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.
The dispute concerns whether to include a separate section titled "Aftermath" to cover post-conflict developments. It also involves whether to allow the inclusion of following content:
The announcement of the ceasefire by U.S. President Donald Trump triggered a political controversy in India.[1] On 3 June, Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[2] and On 3 June, several Indian opposition parties demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor, following Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's admission that India had suffered aerial losses during the conflict. The Congress party began collecting signatures to formalise the request, urging the government to brief Parliament. However, government indicated that there were no plans to convene such a session.[3]
I would like a neutral editor to help determine whether this content can be added to the article.
Summary of dispute by Gotitbro
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by King Ayan Das
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2025 India–Pakistan conflict discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - There has been no discussion here for five days after this dispute was filed. There is discussion elsewhere on the article talk page, but not about the Aftermath, which appears to be the topic of the dispute. If there are no comments by the other editors, this case will be closed as declined, and the parties will be advised to continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 22 June 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.
Shenyang J-35
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments4 people in discussion
Since November, several editors have attempted to remove sourced material from Shenyang J-35. The material in question is the entry for the "J-31B Gyrfalcon" in the variants section. For context, the J-31B is an enlarged version of the FC-31 prototype revealed in a video released by the aircraft's manufacturer, Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, in November 2024. This fact has been covered in numerous sources, including South China Morning Post, Asia Times, and Interesting Engineering. More recently, the production version of the FC-31 was given the military designation "J-35" rather than "J-31" as was speculated by western media. Regardless, the J-31B variant revealed by Shenyang has not (yet, at least) been given a "J-35" designation for some reason.
Both Nafis Fuad Ayon and Lgnxz have repeatedly attempted to use this fact to justify the complete removal of all information about the J-31B, among other reasons that all amount to WP:OR. Nafis Fuad Ayon even falsely claimed that South China Morning Post said "J-31B is J-35", despite the term "J-31B" not appearing even once in that article. - ZLEAT\C18:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would like to give Nafis Fuad Ayon and Lgnxz the opportunity to make their case for the removal of the J-31B from the article, and would like an opinion from DRN as to whether their reasons justify the removal of sourced content. - ZLEAT\C18:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Nafis Fuad Ayon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is not a single new reference available from a reliable source about the so called "J-31B" variant after the official J-35 name announced. J-31 name never finalized instead the J-35 name officially chosen. J-35 is the naval variant and J-35A is the land based variant. These references might be helpful: ( , , ).Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Lgnxz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In summary:
Lack of evidence in the real world outside of mere CGI created on July 2024 (not November 2024 as claimed above), prior to the official unveiling and public first flight of J-35A in 2024 Zhuhai Airshow, which is the event that's on November 2024. So what's going to happen if that keep being the case in the future, the aircraft's existence will hinge on that CGI from a single promotional video forever?
Technical/physical space impossibility on some its claimed features, especially for having side weapon bays and carrying 2 missiles each, which for a medium weight fighter is something unheard of. No FC-31 variants spotted in the real world, whether the 2 prototype variants or the 2 confirmed official adopted aircrafts (naval J-35 and land-based J-35A) have that feature either. Neither does any other fighter in the world for that matter, as even the heavier F-22, J-20, and Su-57 have side bays but only carry 1 missile each.
Unexplainable departure from the rigid PLA's naming convention, skipping both J-31 and J-31A, despite the fact that such naming convention is still followed, as applied for the J-35 and the J-35A.
Multiple sources denying the usage of the J-31 name that was provided by NafisFuadAyon(talk·contribs) on the J-35 talk page, which in my opinion considering that the J-31B is supposed to be a subset of the J-31, such denial for its J-31 superset should be considered as enough grounds for not using the J-31B name, and/or questioning its existence.
Infallibility of the chinese state media, which is what the whole existence of J-31B really hinges on. Of course, like any other government or SOE run by mere human beings, plenty of mistakes happen, have happened, and will happen. I personally have shown ZLEA in User talk:Lgnxz#J-31 to be the case as well, that official chinese state media made mistakes.
This will be my only statement, as I don't want to spend anymore time to delve in this dispute debate. Do what you will, but please consider the removal of the J-31B as a variant of J-35 based on my statement, or as a compromise separate/move the page for only the J-31B given that it already have different name and features (side weapon bays) very different to the rest of FC-31/J-35 variants. That is all, thanks. Lgnxz (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Shenyang J-35 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Shenyang J-35)
Hi folks. As I understand it, this dispute is over whether or not to use the term "J-31B" instead of "J-31" or "J-35" for a particular model variant of fighter jet. Please let me know (anyone) if I've failed to get that right.
@ZLEA, since @Lgnxz has declared their desire not to participate past this point and @Nafis Fuad Ayon has yet to appear here, we don't really have much of a discussion on our hands to go forward with yet. I'm happy to leave this open for a few days to see if that changes, but this may ultimately be a no-go if we don't hear from either of them.
@Lgnxz, I worry a little from your statement "Do what you will" that you might be viewing this as a place where an ultimate judgement on this issue will be handed down or something like that. This is more of a place for everyone to work together to settle everything with a little more structure and oversight than might exist in a regular talk page discussion. I don't have any more authority on this issue than anyone else; I'm just here to help everything go a little more smoothly (hopefully). Any thoughts I might have about the meat of this dispute don't carry any more intrinsic weight than that of a random talk page participate who might happen to pass by. If you really don't want to participate anymore, that's your right of course.
I do want to say in passing, any question of this sort should be resolvable through close, plain attention to the reliable sources at hand. If we have reliable sources that use the term "J-31B", I'd say it's fair game for the article period, even if we personally think they were wrong to do so. We can debate over what sources should be considered reliable on this issue, and we can debate over how we should couch the material we get from them in the article, but if we have RS that use the term "J-31B" it's not really our place to quibble with them about whether or not that's the right terminology. If we have other RS on hand that say the designation is wrong (directly, plainly, not based on indirect interpretation), then we can cite both sets of RS and say that sources differ on the issue, but it still wouldn't support leaving the term out of the article entirely. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤02:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by ZLEA
Mesocarp Not sure if this is the correct way to respond, but I'd like to clarify that the dispute is about whether the J-31B variant should be covered at all. The designation is just one of several reasons cited in an attempt to justify its complete removal from the article. - ZLEAT\C02:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I guess the argument is more over whether or not it really exists as a discrete variant? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤02:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
All right, since Nafis Fuad Ayon has appeared (hi Nafis), I think we can at least approach the discussion and see how it goes. Lgnxz, if you decide you want to jump in at any point, feel free.
So, I think the first thing that would probably be good to do in this case is see if we can agree on a pool of reliable sources. There have been six cited in this discussion so far, three by ZLEA and three by Nafis. I think there was at least one more in the talk page discussion but this seems like a good pool to start with to me—feel free to bring up more as needed but we probably don't require a huge amount to work from here.
The main question to settle at this point is if we think these sources are sufficiently credible. Of course, we shouldn't only trust our own opinions; if we find ourselves in disagreement about this, we can look at RSN, past RFCs, etc. to see if there's already relevant discussion we can consider.
I've gone through each source and picked out what seems to me like a relevant/representative quote for our purposes here. We're not yet trying to say what we should do with these, only if we think these sources are sufficiently reliable to be used in this case.
China’s latest stealth fighter jet with carrier-based potential may be ready to enter military service, a manufacturer’s video posted by state media suggests.
The FC-31 Gyrfalcon, with a variant now officially revealed as the “J-31B”, is expected to complement the J-20, China’s most advanced stealth fighter which entered service in 2017.
…
The aircraft, captioned in the video as “Gyrfalcon”, has the name “J-31B” painted on its fuselage.
J-31B and J-20 fighters will boost carrier aviation, long-range maritime strike and deep penetration capabilities vis-a-vis US and India
This month, Nikkei reported that China’s new stealth combat aircraft, the J-31B, is expected to be deployed on its third aircraft carrier, the Fujian.
(That Nikkei article they mention might be a good source to use as well—Nikkei is a Japanese paper of record. It looks like they link to a lot of other articles from good sources too, if we need more.)
China’s new J-31B stealth fighter, designed for carrier use, may soon join the military to support the J-20.
The Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) released a video revealing the new J-31B “Gyrfalcon” stealth fighter. The J-31B is significantly larger than the original FC-31 model introduced a decade ago, evolving from a medium to a heavy fighter.
The revelation of J-35A being intended for service in the PLAAF coincided with the Air Force’s 75th anniversary, and multiple different prototype airframes were flown over multiple days at Zhuhai. Subsequent coverage in official state media and on social networks followed, essentially “declassifying” the J-35A, as PLA norms go. At present, the J-35A has yet to enter frontline service.
…
In past articles, I’ve covered the aircraft types that preceded the J-35A. First, there was the original FC-31 developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) as a technology demonstrator and potential export product, albeit without any PLA commitment at that time. Two flying prototypes and multiple static prototypes were developed, with the two differing prototypes flying in 2012 and 2016. During this time, the FC-31 was sometimes called the “J-31,” but the name was not official given the lack of PLA commitment.
Another national television network, BOL News, reported in July that PAF pilots had officially begun training for the J-31 stealth fighter jet in China. The J-31 is called the J-35.
The land-based version of J-35 was called J-31, according to previous reports. China is currently the only country in the region to have developed stealth aircraft.
My personal take is that all of these are probably fine except maybe Interesting Engineering, which is too obscure to have a Wikipedia article and strikes me as a little "clickbaity" looking around at it. I think we can do without it though; it doesn't seem to really say anything other sources don't to me. We could maybe replace it with the Nikkei article if needed since Nikkei is generally reputable on factual matters; they're kind of like the Japanese Wall Street Journal.
I know the credibility of SCMP is sometimes called into question on certain topics (especially politically-sensitive ones) since the CCP presumably exercises editorial control over its content, but in this case that might actually be to their credit. I know Lgnxz has raised the point that other Chinese state-run media (Xinhua) has mislabeled "the Su-57 prototype as the J-35A" in a tweet implying that we should doubt all Chinese state-run media on this topic, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources claiming that tweet is in error, only some Twitter comments; even if true though, I don't really see how it calls these SCMP articles into question, since every news source makes mistakes sometimes. A reliable source saying directly that SCMP had used the J-31B designation incorrectly would be another matter—if you have anything like that, Lgnxz or anyone else, feel free to share.
Does anyone else have issues to raise about the credibility of any of these sources, disagree with my analysis, etc.? Once we're satisfied we can move on to weighing what they actually say. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤08:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
The other named participant, GhostOfDanGurney, has said that they feel DRN is premature and they're unwilling to participate at this stage; talk page discussion is indeed ongoing and more editors have joined in since this case was filed. (Full disclosure, I've participated in the discussion some myself at this point; I'm only closing because of GhostOfDanGurney's statement. If anyone else feels this is improper please let me know.) 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤04:17, 4 June 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.
There has been a dispute between myself and GhostOfDanGurney about whether or not to include flagicons for each team in the Confirmed entries section of the 2025 IndyCar Series page. I believe that including flags for each team adds visual information for the reader, indicating which country each team is based in.
GhostOfDanGurney has said that the inclusion of the flags for the teams is in violation of MOS:FLAGCRUFT, claiming that it is an exercise in nationalism. This is not the case. MOS:FLAGCRUFT states that you cannot emphasize nationality without good reason. Nowhere does it say that the inclusion of flagicons is a part of violating MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Also, in this instance with the teams listed in the article, the flagicons are meant to convey visual information for the reader, indicating which country each team is based in, as stated previously.
GhostOfDanGurney has also claimed that because the IndyCar Series is a "national championship", which is not the case as they race in both the United States and Canada, that the inclusion of flagicons for teams is simply "irrelevant to said championship". He has not cited a reason further than that other than saying that in his opinion flagicons are irrelevant. If he is going by that reasoning, the 2025 Super Formula Championship has flagicons for every team even though the series only races in Japan.
From my side, I think that the inclusion of flagicons for teams does not harm the article but instead further adds information from a visual perspective to readers which is crucial. Team nationality in championships is an important aspect and I feel as though it should not be absent from the page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Discussion with User GhostOfDanGurney has deleted this discussion between the two of us.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
There is precedent across multiple motorsports' season articles where flagicons for teams are included in the page. I believe that including them for the IndyCar Series would add informational value from a visual sense for readers. Including the flags also does not diminish any aspect of the page. Having users external to the situation and a broader topic can assist in bringing this to a cordial resolution.
Summary of dispute by GhostOfDanGurney
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2025 IndyCar Series 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.
People's Liberation Army Rocket Force
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Closed both as possibly declined by the other editors and as also the subject of conduct allegations at WP:ANI. First resolve the conduct issues that are being discussed at WP:ANI. If and when those issues are resolved, if there are still any article content issues, bringing them back to DRN would be a good idea as a way to avoid any more trips to WP:ANI that might result in an interaction ban. Remember that two editors who are subject to an interaction ban cannot discuss at DRN. So resolve the conduct issues first, and then discuss at the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 27 June 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.
The dispute concerns the appropriateness of attaching Chinese translations to commonly used English names for PLARF entities. RovingPersonalityConstruct and I don't think the translations are appropriate, while Thehistorianisaac does; the issue is that Thehistorianisaac has reverted our attempts to remove their translation additions from the article even though the current consensus is to exclude them.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Return the article back to state it was in prior to Thehistorianisaac's translation additions
Summary of dispute by RovingPersonalityConstruct
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Thehistorianisaac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It started like this:
User:RovingPersonalityConstruct did not like me adding translations and the military unit cover designator, and reverted it. I then reverted it back to the original, and we discussed this on WT:MILHIST. Here is the discussion
As for User:Nghtcmdr, he has given me personal attacks multiple times, and I highly suspect a case of WP:HOUNDING here. I already have posted this on WP:ANI(Which he has refused to address, despite several other editors pointing out his incivility) at , and I would suggest you check it out.
During the discussion regarding translations, Nghtcmdr got involved on the WT:MILHIST discussion , spreading false claims about me, and then they reverted my edit WHILE the discussion was still active, taking my quote that there was no consensus out of context on WP:AN/3.
Again, I would highly suggest checking out the ANI discussion on Nghtcmdr, as they have shown high levels of incivility towards me, and have also blatantly ignored other users attempts to explain policies correctly to them. As for the content dispute, I think it is currently fine in regards to the WT:MILHIST discussion.
People's Liberation Army Rocket Force discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (PLA Rocket Forces)
I am ready to act as the moderator for discussion about the PLA (Chinese) Rocket Forces. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Some of the discussion has been about editor conduct, and the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article without discussing editor conduct. I see that there were short blocks for edit-warring. The purpose of moderated discussion is to try to resolve the article content issues without edit warring, and to resolve disagreements about the article so that the article can be improved.
Will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
The removal of the Chinese name translations and cover designation for the PLARF units which make up the branch's 61st to 66th operational bases. Nghtcmdr (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
As the other two users have decided to not participate in this discussion, I ask that this report be closed. Nghtcmdr (talk) 20:26, 26 June 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 Hill (model)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Closed as fizzled out. I said that there would be moderated discussion if two or more editors replied and appeared to disagree. There have been no responses. If there continues to be disagreement about whether to identify Hill as an actress, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 30 June 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.
User:Hipal has been edit warring at the Taylor Hill (model) article, attempting to remove any and all usage of the word "actress" in reference to her. This is despite a verified filmography that includes several films which meet WP:GNG. Talk page discussion has occurred, and there appears to be no consensus in favour of these changes.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Recommend that the article be reverted to the stable, pre-edit war version.
Summary of dispute by Hipal
The content dispute is unclear. Behavioral problems, as the opening of this request show, obscure any content dispute. There's a pov dispute over the weight to give Hill's acting in the article, currently over if/how MOSBIO should be followed. (First added , expanded ). There are open WP:V problems, with a suggestion on how to address them. Recent, related WP:RS and WP:SYN problems appear to be settled.
The usable references found so far do not demonstrate Hill is known for being an actress, let alone "mainly known" per MOSBIO. Finding a reference with more than the label, "actress", or more than a single sentence has been difficult. We have one, a puff-piece that doesn't devote an entire paragraph (Regensdorf, 2020, Vanity Fair), indicating she had an acting coach. Using this reference as guidance, little more than a footnote appears DUE. A more recent article, https://wwd.com/pop-culture/celebrity-news/gallery/taylor-hill-photos-1236003214/ , probably summarizes her acting best, "Hill has also dabbled in acting...". --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by JeffSpaceman
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Taylor Hill (model) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification on the user talk pages is required. One editor has responded on the user talk page of the filing editor and so is known to have taken notice, and does not need to be notified. I am aware that the other editor objects to this filing, saying that it does not Focus on Content. Focusing on Content is always a principle of DRN, and is stated as "Comment on content, not contributors" and "Discuss edits, not editors". The naming of editors and complaining about their edits does not invalidate a request for DRN. A DRN case has a moderator, and it is the job of the moderator to instruct the participants to focus on content. The editor who has criticized the filing has taken notice of the filing, and may choose to participate or not to participate. The other editors must be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Taylor Hill)
I am not sure if there is an article content dispute, so I will ask my usual opening question to determine whether there is an article content dispute. Please state exactly what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. For instance, if you want to refer to Ms. Hill as an actress, please state exactly where you want to make that mention. Read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling onbiographies of living persons. If you take part in this discussion, you are aware of the rules about contentious topics. If you do not want to take part in moderated discussion, you may either say so, or may say nothing.
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.
Drag pageantry
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
The editors in favor of including the material under debate, including Actualdragarchivist, have been indefinitely pagebanned from the page under discussion, so I think this case is moot. Let me know if there's any reason it should be reopened. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤13:06, 3 June 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.
The article has included long lists of winners and runners-up from multiple pageants, without any sourcing, any indication that the pageants are notable, and seemingly simply as a means to archive this information, which not what Wikipedia is for. Attempts to clean this up have been reverted by a brand new account User:Actualdragarchivist, initially without comment or discussion at all. The user posted "try again!" on their talk page when I posted a sourcing warning. The user has noted in various subsequent article talk page messages that they entend to simply revert/restore. I argue that listing this unsourced/non-notable content is clearly outside the purpose of an enecylopedia article on drag pageantry. I feel disurption will continue, and I want to avoid an edit war.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Need someone to provide an assessment of the appropriateness of content Actualdragarchivist wishes to keep in the article, versus the argument for removal provided by me (ZimZalaBim). My attempts of pointing to WP policies isn't getting through.
Summary of dispute by Actualdragarchivist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Drag pageantry 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.
Bono state
Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments4 people in 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.
Dispute is centred on the origins of the Akan people, specifically Bono state#Formation of inland Akan polities and the origin sections of other articles on Akan states. One side considers the Akan to originate from the northern part of the forest region of Ghana (i.e. a dispersal from there), the area inhabited by the Bono people which was home to the Bono state, the first Akan state, with the main early settlements being Begho and Bono Manso. The other side rejects this as having been revised, pointing to settlements in the interior such as Adansemanso and Asantemanso which predate the two early settlements in the north. There are various sources to discuss.
Btw, if the moderator could ping us all after their comments that’d be great as I don’t think there’s a way to watch/subscribe to just this section? May be wrong Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, understood thanks. The section has been refactored during the discussions, regarding the current version it's the first clause It is widely acknowledged that Akan trace its origins to Bono that is most in dispute. The current version does do the balancing of POVs as you say, however the only one supporting a Bono origin (Buah) is from 1980, and republished in 1998 with some changes however precolonial history was untouched (as said in the preface). WP:AGEMATTERS is most relevant here, as the other sources are from 2010, 2014, and 2016. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Assessing the quality of arguments and interpretation of sources
Summary of dispute by Norcer
History and oral tradition since time immemorial points to Akan origins from Bono and migration of different Akan groups to the southern areas. However, an editor claims, this shouldn’t be the case because of archaeological evidence from source. The source was presented from Konadu (2010 and 2016). And from the books/source, dates were presented to areas in the interior forest and northernmost forest. From the interior forest is Adansemanso and Asantemanso. Whiles the northernmost forest includes the best known site such as Begho and Bono Manso, as well as Wenchi, Kintampo, Bonoase etc. After assessing everything, the source pointed Akan origins to areas in northernmost forest at Bono but not interior forest of Adansemanso /Asantemanso or Asante. This is the same Akan origins as pointed by scholars and historians to Bono since time immemorial. However, despite this fact, the editor still argues that we should ignore this fact, as against the source, per Akan origins.
Summary of dispute by AkanArchives
The dispute concerns attempts to present the Bono state as the singular origin of all Akan peoples in the Bono state article. I have objected to this framing because the cited sources do not support it. Konadu (2016) and Compton (2014) both describe multiple early centers of Akan development, including Wenchi, Bono Manso, Begho, Asantemanso, and Adansemanso. Buah (1980) notes that many Akan trace their homes to Bono, but he also acknowledges Adanse as an original center where Akan institutions took shape. Archaeological evidence supports this: Asantemanso dates to 700 BCE, Adansemanso to 393 CE—earlier than the founding of Bono Manso after 440 CE.
The opposing editor repeatedly removes this broader context in favor of a one-source migration narrative centered only on Bono. This narrows the interpretation of the evidence and misrepresents the plurality of scholarly views. I am seeking neutral moderation to ensure accurate representation per WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
Bono state discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible mediator (Bono state)
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion to try to resolve an article content issue about the Bono state. Please read DRN Rule A.
If there are two (or more) different views by historians about the origin of the Bono state and the Akan people that are supported by reliable sources, we should present both of them, giving due weight to each of them.
The purpose of article dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary to state why you want to make the change.
By the way, an editor can subscribe to one thread in DRN.
Really appreciate your effort. The current version, It is widely acknowledged that Akan trace its origins to Bono should be maintained as it reflects the source.
These are the sources cited by the opposing editor:
One editor has made a statement as to what they want the article to say. Other editors have not made statements since I asked for the summaries. I don't want to close this thread either as resolved based on the statement by one editor or as unresolved because only one editor has made a statement. What does each editor want to change in the article that another editor disagrees with, or what does each editor want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?
Yes, I second this, many Akan demographics cite different origins. The assertion that all Akan people come from the Bono State would be incorrect. AkanArchives (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701, AkanArchives, and Norcer:
The dispute appears to be about the statement: It is widely acknowledged that Akan trace its origins to Bono. At least one editor wants to leave the statement in, and at least one editor wants to remove the statement. Is that correct? If that is correct, then either a compromise is required, consisting of some sort of weasel wording, or a Request for Comments is needed. Is there any proposed compromise, or will this dispute be resolved by an RFC?
I’m sorry, but this cannot be compromised. The information being presented is not accurate. Since the publication of A History of Ghana (1980) and especially through more recent archaeological research and oral traditions, we now have a far more nuanced understanding of the origins of the Akan. While the book contains a wealth of important information, some of its claims, particularly regarding Akan origins are outdated. The assertion that all Akans came from Bono (state) does not align with current archaeological and oral tradition evidence.
Reducing the entire Akan ethnogenesis to a single origin from the Bonoman state is historically misleading. Sites like Nsoko (Begho), Wenchi, Bono Manso, and Adansemanso were already established in the forest belt and show evidence of simultaneous or even earlier occupation relative to the formal emergence of Bonoman (Bono State).
This strongly indicates that prior to the rise of Bonoman as a centralized polity, there existed a complex and decentralized forest network of Proto-Akan and later Akan settlements spread across the Tano, Pra, and Offin basins—what is today modern Ghana. These early communities played interconnected roles in trade, cultural development, and clan dispersal long before state centralization. AkanArchives (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
To clarify, even within the same source, F. K. Buah’s A History of Ghana, there is acknowledgment of multiple points of origin among the Akan. Buah initially states:
“Nearly all the different groups of the Akan trace their original homes to Bonoland…” (Buah 1998, p. 8)
However, he later affirms:
“Oral tradition… has persisted to this day that Adanse… was the home and centre of Akan dispersion…” (Buah 1998, p. 16)
“Adanse emerged as a state earlier than their one-time vassals, Denkyira and Asante.” (Buah 1998, p. 17)
“All the three Akyem states trace their original home from Adanse.” (Buah 1998, p. 28)
“The Bosome state borders closest to the frontiers of Adanse, their original home.” (Buah 1998, p. 29)
“The Ahanta, Evalue and Nzima trace their origin in the ‘north’, most probably in Bono or Adanse land.” (Buah 1998, p. 29)
Kwasi Konadu in The Ghana Reader similarly observes that:
“The Akan peoples… trace their origins to a number of important forest towns in central Ghana, including Adansemanso, Asantemanso, Bono Manso, and Begho.” (Konadu 2016, p. 33)
Kwasi Boaten, in The Asante Before 1700, further confirms the foundational role of Adanse:
“Adanse was the first of the five principal Akan states…” (Boaten 1971, p. 51)
“This place then could be said to have nurtured most of the important Akan clans.” (Boaten 1971, p. 52)
J. K. Fynn in Ashanti and Her Neighbours 1700-1807 provides additional context, describing the early political development of Akan groups:
“The ancestors of the Ashantis… were formerly subjects of the Akanny state which… may confidently be identified with the old Adanse kingdom, ‘the first seat of the Akan nation where God first began the creation of the world.’” (Fynn 1971, p. 50)
He adds that:
“The Akanny of the seventeenth century was the old Akan state of ‘Arcania’, whose territorial boundary then embraced the whole of modern Adanse, parts of Akyem and Denkyera and Southern Ashanti.” (Fynn 1971, p. 36)
“Perhaps the Akanny state was the Adanse state reputed to have been the first Akan state.” (Fynn 1971, p. 37)
Fynn also discusses the widespread migrations that occurred from Adanse as a result of political and demographic pressure. He notes that the Ashanti divisional states—including Mampong, Dwaben, Kumawu, Kokofu, Bekwai, and Nsuta—all trace their ancestors to Adanse and Asantemanso. The Mampongs, for example, claim descent from Ahensan in Adanse, while the others say they “came out of a hole” at Asantemanso (Fynn 1971, p. 50).
These movements northward were caused by dynastic disputes and overpopulation, especially as intensive commercial activity led to a population explosion in Adanse, resulting in a shortage of farming and hunting land (Fynn 1971, p. 51).
According to Fynn, it was “quite normal for sections of the royal lineages and the population in general to migrate to less congested parts of the country” (Fynn 1971, p. 51).
In the wake of this dispersal, Fynn explains that:
“The consolidation of the Denkyera state must be attributed to some families from the princely houses of the old Akanny kingdom. It is interesting to notice that the old Denkyera capital, Bankaseieso, was located in present-day Adansi state, on a site near the modern gold-mining town of Obuasi.” (Fynn 1971, p. 43) AkanArchives (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
This is very compromise and intelligence must be picked from the sources. As the opposing editor suggested WP:AGEMATTERS is very important here. Historians and scholars such as Buah, Adu Boahen etc recorded Akan trace its origins to Bono and southward migration to the central forest. This has always been the case, but now that the opposing editor introduced new sources from Konadu (2010 and 2016) citing age matters, then the new source must be factored in. The new source also emphasises Akan origins in the north forest of Bono. If not for anything, quotations from the source will justify everything.
According to new source (Konadu 2016) “In the northern and northwest parts of the forest, areas associated with Akan origins are generally dated from the 5th century CE onward, and, addition to continuity in pottery styles, rock shelter sites show the use of microlithic industries and ground stone artefacts into the first millennium. Like Asantemanso and Adansemanso of the forest interior, the two best known sites of the northern and northwest forest are the Akan settlement of Bono Manso, the capital of Bono polity and the township of Bew(commonly referred as Begho).”
At this stage, emphasis is being made between the north forest and interior forest, citing that Akan origins is associated to the north, and not interior. The key word is areas associated with Akan origins, and it points those areas of origins to the north forest of Bono. Norcer (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Bono state)
Kowal2701
Thanks Robert. I don’t see a compromise as feasible tbh, an RfC seems best. What makes this a bit more nuanced is that we don’t have a source explicitly saying historians now favour a multi focal origin, or even one discussing historiography AFAICT. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Norcer
This is very compromised, and it would be best as so. Picking intelligence from the source directly or quotations will clarify everything. Historians and scholars agree Akan origins is traced to Bono and this has never changed. The new source by Konadu(2010 & 2016) also trace Akan origins to areas associated with the north of Bono. This collaborates with the earlier sources. Norcer (talk) 21:08, 27 June 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.
Dananeer Mobeen
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Closed as also pending in another forum. There is a thread about this title and variations of this title at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Recreation_of_deleted_article_under_altered_title. DRN does not deal with any dispute that is also being considered in another content forum or a conduct forum. After the dispute at WP:AN is closed, if there is a content dispute among surviving editors about a surviving spelling of the title, and there is lengthy and inconclusive discussion at the article talk page, and not in any other forum, a new thread can be opened here. But first, complete all current discussions and all ongoing combat. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 1 July 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.
The disagreement that I am requesting resolution of in this venue is solely about:
whether the "Pawri Ho Rahi Hai" meme that caused Dananeer Mobeen to become relatively famous and gain the nickname Pawri Girl should be discussed in the article in sufficient depth to enable readers to understand what the meme is about (I, Alalch E. support this), or is it a situation that a page needs created for the meme if it was notable enough to be included in such great detail here whereby "such great detail" is allegedly unnecessary context (CNMall41 supports this).
The content that I want to include is visible in this diff on the left side: Special:Diff/1298121342; it includes the following items:
What she was doing in the video (She filmed her car, her companions and herself while stating in Urdu ...)
What she said in the video (In Urdu: "Yeh hamari car hai, yeh hum hain, aur yeh hamari pawri ho rahi hai", which translates as "This is our car, this is us, and this is our party (happening)")
What "pawri" means, and what message was embedded in this utterance, i.e., that it is an intentionally malformed pronunciation of the English word "party", intended to mimic and ridicule a demographic known in Pakistan under the slang term "Burgers": people who emulate Western culture and whose speech patterns are influenced by English
According to me, the filer: Making an untranslated and decontextualized reference to "Pawri Ho Rahi Hai" (which is a fragment of the full sentence she uttered, and in itself means nothing: "the party is happening") strips the content of any meaning; I called it a word salad. Stating that Mobeen is called Pawri Girl and not explaining what "Pawri" is: Again, next to zero educational value. On these counts the article, stripped of this content does not follow WP:AUDIENCE. Stating that she became known due to an unintelligible meme: Not encyclopedically comprehensive. Optically "hiding" the jab aimed at burgers: not-NPOV
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Enable the discussion to concentrate on these issues, as opposed to certain other issues that may be complicating fluid dialogue concentrating on content issues.
Summary of dispute by CNMall41
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Not sure why DRN was chosen as the discussion is not ripe. The talk page discussion was less than two hours old when filed. Page is part of a long term abuse sock farm and was actually in the process of being protected from creation as per this ANI thread which apparently OP doesn't "give a fuck's fuck about.". Based on that and their lack of civility, I will not be commenting here further. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four
Spades are spades. The core of this issue is that CNMall41 wants the article deleted, and Alalch E. does not. CNMall41 has been resistant to expanding the page, Alalch E. has not. CNMall41 has valid reasons for wanting the article deleted (it was created in a manner which circumvented a title blacklist intended to foil persistent UPE, see the AN thread).
This contention has been proxy (and edit) warred as being about the detail behind a meme (and sourcing concerns not presented here). After a rapid rise in incivility from both parties, it was brought to DRN within a day.
My single comment was primarily a reply to CNMall41, advising them to address subject notability concerns via appropriate avenues. The only part of my comment relevant to the dispute as presented here was "As long as this page exists it would make sense to explain some of the context behind the meme, so long as its sourced." I received no response, neither party indicated they read my comment, and the aforementioned rising incivility discouraged further participation. I am unimpressed by the behavior of both other parties, but if they decide to make DR a necessity then I will engage. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 04:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Dananeer Mobeen discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth comment by Alalch E.
@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: I read your comment slightly late, but certainly before requesting dispute resolution here. I didn't have anything to write in reply to As long as this page exists it would make sense to explain some of the context behind the meme, so long as its sourced because that is something I completely agree with. I would not have left a comment such as "Thank you, it looks like we agree." There's something else I'd like to comment on: My edits were not designed to somehow prevent the page from being deleted because I "don't want" that. They were just me making ordinary content contributions to the encyclopedia; I was editing as I would have been editing any article. Articles that are under some threat of deletion and about topics whose notability is doubted can also be edited simply to improve them.—Alalch E.07:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: I understand. Would you please comment on the exact content points (those broken out as bullets in the DRN request) in order to expand on your position (which I think is essentially clear) and explain in your words how Mobeen becoming relatively famous and gaining a certain nickname entails explaining what happened when she took the video, why she said what she did, etc. And, I surmise, you also do not think that this information necessitates a separate article on the meme to justify inclusion of the same information in the biography (relevant guidelines may be WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NOTEWORTHY). Or, in any case, if you would expand a bit on "some of the context", (especially on "some" vs. the implied "all/entire"), that would be appreciated. You could comment on the talk page instead of here. —Alalch E.09:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
CNMall41's view that the [article talk] discussion is not ripe (based at least in part on its clock-time duration—which belief I do not share, but I do appreciate the differing perspective), and that:
ultimately, in retrospect, a third opinion like yours likely could not have shifted CNMall41's stance, expressed as, Don't need all that context, too much detail, She created a viral meme...period, She uploaded a video and it went viral (implying only the viral outcome matters, not the content/context), and a page needs created for the meme if it was notable enough to be included in such great detail here,
I feel like I have argued all there is to be argued in this, this, this, and this (...it's what caused her to become famous, it's what explains her nickname, the meaning of Pawri ...) as a relevant counter to those objections, and
CNMall41 does not appear to have anything qualitatively new to add on the content merits in addition to the above and has assumed a get consensus posture (as seen here),
kindly share any thoughts you may have on how should I, or perhaps we, proceed? How to perhaps continue the talk page discussion so that it would be apt to be seen as a ripe article talk discussion from all ostensible accounts, at the very least? Did I articulate my position better in this DRN, and should I perhaps make a new comment on article talk that repackages the same arguments in a format more similar to what is included on this page?—Alalch E.12:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth comment by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four
@Alalch E. I do not believe your edits were a bad-faith scheme to prevent deletion, any implication otherwise is unintentional. I do believe it is accurate to say you have advocated against its deletion directly and indirectly, which is in contract to CNMall41's stance, and that is what I see as the impetus behind this dispute.
"I didn't have anything to write in reply"– Earlier in the discussion you suggested "We could seek a third opinion" alongside an early DRN suggestion, I gave an opinion as a third party, and nothing came of it. I'm sure you can understand how I may have felt my input was not received or regarded. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 09:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@Alalch E. so long as the subject's article exists, and the meme plays a significant part of the subject's notability, then it makes sense to explain the meme on the subject's page so that our readers can understand it. I believe your edits, which addressed all points you raised, provided needed context in a reasonable manner. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 10:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@CNMall41, on the talk page you said "Do not threaten ("soon enough.."), just do. Not my choice to pick a venue. WP:CIR and WP:ONUS is on you.", Alalch E. then "just did" and picked a venue, and now you're declining to engage at that venue. I would kindly suggest that you reconsider. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 13:13, 1 July 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.
Mumbai
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as incorrectly filed. The filing party has not listed another editor who was involved in the article content dispute, through typographical error. The editors may resume discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor may correctly file a new request here specifying the name of an editor or editors with whom they have had discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 2 July 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.
EarthDude is adamant about adding an image of Dharavi a slum to the Mumbai article, I have explained to him that the slum is currently under redevelopment, a project that started in January this year i have provided reliable sources on the talk page that confirms that the slum is currently 7 months under redevelopment and we should wait till the redevelopment is completed before adding an image but he continues to add that image. that image does not represent the current situation as its backdated. We should wait for a year or so till the redevelopment is completed then i will myself take an image on the completed project and then decide weather or not it should be used on the article. The current situation of dharavi is more construction cranes and debris rather than shacks.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Mumbai,Inclusion of an image of Dharavi in the Economy section
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Its a humble request please only include images when the project is completed not for a work in progress.
Summary of dispute by EarthDude
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I proposed adding an image of Dharavi in the Poverty, inequality, and the cost of living subsection of the Economy section of the article. Mumbai is a highly unequal city, and almost half of its population live in slums, and this is reliably sourced information present in the article. Yet the article, as it is right now, doesn't contains a single image of Mumbai's slums. Dharavi is a slum in Mumbai and it is considered one of the largest slums in the world. Adding an image of Dharavi would not only be relevant but also extremely useful to readers, as well as laypeople who have little information on the subject. @Joy goel has repeatedly removed the image, and claimed in the article's talk page that it "tarnishes the image of a great city", which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO. I asked for a third opinion, who supported the inclusion of the image. The image is not outdated and excluding it from the article, solely on the basis that it may or may not exist some years in the future, is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I believe the inclusion of the image is extremely important, not just to provide an accurate view of the city, but also to keep the article encyclopedic and non-biased.
Summary of dispute by Dude
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Mumbai discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The listing of the other editor has been garbled. The filing editor should correct the listing of the other editor and notify the other editor within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 1 July 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.
Lello Zolla
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in 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.
COI editor User:Fveneziano93 (neighbor of BLP subject) continues to use unverified sources, for instance invalid DOI, DOI that links to another page or similar. Page was WP:NPP reviewed and draftified twice, the second time by AfD. AfD concensus was that the BLP target is notable, but the page must have valid sourcing. Unfortunately COI editor persists in removing {{failed verification}} tags, replacing by incorrect sources. Maybe someone can help resolve this without escalation such as a 2nd AfD to again draftify.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Yes I think you can close the dispute. I'm finally discussing with Ldm1954 to solve all the issues and, hopefully, we did it! Fveneziano93 (talk) 12:11, 3 July 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.
Bengal monitor
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as inadequately filed and notified. The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editor. Mention in the description is not sufficient. They must be listed, and must be notified on their user talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If that discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 4 July 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.
User:BhagyaMani and I frequently disagree on content, images, and how the article should look. On one occasion I have attempted to discuss it on the article's talk page, but it didn't take long for the user to stop engaging with me, despite still actively editing the article. I'm now hesitant to edit to prevent edit warring, even if the other user isn't taking such measures themselves.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[]. I have not attempted further discussions until recently because I was discouraged by the lack of engagement.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I'm not sure. We can start by having some more opinions on the content disputes themselves, but I think the problem is a bit deeper than that.
Bengal monitor 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.
Template:Russia–United States relations
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed without prejudice as premature. The discussion on the template talk page has not continued for 24 hours, and the filing editor has not notified the other editor. Resume discussion on the template talk page for at least 24 hours. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, a new dispute can then be opened here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 5 July 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.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
We have talked, but I feel like we are going in circles
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide your feedback also
Summary of dispute by WikiCleanerMan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Template:Russia–United States relations 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.
Template:Russia - United States_relations
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as improperly filed in two ways. First, the filing editor did not notify the other editor on their user talk page. Second, the filing editor made a statement in the section for a statement by the other editor. So the other editor has not been notified of this filing. I am closing this case without prejudice. Discuss on the template talk page for another 24 hours. If that does not result in agreement, a new case request can be filed here, with notice to the other editor, and not making any statements for the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 7 July 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.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
We have tried discussing this but we are not getting much accomplished.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide a third opinion/feedback, at the current rate 4vryng and WikiCleanerMan may not come to an agreement so its better to get a third party invovled.
Summary of dispute by WikiCleanerMan
4vryng wants to use the current template.
WikiCleanerMan wants to use the older template.
Zeroth statement by moderator (US-Russia Template)
I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D and the arbitration ruling that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. One of the reasons for that ruling was to limit battleground editing about the Cold War and related conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. It is my understanding that the issue is that one editor wants to make certain changes to the two templates, and the other editor does not want to make the changes. DRN Rule D says not to make any changes to the article while discussion is in progress. That should be interpreted as not making any changes to the template, after the template is unlocked.
I would like each editor to provide two concise paragraphs. The first paragraph should state what they think the changes to the templates are and do. I am aware that I am asking both editors to describe the same changes. The second paragraph should state why you want to make those changes or why you do not want to make those changes.
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will respond.
Are there any other content issues besides the contested changes to the templates? I will assume that the answer is no unless someone explains what the other issues are.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (US-Russia Template)
Thanks Robert, note: there are no other content issues that I am aware.
I do not believe any updates need to be made to the current templates for both Template:Russia–United States relations and Template:Soviet Union–United States relations. Yes I do acknowledge the templates have become larger in appearance when scrolling vertically, however the level of organization provided now compared to the older versions before makes the update a huge improvements for all Wikipedia users using the template. An example of how the current templates' layouts/appearances are now advantageous compared to the old templates are that the older versions compressed way too many links/information in too few sections making it harder for a person to find a specific topic. It felt like I was randomly trying to find an article in the many links that had been provided - giving it the feeling like your reading a book trying to find a topic that could have been better organized/structured. As an example, look at the Template:Soviet Union–United States relations. Lets say a user is looking for a "policy" - maybe its a middle school student writing a paper for class but the student has no knowledge base on the subject or what links/articles/words to look for. In the old version how do they know which article to look at first given how the words are back-to-back in large numbers in few sections and its unclear which links are "policy" related - do you just click all the links and hope for the best? This can take a long time given all the links and this is not efficient. But with the current version it can now be easily found which you can check are: Containment, Détente, Linkage, Rollback, Stimson Doctrine [Welles Declaration], Triangular diplomacy, Zero Option. Robert try looking at the old version of the template and try to figuring out which links are policies. Much harder versus the current Template:Soviet Union–United States relations template right? The small amount of extra scrolling vertically in the new version is worth it and can save a person the troubles of trying to search through all those links in the older version; this small size difference should not be relevant given how big the change has been for those trying to search for something. Also the templates can be set to collapsed mode using the code {{Russia–United States relations|state=collapsed}} and {{Soviet Union–United States relations|state=collapsed}} - as shown on their template pages - if its the only template on an article, giving the user the option to expand it or not without having catch a users eyes during the initial read of the article prior to reaching the template at the bottom of the article. One other example, lets so you are trying to find info on Space. If you look at the old version you may have hard time trying to focus on links specifically on space because its not clear where to look first and which links are specifically on that subject matter (unless maybe the link has a space related term in it) versus the newer version.4vryng (talk) 03:29, 7 July 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.
Badr Jafar
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Closed without prejudice due to lack of notice. The filing editor has not notified the other editor, on their user talk page, three days after being told that notification was required. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion continues to be lengthy and inconclusive, at least 48 hours from now, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 8 July 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.
My new changes, which enlarged the page (per the request of the COI editor at the talk page), are hostilely greeted by another Wikipedia user who considers only their version of the page neutral and good, and anything else is not interesting, not notable, puffery, etc. Instead of step-by-step work they just revert everything back and complain about past edits of past editors, etc. I think, if the content keeps getting deleted, the request page itself may also be removed, as it might appear deliberately non-notable.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would appreciate a neutral third-party review of the content and if someone could just help to find the common ground. I know that a step-by-step friendly discussion would help us reach consensus, and it will not allow subjective dismissals.
Summary of dispute by Thenightaway
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Badr Jafar discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I've redone the revert of the additional content and added my piece to the talk page, but I'm not exactly a neutral party because of my history with the filing user so that course of action might not have been wise. Perhaps this needs to be punted to some other venue. Graham87 (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
yes, you are the least neutral person here:) Please stop commenting on my edits on Wikipedia. I've explained on the Talk page your possible misuse of primary sources as a reason for reverting my edits. Hocikre (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Please notify the other editor on their user talk page. Do not tell a third-party editor not to comment. Any third-party editor has a right to comment on edits, and the third party is being listed as an editor in the dispute. (It is not necessary to notify them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 4 July 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.
Michael Jackson
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed without prejudice as inadequately filed. The filing editor has not listed or notified any other editors. The other editors must be listed,and must be notified on their user talk pages. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion continues to be lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here, listing and notifying all of the other editors who have taken part in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 8 July 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.
I recently made this edit w/ my edit summary: "needs to be rewritten, sources don't fairly imply he "possibly had altered his genitals", opinions shouldn't be in WikiVoice, WP:WHYCITE: "sources required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", WP:SOURCESDIFFER: "articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority & significant-minority viewpoints by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view"
As follows:
"Prosecutors sought out Jackson's doctors and family inquiring about the possibility the singer had altered his physical appearance so as not to match the description.[1] In January 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that the photos of Jackson "do not match descriptions given by the boy."[2] In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."[3]"
This is quoted content from the LA Times in dispute: "Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim".
Please please help us.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think I have made a fair edit that accurately reflects the sources, & I want it neutral. Other editors seem more concerned about disrespecting Michael Jackson in some way. I have said that I don't mean for my edits to POV-push regarding anything he did or didn't do. I don't mind a lot of scrubbing & re-wording. My interest is what we can fairly report on Wiki. Please please help us.
Michael Jackson 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.
V (programming language)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as probably not the right forum. As a minor point, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. The more important issue is that this appears to be a copyright concern. If the filing editor thinks that the article contains copyright violations, they should report it to Copyright Problems and let administrators and other editors who are familiar with copyright concerns look into the possible problem. DRN does not handle a dispute for which there is another noticeboard or another procedure. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and has procedures for dealing with copyright concerns. Resume discussion on the article talk page, or report the concern at Copyright Problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 8 July 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.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
A decision needs to be made if the contents are in violation of WP:COPYPASTE and the MIT license.
Summary of dispute by Wukuendo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
V (programming language) 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.
Creep (Radiohead_song)#Covers
Latest comment: 1 year ago36 comments3 people in 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.
In this edit, user Popcornfud(talk·contribs) reverted my entire contribution, giving as a reason that it was improperly sourced. So, as of now, there is not a trace of Bennett's cover version of the Radiohead song 'Creep' to be found anywhere in the article.
The contribution should have {{citation needed}} tag placed, only when it is likely to be challenged, i.e. there is more than a 50% likelihood. Deleting the entire contribution means it sinks without trace, unless the contributing editor happens to notice their contribution has vanished.
This was the second of two reversions. After noticing that my contribution had been reverted the first time, I raised the question on the article's Talk page, but there was no response until the other editor had already again reverted the contribution, instead of leaving it in place whilst its sources could be discussed. Moreover, it does not appear to me that the other editor has properly read through all the citations, e.g. the National Library of Australia citation, and as per the declaration on their home page, "I believe more in the scissors than I do in the pencil," prefers deletionism as their first course of action. Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Deleting the whole paragraph did not improve the article. An entire contribution should not be deleted because of an issue with one of the citations. Instead, {{citation needed}} should be used, or a version thereof. I would prefer not to continue in a Master/Servant relationship with the other editor, where they delete/tag etc. without contributing to the research. I would like my contribution reinstated whilst we go through the citations in a collegial manner.
Summary of dispute by Popcornfud
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Chrisdevelop added a sentence to the article. Some of the content of the sentence was sourced; some of it was not. I removed the parts that weren't supported by the sources. Popcornfud (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Creep (Radiohead_song)#Covers discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Creep)
I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. It appears that the issue is the exclusion as inadequately sourced or inclusion of a cover. I will ask my usual opening question by asking each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave unchanged in the article that another editor wants to change. After we verify the exact focus of the dispute, we can discuss the policy on verifiability.
I think this is a little wordy, and some of the information doesn't appear to be in the provided sources — specifically the name of the album, the description that the song was "arranged for a big band lineup", and the nomination for the ARIA Award.
Additionally, this looks like a case of WP:CITATIONOVERKILL to me; we don't need so many sources repeating the same information, and citing an unofficial YouTube upload doesn't help anything (see WP:YT).
Here is my proposed rewrite, sticking to what I could verify in the sources:
It appears that one editor inserted a description of the Frank Bennett cover, and the other editor removed it, saying that it was too long. There is now a compromise proposal for a shorter reference to the Bennett cover. Can we agree on the compromise proposal?
After I inserted the Bennett paragraph, Popcornfud removed a substantial part of it on the grounds that it was unsourced. After I reverted that edit, Popcornfud deleted my contribution entirely. I consider this an act of edit warring, bordering on vandalism. A more collegial approach would have been to place a {{citation needed}} tag, and then start a discussion on the Talk page. Every action taken by an editor should serve the interests of improving the encyclopedia. Deleting my entire contribution did not improve the article, nor did removing uncontentious parts of my contribution, specifically, "arranged for a big band lineup". I draw your attention to WP:CCPOL and WP:LIKELY:
Wikipedia's content policies require inline citations for all direct quotations, for contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons, and for any material that has been challenged, or is "likely" to be challenged. Wikipedia's community uses the ordinary, everyday definition for the word likely: "probable; having a greater-than-even chance of occurring" or "having a high probability of occurring."
What this amounts to is that editors should not arbitrarily revert or delete contributions that are not contentious, or likely to be challenged. Bennett's covers of pop and rock songs with big band are neither "contentious" nor "likely to be challenged", because they are easy for a user to find in record catalogues, e.g. Creep on Mercury Records Cat. 534343-2, 24822 and in online videos such as the live performance of Creep with big band on Bennett's official YouTube channel (under his real name, Dave Wray) and recording catalogues such as on Bandcamp Frank Bennett 5 O'Clock Shadow. Moreover, Bennett's work with big bands is noted in the WP article on Rock Music in Australia, where it states:
Frank Bennett covered many of the fashionable alternative rock bands in big band mode. His version of Radiohead's "Creep" was his most well known recording. His music was less danceable than overseas Retro swing acts Big Bad Voodoo Daddy and Brian Setzer Orchestra. Frank Bennett was deeply ironic and only had moderate success with audiences who were attracted to the romanticised Harry Connick, Jr. Music in the style of Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett was unfashionable in the Alternative rock scene, stigmatised by the derisive term Lounge Lizard. Singers Dave Graney, Tex Perkins and Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (particularly for their album The Good Son), also drew on the styles. By the end of the decade there was renewed interest in Lounge music from elements of the club scene, the interest being in both the composition and the campness.
Bennett's unorthodox treatment of songs from the Top 40 is primarily what made him notable in the first place, because it gave listeners an entirely new jazz perspective on pop and rock music they already knew well. Moreover his recordings rated in the charts and earned him nominations in the ARIA Awards.
Note that Bennett's real name is David Wray, aka 'Dave Wray', and that before appearing as 'Frank Bennett', Wray performed under another name blend, 'Tony Sinatra', so the YouTube channel I adduced under that name is actually another of Wray's official channels. There is also a blog that links to a 90 minute live interview by Dave Graney on Soundcloud.
In the first reversion, Popcornfud stated "almost none of this info is in the provided sources". This is not correct. From 1997 for Creep (Breakthrough Artist – Single) from the cited album Five O'Clock Shadow (Best New Talent) I provided (among others) the following:
If you browse to the ARIA official website Awards > Past Winners > 1997 and then search for the categories named, e.g. 'Breakthrough Artist - Single' and then click Nominees, a new page 'Nominees for Breakthrough Artist – Single' opens, one of which is 'Creep - Frank Bennett'.
Citations are necessary for verification of contentious material, but they can also link to useful further information. So long as the contribution is already verified, or is verifiable, or has a less than even chance of being challenged, then I see no problem with also citing links to other occurrences, such as Dutch Charts. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Creep)
Did you read Rule A.4, "Comment on content, not contributors". One of the statements is mostly a lengthy complaint that another editor made cuts and deletions to their addition of the Bennett cover. We are not discussing conduct here. The objective is to resolve the article content dispute. So I will ask two related questions. First, does each editor agree to the compromise? Second, what does each editor want to change in the article that other editors want to leave the same, or what does each editor want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. I only am asking about proposed article content. I am not asking at this time for reasons, even for policy reasons. Just answer whether you will accept the compromise, and what you want to change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Creep)
Thank you for reminding me about Rule A.4 - I got carried away. I do not see the pruning and subsequent deletion of my contribution as having improved the article. I would like my contribution as it stood at the most recent edit to be reinstated. As outlined and cited in my "lengthy statement" above, I have since come across an entry in the National Library of Australia archives for 'Five O'Clock Shadow', a live interview by Dave Graney on Soundcloud, and a YouTube recording of a live performance of 'Creep' with big band from Dave Wray's official channel, cited above. If my contribution is reinstated, I will amend the citations to reflect these. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Creep)
It appears that there is disagreement about the Frank Bennett cover, and that the only way to resolve the disagreement will be a Request for Comments. I will draft a draft RFC for review. The community will be asked to choose between the original longer version of the mention and the shorter compromise version. Should the community also be given the option of omitting mention of that cover, or is there consensus that it should at least be mentioned with the shorter compromise version?
Are there any other questions? Are there any other content issues?
PS prior to asking the Community to decide, I would like to amend the citations in light of new sources I have since accessed. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Creep)
I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Creep (Radiohead song)/RFC on Bennett Cover for your review. The references are not currently included in the draft RFC, because they are not critical to the RFC, and can be added later.
Please comment on the draft RFC. When we are in agreement as to the RFC, I will move it to the article talk page and activate it. Do not vote in the draft RFC at this time.
I think the situation has changed a bit. Chrisdevelop above provided a valid source for one of the previously uncited claims (the nomination for the ARIA award), so I now think that would be a good inclusion.
I'm finding their arguments and explanations a bit hard to follow (I think there's a bit of a WP:WALLOFTEXT issue going on), but they say above they would like to change or add other sources, too. As my main objection was that the original wording wasn't supported by the sources, perhaps it would make sense to let Chrisdevelop propose a third version with their new sources before we can continue? Popcornfud (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Creep)
Of course either editor is welcome to propose any new versions of the description of the Frank Bennett cover complete with references. Any new version may either be accepted or may take a place in the RFC. Please provide any new proposed versions. Be concise. Overly long explanations are not useful.
First off, my last edit adduced by Popcornfud did contain verification of the nomination of the Bennett cover of "Creep" for the Aria Award, as already exhaustively outlined above. You need to drill down to find it, as there is no direct link, but it is easy to get to in three clicks. The Bennett cover of "Creep" is also included in the linked-to WP articles. Here it is again:
I also already provided a link to a YouTube video from David Wray's official YouTube channel for his stage name 'Tony Sinatra' showing him performing the song accompanied by a big band arrangment that is obvious to the ear:
The additional citations show alternative locations that the Bennett cover of "Creep" appeared in, and do not in my view infringe WP:CITATIONOVERKILL.
Notwithstanding that the above citations were never "likely to be challenged", the citations I have referred to that I would now like to introduce are as below:
A YouTube recording of a live performance of 'Creep' from Dave Wray's official channel, cited above. This should replace the Tony Sinatra version, because it has live recorded video of the actual band.
I don't understand the comment by User:Chrisdevelop that they are willing to create a new version of the description of the Bennett cover and post it to the RFC page. Post it here, with references. If you want to post it to the RFC page with references, please add the references to the other options in the RFC. If you want the references included in the RFC, please say that you want the references included in the RFC. In any event, please post the revised version of the description here.
Chrisdevelop has proposed another version of the statement about the Frank Bennett cover. It appears to be almost the same as the previous version but with more sources. The options for how to go forward at this point are:
1. If Popcornfud agrees to the new version, then we can close this dispute as resolved.
2. We can run the RFC with the new proposed version as option B.
3. We can include options A, B, and C in the RFC for two proposed versions. I do not recommend this option but am including it for completeness.
So does Popcornfud agree to the new version, or do we run the RFC with their version and Chrisdevelop's new version?
My original post already contained all the sources needed to verify the claims, and these were all also listed in the WP articles I linked to anyway. It was therefore not likely to be challenged, i.e. more than a 50% likelihood such as to warrant deletion in its entirety. I also dispute that my contribution fits the criteria for "wordy".
To find Bennett's nominations in the ARIA Awards external references I cited, it is necessary to click down through the listed categories in the ARIA official website, but they have all been there from the start. The extra sources I have now adduced provide a better live video of Bennett actually performing his "Creep" cover in front of a big band (David Wray official YouTube channel), and a Dave Graney interview of Bennett about "Creep" and other covers on SoundCloud. Ref. 7 in the above reference list could possibly be deleted, since the summarising Graney article links to the SoundCloud interview in Ref. 8.
If my current edit is not agreed to at this point (Option 1), I will abide by RFC consensus for options 2 or 3, but you could remove the current option A (my original longer version) if you like and make it just between my new longer version and the original B (Popcornfud's original shorter version, or a new version they propose). Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (Creep)
I have revised the RFC to include the newer long version and the short version. The revised draft RFC is available for review at Talk:Creep (Radiohead song)/RFC on Bennett Cover. Should any more changes be made to it, or should I move it to the article talk page and launch it?
Thanks. The previous RFC showed citations as unlinked text [1][2][3][4] etc. Should this too? And should the actual refs be also included to allow other editors to make a more informed choice? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Chrisdevelop - You may insert the references into the draft RFC. Do not vote in the draft RFC, because it is not active yet. After I move the draft RFC to the article talk page and activate it, you may vote in it with statements and are requested to vote in it with statements. After the references are added, if there are no other comments, I will move it to the article talk page and activate it.
Either the moderator is confused or one of the editors is mistaken. User:Popcornfud has voted in the survey. I do not see a duplicate survey. Please either explain in more detail here if there is a problem, or say nothing more, in which case the moderator will also ignore the comment. The RFC appears to be proceeding normally. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Do not vote in the draft RFC, because it is not active yet. After I move the draft RFC to the article talk page and activate it, you may vote in it with statements and are requested to vote in it with statements.
I said that I would move the RFC to the article talk page and activate it when it was time to do that. RFCs about an article are almost always held on the article talk page, and this was not an exception. You voted in the draft RFC, because you misread my instructions. That has been marked historical. You also voted in the live RFC, which is what you were supposed to do. Your vote in the live RFC will be taken into account by the closer when the RFC is closed in thirty days. Is there a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I have not participated in a RFC before, and your 14th Statement said "I have launched the RFC. You may now make statements in it and vote in it," and that closure notice appeared sometime after I had voted on that page. I thought that was all I had to do, and so I didn't read back up the thread to review your 13th statement about moving it to the article talk page. Had you in your 14th statement reiterated that you'd moved it there, I would have voted there, and not on the RFC draft page. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:10, 5 July 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.
Dan Gibson (author)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as pending in another forum. The subject article, Dan Gibson (author), has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gibson (author). It will not be useful to discuss any content issues about the article until the community decides whether to keep the article. Editors should take part in the AFD if they have not already done so. If the article is kept and there are still content issues, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 10 July 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.
We are working on an article about an author of a fringe theory. Grayfell(talk·contribs) is very careful about giving any support to the theory where as I have the impression if critics support the fringe theory in some parts this is compatible with WP:FRINGE in this context and on this page.
An incorrect statement has been edited in which falsely attributes an astonishing claim to Gibson (fringe author) instead of David A. King (establish author) and even though I extensively tried to convice Grayfell of this and tried other formulations or even completely rewriting the content he reverts my every change to this incorrect statement and refuses to seek consensus on the talk page and ignores my suggestions.
He has now accused me of edit warring and posted a warning on my personal page. I am therfore unable to work on improving this article anymore.
I don't know if the Administrators' noticeboard would be better suited, but the issue, in it's core, is an error in an article, so I decided to post it here.
I'd be much obliged if someone could help us lift this blockade.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Fact check the sources
Look through one of my alternative edits, one of them could be a compromise:
Summary of dispute by Grayfell
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dan Gibson (author) 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.
Ba 'Alawi sada
Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments3 people in 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.
Kabul madras keeps on trying to add a claim about falsifying the Ba 'Alawi sada lineage using youtube videos and an Indonesian book by "Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani" on the first paragraph of the lead section, which I've removed for being WP:UNDUE, but they insist on placing the claim by al-Bantani in the lead section. This is coming after I've removed a WP:OR and non-neutral section written by Kabul
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
What I did was totally in line with all Wikipedia rules and didn’t break WP:OR or WP:UNDUE policies at all. All the references used as sources are already cited, easily traceable, and still comply with all Wikipedia policies. The wording is also neutral and unbiased. Actually, this issue was already settled about 8 months ago. Back then, me and User:Abo Yemen agreed to put the problematic section at the start of the article. You can check it out in the talk page section titled 'controversial statement.' Somehow, that sentence got deleted, and when I tried to put it back, this disagreement kicked off.
It’s clear there’s no way me and @Abo Yemen are gonna agree here, so we need a senior admin to step in and figure out who’s right. Since all my sources are in Indonesian, it’d be great if the admins could bring in an Indonesian Wikipedian like @Fazoffic or someone else to weigh in. Meanwhile, about the stuff labeled as WP:OR that got deleted, that happened when I was inactive on Wikipedia, so I couldn’t defend myself. Once this dispute is sorted out, I’m definitely gonna try re-adding the "WP:OR stuff" following all Wikipedia rules, and yeah, I’ll probably end up meeting with User:Abo Yemen again here.
Ba 'Alawi sada discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada)
I am ready to act as moderator of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. If I understand correctly, this family is from the southeastern corner of the Arabian peninsula, but some of its members have migrated to southeastern Asia and Indonesia. I also understand that the family claims descent from the Prophet Muhammad, but some authors question that descent. Is the article content dispute about the validity of the descent from Muhammad? I think that much of the article is poorly written and not clear, but we will not try to improve it unless the wording is relevant to any content disputes.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that other editors do not want to change, or what you want to leave the same that other editors want to change. It is not necessary to explain why you want to change the article at this time.
@Robert McClenon: I have read DRN Rule A. Your understanding is correct, apart from the fact that those "some authors" is just one guy (Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani[id]). The content dispute is that Kabul is trying to frame al-Bantani's views on the family's lineage as the only definitive truth, when that's not the case as shown by multiple RSs:
I do agree that that part of the article is really poorly written and should be changed. What I want is to remove al-Bantani's views on the family's lineage from the infobox, and instead, we can have a section on the modern dispute of the Indonesian branch of the family's lineage. (Also, please ping me since I dont seem to receive notifications from DRN, thank you) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in as a mediator on this case. The crux is this sentence.
"This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad."
That sentence is what user abo yemen wants to cut from the article, while I'm fighting to keep it. The refs I used are clearly laid out in the article. If you dig into all of the references, it clearly says that in Indonesia, their lineage connection to Muhammad is being heavily questioned. There’s no consensus between those who buy it and those who don’t. To be real, there’s probably too much glorification in the article, and that glorification does lean on sources Wikipedia considers reliable. Kabul madras (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada)
The dispute appears to be about the sentence This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad. at the end of the first paragraph of the lede section. One editor wants to remove the sentence, and another wants to keep the sentence in. Is it correct that that sentence is the issue? If there is no compromise or other agreement, we will rely on a Request for Comments to ask the community to answer the question. Is there any possible compromise? Is the next step an RFC?
Second statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada)
It appears that the dispute about the sentence This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad. at the end of the first paragraph of the lede section. Unless I get some other input or questions, I will compose a draft RFC on whether to delete that sentence.
Third statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada)
I have prepared a draft RFC for review. It is available for review at Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada/RFC on Lineage. Please review it and comment on whether it asks the question that you want asked. Please do not vote in it yet, because it is not live. After it has been approved, I will move it to the article talk page and launch it, and it will become live. Is it satisfactory?
I think that the RfC is good but needs a little more background, since the statement: "This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad" is nowhere mentioned in Bantani's book, as the book is his own research of the lineage, and not a statement issued by multiple figures and researchers 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)13:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Fourth statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada)
I have added a Background section to the draft RFC, after the introductory material but before the Survey. If an editor thinks that background material is needed, please insert it into the Background section. I will review it for neutrality.
Fifth statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada)
The explanation in the Background section is, in my opinion, non-neutral, and I will be removing it before the RFC goes live. That statement should be made as an explanation in the Survey, or can be made in the Discussion.
Just wondering,should we note that the ref's (for that sentence) already in the article?I'm a bit worried voters will see the claim and think it has no source. Kabul madras (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Sixth statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada)
I will be launching the RFC by moving it to the article talk page within 24 hours unless there is a new objection. An editor may provide background information with their statement in the Survey, or in the Discussion section.
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.
Scharnhorst-class battleship
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed without prejudice as premature. There has been no recent discussion at the article talk page. Also, the filing unregistered editor has not notified the other editors. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here, and the other editors must be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 11 July 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.
This falls under the class page, and both of the ship pages. There has been discussion from multiple users throughout the years regarding the thickness of the main armor belt. There are some sources ranging from an author to primary sources stating 320mm and some commonly used sources stating 350mm. Groeners is a source last updated in 1990, Whitley is a source last updated in 2001.
Some other users are involved that are anonymous users, such as myself. It is something I am submitting a request for to resolve once and for all. There has been attempts to change it through talk pages and edits.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[], []
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide a 3rd party opinion and deciding what source and resulting data should be used.
Summary of dispute by Parsecboy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 166.181.85.49
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 92.19.12.76
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Scharnhorst-class battleship 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.
Milsons Point railway station
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments4 people in discussion
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed as resolved. There is a local consensus that the Local Governmental Authority should not be listed in the short description, the infobox, or the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 11 July 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.
The dispute is over the inclusion of local government areas (LGAs) to the short description and lead section of railway stations across Sydney in New South Wales, Australia. No station articles previously mentioned LGAs before a series of edits in the last few months which have added them to a handful of railway stations. The relevancy of LGAs as well as the method of inclusion has been contested in previous discussion. For context (see Local government in New South Wales) "local government areas" are the lowest level of government in New South Wales.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
An opinion by DRN on the consensus, or the help in aiding a formation of a clear consensus over whether or not LGAs should be included on the mentioned railway station articles specifically so that if they are, a resolution can then be found over how or where to better include them.
Summary of dispute by Servite et contribuere
In the discussion, there was clear consensus to remove from short description. So we can easily do that. I feel like LGA'S was somewhat more divided in the lead. Some argued for regions to be included which I am happy to do. I would argue that we could just remove the LGA(S) and specify the region instead. I would support an exception for administrative centres of an LGA like Gordon, Hornsby or Chatswood. For example: Saying Wahroonga Train Station is in Ku-ring-gai Council, New South Wales, Australia (Without mentioning it is in Sydney and relying on Sydney Trains being in there) might have people asking: Where on Earth is that in Australia? Whilst saying Wahroonga Train Station is on the Upper North Shore region of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia would possibly have people thinking: "It's in Sydney, more specifically the Upper North Shore part of Sydney". So it is at least part of somewhere people know about. One other thing I would argue is to keep North Sydney (Maybe not the council) as Ku-ring-gai doesn't give people an immediate idea whilst with North Sydney, it is pretty easy to tell it is in Sydney. Thank you for your understanding.
Summary of dispute by Fork99
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Apologies for not responding to this for a few days (@Robert McClenon).
The main issue is whether including the name of the LGA (local government area) in which a railway station is located in, in the article's lead and/or infobox is too much information. Australia's LGAs are somewhat analogous to US counties, UK counties or London/NYC boroughs. However, this discussion has only occurred on one particular article's talk page for a location in Sydney, New South Wales, and would likely set precedent for other geographical articles, both in NSW and the rest of Australia. For now, I believe the scope of the dispute is currently limited to railway stations in NSW, possibly starting with Sydney only.
One of the arguments against this is that if you want to find out what LGA a place is in, the wikilink to the suburb/locality in the lead will always have it mentioned there.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mounstreip
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Leuthguui
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Milsons Point railway station discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Milsons Point railway station)
The filing editor listed and notified five other editors. Three of them have not edited in the past five days. One of them has not responded here, and is assumed to have declined to participate (or possibly is not interested in discussion). One of them responded on 24 June 2025, and forgot to sign their contribution. Discussion can continue between the filing editor, User: Hlmrjk , and the other editor User:Servite et contribuere, but only if there is a difference of opinion about article content. I am willing to act as the moderator if there is a difference of opinion. Please read DRN Rule A.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It appears that the issue, or one of the issues, has to do with whether to include the township name in the short description. Are there any other article content issues?
Zeroth statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station)
I have read and agree with DRN Rule A. The issue is whether to include the LGAs ("township" in the sense of administrative subdivisions) in the lead and/or infobox for railway stations in Sydney. It has also been suggested that instead of LGAs which are political divisions, Regions of Sydney could be included which are informal geographical divisions, though some are coterminous with LGAs.
I personally would rather said railway station articles exclude both as has been standard, as neither would be article improvements. LGAs have no influence over railway operations and would be irrelevant to these articles. Though Regions of Sydney are somewhat more logical as they are commonly referenced for geographical clarity, these are formally undefined and some boundaries such as that of Western Sydney are quite controversial within Sydney.
Hlmrjk (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
My opinion is that the previous stable version prior to this dispute of not including the LGA at all in these articles is sufficient.
Railway stations in Sydney are usually named after the suburb/locality that it is in. Note that the definition of an Australian suburb/locality is different to the US definition (see the wikilink before for more info). Even if the station name does not match the suburb/locality name, all articles mention and link to the suburb/locality that it is in. The suburb/locality article will also link to the LGA(s) that it is in. For example, Milsons Point railway station has a link to Milsons Point (suburb it's in), which links to North Sydney Council (LGA it's in). All of these also link to or at least mention Sydney, the city as the whole metropolitan area (per MOS:GEOLINK).
In addition, all station articles name what line(s) (otherwise known as "services") the train operator Sydney Trains operates there and its adjacent stations, which also help place the station's geographic context. Fork99 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Milsons Point railway station)
It appears that all of the editors who have responded have agreed that the Local Governmental Authority (LGA) name should be removed from the short description. It appears that this agreement applies to all of the articles about railway stations on this line. Unless there is disagreement, I will close this dispute as Resolved with local consensus to remove the LGA name from the short descriptions of all of the railway stations.
First statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station)
I think there's a misunderstanding here: yes, the original discussion was opened with the short description in mind, but the bulk of the discussion (and the dispute) was about the lead/infobox. Fork99 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Milsons Point railway station)
There apparently is consensus to remove the Local Governmental Authority from the short descriptions, but that is apparently not the issue.
Will each editor please state what they want to change in this article, in the lede paragraph, in the infobox, or elsewhere in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station)
The stable status quo prior to the dispute was no LGA in the infobox nor the lead. I believe it is best that it is changed back to the way that it was before, no LGA in the infobox and no LGA in the lead. Fork99 (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Fork99 Since there is no third statement by moderates yet, here's what I would argue: Just saying Sydney might make people think there is one mayor for the whole metropolitan area when there are many mayors for different LGAS. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Hlmrjk I believe that LGAs should not be included in the infobox nor in the lead section, due to the reasons I wrote in my zeroth statement. For railway station pages, I don't think readers need any more information than whether the station and suburb are in, or not in, Sydney. LGA information is already included in each suburb's page. Hlmrjk (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Milsons Point railway station)
There apparently is consensus to remove the Local Governmental Authority from the short description, from the infobox, and from the lede paragraph. Is that correct? If that is correct, then can we close this DRN as resolved?
If the question is whether to remove the Local Governmental Authority from other Australian railway station articles, then that should be discussed at a WikiProject and may require an RFC, but is not within the scope of this DRN.
Third statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station)
I don't think consensus has been reached due to Servite's lack of participation in this. All in all, if they don't, possibly if you ping them again with a reminder of DRN instructions, I would safely close this. Thanks for your help! Fork99 (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Milsons Point railway station)
There still apparently is consensus to remove the Local Governmental Authority from the short description, from the infobox, and from the lede paragraph. If there is no objection, I will close this dispute as resolved.
Is thee an issue about whether the Local Governmental Authority should be listed or removed in other Australian railway articles? If so, there should be discussion at a WikiProject.
Fourth statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station)
There is no current dispute for other railway station articles nor for other articles of a geographical nature in Australia. The dispute is limited to railway stations in Sydney. Fork99 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 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.
JEL classification codes
Latest comment: 1 year ago33 comments5 people in 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.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I honestly think this is fairly premature (and for that matter, I wouldn't really consider myself a party to this so much as an observer); my only contribution was suggesting and attempting to implement a compromise, and then suggesting to LogoShimpo that they try to seek consensus rather than reverting another time. I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the talk page yet. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by John Quiggin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I created the page around 2006, and have found it a useful resource both for referring to JEL codes and for finding my way around Wikipedia. I visited it not long ago and found that, after an unsuccessful proposal to delete the article User:Logoshimpo had removed most of the content. I reverted this change, sought a third opinion and proposed a discussion to reach consensus. User:Logoshimpo has sought to impose their view unilaterally JQ (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree with this characterization of the situation. And to keep it short: I'll focus on the facts. The 30 opinion cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE a section of WP:NOT which I cited. User:John Quiggin hasn't cited any policy based reason to keep the exhaustive copy of the classification system. If he has a reason: he should quote it in the discussion section. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
This response seems to confirm my summary. Logoshimpo is uninterested in discussion, and thinks that citing policy justifies edit warring. Logoshimpo has been warned about this before, I think. JQ (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
JEL classification codes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (JEL codes)
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion and if this turns out to be a content dispute for which DRN is an appropriate forum. Please read DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator asks the questions, and the editors answer the questions. It appears that the filing editor nominated this article for deletion. While the deletion discussion was in progress, the filing editor deleted most of the content of the article. The article was kept. More recently, two other editors have restored the deleted content of the article, and that restoration was reverted, and reverted again. The editors have now come to DRN as an alternative to edit-warring. The use of DRN as an alternative to edit-warring is a good idea.
I have a few questions. First, the case opening form asks how we can help resolve the dispute, and that was answered: Establish consensus. Does that mean establish a consensus as to whether to restore the deleted details?
Second, are there any other article content issues other than whether to have a long version of the article (approximately 50K bytes) or a short version of the article (approximately 3K bytes)?
Third, how many primary JEL categories are there, 20, 26, or some other number? I can see that the long version of the article says that there are 26 primary categories, and defines 20 categories in detail.
If the question is whether to have a long version of the article or a short version of the article, and there is disagreement, then consensus will be established by a Request for Comments. The AFD established consensus to keep the article, but did not address whether to keep the long or the short version, since the article was shortened during the AFD (and no one commented in the AFD on that). I don't think that local discussion is likely to result in consensus.
So the fourth question is whether each editor wants the long version or the short version. Do not answer why you want the long version or the short version. Just answer the question so that I will know whether there should be an RFC.
Ι think there are three options. First, the current version, which is close to what was there before Logoshimpo's proposal for deletion. Second, a shortened version, keeping the main 26 categories, but eliminating the detailed subcategories, and expanding discussion of how the system works. Third, Logoshimpo's preferred version which amounts to implementing their unsuccessful proposal for deletion. Having put a fair bit of work, along with others, into the current version. I'd prefer it. But my reading of the discussion is that the second version would be preferred by most, so I will go with that. JQ (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (JEL codes)
First statement by possible moderator (JEL codes)
An editor has said that an RFC on the length of the article should provide three options, a long version, a short version, and a medium version. It appears that the current version is a long version, and that a short version exists in the article history, and so can be linked in the RFC. Does a medium version exist? If not, then in order to publish a clear RFC, someone will need to compose the medium version in a sandbox, so that participants in the RFC can view it.
My third question should also be answered, because otherwise editors taking part in the RFC may be puzzled, just as I am. How many primary categories are there?
I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a while, so I don't know about sandboxes. If you point me to an explanation of them, I will offer a medium version. JQ (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
First statements by editors (JEL codes)
I understand there are 2 versions what User:Robert McClenon calls long and short versions. The long version is what is current at time of writing. The short version had been active for months before User:John Quiggin protested against it.
Currently, there are 4 editors engaged in the talk page discussion:
User:DandelionAndBurdock who commented as a neutral editor from WP:30
User:Closed Limelike Curves who commented as an observer
User:Logoshimpo who is the filing editor
User:John Quiggin who would be the respondent
In particular, User:John Quiggin's following comment: "Logoshimpo is uninterested in discussion, and thinks that citing policy justifies edit warring." is inaccurate and astonishing when User:DandelionAndBurdock clearly cites WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this.
Just to clarify that the long version was in place for nearly 20 years, and was regularly reviewed and approved in that time. The short version was in place for a few months. JQ (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Second statement by possible moderator (JEL codes)
The editor who provided the Third Opinion should have been listed. The Third Opinion should also have been mentioned as an effort to resolve the dispute.
The filing editor writes: I understand requests for comment can be helpful but in this situtation: I don't see them as gainful. Do you have a better idea for how to resolve this dispute? If it is my judgment as moderator that there is a content dispute that cannot be resolved by compromise, I will initiate an RFC unless I am shown a good reason why one should not be conducted. So why do you question the value of an RFC, and what alternative do you propose? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Again to clarify, I was the user who asked for a Third Opinion. I wasn't sure where this should be mentioned. JQ (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I have now created a sandboxed "medium" version of the article at User:John Quiggin/sandbox. AFAICT, I was the only editor in favour of the long version and only User:Logoshimpo objects wants the short version (effectively, the deletion they proposed earlier). So, if Logoshimpo can agree to the medium version as a compromise, we could resolve the dispute now. JQ (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if this is in the wrong section - I'm a bit thrown by being invited half way through.
My position on the content remains as what is now being called the "Medium Version" i.e. to keep the top level codes, but not the full list. I see indiscriminate inclusion and wholesale deletion of both baby and bathwater to be two side of the same low-value coin - as editors we should be discriminating, and discerning what is worthy of inclusion: in this case, enough of the JEL codes to be fully illustrative of what the JEL schema covers. I certainly don't object to an RFC though. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Third statement by possible moderator (JEL codes)
I have created a draft RFC on the length of the article, which is available for review at Talk:JEL classification codes/RFC on Length of Article . Does anyone have any comments on the draft RFC? Do not vote in it at this time, because it is not a live RFC. I will move it to the article talk page and activate it when we agree that it is what we want.
Are the editors willing to agree on the medium version as a compromise? If so, we will close this DRN as resolved.
Will someone please answer how many primary categories there are? The article states that there are 26 primary categories, but I count 20. I don't see categories S, T, U, V, W, and X. Have these categories been omitted from the article by accident, or were these category designators omitted from the scheme on purpose? If we publish the RFC, there will probably be someone else who will respond to it who notices what isn't there.
Perhaps there's a fundamental problem with the categories and omitting the system on the wikipedia article is best. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Fourth statement by possible moderator (JEL codes)
I have changed the statement that there are 26 categories to say that there are 20 categories. The statement that there were 26 categories was probably an oversight from not noticing the gap between R and Y. The history shows that categories Z and then Y were added "at the bottom". (The moderator tells the editors not to edit the article while discussion is in progress. The moderator retains the privilege of editing the article in special cases, and this was a special case of correcting an error.) Are there any further comments on the RFC?
The medium version has the section ==Comparison with other cataloging systems== with the text "if this version is approved, I would like to link to some articles comparing systems of this kind with the Wikipedia cataloging system". How can anyone vote on that with confidence when this version isn't even finalized? Logoshimpo (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (JEL codes)
It would have been helpful to raise an objection to that version while we were reviewing the RFC before I launched the RFC. The RFC is now running. I suggest that the least disruptive approaches now are either to raise the question in the RFC itself, or to remove the questionable section from the medium draft version with an edit summary neutrally explaining why it is being removed.
User:John Quiggin has now just stated "I plan to write more about this when I get some time" in response to my reply to his statement "I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia's category system represents the best of all possible systems. Articles like those under dispute here relate constructed categorisation systems to that of Wikipedia". How can this request for comment establish consensus when John Quiggin ironically has no intention to discuss? Logoshimpo (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
In general, both in life and on Wikipedia, adopting a combative or adversarial stance where you WP:Assume bad faith of everyone else isn't going to help you get what you want. It's just going to make you a lot of enemies, even from people who might otherwise want to support you. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (JEL codes)
User:Logoshimpo - What are you asking for? What do you want? Do you have an issue about the article content that goes beyond what is in the RFC? I don't think so, because the RFC is about the whole article? Do you have a concern about future discussions? That is in the future. Wait until the RFC is closed and the article possibly resized or scaled. Do you have a concern about the conduct of an editor? I don't see any conduct issues, but if you have a conduct issue, read the boomerang essay and then post to WP:ANI. If you don't have an immediate question or concern, I will close this thread as being resolved by the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (JEL codes)
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.
Democratic-Republican Party
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed. There are at least three problems with this filing, one of which requires that it be closed at this time. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. That could be taken care of by providing proper notice. Second, the filing unregistered editor is very strongly urged to register an account. It will be very hard to keep track of the editing history of a user whose IPv6 address is shifting over a 32-bit range. Third, the discussion on the article talk page is stale. There has been no discussion on the article talk page in the past two weeks. Resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Democratic-Republican Party. If there are questions about the reliability of sources, they should be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The unregistered editor should consider registering an account. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, after at least 48 hours with at least two posts by each party, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 19 July 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.
The Democratic-Republican Party was a left-wing party by chronistic categorization, as they supported the French Revolution. This information is cited in the article. However, a few users have contested this and deemed the source not good enough. Given this is pretty basic and easily verifiable information, I would be happy to find another source, but after extensively discussing the issue, I am convinced the criticism is not in good faith. GlowstoneUnknown in particular is adamant about not including the information, and not only did he not engage with the talk page discussion at all until being tagged, he also has refused to engage in the merits of the discussion and has instead focused on procedural points. This includes accusing me of Original Research for wanting to keep information that is cited in the article. This has left me convinced he in particular will try to remove any sources provided.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Provide a clear, straightforward, and reasonable criteria by in which a source would qualify.
Summary of dispute by GlowstoneUnknown
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Democratic-Republican Party 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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
