change the official term as they wish. Thank you for your help! Discussion of donations collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC) As a small donor to Wikipedia, I believe in the usefulness of it and want it a place where accurate and adequate information is provided. That stands true for the term Roma as well. Summary of dispute by Largoplazo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Romani people 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.

Wesean Student Federation

– 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 EmeraldRange on 14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wesean Student Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved EmeraldRange (talk · contribs) Flyingphoenixchips (talk · contribs) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea". Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC. Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Third Opinion requested, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#POV Based Content: Possible Original Research, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Removal of the etymology section, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Request for Review: Insurgency-Related Content How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips My argument was basically that this constitutes WP:COATRACK as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope. Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice (Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources), and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Wikipedia's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article. Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wesean Student Federation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Noting that the AFD is still open. Will re-evaluate once that closes in a week or so. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC) The AFD was closed as Delete, and the article has been deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2025 (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.

Mikheil Kavelashvili

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Malev oleg on 06:02, 19 February 2025 (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 Mikheil Kavelashvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Malev oleg (talk · contribs) Tahomaru (talk · contribs) Labrang (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute concerns whether the infobox of the Mikheil Kavelashvili article should include the term "disputed" when referring to his presidency. Some editors argue that the 2024 Georgian parliamentary elections were widely challenged and that Kavelashvili’s position should be marked as disputed in the infobox. However, while international organizations such as the OSCE and the European Parliament have expressed concerns over electoral integrity, no authoritative body has officially declared the election results invalid or unrecognized. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability policies require that such a label be based on explicit attribution from reliable sources. The sources cited describe serious election concerns, but they do not categorically label Kavelashvili’s presidency as disputed in a legal or official sense. Instead, these concerns are best represented within the article body and through explanatory footnotes, rather than in the infobox, which should provide a neutral summary. Despite extensive talk page discussions, some editors continue to insist on using the "disputed" label in a way that overstates the available evidence. Attempts to reach a compromise—such as detailing concerns in the text rather than the infobox—have been met with resistance. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Labrang#Claimed_president How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A neutral third-party review is needed to determine whether the "disputed" label in the infobox aligns with Wikipedia's Neutrality (NPOV) and Verifiability policies. The resolution should clarify whether concerns raised by international bodies are sufficient to justify using "disputed" in the infobox or whether these issues should be confined to the article body and footnotes. A ruling on how to apply dispute-related terminology consistently across Georgian political articles would also be good Summary of dispute by Tahomaru Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Labrang. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Mikheil Kavelashvili discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC) As unaware "dispute party", I have only now seen this submission for the first time, when I was checking the recent contributions of the filing editor. I was not notified in any sense, either by ping or message. I think I have laid out my argumentation in the relevant places, the page of the disputed subject, including offering sourced material, and have proposed a compromise solution. Labrang (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2025 (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.

Taylor Lorenz

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by Delectopierre on 00:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC).

For full transparency, please note that this previously occurred. I do not know if it is relevant, and I do not know if it is proper procedure to provide this or not. But I figure it is better to over communicate than under communicate. Delectopierre (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Taylor Lorenz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• delectopierre (talk · contribs)
• Awshort (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Taylor Lorenz (a journalist) left traditional media to focus on her substack recently. She's had a substack for a long time. I noticed that the article said 'launch' her substack, so started a conversation about that on the talk page. I didn't get much engagement, so I went ahead and made the change from 'launch' to 'focus.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1268665510&oldid=1268399409)

Awshort seems to believe that this shouldn't be the case, and manually reverted citing a number of a policies, without participating in the talk page conversation.

I changed it back, asked them to participate, and Awshort has told me it cannot be 'focus on'.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Substack

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Perhaps someone can help us have a conversation about the merits of wording it one way vs. another without anyone throwing policies and not specifying their relevance? Honestly, I'm not sure though.

Summary of dispute by delectopierre

Awshort keeps moving the goalposts. First telling me that I'm using a primary source which is not okay. I showed them that it is okay in this instance. Rather than replying with anything of substance, they then said something like 'actually it's a BPL violation, I'm reverting it.'

I asked them to revert their reversion and post a thread here so that we could discuss with someone's help.

At different times they've made reverts during conversations on the talk page, and then justified it post hoc with BPL. The fact that that type of reversion requires controversial material doesn't seem to be part of the policy they care to abide by.

I would also like to note that they were participating in other conversations on the talk page during that time, so they had plenty of opportunity to weigh in on the talk page discussion, rather than unilaterally making a change.

Summary of dispute by Awshort

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

I wasn't notified on my talk page, but noticed the ping for this from the talk page. I'm unsure where we should discuss the issues with the article, since DP's issue is with wording and my issues are with othermaterial in the article that I feel has DUE issues as a whole and any attempts to edit it to be more neutral are reverted. I recently brought it to BLPN here but it ended up being DP and I discussing it with no outside help.

If you could mediate a discussion, that may help reach a common ground between us.

03:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussion archived

Taylor Lorenz original discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - Is this primarily an issue about the choice of words? There are two editors in this dispute. A Third Opinion might be a quicker way to resolve this dispute if both parties will agree to the advice of a third editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

My sense is that it’s primarily about policies. I am open to discussion with the other editor about word choice, and invited them to share their thoughts on it. Delectopierre (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, I think the template might be broken. The hat note about the Ottoman Empire wasn’t something I added. Delectopierre (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: @Awshort posted this thread at NORN but I am going to hold off engaging there until we have gone through this process. Thanks. Delectopierre (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@DelectoPierre: The moderator suggested we go for a third opinion. As far as I can tell, there isn't really mediation here so I posted to a noticeboard to speed up the process for both of us, since Robert is busy. If I am wrong in my application of policies, I would like to know. If an outside opinion can provide guidance in how you are reading policies and agrees/disagrees with that reading, it seems like it would help.

Awshort (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Taylor Lorenz)

I am willing to try to facilitate a solution to this dispute. Before we take any further action on this dispute, I am asking each editor to read the policy on biographies of living persons. I am asking each editor to make a brief statement as to what they think the issue or issues are. If there is a policy question, please ask the policy question concisely. If there is an issue about wording, I will ask my usual opening question, which is what wording in the article you want to change that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what wording in the article you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. Once each editor states what they think the issues are, I will have a better idea whether DRN is the forum for this dispute, and, if so, how to proceed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Taylor Lorenz)

There are two seperate issues - the Substack section and the Harassment section. Delecto wants the wording in the substack section to read that she left to "focus on" her Substack under WP:PRIMARY (reasoning being that existence of archives on her site of past posts are "a straightforward, description of facts") I think it should reflect what multiple reliable sources and Lorenz herself labeled it as, which was that she left to "launch" her Substack, and using the before mentioned description relies on synthing and not sourcing. Does using research such as this justify ignoring what RS state, or would policy suggest we repeat what multiple reliable sources state?

The harassment section (prior discussion here) has a header that fails NPOV (coordinated attacks), is only supported through sources that are either WP:SPS or fail WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and gives undue focus to a WP:MINORASPECT of the subject. (This is not including the Carlson information) Would removing it under WP:NOCON until the NPOV issues are resolved be within policy, since it involves a BLP and the requirements for following npov are more strict? The alternative I suggested to fold the material into the article to be more neutral was rejected by Delecto previously. Awshort (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I have read the BPL policy again, per your request Robert McClenon.

Here are the policy questions, so far as I can tell:

1. Is a primary source -- in this instance, the existence of blog posts prior to Lorenz's announcement of her substack launch -- a sufficient reliable source to word her wiki article 'focus on' vs. 'launch' regarding her substack. I say yes, Awshort says no.

I will note here the distinction between a product release and a product launch. See eg: 1, 2, 3.

2. Does WP:BLPREMOVE apply to the wording of focus on vs. launch? My reading is that it only applies to potentially contentious material, which I read as contentious to the subject of the article (as opposed to contentious on wikipedia, as that standard could then be applied to anything that was challenged on WP.) Awshort says BLPREMOVE applies (as they applied it) and I say no.

3. It would be helpful to have some clarification about consensus on talk pages. In both instances that Awshort mentions, my perspective is that during active conversations, Awshort made changes. To me, the fact that there was a conversation ongoing, implies by definition was not a clear consensus yet. I need to double check, but I recall that they were both conversations just between the two of us.

4. In both the harassment section debate, and the debate about the wording of Lorenz's substack, Awshort removed something from the article that had implied consensus and then said that the burden/onus was on me if I wanted it back in the article. Can you provide some feedback on if this is the correct use of policy? I believe that once something has implied consensus, ONUS/Burden shifts, so long as the material doesn't violate other policies.

See eg: 1, 2, 3.

Delectopierre (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Taylor Lorenz)

This content dispute is about a biography of a living person, and has been described as having two parts. One part, which has to do with the phrasing to describe her effort on her blog, is an issue about possible synthesis. The other part has to do with the harassment section and is a biographies of living persons issue. I will be opening a thread at the biographies of living persons noticeboard about the issue about harassment. Please discuss there.

While we are waiting for advice from BLPN, we can discuss the issue of the wording about the blog. I have two questions for User:Delectopierre. The first is what the policy issue is that they mentioned above. The second is what their reply is to the statement by User:Awshort about synthesis amounting to original research.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay.

Regarding the BLP section, my question would be: what will the BLP thread question be? I ask because Awshort's statement -- in my view -- contains supposition and I want to ensure the framing of the question is agreeable to all parties.

I think that my zeroth statement may suffice as a reply to @Awshort's statement about synthesis, for the most part, with the following exceptions:

• Delecto wants the wording in the substack section to read that she left to "focus on" I think that 'focus on' is more accurate, however I am open to discussion about which might be better stylistically, for accuracy. etc. That said, my experience is that @Awshort would not discuss the pros/cons of the wording, and rather claimed it could not be 'focus on' on policy grounds that I do not agree with, detailed above.
• The sources that Awshort claims we must use in this post, and in their statement above, all attribute their reporting to statements by Lorenz. See below (emphasis mine). Doesn't that make these WP:PRIMARY as well?

• "Lorenz, who is leaving the newspaper to launch the publication, says that it will "cover technology from the user side," in contrast to traditional coverage of social media."
• "Taylor Lorenz, the high-profile tech columnist for The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that she was leaving the publication to start her own subscription newsletter on Substack."
• "Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post technology columnist, announced Tuesday that she is leaving the paper to launch a new publication on Substack, bringing to a close a 2½-year stint"

• Additionally, prior to making my change (from 'launch' to 'focus on') I started a discussion about this exact topic on the talk page. Rather than participating in the discussion (despite participating in other discussions on the talk page) Awshort reverted my changes to the wording. I'd just like to note that this conversation should have happened there, before their changes were made. It is quite frustrating for me to have Awshort revert my changes whether I use the BRD method (for the harassment section) or attempt to discuss proposed changes first on the talk page. In both instances, Awshort cited many policies, but from my perspective, wasn't engaging in a substantive discussion.

Lastly, Awshort continues to make modifications to additions I've made on the Lorenz article. Can I request a moratorium while we're going through this process? From my perspective, it seems like an edit war, as this is the second time they have gone through and made changes to this specific sentence, with different reasoning each time. Given that I have attempted to discuss our differences, and extended an olive branch, but have been met with what I experience to be Wikilawyering, I would like to request a moratorium while in this process, at a minimum. Delectopierre (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. I saw your post at BLPN after posting this reply. Given that you did not provide any framing, just pointed to the dispute, I am completely fine with it. Again, apologies for the delay. Delectopierre (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

"Extended an olive branch" by asking another user to check in with them before making edits to anything they have added/edited is WP:OWN behavior. No one is obligated to check in with another editor before making edits, and I don't get how they think it is acceptable to ask someone to do that. I've been accused so far of moving goalposts, Wikilawyering, and I would respectfully ask Robert to either close this so that we can start a conduct discussion on ANI, or emsure that Delecto sticks to content issues.

The edit I made was to reflect what a source said, and I didn't remove anything. If Delecto has a problem with editors ensuring accuracy of material they add, then I believe this needs to be discussed on a suitable noticeboard. Fixing a misquote to accurately reflect what someone states in the proper context shouldn't be that big of an issue.

Awshort (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Please note, I just posted this about an unrelated topic. I am unsure how to proceed.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harrasment by Awshort, Round 2 Delectopierre (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Taylor Lorenz)

I am placing this case on hold because I do not intend to mediate it any further. If another volunteer at this noticeboard is willing to take over, they may be able to help. I see that there is bad blood between User:Delectopierre and User:Awshort, and that Delectopierre has reported Awshort to WP:ANI for harassment a second time. I am aware that this is said to be an unrelated topic, but I am not ready to try to handle a content dispute between two users when there is also a conduct dispute between them. Either another volunteer who will take this case, who either knows how to work with hostile editors, or who does not care about the hostility between editors, or no other volunteer will take this case, in which case it will be archived while it is still on hold. I advise the editors to discuss the BLP issue at BLPN, and to read the boomerang essay before filing any more reports at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the time you already spent on this. Delectopierre (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Taylor Lorenz)

Taylor Lorenz discussion

Hi I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. I've collapsed the prior conversation and while I'll review, prefer a fresh start. I'll need a day to review the discussions and then will come back with my thoughts/next steps. Thanks! Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for letting us know. I'll keep an eye out. Delectopierre (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The Simpsons season 36

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lado85 on 11:00, 8 February 2025 (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 The Simpsons season 36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lado85 (talk · contribs) Morten Haan (talk · contribs) U-Mos (talk · contribs) Sophisticatedevening (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In 36th season of Simpsons some episodes are released exclusively on Disney+, but they are part of season an must be listed like standard episodes, like it is now. Those aren't movies or shorts, they're episodes with regular production codes and normal episode lenghth, they just aired on a different platform. If some sources just list and count the network episodes, let them do that. Another user (U-Mos) says they must be separated. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:The Simpsons season 36#WP:BOLD edit reverted - separating Disney+ episodes How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I did provide some sources. There is nothing that confirms that this episodes must be separated. Summary of dispute by U-Mos Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I suggested Lado may wish to proceed with dispute resolution here as he was not satisfied with the previous third opinion, kindly provided by Sophisticatedevening, which indicated that the substance of my bold edit (listing the Disney+ episodes below those broadcast on Fox) should stand. I believe I've been clear at the linked talk page why this change is supported by the weight of secondary sources, which crucially show that the four episodes in question were an entirely separate commission to the Fox broadcast season, in addition to their separate release/marketing. Sources differ on the episode numbering within the season, as has been shown through the talk page discussion. I am happy to adjust for Lado's objection to listing the episodes under the term "specials", per this version (currently reverted, as Lado re-engaged with the discussion). U-Mos (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC) A quick additional note following Lado's edit to the dispute summary: I do think that's a very straw man argument and a misrepresentation of the matter. I am not and at no point have suggested that these episodes shouldn't be listed as part of the main episode table at this article, as the version link above shows. U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC) I didn't change anything, only did dispute overview most сlear to understand. The version link shows separated episodes, not as regular episodes, like they are listed know. Lado85 (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC) The Simpsons season 36 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC) It is not necessary to notify the editor who has responded here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Done Lado85 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Simpsons) Two editors have made statements, and that is enough to begin moderated discussion. I am asking the editors first to read DRN Rule A. You will be assumed to have read and agreed to the rules if you post after the time of this posting. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community. I understand that this is a dispute about the list of episodes, about some episodes that were aired on Disney rather than on Fox. What exactly is the issue? It isn't obvious to me what the issue is, which may mean that it has not been stated clearly, and needs to be restated in what may otherwise seem to be excessive detail. Is one editor asking for the Disney episodes to be listed in a separate article, or is one editor asking to break them out from the listing of the other episodes and list them in a separate block under the main list of episodes? Please state exactly how you want these episodes listed. What exactly do each of the two editors think was the opinion of Sophisticatedevening? Please state why you agree or disagree with the Third Opinion. Are there any other content disputes? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Simpsons) Disney+ episodes must be like they are now, they are regular episodes. They just aired on a different platform. The source that was provides by U-Mos (Rotten Tomatoes) just lists and counts the network episodes (based on FOX page list). It can't be used as proof (like another sources with same lists). Lado85 (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC) The dispute is between (my version) and (Lado's version). Both versions list all episodes in one table in this article; my version places the Disney+ episodes below the others, underneath a heading (originally "Specials", now adjusted to "Disney+ episodes" in response to Lado's point that no sources describe them as "Specials"). I believe that this reflects the secondary sources cited in the article, that clearly demonstrate the separate commissioning, promotion and release of the episodes by different networks, i.e. that the Disney+ episodes are distinct from the Fox broadcast season. My understanding of the third opinion is that it supports my version, stating that "a reasonable compromise is to have them at the bottom under 15" (15 here refers to the most recent broadcast episode, "The Flandshees of Innersimpson"). U-Mos (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC) And still, there is no source, that proofs this episodes must be placed below the others. This is only U-Mos's own opinion. No one more supports this version. The sources, you arl talking counts only the network episodes, but this isn't proof that Disney episodes are not regulars. They aren't movies or shorts, they're episodes with regular production codes and normal episode lenghth, they just aired on a different platform. Lado85 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Simpsons) I see that this is a dispute over how to arrange the listings of the episodes in the table. Disputes over the formatting of tables are often remarkably intense, but do not really affect the accuracy of the information in the encyclopedia, and so are good candidates for a Third Opinion. I will again ask each editor to restate what they think was the Third Opinion of User:Sophisticatedevening, and also to state why they agree or disagree with the Third Opinion. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and do not respond to the post of the other editor. Please answer my questions. Am I correct that the two versions also differ in the Number in Season, because one version includes the Disney episodes in the numbering, and the other does not assign them numbers within the season? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Simpsons) I disagree with Third Opinion of User:Sophisticatedevening, she said episodes must be removed at all if there is no sources, that confirmed any version. I provided sources when all episode are listed together. Disney episodes have regular in season an overall numbers and regular production codes. Only difference is airing network. No one from Simpsons articles active editors supports U-Mos's version. User:Morten Haan commented on talk pages and supported my version (it's consensus version too). Lado85 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC) I broadly agree with the third opinion. Sophisticatedevening states that the episodes should be mentioned in the article, which I certainly agree with. They then suggest the "reasonable compromise" of listing the episodes in question at the bottom, which concurs with my version (linked above). They then discuss the sources and notion "official" information, in light of the most recent direction of the talk page discussion at that time, emphasising that secondary sources should be retained. My understanding is this relates to the information I was discussing at the talk page, that the four episodes were commissioned separately by Disney+ (currently cited to in the article, with also discussed in the talk page). Reflecting that information in the presentation of the article was my aim with this edit. You are correct that the numbering of episodes in the season differ between the two versions. Currently, the episodes are numbered chronologically by release date, with Disney+ episodes numbered 10, 11 and 14. My edit marks these episodes (as placed below the broadcast episodes) with an "X" in place of an episode number (as they do not sit within the Fox broadcast season), and amends the numbering of the Fox broadcast episodes accordingly (e.g. "The Falndeshees of Innersimpson" becomes episode 12, rather than episode 15). I did not alter the overall episode numbers (778, 779 and 782 for the Disney+ episodes). We have established on the talk page that sources differ on these episode numberings: some count only the Fox broadcast episodes, some match the current version of the article, and at least one combines the Christmas two-parter (Disney+ episodes) as a single "episode 10". Given these discrepancies, I consider the consistent and clear information regarding the episodes' commission/release to be of greater importance. I am happy to discuss this aspect further. U-Mos (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Simpsons) I am about to ask the editors at WikiProject Television for their comments on the formatting of a television season episode list when there were different networks for a season. This referral will be less intensive of volunteer labor than a Request for Comments. After I see how that referral progresses, I will decide whether to put this discussion on hold, to close this discussion as referred to the WikiProject, or to resume discussion following input from the WikiProject. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Simpsons) No further questions at this time. U-Mos (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Simpsons) Please see the opinion at WikiProject Television that it is not necessary to separate episodes on different networks in the listing. Are the other editors willing to accept the advice of WikiProject Television? If so, we can close this dispute as resolved. If you disagree, please state concisely why you disagree with the outside editor. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Simpsons) I'm not sure how the example of The Bionic Woman can be applied to this case. Bionic Woman does not have a single season that aired on multiple networks, as is the case here. What does the WikiProject member mean by "just continue the list"? U-Mos (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Simpsons) I am not going back to square one, but I am asking each of the editors again to state exactly how they want to display the episodes, including network information, in the article, which is mostly a list of episodes. Please be concise. I am also asking each of the editors how they propose that this dispute be resolved. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Simpsons) I agree with opinion at WikiProject Television Television. We must continue to list this episodes as regulars, what they are exactly. Disney+ mentioned after air date of this episodes. This is enough. Lado85 (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC) I continue to believe this version is the best reflection of the sourced information we have. The four Disney+ episodes remain displayed as fully part of season 36, but are not inaccurately merged with the Fox broadcast season. It also removes the clutter of listing the networks next to the release dates of episodes, as the different network is shown by the subheading. Additionally, with apologies for not looking this up sooner, MOS:TVEPISODE states that there may be situations where ordering by airdate would not be beneficial to readers, such as with Firefly and List of Futurama episodes, and should be discussed to determine the best approach to list the episodes, with reliable secondary sources needed to support a different ordering. That is precisely the situation we're in, in my view. U-Mos (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Simpsons) I will repeat my question that I am asking each of the editors how they propose to resolve this issue about the listing of the episodes in tabular form. Please be concise. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Simpsons) I'd consider any formation that does not integrate the four Disney+ episodes with the broadcast season by following strict chronological order to be acceptable. U-Mos (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Nothing must be changed. The episodes must be listed how they are now. There is no reason to separate Disney+ episodes.Lado85 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC) Another reply added at WikiProject Television. And it supports my version too. No one supports separating, everyone says that they must be listed all together, like they are now. Lado85 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (Simpsons) I wasn't clear in my previous question, when I asked how each editor thinks that the dispute should be resolved. I was given answers about what the resolution should be, which were reasonable given the wording of the question that I asked. But I really wanted to know what procedure each editor thinks should be used to resolve this content dispute. (Getting the other editor to change their mind is not a sufficient answer.) Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Simpsons) Nothing must be changed. Everything is fine now, how it must be. Why are we speaking about this again? No one supports separation, and nothing proves it. Lado85 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Only thing, that can be done is changing Disney+ episodes season number as "—", like Alex 21 said on WikiProject Television, but overall number must be kept unchanged (like I did here - User:Lado85/sandbox1). Lado85 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC) I am not overly familiar with dispute resolution procedures, but I think going to the WikiProject was an appropriate step, as would further requests for comment be. I do think the suggestion that has now been made at WikiProject Television is a reasonable compromise, as it makes a clear distinction between the broadcast and Disney+ episodes. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I would hope that any closure of this would make note of Lado's manner in conducting both the initial talk page discussion and this dispute resolution process, as I believe this falls short of the community's expectations. U-Mos (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Apologies for the above, I thought that your request for our thoughts on how to resolve the dispute was widening the scope of the conversation beyond content. Evidently I misunderstood. U-Mos (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator (Simpsons) There are instructions at the top of this noticeboard that say: This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. A moderator at this noticeboard does not have either the privilege of widening the scope of a dispute to include conduct or the unpleasant duty to widen the scope of a dispute to include conduct and to have to deal with conduct issues. There is a reference to a compromise that was proposed at the television project. It is not obvious to me, after reading the television project, what the compromise proposal is. If any editor has a compromise proposal, please state what it is. When I asked how any editor suggests that this dispute be resolved, I was trying to ask whether there are any ideas for what mechanism or procedure to use to resolve the dispute. One binding way to resolve this dispute is a Request for Comments, but RFCs are time-consuming and labor-intensive. Does anyone have a different idea for how to resolve this dispute without an RFC? If we remain deadlocked after discussing a compromise, I will start an RFC. Is there another idea? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Simpsons) I can't understand why it is not obvious to you. Compromise is set the Disney+ episodes season numbers as "—" (like I did here - User:Lado85/sandbox1). Lado85 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC) Understood re:content, not contributors. The suggested compromise is to retain chronological order in the tabular episode listing, but remove the season episode count for the four Disney+ episodes. I am happy with that compromise, and suggest it as a resolution at this point. If it is not accepted, I think RfC is the only further recourse. U-Mos (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator (Simpsons) A compromise has been suggested that the Disney episodes be listed in the same table as the Fox episodes, but that their episode numbers be omitted. Is that correct? Are the editors willing to agree to that compromise? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (Simpsons) I agree to the compromise. Lado85 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC) I agree to the compromise as outlined. U-Mos (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2025 (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.

Charyapada

– New discussion.

Filed by Ixudi on 16:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Ixudi (talk · contribs)
• CharlesWain (talk · contribs)

Third Opinion editor

• Manuductive (talk · contribs)

Users involved

Content dispute relating to the lead of the article. The current lead gives the impression that is emphasising the connection between the Charyapadas and Bengali. The previous lead edited by myself provided a more balanced opinion using more recent, reliable sources that there is differing opinions regarding the language of the Charyapadas:

I have raised this to 3rd opinion however no consensus has been reached. The other editor is now also trying to prevent edits made with reliable sources being added to the main article body.

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

Talk:Charyapada#Undue emphasis

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need at least a few other editors to provide their opinion on both the current and previous versions of the article to help resolve this content dispute.

Summary of dispute by CharlesWain

I have already cited half a dozen reliable sources and added quotations. I believe the issue is not as contentious as my fellow editor is making it out to be. This editor removed this source of Ramawatar Yadav, and added unsourced content. He is persistently pushing unsourced/original research. I requested for wider discussion here. Another editor Orientls rejected this POV, But he is edit warring to re-add it. No editor is able to verify the content he is pushing, and it seems like misrepresentation of source. Scholars generally agree that Charyapada is the ancestor of three languages- Assamese, Bengali, Odia. Some scholars even include Maithili. But these opinions can not be said to be contradictory because as per scholars these languages are related to each other, or Dialect continuum. I have again quoted from reliable tertiary sources, as due weight can be easily determined from these. Please check Talk: Charyapada #DUE and TERTIARY source. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Charyapada discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - It appears that a Third Opinion was provided. The editor who provided the Third Opinion should be included in any discussion. Also, the filing editor says that "consensus has been reached". Is that based on the Third Opinion? I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time, but any discussion should include all of the editors who have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. That’s a typo. I meant “no consensus”. Will fix now. Ixudi (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m one of the volunteer mediators here at DRN. Thanks for providing some context on this dispute. I’ll await the other editor to post a brief summary here first, but noting my intention to take a look at this one pending that. As there’s a disagreement about the lede section, this might end up being an ideal one to use my workshop method to draft proposed revisions, but I’ll wait for the other editor. Thanks! Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 19:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Third Opinion editor Manuductive

It seems like this is a contentious topic with scholarly opinion divided along ethnic lines regarding the question of which particular contemporary language has the best claim to being the successor to the language that the Charyapada was written in. I wasn't able to discern myself what the appropriate weights ought to be for the different points of view (although there is quite a bit out there saying that Bengali should take it) so I suggested that they get into a mediation over it. It seems like the article already acknowledges the nuanced reality of it, how the Charyapada had contributions of authors from a variety of different dialects and vernaculars of the day, and in a time when the languages of the region had yet to differentiate into the forms we see today, making it a bit difficult to pin down a decisive answer to the contemporary dispute. I think it's important to distinguish between the original oral tradition that it probably started out with (these were chants or songs) in a variety of different vernaculars, before being ultimately written down in a particular language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuductive (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Elysian Valley, Los Angeles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2603:8000:DCF0:95D0:D5C0:7CB3:844E:FF60 on 21:54, 18 February 2025 (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 Elysian Valley, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved phatblackmama (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A user named "phatblackmama" continuously and immediately reverts edits and it is evidenced in the history that this user has done that for many years. This user is not actively compromising or taken into consideration input from someone actually familiar with the community, despite being provided with legitimate sources and respectful disagreement. Corrections to formatting and sourcing are understandable, but the user will not compromise on many other items, and will not consider other input. Though it's evidenced they edit Wikipedia pages full-time and have for many, many, years, my goal is only to make sure a specific Wikipedia page for a neighborhood I know well and love is accurately represented. In addition, this user has posted inaccurate information and has been incorrect in some of their claims, furthering my argument that they should not solely control the page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elysian_Valley,_Los_Angeles#February_2025_changes How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please review the discussion, edits, and sources, and consider allowing my edits. They are justifiable and accurate, and I've provided legitimate sources and reasonable opinion, but my edits are consistently and immediately undone by user phatblackmama. Summary of dispute by phatblackmama Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Not sure what the specific problem is. The user wanted to add a statement about "distinctive steel orange bridge". They added a citation. The statement is there. The user added the following statement to the lede: "Elysian Valley is located between the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5) and the Los Angeles River. This distinctive geographic positioning has significantly contributed to the neighborhood's unique character." Nowhere else in the article did it explain how "distinctive geographic positioning has significantly contributed to the neighborhood's unique character." The statement was just sitting there as an unexplained concept. An explanation is there now in the geography section, with a citation that I provided from the Los Angeles Times explaining what "distinctive geography" means for this neighborhood. I have explained multiple times that a lede " is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". It does not focus simply on the geography. That is what the geography section is for. I do disagree with their deletions of the history of the Elysian theater. It has a 100-year-old history in this community, starting as a silent movie house. That history is reflected in its entry. They stated on the Talk Page that the photo was from a previous theater company. I had no problem with it. But it bothered them. And it is gone. I also disagree with the heading they wish to place the Elysian theater under. Rather than under the heading of "Arts and culture", they want it under the heading of "Non-profits in Elysian Valley". I have explained to them that this theater should be listed by its purpose, not its funding. The Geffen Playhouse, which is also a non-profit, is listed in Westwood and sits under the heading "Entertainment and cultural facilities" -- not under the heading "Non-profits in Westwood". I am not sure what edits I made that are "incorrect". Perhaps they are referring to when the user deleted the Suay Sew Shop without stating a reason in an edit summary. Since it was a notable business, I restored it and said to discuss it on Talk page. They then posted on the Talk Page that it moved to another neighborhood. Simple. Now it stays out. On the Talk Page, I have asked this user to make individual changes with edit summaries and not group twenty different changes into one edit. They complied with that request in their most recent edits. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Elysian Valley,_Los_Angeles discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by volunteer (Elysian Valley) I am ready to try to act as the moderator for moderated discussion in this content dispute. Will each editor please state whether they are interested in moderated discussion (mediation)? The purpose of any content dispute resolution is to improve an article. Will each editor please state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Elysian Valley) Hi, I am sorry I missed this. Please let me know if we can make a resolution and some of my edits can be considered and approved. Could this be reopened for consideration? Thank you. 2603:8000:DCF0:95D0:D433:9C1C:99DB:A06D (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Elysian Valley) Are the editors interested in moderated discussion? The unregistered editor, who is the filing editor, made a misplaced statement saying that they want to participate in discussion. Do they want to participate in discussion here? I strongly advise the unregistered editor to register an account, because it is difficult to deal with an editor whose IP address is shifting. However, I will again ask each editor what changes they want to make to the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. One editor has already made a statement; if that statement is still a current statement of what they think the dispute is about, they may simply refer to it. If you are interested in moderated discussion, please read DRN Rule A, and you will be expected to comply with the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Elysian Valley) 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.

Ricky Rich

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Surayeproject3 on 14:22, 19 February 2025 (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 Ricky Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs) User623921 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Issue over the subject's ethnicity, in the context of a larger dispute within the community he originates from over identity. I edited the article to say that he was "Assyrian/Syriac", based on the categories and the template present at the bottom of the page. However, the other user involved aimed to represent him as a Syriac-Aramean, which led to a small back-and-forth until I started a talk page notice about it. We decided that "Syriac" was a good middle ground, but we are still disputing whether it should be kept as Assyrian/Syriac or just Syriac by itself. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I requested page protection for the subject because the issue has recently been a back and forth with other editors on the site (for this page), and this actually reflects a lot of how Assyrian articles have been edited over the years. Additionally, I've also noted that the subject's Swedish article has the same designation of Assyrian/Syriac, and most other Assyrian musicians are labeled as just Assyrian. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Come to a consensus on what is the best neutral ground to refer to his identity, based on Wikipedia conventions, the subject's personal identity, and taking into account the issue of the naming dispute within the community he comes from. One thing to note is that the other user has previously been blocked from the Swedish Wikipedia for similar editing patterns, which may or may not influence the discussion but I felt was worth mentioning. Summary of dispute by User623921 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ricky Rich discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2025 (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.

Jay M. Bernhardt

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fravia22 on 19:55, 4 March 2025 (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 Jay M. Bernhardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fravia22 (talk · contribs) Teckb (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have been trying to add information to Jay M. Bernhardt's page about a series of protests that broke out at Emerson College during his tenure as President and which eventually led to calls for his resignation at the college. However, every time that I've added this information, it has been removed as a whole, whether it be by anonymous IP addresses or, more recently, by TeckB. I'm more than willing to workshop my edits so as to keep them objective and unbiased, but any attempts to create a consensus have simply ended in a fullscale removal again. This back and forth does not seem productive, and any attempts to reach out directly to users involved has fallen on deaf ears. I'm hoping that reaching out to a third party editor will be able to help us mediate the content and make sure that the page has complete and fair information. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jay M. Bernhardt#Investiture Ceremony Controversy How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By helping to develop a clear and fair consensus on the content of the page, hopefully neither I nor other users will have to edit the page further until new information arises. Summary of dispute by TeckB Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jay M. Bernhardt 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.

Geography

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Interstellarity on 00:13, 28 February 2025 (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 Geography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Interstellarity (talk · contribs) M.Bitton (talk · contribs) GeogSage (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We have a disagreement on which map is best for the geography page. The issue has been about whether the political map adheres to the neutral point of view. It was discussed at the talk page, but a discussion opened up on the neutral point of view noticeboard which involved a lot of editors. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Geography#World_map_for_geography_page How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope that someone can provide a solution that makes everyone happy like suggesting a better map to use for the geography page that the community agrees with. Summary of dispute by M.Bitton Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GeogSage Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This has been discussed on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Geography map dispute at length. Essentially, maps periodically need to be updated to stay in line with their underlying sources, it is basic maitnance. The map in question has been discussed twice on the Geography talk page, once last year (that I thought was resolved, but ultimately everyone lost steam and nothing happened) and the discussion this year. This year, User:Interstellarity tried to update the world map on the Geography page becaue the underlying map, which uses CIA World Factbook boundaries, is no longer the latest set of boundaries from the source. The CIA World Factbook has widespread use on Wikipedia, so it's use isn't without precident. The user who authored the current map (M.Bitton) disagrees with the boundary change made by the source, and therefore is blocking the update. Specifically, the U.S. government changed its stance and now includes Western Sahara as a part of Morocco. After looking into this problem further, I've found the current map isn't just out of date, it is a user generated set of boundaries being presented as authored by the CIA World Factbook. The source given for the image is "Derivative of the 2016 and the 2021 Physical maps of the world; from the CIA World Factbook," and lists the author as "US Government, Central Intelligence Agency." The 2021 CIA World Factbook map does not include Western Sahara, but M.Bitton has omitted that change and presented it as coming from the source. On the NPOV Discussion, they described the map as "World Physical Map (a derivative of the 2015 and 2021 CIA maps that is kept up to date -names of places- and was last updated in 2024)." I believe this is an egregious misrepresentation of the source. In a professional publication this would be unacceptable, and in terms of cartographic ethics, the most generous description would be Misinformation. Even if the US view is determined to be fringe, it is still objectively the current U.S. view. This is no different then modifying a direct quote from someone to reflect the global consensus. On the NPOV discussion, M.Bitton stated, "I disagree. Updating the names of places doesn't constitute OR." On the Geography discussion, they stated, "How many times do I have to tell you that the map that you removed is a derivative and a more accurate one that the one it's based on." In the NPOV dispute, User:Chipmunkdavis noted that M.Bitton has been involved on other discussions surrounding this issue and blocked changes to other maps as well. Specifically, "This is not the only time you have disrupted maps due to your preferred Western Sahara border display, the last time I recall is the slow edit war you carried out at File:Greater Middle East (orthographic projection).svg where for a year you reinserted very obvious errors such as deleting Eritrea and dividing Yemen (changes which pushed the map much further away from the apparently preferred UN-style one) to try and get the version of the Western Sahara borders you wanted." Finally, M.Bitton has templated me on my talk page for personal attacks, and accusesed me of casting aspirations on the Geography Talk page, stating "As for your continued aspersions, you will get the template that you deserve and if you continue, you will take a trip to ANI." They refused to explain further despite me asking for them to elaborate so I could address it, stating "Read your previous comments and if you still don't see what I'm referring to, then ANI is that way" and "I will do so when this goes to ANI (which it will if you continue to cast aspersions)." Conversations about maps get heated, and I have been trying to remain Civil. If I said something inappropriate or that was misinterpreted as such, I would want to know so I can either explain my meaning or strike through it and appologize. I've re-read the convesation, but nothing jumped out. Honestly, the template, followed by threats to take this to well, here without elaboration has been the most frusterating part of this. In a later modified comment, M.Bitton stated to me "Let the discussion (that you started) run its course. The rest of you irrelevant opinion (that you repeated ad nauseam) has been noted and rightfully ignored." I asked them to strike that rather then reword it, but they did not reply. It currently reads "Let the discussion (that you started) run its course. The rest of your opinion (that you repeated ad nauseam) has been noted and rightfully ignored." I just want to use up to date boundaries that align with the source we're attributing them to. If we are going to introduce a policy that some boundaries are now no longer appropriate on the project, I'd like consistent policy guidelines to follow, as the map in question is in use on other pages such as Map, and we will end up having this same discussion every time someone goes to update an old CIA World Factbook map anywhere on the project. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Geography discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Quick note: @Interstellarity:, you failed to notified the other users on the talk page about this discussion here. Please do so using Twinkle or the manual talkback method. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)  Done The users have been notified. Interstellarity (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Geography) I am ready to try to mediate this dispute if the editors want moderated discussion. This noticeboard is only for content disputes. I see some complaints that appear to be about user conduct. Often a focus strictly on content can cause conduct issues to fade into the background. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. If those two statements appear to be almost the same, that is because they are almost the same, because the underlying rule needs to be restated. The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. I see that there is an issue about a map. I will ask each of the editors a usual opening question, which is: What in the article do you want to change, or what in the article do you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Are there any content issues other than about the map? Are there any other questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Comment:Thanks, sorry, saw "summary of dispute" and went overboard in describing the whole thing and not the core issue. Question: Do we place answer to your question in Statements? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC) User:GeogSage - The preferred place for the answer to my questions in the "statements by editors" subsection. It is not important to me where the answers are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Geography) Zeroth statment by GeogSage A global map of the world in the Robinson projection, with no legend. No objections to what you stated. For the past year, we have been discussing a change to the map based on updates to the offical boundaries the current one is derived from, included above for context. For the past year, that discussion hasn't really gone anywhere, because no one could agree on a single replacement (see the geography talk page). This year, there was another attempt to update the map, which was blocked again. This time, after looking more closely at the current map, I have found not only is it out of date, it is using boundaries selectively derived to remove part of the change in the official source. The Wikimedia file state the author is "US Government, Central Intelligence Agency" and list the 2021 map as one of the sources, but does not accurately reflect the 2021 maps new borders. I believe that regardless of what we replace it with, the current map, and all with similar user derived boundaries, should be removed from the project. Synthesizing boundary files from different years is no different from blending sources together to make an original statement. U.S. boundary files are widely used on Wikipedia for our maps, and we will need to update them all as time progresses. If we are going to stop using U.S. sources entirely and decide another version is more definitive, then we should clearly state that, however I believe doing so would likely handicap the map making endevors of editors. As it stands, any map that is using properly cited/attributed/dated boundaries that represent an official view of some organization at some point in time is fine as long as it is clearly cited. Ideally, we should use the most up to date sources unless we are showing a historic world view for some reason. I'd prefer to just update the existing one as time progresses to reflect changes in the source, as that is really easy to do. If someone wants to hunt down a nice U.N. map or something else, that works. The current map should be removed from this and all other pages it is on, as well as any maps using these user derived boundaries. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:34, 3 March 2025 (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.

Shakir Pichler

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 163.47.98.91 on 07:23, 7 March 2025 (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 Shakir Pichler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved OwenX (talk · contribs) KryptonicChristine (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi. I noticed the Wiki page for Western Australian musician Shakir Pichler had a lot of back and forth talk in articles marked for deletion where the page editor successfully added many credible sources and links but didn't seem to have the skillset for proper wiki editing and could have done with some help. The persons wiki entry however definitely qualifies for notability in both the music scene and film credits as well. I don't think his entry should now be redirected to just one of his many successful bands when there was so much extra information provided and entered during the articles for deletion discussion. Hoping someone there has the time to read the final edits and restore the redirect and perhaps tidy the wiki code to adhere to standards expected from wikipedia. Thank you. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakir_Pichler&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hoping an editor can remove the redirect and tidy the wiki / html code to adhere to Wikipedia standards as the content now shows that he is notable on many occasions. Thank you in advance :) Summary of dispute by owenx Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by kryptonicchristine Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Shakir Pichler discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Wrong venue. This appears to be a request by an unregistered editor to review the redirection of Shakir Pichler, which was the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakir Pichler and was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_December_11#Shakir_Pichler. The unregistered editor, or a registered editor, should create a draft and submit the draft for review. The previous text of the article is available in the history to start, but a submitter might do better to start over rather than beginning with an article that did not establish musical notability. The unregistered editor is advised to register an account. I will not be closing this request because I am involved by having taken part in the Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2025 (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.

Sheba, Dʿmt

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Abo Yemen on 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Sheba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dʿmt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) Havenzeye (talk · contribs) Pogenplain (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Haven one day decided to remove sheba from the p1 parameter of the infobox and change the dates of D'mt's existence, both of which used to be cited in the main text by RSs. I reverted them on both articles (D'mt and Sheba), to which they responded by reverting me (in both articles and claimed that ALL the 20 sources that support D'mt being a predecessor state of sheba are false. I started a discussion on the talkpage (Talk:Sheba#removal) which lasted a continuous 8 hours of them falsifying the sources in Sabean colonization of Africa article and used sources from that article's talk page that were brought up by another user after a sock that used the exact same arguments as them here to which pogenplain proved wrong Talk:Sheba#c-Pogenplain-20250217161100-Abo_Yemen-20250217112200. They then claimed again that their 21 year old source is correct and all the newer 22 sources used in the article are wrong and kept on asking me for 3000 year old inscriptions that prove my point (?, as if there aren't any reliable sources in the article). When asked by pogen:Is there a quote you can find in the literature that is in contradiction with what the page says? they failed to provide a source and denied all those sources in the colonization article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Sheba#removal How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Can we have them stop with their removals and their attempts at denying all the sources in the article which is just gaslighting and a WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement Summary of dispute by Havenzeye Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Pogenplain Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sheba, Dʿmt 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.

Aristides de Sousa Mendes

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Benji1207 on 15:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Aristides de Sousa Mendes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Benji1207 (talk · contribs)
• JPratas (talk · contribs)
• Joséángel006 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User JPratas has been reverting my edits and those of another user called "Joséángel006" despite referencing credible sources including his own sources that he is using to revert the edit of myself and the other user (Joséángel006). The issue at hand is as follows: JPratas has been refusing to acknowledge that the term "thousands" is well-documented in the case of the famous Holocaust rescuer Aristides de Sousa Mendes concerning the number of visas issued.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes#c-Benji1207-20250124150100-Undetermined_vs._thousands

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please look at the evidence provided on the talk page. You will see exact quotes given from multiple reputable historians, including from one of JPratas' main sources (Avraham Milgram).

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Summary of dispute by JPratas

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

Summary of dispute by Joséángel006.

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

The dispute is about whether the article should say that Aristides issued an undetermined number or thousands of visas. Recently I had the opportunity to have a look at many reliable sources regarding Aristides de Sousa Mendes, which I quoted on the Talk page of the article. Thank you for taking a look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joséángel006 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Aristides de Sousa Mendes discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (de Sousa Mendes)

I am willing to conduct moderated discussion to try to resolve this dispute. Please answer whether you want to take part in moderated discussion. The purpose of all content dispute resolution activities is to improve the articles, so please also specify what language in the article you want to change that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what language you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ready for discussion Benji1207 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I am also ready for discussion Joséángel006 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (de Sousa Mendes)

Please read DRN Rule A. I understand that there is a dispute about the exact language to be used concerning the number of visas issued by de Sousa Mendes. Please state exactly what you think that the article should say about the number of visas that he issued to refugees.

Are there any other content issues?

I have a comment that is not directly related to the content dispute. There should be a {{family name hatnote}} indicating what part of his Portuguese name is considered his surname.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It should read: "As the Portuguese consul-general in the French city of Bordeaux, he defied the orders of António de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo regime, issuing visas to thousands of refugees fleeing Nazi-occupied France."

There are multiple errors in the article, but for now, I want to focus on the numbers before moving on to other parts of the page.

His full name is Aristides de Sousa Mendes do Amaral e Abranches. His surname is considered to be Sousa Mendes.

Thank you for helping me resolve this dispute. Benji1207 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Benji 1207 Joséángel006 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (de Sousa Mendes)

Only one editor has answered my question about what the article should say about the number of visas issued by Sousa Mendes. If there is no other opinion expressed, I will conclude that that question has been resolved by non-objection, and will then ask whether there are other content issues, or the case should be closed.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

What are the next steps if the other Editor, who has been reverting the changes, doesn’t reply here? Benji1207 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer (de Sousa Mendes)

I have reviewed the history of Aristides de Sousa Mendes and I see why User:Benji1207 asks: What are the next steps if the other Editor, who has been reverting the changes, doesn’t reply here? The other editor has not taken part in this discussion. DRN is voluntary. So the other editor has never agreed to any dispute resolution process. The only binding process for resolution of content disputes is Request for Comments, and we will have to use a Request for Comments. So I will ask the filing editor to specify exactly what words they want to change in the article and what they want to change them from and to. After they provide the exact wording, I will compose a draft RFC, and they and I will refine the wording of the RFC and then launch it. An RFC runs for thirty days, and is publicized. If it is contentious, which this one is (because we wouldn't be going through the RFC process if it weren't necessary), the RFC will be formally closed by an experienced editor, and the closure is binding.

Are there any other questions, either about article content, or about the process? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Copied from the second statement: It should read: "As the Portuguese consul-general in the French city of Bordeaux, he defied the orders of António de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo regime, issuing visas to thousands of refugees fleeing Nazi-occupied France." Benji1207 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer (de Sousa Mendes)

I have composed a draft RFC, which is at Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes/Draft RFC on Number of Visas. Please review it and comment on it. After we agree on the RFC, I will move it to the article talk page and will activate the RFC by removing the "tl", so that the RFC will become a live RFC.

Are there any comments or questions about the RFC before I activate it?

Are there any other questions, either about the RFC process or any other content matter? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft looks good! Thank you! Who will be allowed to vote? The editors too? Benji1207 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer (de Sousa Mendes)

An RFC is a public proceeding. It normally runs for 30 days, and any editor in good standing is allowed to take part in it. The draft RFC will be moved to the article talk page within 24 hours, and will be tweaked so as to make it a live RFC. You will be allowed and encouraged to provide reliable sources in support of your viewpoint.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! Is it uploaded already? Benji1207 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Sixth statement by volunteer (de Sousa Mendes)

The RFC is running at Talk:Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes#RFC_on_Number_of_Visas. Please enter your statements in the Survey, and optionally in the Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ms5678t on 15:21, 13 March 2025 (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 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ms5678t (talk · contribs) Avatar317 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Disagreement about relevance and credibility of source (PERAB 2010) which occurs frequently on the page. Further explained on the Talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Low-Income Housing Tax Credit #Entire_sections_have_no_citations How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? settle disagreement of credibility of this source alone. Summary of dispute by Ms5678t @Avatar317 has cited the 2010, the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB) in three places on this wikipedia page (Opening Summary and Evaluations prominently). The two items taken from this source are 1) the cost of the program for the federal government and 2) comparison to housing choice vouchers. I have attempted without success to remove this source on the grounds that on 1) those figures of government cost are outdated and 2) it does not provide substantial evidence to support its conclusions of the LIHTC program vs housing choice vouchers. All editing attempts have been undone by @Avatar317. Please examine the source materials!! I am not suggesting the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board has a former entity was not credible BUT that it does not sufficiently examine the cost-effectiveness of LIHTC vs housing choice vouchers. Only a few sentences are dedicated to this subject, saying "Some experts suggest that other federal aid (like housing vouchers) would assist low-income households at a lower cost." This unsupported sentence is irresponsibly used (in prominent places) on the page because the consequences of comparing affordable housing programs are severe for residents of affordable housing. In fact, as of 2024, HUD's publication "The Role of Vouchers in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program" concludes that more research needs to be done on the relationship between both programs in the housing market and cost-effectiveness analyses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms5678t (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 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.

Tyler Hoechlin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fandomuniverse on 22:22, 14 March 2025 (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 Tyler Hoechlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fandomuniverse (talk · contribs) Seasider53 (talk · contribs) Mxhyn16 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Seasider53 reverted all my images changes on the following pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Hoult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hoechlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Tulloch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Purnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Gustin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle_Panabaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley_Shipp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Padalecki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Smith_(actress) He sent me a message and these were our exchanges: Please discuss your intended infobox image changes on article talk pages first. "I took this photo, therefore it is better than the existing photo" is not a sufficient reason. Seasider53 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Hello, I see you're reverting back to previous images from the ones I've submitted. These are recent images I own of these celebs and am trying to update. Thanks for your understanding! Fandomuniverse (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC) No problem. I will remove them again shortly. Seasider53 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Why would you remove more up to date information? These images are more current than the previous photos, and therfore why the page should be updated to have the most current information. Fandomuniverse (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Shortly after these messages, a different user started reverting all of my images, user Mxhyn16. I started changing my images back as I still do not understand why my images are being reverted to previous versions and then I was hit with an "editing war" warning. Please assist in resolving these issues between me and these users, who are not explaining why they would remove the most updated images of these celebrities from their Wikipedia pages. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fandomuniverse How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help me understand who is in violation here and why. I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, but it feels as though my contributions are being unfairly removed without explanation. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know as I am new and can course correct moving forward. However, I do not believe I am in violation of anything. Summary of dispute by Seasider53 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mxhyn16 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Tyler Hoechlin 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.

2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Engage01 on 06:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Engage01 (talk · contribs) Df (talk · contribs) Thryduulf (talk · contribs) Fadedreality556 (talk · contribs) Dw31415 (talk · contribs) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk · contribs) Spitfire8520 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I will list at least two of the problems. One, there is major disagreement about the lead. For some reason a handful of editors are trying to keep it very short leaving out pertinent information. Two, two of the people who died on the jet (CRJ) are not recognized because of a lack of "reliable" sources. That's another debate (what constitutes reliability in this instance-should this event warrant special circumstances in allowing certain sources). Among the biggest difficulties is the fact that Indian (from India) and Pakistani sources alternately leave out half of the information. There are other major problems with this article and also on the talk page. Lastly two or more users will not allow much discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have done everything I can think of to remedy this situation. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Wikipedia exists to have discourse. This seems as good an opportunity as any to find common ground. 2025 Potomac River mid-air collison discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. The other editors must be listed, and must be notified on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC) I'm not sure why I've been listed here? The only thing I can recall discussing with relation to this article is the best way to present a see also link, which has been fully resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Same for me - Df and not DF (I corrected) - Df (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC) I know why i've been pinged. This is about the usage of "American Airlines" or "American Eagle" - Fadedreality556 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC) I am guessing the complaint is about discussions at Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision/Archive_5#Too_much_detail_in_intro?, Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision#Proposed_overhaul_of_introduction_-_15_Feb, and Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision#c-Dw31415-20250308234200-Engage01-20250308220900 . I welcome any feedback you'd like to offer. Dw31415 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC) p.s. This comment by the opener is a good example of the dispute It's almost like some of you on this thread, on this talk page are not clear about ledes. It's not your job to remove or guess about how much can be removed. Neither is it right for you to take out stuff that belongs in said section. This is not your sandbox.Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision/Archive 5#c-Engage01-20250222115800-Hank2011-20250213025600 It would be helpful if the volunteers gave some guidance on how to resolve disputes about what should be in the introduction. Dw31415 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC) I have no idea why I was pinged about this by @Engage01 Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC) WP:BOOMERANG for OP and WP:COMPETENCE are at play here. This user clearly did not learn to stop being disruptive from their last two blocks. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC) Comment: I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#Harassment and possible Canvassing and User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion explains why there is a reluctance by other editors to engage with the OP and why the preceding comment exists. Borgenland (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC) Thanks for linking to those. They are what I was referring to with my comment. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Potomac air collision) I am ready to work to see whether moderated discussion will be useful about the article about the mid-air collision. Multiple editors have said that they do not know why they have been pinged. This means that the filing editor has not clearly stated what they think the issues are. I don't know whether moderated discussion will be useful until we can better identify the content issues. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to state, concisely, what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If an editor does not think that there is an article content issue, they may either say that they do not see an article content issue, or they may choose not to answer the question. If we cannot define an article content dispute, then maybe there is some other issue than article content. If there is an issue about the reliability of a source, the best forum is probably the Reliable Source Noticeboard rather than DRN. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. After I see the answers as to what the article content issues are, we will know better whether there is an article content issue to be resolved at DRN, or whether a dispute can be resolved somewhere else, such as RSN, or maybe article talk page discussion may be in order. Are there any other questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Potomac air collision) I will close this DRN thread as not sufficiently well defined for DRN unless the filing party, User:Engage01, specifies what the article content issues are, in terms of what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Also, some editors have stated that they do not know why they were asked to take part in this discussion. Please identify what the issue is with each of the editors who has said that they do not know why they were alerted. They have asked a reasonable question, and should be answered. Are there any other questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC) Hello @Robert McClenon, thanks for your work here. I think these disputes are a little aged now (I think we’re talking about edits from mid-February). Maybe the opener could make a small edit on one or two of the issues so we can see where we stand and address specific disputes. Thoughts? Dw31415 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Potomac air collision) Robert McClenon, thank you for seeming to be the only user that works on DNR, there may be others but I see you do most of the work. I don't think I understand some of the above, First I didn't list editors because I had guessed they could add themselves and the main reason for that is that there are too many of them (more than nine, I think). Second, the 2 or 3 who complained about being notified-that is very much without logic to me, because no one is required to be involved. Spitfire chose not to be and didn't complain, ask, etc. The topics that could / should be addressed with DNR involve the two I cited and others. I said the lead has been a struggle. That's not an uncommon situation and I suppose many of the remedies employed have been haphazard. It doesn't help that I feel this particular talk page (about the incident) is being squelched. Why is that the case? Why would people try to push their view? One editor replied to your question and agreed that the lead needs work or said could you suggest options. I have said and am saying again that reliable sources or sources in general are a difficulty as pertaining to the 2 people who died and aren't included-and should be. It should not matter that Indian (media in India) and Pakistani sources don't agree with each other or each omit half of the news and details. If you must have a short or long list of the other topics that are needed to go over: Another user said they know one of the subjects. It seems obvious to me that the question of whether to use American Airlines or American Eagle, or even the Flight number and dodge the matter should be settled by how the majority of the media outlets see it. It's not that big of a thing but the editor seems to not understand that. Other things would be how the collision is described or the things that happened regarding communication, routes, the investigation. I don't think I need to list them but will if I am asked.Engage01 (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2025 (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.

Kylie Minogue

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PHShanghai on 23:16, 16 March 2025 (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 Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PHShanghai (talk · contribs) Hotwiki (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a longstanding conflict and edit war regarding changes being made to the lead paragraph of this article. Reversions often happen when the lead paragraph is edited. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Previous DRN discussion from November 2024: How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A structured environment may help resolve this longterm dispute. The continued filibustering on the talk page is meandering and unproductive. I would also suggest to avoid dealing with an RfC, as getting activity without feeling CANVASS-y is difficult when the changes seem minor on the surface. Additionally, when the RfC closes due to lack of responses, there are further comments such as "nobody agreed with your lead edit, you are causing issues with your fellow editors" etc. Summary of dispute by Hotwiki Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User:PHShanghai keeps resurrecting content that was already contested last year (April 2024). The situation in the Kylie Minogue article, also led to two ANI reports and they were told not to restore content that already caused issued in the past. 3 to 4 months after the last ANI incident report, PHShanghai restored a contested content in the lead secion. It exhibits PHShanghai causing issues to the article from time to time. This recent dispute is just another continuation of that. As for other issues, when it comes to PHShanghai's recent changes in the lead section, its been discussed in the talk page. Kylie Minogue 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.

Immanuel Kant

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 86.17.16.138 on 14:15, 17 March 2025 (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 Immanuel Kant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Remsense (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Remsense is obstructing revision of the article and making discussion impossible by deleting material that has footnotes. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immanuel_Kant How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Allowing others to edit, without reverting the edits just because one does not like them Summary of dispute by Remsense Rejecting this one too. Some mornings on here are rough. Remsense ‥ 论 14:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Immanuel Kant 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.

Ant Wan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Surayeproject3 on 14:39, 16 March 2025 (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 Ant Wan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs) User623921 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On the article for Ant Wan, I made edits indicating that the subject has Assyrian ancestry from the country of Syria. After I had first made my edits however, User623921 changed the article to the term Syriac to indicate a different ancestry, in response to a dispute on a separate article (Ricky Rich) which has since been resolved (or at least the Talk page discussion has ended). Previous issues have been present on the article regarding editing of the user's ethnicity; in the community the subject comes from, there exists a naming dispute that is primarily between those who advocate for Assyrian identity, and those who advocate for Aramean identity (usually coupled with the term Syriac due to religious influences). Originally, mentions of his ethnicity labeled him as Assyrian, Kurdish, Arab, Aramean/Syriac, but mostly has been between Assyrian and Aramean identity. I expanded the article to include more information, yet User623921 has consistently changed the ethnicity portion to say Syriac-Aramean, resulting in an opened discussion on the Talk page. I suggested leaving the ethnicity portion as Assyrian/Syriac, and have previously tried to keep the article as such until a conclusion has been reached. We also agreed not to use certain sources that were user-generated in the article as well. However, the user has continued to change the text to say Syriac while linking to the article on the ancient Arameans, and as I've recently been busy outside of Wikipedia, I haven't had the chance to talk in depth about the dispute. Other than two sources that say Syrian, with one of them stating Syriac, I can't find any direct sources that state that the subject identifies as Aramean (but also Assyrian too). Therefore, I am arguing that the ethnicity should say Assyrian/Syriac. This is present on the Swedish article for the subject, which lists the subject as having Assyrian/Syriac descent. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Ant Wan#Antwan_ethnicity. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please help create a final consensus on how the subject should be referred to satisfy both arguments based on the previous editing habits of the article, the relation of the terms present on the page to other articles on Wikipedia, and conventions of the Swedish Wikipedia which also has a page for the subject (and is where he comes from). Summary of dispute by User623921 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Surayeproject3 is trying to fit in the name "Assyrian" on Ant Wan, even though the sources speak nothing of "Assyrian", only Syriac in English and Syrian in Swedish, which is equated to Aramean, as I have provided sources with on the talk page, see the Swedish Parliament motion and Syrianska Riksförbundet. I am simply following what the sources say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Ant Wan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Notice on the user talk page is the required method of notification. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC) Notice added to their page. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Just to add a comment, some things that should also be noted is that the other editor has just recently been accused of meatpuppetry in a closed case, and has had a case opened on the administrator's noticeboard , where this case has also been partly discussed and a solution by an admin has been proposed. I also previously reported User623921 for edit warring on Ricky Rich , and he was previously blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia for similar editing habits. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2025 (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.

Kathleen Kennedy (producer)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Daniel Caspi on 09:22, 16 March 2025 (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 Kathleen Kennedy (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Daniel Caspi (talk · contribs) Nemov (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a long-standing dispute regarding the inclusion of sourced, neutral content about Kathleen Kennedy’s managerial and creative decisions during her tenure at Lucasfilm, particularly her role in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. Efforts to expand the article’s coverage of her leadership beyond contract renewals have been repeatedly blocked by a single editor who selectively accepts only positive additions while dismissing well-sourced material about key creative and managerial decisions. This pattern has been raised as a concern by multiple editors over the years. I am seeking dispute resolution to ensure that balanced, policy-compliant content can be added fairly. I hope for mediation or an objective review of proposed additions to resolve this issue. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Previous discussions have taken place on the article's talk page, but no consensus has been reached due to resistance from the same editor. Below is a link to the relevant discussions: Talk:Kathleen Kennedy (producer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Kennedy_(producer) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Mediation by a neutral third party would help ensure Wikipedia’s neutrality and content policies are upheld. If necessary, a formal Request for Comment (RfC) could be initiated to allow for broader community input on the disputed content. Summary of dispute by Nemov The editor asked for feedback on a proposed section. I replied once, the editor never responded to my points and opened this up. There was a previous discussion that covered some of my points already. I'm not sure why this was brought here. Nemov (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC) Kathleen Kennedy (producer) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. As Nemov said, given the single comment on a talk page (with poorly written and poorly sourced proposals), and the single response by Nemov on that talk page with no response by Daniel Caspi, this is a pointless DRN request as there has not been extensive discussion. – notwally (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2025 (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.

Talk:Social psychology#Merge proposal

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Senomo Drines on 13:48, 17 March 2025 (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 Talk:Social psychology#Merge proposal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Senomo Drines (talk · contribs) Remsense (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It began when I proposed a merge between the Social psychology and Social psychology (sociology) articles. The reason being was because the 2, in my opinion, had very similar leading definitions, simply worded differently. The sociology page acknowledged this and said that that it focuses more along the lines of society rather than the individual, but the psychology page does say "implied presence of others", not "another". Remsense has reverted my merge template, not even bothering to keep discussing in the talk page. They repeatedly say to "read the article", but never specify where, even after asking them. I ask that someone review what is going on as our conversation has been going nowhere. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Social psychology#Merge proposal How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I need a mediator to make sure the discussion doesn't derail. Also as a means of staying on-topic and not devolving into WP:PA. Summary of dispute by Remsense There's no dispute one can have over the contents of articles they have not read. I will not be engaging with this, which would seemingly require additional editors to spend time reading the articles in Senomo Drines's stead. Remsense ‥ 论 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Talk:Social psychology#Merge proposal discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth Comments by Volunteer The filing editor said that they wanted a mediator. A mediator works with two or more parties, with the objective of facilitating compromise. The other editor declined to take part in mediation. User:Kovcszaln6 acted correctly in closing the discussion. However, it now appears that the filing editor wants something other than mediation. The only other type of assistance that I think we can provide is advice. The problem appears to be that User: Senomo Drines made a Merge proposal, to merge Social psychology (sociology) into Social psychology, by putting {{merge from}} and {{merge to}} tags on the articles. User:Remsense thought that the merger was misguided, and removed the merge tags. Senomo Drines filed a request at DRN (here). Remsense declined to take part in mediation. Kovcszaln6 closed the discussion, and Senomo Drines reopened it. So here we are. I will first comment on the procedural situation, and then, with less knowledge, on the substantive situation. The procedural situation is that Remsense was mistaken in removing the proposed merge tags. The policies and guidelines are explained in the guideline on merging, which state that an editor who disagrees with a merge proposal should start a merge discussion. The decision on whether to merge two articles is made by consensus, not unilaterally. In this regard, a merge proposal that one disagrees with is like a deletion nomination that one disagrees with. One is not permitted to remove an {{AFD}} tag or any flavor of {{Merge}} tag. Senomo Drines was then mistaken in reopening the DRN case. Closing and reopening of DRN cases is done by volunteers, not by involved editors. But here we are. At this point, Senomo Drines should apply the {{Merge}} tags again, and Remsense should take part in a merge discussion by disagreeing with the merger. I will comment briefly on the substantive issue. The articles are on two overlapping fields with different emphases, and the differences largely have to do with the department that the researcher got her Ph.D. in, which in turn affects the methodologies, paradigms, and viewpoints. Perhaps the real problem is that one of the disciplines is incorrectly named, and is not really social psychology but psychological sociology. The merger discussion may focus on whether the two overlapping disciplines should be covered in one article that is mostly divided into two parts about the two disciplines, or whether the two articles should each stand, with a brief description of how each discipline is like and unlike the other discipline. I can't resolve a dispute if only one editor is participating. What I can do and have done is to offer advice reflecting policies and guidelines. Senomo Drines should reopen the merge proposal, and a merge discussion should be conducted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC) I reopened the merges on both pages and said my case on the talk page. For the possibility that the merge is not feasible, I have already delineated both definitions as best as I possibly could (I concluded that both mean the same thing, but its what subject they focus on (the individual or society) that differentiates them). Senomo Drines (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Comments by Editors 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.

Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1443)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Koshuri Sultan on 16:04, 19 February 2025 (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 Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1443) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs) ImperialAficionado (talk · contribs) Noorullah21 (talk · contribs) Mr.Hanes (talk · contribs) Third Opinion editor Asilvering (talk · contribs) Dispute overview To put it in short, the sources differ on the outcome of this event—some call it a peace treaty, while others proclaim victory for both sides. Vijayanagara & Bahmanis. Initially, I suggested a convenient approach by summarizing all viewpoints in the aftermath section and linking it to the result parameter. However, if that had been accepted, I wouldn't be referring to DRN. The 3O given by Asilvering isn't helpful (in my opinion), as it clearly seems to lean towards a Bahmani victory, despite the fact that we have sources outright presenting completely different POVs. Koshuri (グ) 14:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please provide a neutral opinion based on the sources presented and discussions on the article's talk page. Summary of dispute by ImperialAficionado I am satisfied with the third opinion provided by Asilvering, as he's more experienced than me. I would go with the opinion of Asilvering whatever it is.--Imperial[AFCND] 14:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Noorullah21 I don't think I can actively participate in this Dispute resolution as it continues due to other nonsense issues atm. My opinion was that this was a Bahmani victory, as much of the sources signify that. Some aren't mentioned here such as the one where I pointed out sue for peace, which designates a Bahmani victory. The 3PO further reinforces that. Noorullah (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mr.Hanes Well, I'd describe it as WP:SNOW and WP:STONEWALLING at best, as previously pointed out by Koshuri on the talk page. The most reasonable solution is to present all viewpoints from the sources in the aftermath section. The sources listed above offer differing conclusions, with most describing the outcome as either inconclusive or a peace treaty. Off-topic, but I just discovered that Imperial hasn't contributed to the article naturally -- instead, they used an LLM to generate this problematic article. Mr.Hanes Talk 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1443) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. @ImperialAficionado I understand that his words weigh more than ours, but why "whatever it is"? Koshuri (グ) 15:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Well I believe he's trying to say is that he's (Asilvering) more experienced... and if the 3:PO was either against him (Imperial) - (being a Vijayanagara victory, or a see outcome) instead of a Bahmani victory, he would've been fine with it if that was the 3:PO, that's how I interpret him saying that. Noorullah (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC) That's how I interpreted it as well. Though, I wouldn't say that my word has more weight on the subject! I have a general knowledge of the topic area, but I'm not a specialist of medieval India. I am neutral on the topic, though, and I'm happy to help the four of you work through the sources to figure out what this article should say. -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by Third Opinion editor asilvering Hm, I'm not sure why this is here, as I didn't think the discussion on the article talk page had reached any kind of impasse. We do have the Brittanica article that calls it "inconclusive", but it's not clear to me whether they mean that the specific conflict that is the subject of the article was inconclusive (which, judging by the other sources we have, and the terms of the treaty, seems unlikely), or that there was no clear winner at this point in the overall ongoing conflict between the sultanate and Vijayanagar (which appears to me to be straightforwardly true). I asked a question on the article talk page and expected that we'd have to see more sources before we could come up with any consensus version. I don't know why "peace treaty" is being understood as something that by definition excludes the possibility of Bahmanis victory; it's normal for conflicts to end in a peace treaty, regardless of who won what. In this case, it appears from our article that the war goal on the Bahmanis side was to restore the payment of tribute. They achieved this goal. When you achieve your war goals, that's a victory. It's my guess at this point that this article is a good example of why we shouldn't cover these more minor conflicts in their own articles, but should be dealing with them in whatever parent article is most appropriate. That would allow for better contextualizing of what happens before and after this particular conflict. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC) I'll point out here that a 49% result on gptzero means that gptzero is reporting a better than even chance that the article was human-written. @Mr.Hanes, I strongly suggest that you rephrase your statement. -- asilvering (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Sources Zeroth statement by volunteer (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) I am willing to try to assist in reaching a resolution of this dispute. My first question is whether each editor is willing to participate in moderated discussion. Please be civil and concise. My second question is whether there are any content disputes other than the statement of the outcome in the infobox. If that is the only question, I have two alternate suggestions. The first is to omit the Result from the infobox, leaving the reader to read the article. The second is similar, and is to say "See Aftermath section" as the outcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) @Robert McClenon, I believe we are all genuinely willing to participate and resolve this dispute in a civil manner. There are no other disputes in the article, and yes, I agree with your "See Aftermath" suggestion. This is what I've been suggesting all along. Koshuri (グ) 17:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) No one has mentioned any content dispute other than what the infobox should say was the result. I proposed that it say "See Aftermath" and one editor agrees and no one disagrees. If there are no objections within 48 hours, I will close this dispute as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) Objecting to above proposal, asilvering explained it best as to why it should be a Bahmani victory. Noorullah (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) Please read DRN Rule D and the India-Pakistan arbitration ruling. What is the reason for objecting to saying "See Aftermath", which can be worded so that a reader can infer that the war was a Bahmani victory? Alternatively, is everyone willing to agree that the infobox should say "Bahmani victory"? Does any editor have any suggestions for what decision procedure can be used to resolve this dispute? One binding procedure for resolving content disputes is Request for Comments, but RFC is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Does anyone have an alternate suggestion for how to resolve this dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) @Robert McClenon I don't need to answer your first question as I already concur with your "See Aftermath" suggestion. For the second -- no, another editor including me are in disagreement, and If the sources differ in the outcome then I don't find a reason to not go with what you suggested. Lastly, I took this issue to DRN because I too think the RfC may require more time and manpower to build a consensus but If we'd have no choice then I'd be willing to start one. Koshuri (グ) 16:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) Here are three possible Results to show in the infobox. A. - "Bahmani victory." B. - Omit the result field from the infobox. C. - "See Aftermath". I am asking each editor to list which results they will agree to, to see if we can get agreement. If there is a D option, please describe it. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) C - See Aftermath: Obvious and the most generic solution out there. I have no further questions and issues regarding the article. Koshuri (グ) 16:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC) A - Bahmani Victory, clear reason for this. Noorullah (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Fourth statement by volunteer (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) We appear to have an impasse. I know of two ways to resolve the impasse. The first is that the moderator will decide. I will only do that if the other editors agree to abide by my decision. The second is an RFC. If any editor can offer a third way to resolve the question, please let me know what it is. So I am asking each editor to specify which methods of resolving the impasse they will agree to. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) First Option: I agree going with what moderaters would decide. RfC would take alot of time and labour. Koshuri (グ) 05:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Moderator intervention/First option I agree with Koshuri here, an RFC would just be a lengthy process. Better to end this with a Moderator decision. Noorullah (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Fifth statement by volunteer (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) The moderator's choice is that if there is any disagreement among editors or among reliable sources, the infobox should direct the reader to the text of the article. The infobox will say, "See aftermath". Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Bahmani–Vijayanagar War) Speaking for myself, no further questions. Koshuri (グ) 15:47, 10 March 2025 (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.

Gangwar (surname)

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 4rju9 on 14:18, 20 March 2025 (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 Gangwar (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 4rju9 (talk · contribs) Ekdalian (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The sources I cited are from reputable authors, yet they were rejected without valid reasoning. Dismissing them solely because the authors lack a Ph.D. in history is unreasonable, especially for a surname article. they were just rejecting the sourced and edit request based on baseless objection like the sources should not be in hindi, and what is the qualification of the author without even looking at the sources i cited or without putting any effort or check from there end, for example the qualification of the authors are mentioned in books if they would have check the cited sources they could have avoid such questions but all they did was rejecting the sources and edit request. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gangwar_(surname)#Edit_Request_for_the_Gangwar_Article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? All cited sources are from reputable and qualified authors, with publishers recognized globally for their credibility. I have provided both citations and details about the reliability of these sources. If anyone has concerns regarding the sources or the information in my edit request, I encourage them to present their objections with supporting evidence rather than making baseless claims. If no further objections are raised, I request that my edit request be approved without issue. Summary of dispute by Ekdalian Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Gangwar (surname) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Notes - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC) If this is a dispute about the reliability of a source, it would be better to ask at the Reliable Source Noticeboard where the volunteers are experienced with such questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC) it is not just problem with him. my edit requests are being rejected even when they have sources cited just dismissing them solely because they're in hindi or the authors lack a Ph.D. in history is unreasonable, especially for a surname article. why can't just it be merged for the time being and if someone has any objection in the future then they follow the same approach by doing their own research and providing evidence to support their claims and make another edit request. 4rju9 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC) now i have notified the other editor on the their talk page. 4rju9 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC) Hello Robert McClenon, the edit request (protected article, contentious topic) by the user 4rju9 has been declined by multiple editors due to poorly sourced POV pushing (caste related)! It seems to be copy paste from unreliable quora! This is not the appropriate venue; let the user come up with green signal from RSN. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC) Bravo brother, you proved what faith you had all this time. What evidence do you have to claim that i am pushing my POV stop acting as illiterate. And always bringing casteism. The article is not even about the caste. What evidence do you have that i have copied from quora and also link the exact page om quora. Amd then the editors say that no one is being biased. Just see the response he has given. No one has rejected the edit request accept him. And he wasted my time too by asking baseless questions. I don't know how such editors are allowed in the wikipedia they just ruin the wikipedia environment. He has been in conflict sith so many Editors regarding the edit request. Please look into the matter Robert McClenon 4rju9 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2025 (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.

Chromotherapy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Objectiveanalysis on 08:51, 24 March 2025 (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 Chromotherapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Objectiveanalysis (talk · contribs) Bon courage (talk · contribs) McSly (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I added secondary, peer-reviewed sources (including systematic reviews and meta-analysis) to the article which present the efficacy of chromotherapy. However, these sources are repeatedly removed in favor of older books (mostly pre‑2010), which not only conflict with WP:MEDRS guidelines but also fail to present an objective overview of the subject and completely ignore the current evidence. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chromotherapy#Include_references_to_peer-reviewed_journal_articles How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Allow peer‑reviewed journal articles - including systematic reviews, and meta‐analyses - to be used as reliable sources. The article’s current heavy reliance on outdated, non‑peer‑reviewed books (the majority from before 2010) does not meet WP:MEDRS standards, as these sources are several years behind current scientific evidence. The pseudoscience claim in the introduction is based on pre‑2010 non‑academic books that do not provide the current state of evidence. Recent randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on chromotherapy do not support the claims of pseudoscience. Removing this claim or presenting the contrasting evidence in the introduction would better reflect the current state of chromotherapy and align the article with Wikipedia’s medical sourcing policies. Summary of dispute by Bon courage Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by McSly Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Chromotherapy 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.

Holy Roman Empire

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by AstolfoPannaci on 22:32, 25 March 2025 (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 Holy Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved AstolfoPannaci (talk · contribs) Stupor26 (talk · contribs) Srnec (talk · contribs) Conannn (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute revolves around the claim of Palermo being the capital of the Holy Roman Empire during the reign of Emperor Frederick II (1220–1254). The article currently removes Palermo from the list of capitals, even if it wasn't the initial request in the talk page. Proponents of Palermo as the capital argue that, as both King of Sicily and Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II’s governance was largely centered in Palermo, which held symbolic and administrative importance during his reign. Palermo was the capital of the Kingdom of Sicily, and while Frederick II spent time in various locations, Palermo remained the imperial capital due to its central role in administration, culture, and symbolism, including hosting Frederick's court and the Sicilian School of poetry. On the other hand, opponents argue that Palermo was not a capital of the Holy Roman Empire, emphasizing that Frederick's reign was peripatetic, and his administrative functions were more focused on southern Italy, particularly in Foggia, which served as a functional royal seat and imperial base. They highlight the term “Regalis sede inclita imperialis” used in reference to Foggia as a royal residence, which they believe gives it greater significance than Palermo in the context of the empire. The central issue at hand is the distinction between a capital as a symbolic and permanent seat of governance and a royal residence or administrative hub used temporarily for practical purposes. The debate is further complicated by the relationship between the Kingdom of Sicily and the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick's reign, with some arguing that the Kingdom of Sicily was part of the Empire, thus validating Palermo's role as its capital during this period. The removal of Palermo without sufficient justification is also a concern of those advocating for its reinstatement. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire#Correction_of_Capital_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire_(1220%E2%80%931254) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe the dispute can be resolved by reinstating Palermo as the capital of the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick II's reign (1194–1254). Palermo was the center of his administration, culture, and authority. It was where the royal court resided. This is supported by credible historical sources, and removing it as the capital without proper justification undermines the established historical consensus. Summary of dispute by Stupor26 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Srnec Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Conannn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Holy Roman Empire 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.