Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259

This page has archives. Sections older than 72 hours may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• John Not Real Name (talk · contribs)
• Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs)
• EducatedRedneck (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The text by Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk (There is one by both authors and another just by Şevket Pamuk.). One quote is "Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million." The other quote is "Total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated at close to 2 million." This text does not specify that the population decline was caused only by Christians (If the text is left without clarification the statement asserts they were caused by Christians alone which none of the other editors can prove either.) so I added a mention of ottoman repression of Kurds as included in the figure since that was a cause of both death and emigration from Anatolia at the time. This was objected to by another editor and we started discussing it in the Talk page. We agreed to bring it to a Third-Party who suggested an alternative which did not mention the issue of Kurds or anything specific whilst acknowledging that the text does not specify it was Christians and is a general statement. We agreed on "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." To be clear this sentence is the area of contention. The Third Party agrees it is not original research but the other editors do not. The text does not mention a perpetrator, cause or reason and states "Total casualties...". My contention is that the text me and the third party agreed on is not original research since it is not specifying who did something, the cause or the reason and is very general which is in line with the text as I mentioned.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Recent_changes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the dispute can be resolved if the line in question is determined to be original research or not. The line in question is this: "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." One quote is "Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million." The other quote is "Total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated at close to 2 million."

The content John Not Real Name is trying to add is simply WP:OR.

The issue is if and how these two sources, A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century p. 11 and The Economics of World War I p. 131, should be added into the article. The first one was already in the text, and I removed it.[1]

These sources are not specifically about persecution of Muslims, so they can be removed. But they can also be included given the overlapping dates with the article topic. But if they are to be included, there should be no OR. These diffs should explain my position [2][3][4] Let me know if more information is required. Bogazicili (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to EducatedRedneck's message below, here are 2 quotes. Bolding is mine:

The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History, p. 336:

The emerging Christian nation states justified the prosecution of their Muslims by arguing that they were their former 'suppressors'. The historical balance: between about 1820 and 1920, millions of Muslim casualties and refugees back to the remaining Ottoman Empire had to be registered; estimations speak about 5 million casualties and the same number of displaced persons

Antisemitism, Islamophobia and the Politics of Definition, p. 55:

Traumatic waves occurred in 1875–1878 and 1912–1923, but in all, between 1821 and 1922, 5.5 million Muslims died and 5 million became refugees in conflicts with Christian forces in the Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus.

Bogazicili (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is also OR, we can quote the sources in question and try to decide on the appropriate wording for the article when this DRN request gets accepted. I believe we can reach a compromise and the organized structure of DRN process makes it much easier. Bogazicili (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced you have not read the requisite quotes which I have extensively cited with surrounding context. You are trying to appeal to different sources referring to what they themselves are estimating. I cannot figure out how you do not realise the irony of doing WP:OR whilst claiming this line is: "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." We are writing about Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's estimate not these other sources. Also we do know the cause of Kurdish population decline includes ottoman persecution as you can see here: [5] so you cannot assert it must all be Christians. This is documented and accepted as having occurred by reliable sources such as in Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 9 here:

Whereas many Kurdish tribes joined the Young Turks, some Kurdish groups like the Alevis from Dersim (today Tunceli) decided to oppose the government and gave refuge to Armenians.

As well as this at Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 12 here:

The Kurds of the Dersim had to pay a high price for their courage. Riggs noted in his report: “One distressing incident which followed the uprising of the Kurds in the Dersim was the effort on the part of the Turkish government to terrorize those Kurds by treating them as they had treaded the Armenians.”

This by the way is not even dealing with the deportation of Kurds that happened. The link for the Wikipedia page for that is above. Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 8 here:

It is, however, important to acknowledge that the Young Turkish leaders aimed at eliminating Kurdish identity by deporting them from their ancestral land and by dispersing them in small groups. The Young Turks partially implemented these plans during World War I: up to 700,000 Kurds were forcibly removed; half of the displaced perished.

John Not Real Name (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I was the WP:3O respondent. This dispute centers around casualty figures by Pamuk (2005). The source gives total populations before and after a certain time period. The proposed addition notes that this decline estimate includes all causes. I can see why the passage might seem to be OR at first, as the text does not explicitly say "this includes population declines from all causes." However, Pamuk only refers to entire population totals. Any change to that population can only be read as an "all causes" change. Describing it thus does not strike me as WP:OR. Doing otherwise strikes me as misleading, implying the entire change is due to persecution. I am not attached to the proposed "all causes" language, and am happy to consider alternatives. The main issue, as I see it, is that the article not present a total figure in such a way that it implies all deaths are attributable to persecution. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Bogazicili's response above: Neither of those two quotes are the source we're discussing, and neither examine the same time period of the Pumak source (1913-1924). What those sources say is immaterial to whether we're reading the Pumak source correctly, or performing WP:OR. I'm confused at how using two other sources to interpret at third is anything but WP:SYNTH. If the concern is not OR, but rather about agreement between sources, that could lead to fruitful discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note: The Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard might be a better place for this dispute. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have already gone over it in a Third-Party thing. Are you sure? John Not Real Name (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - The No Original Research Noticeboard has a record of not answering inquiries. It may not have its own squad of volunteer editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer Note - User:M.Bitton has erased the notice of this filing, and can be assumed to have declined to participate in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer Note - There is a thread at WP:ANI about this dispute. The ANI appears to have been stalled, maybe because it is thought to be a content dispute rather than a conduct dispute. However, DRN does not work on a dispute that is also pending in any other forum including WP:ANI. I am placing this dispute on hold until the WP:ANI dispute is resolved, and may then either open or close the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that matter has been resolved. That was a filing against my conduct I believe and I have addressed it. I have done third-party and now have come here. This is a separate issue. Also, the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thing has been archived: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1291057566] and this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1291057445]. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread at WP:ANI about this dispute, and, as previously noted, this case will be either opened or closed after the WP:ANI thread is resolved. I will wait until it is actually archived to consider it resolved. The filing editor says that the case has been resolved, and that the case has been archived. They are mistaken through no fault of their own in saying that the case was archived. WP:ANI was blanked three times, possibly on orders from Genseric, and the blanking was then reverted. The filing editor may have checked on the dispute when it was blanked. The vandal has been blocked. I will consider the case resolved when it is archived in one of two ways, either by archival to the archive directory by a bot, or by closure of the case in an archive box. I am waiting for the case to be disposed of at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing has been archived again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1291721517]. Please take this off hold. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there at least two editors who wish to engage in moderated discussion about this issue? Please read DRN Rule A. This does not appear to be a contentious topic, but act as though it is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise, and try to work collaboratively. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want those changes. If this is a dispute about the reliability of sources, please identify the sources clearly, and we may ask for guidance from the Reliable Source Noticeboard. If there is a concern about original research, we will address it here, because the Original Research Noticeboard is a pit.

Please state briefly that you want moderated discussion, and what you want to change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. I shall read the rule. I want the article changed so that it specifies that the source I mentioned above is clarified as including muslim persecution of other muslims in the same time and place (I do not expect a paragraph or a lengthy exposition just one short sentence.). This event definitely occurred and there is a Wikipedia article about it: ( Deportations of Kurds (1916–1934) ). The estimate is that half of the 700,000 deported Kurds died. I do not even wish to mention the number of dead. I just wish to acknowledge that. The sources are reliable. My problem is that the article in question: ( Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction ) means the wrong impression would be given from the source which does not mention that it is specifically about persecution by Christians. As for inclusion, if per impossibile the text meant that nearly 2,000,000 muslims died at the hand of Christians then this figure is already 1,000,000 lower than the other estimates we have which is significant. Also full disclosure I have put it to the Original Research Noticeboard. Sorry, I did it before I got your warning about it being a pit. I read the rules and this is not supposed to continue whilst on a different noticeboard right? Sorry. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the moderated discussion and DRN Rule A.

The issues are

• 1) If two sources (A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century p. 11 and The Economics of World War I p. 131) are WP:DUE
• 2) If they are WP:DUE, how they should be added into the article.

I had concerns about WP:OR. Perhaps John Not Real Name can provide quotes from the source and what he intends to add into the article.

Robert McClenon, note that these may be contentious topics per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe or Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Kurds and Kurdistan Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, only one editor has responded. I am putting this discussion on hold for two reasons. First, moderated discussion requires two or more editors. Second, there is also a discussion at the Original Research Noticeboard. DRN does not consider a dispute that is pending in another forum or another noticeboard. We will wait until the discussion at NORN is completed. When the discussion there is completed, if there is another participating editor, we will consider article content within the constraints of any determinations by NORN Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogazicili and @EducatedRedneck have both responded above. However I understand about the original research noticeboard. I am unsure whether the person there even understands the text in question. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article content issue at this time? I am asking each participating editor, @John Not Real Name, Bogazicili, and EducatedRedneck: to state concisely whether they want to change anything in the article that another editor does not want to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want the text to include the source I mentioned above and the fact it is an overall population decline estimate which includes other than Christian persecution (No mention is made that it is specifically Christian persecution.). John Not Real Name (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I have been convinced by M. Bitton that the status quo is preferable to including the source John mentions above. Thus there is nothing I want to change in the article that others would object to. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any additions into the article by John Not Real Name should not be WP:OR. Bogazicili (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be sure if I understand correctly. Is John Not Real Name asking to insert the statement that they asked the original research noticeboard about? Is Bogazicili saying that they do not want original research in the article? The thread at the Original Research Noticeboard is still available at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction, and the editors there appear to have said that the conclusion was original research. Has that answered the question? Is there another content issue? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that person is on about. He asserts that casualties means deaths (In what world?) and I do not see how it is original research. The text does not mention who specifically did anything it is general. If it is general it includes all such causes. As for including the text, even if we assume per impossibilie that nearly 2,000,000 Turks and Kurds were killed and by Christians then that figure is already much lower than the estimate provided there now. At the very least that should be mentioned. I would not be opposed to a negative formulation if for whatever reason everyone else objects (SIGH!!!). Something like "however the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks." That is not asserting anything positively, clarifies the issue and although obliquely deals with my issue (SIGHS HARDER!!!).

Also I do have another issue, the total death toll for between 1821 and 1922 relies on the estimate at page 339 of DEATH AND EXILE The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922 (1995) By Justin McCarthy. There for total deaths during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) is given as "1,450,000". However I am pretty sure this is an error in the book that has seeped into the Wikipedia article as McCarthy's estimate for the death toll is actually "632,000"-DEATH AND EXILE The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922 (1995) By Justin McCarthy, page 164 Here is the full concluding text:

"Of the 2,315,293 Muslims who had lived in the areas taken from the Ottoman Empire in Europe (excluding Albania), 1,445,179 (62 percent) were gone. Of these, 413,922 were migrants to Turkey during and after the Balkan Wars ( 1912-20); and 398,849 came to Turkey between 1921 and 1926, most as part of the Greek-Turkish Population Exchange. But 812,771 Muslims from Ottoman Europe had survived as refugees. The remaining 632,408 were dead. Twenty-seven percent of the Muslim population of conquered Ottoman Europe had died."--Ibidem

I do not know why the full 1,450,000 figure is included at the end but it seems to pretty clearly include emigrants to the ottoman empire. The death figure is one he used in a later anthology book of his called "Population History of the Middle East and the Balkans" (2002) By Justin McCarthy at page 38. In a table entitled: "Muslim Population Loss in War zones, 1912-1922"-Population History of the Middle East and the Balkans (2002) By Justin McCarthy, page 38 he lists "Balkan Wars"-Ibidem as "632,000"-Ibidem. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly am not sure what is the latest version of the text John Not Real Name wants to insert into the article, specifically into Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Death_toll section. Some of their previous suggestions were WP:OR.

The easiest thing would be for John Not Real Name to write the text they want added, with the sources where the text comes from, so we can assess whether it is WP:OR or not. It would be great if this can be done in a concise manner. Bogazicili (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think a negative formulation would be acceptable so "however the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks." That does not assert it is by anyone else and clarifies for the reader.

As for the rest, the death-toll is wrong as I shewed above with citations to Justin McCarthy himself. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the text doesn't specify anything, it is WP:OR for you to say the text doesn't specify it. And we do have sources that specify it, such as Anscombe 2023 in the article.

The death toll in the article is not wrong, it is sourced with quotations. It refers to c. 1820 to 1920, and in the Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus. You might have quoted a subset of it, in terms of time and geographic location. Bogazicili (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If the text doesn't specify anything, it is WP:OR for you to say the text doesn't specify it." What? Are you serious? That makes zero sense. We can write that the text does not include some information.

"And we do have sources that specify it, such as Anscombe 2023 in the article." No, you do not. That would be you doing original research. Nowhere in the text does it specify that it was Christians persecuting muslims (If you can find it then go ahead. I challenge you to find it in the source I am proposing to use.). Stop using other texts. This has been pointed out to you numerous times now.

"The death toll in the article is not wrong, it is sourced with quotations." I know, I literally quoted where it is from above. You can go to the sources I quoted right now. Go on, it proves my point. "You might have quoted a subset of it, in terms of time and geographic location." Have you read the sources being used? It is an addition based on the numerous matters that Justin McCarthy analyses. In the relevant page he writes that the number of Balkan muslims who died during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) were 632,000 whilst at the end he uses the total missing (Which includes those who did not die but emigrated to the ottoman empire/Turkey!) at 1,450,000. That is highly disingenuous to include. The text itself states that the actual figure is 632,000 or so not 1,450,000. Just read it please:

"Of the 2,315,293 Muslims who had lived in the areas taken from the Ottoman Empire in Europe (excluding Albania), 1,445,179 (62 percent) were gone. Of these, 413,922 were migrants to Turkey during and after the Balkan Wars ( 1912-20); and 398,849 came to Turkey between 1921 and 1926, most as part of the Greek-Turkish Population Exchange. But 812,771 Muslims from Ottoman Europe had survived as refugees. The remaining 632,408 were dead. Twenty-seven percent of the Muslim population of conquered Ottoman Europe had died."-DEATH AND EXILE The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922 (1995) By Justin McCarthy, page 164 Again, this is Justin McCarthy himself writing this! In a table entitled: "Muslim Population Loss in War zones, 1912-1922"-Population History of the Middle East and the Balkans (2002) By Justin McCarthy, page 38 he lists "Balkan Wars"-Ibidem as "632,000"-Ibidem. The use of 1,450,000 is wrong according to the very source you are getting it from. Please correct it. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Not Real Name, you have said: Well I think a negative formulation would be acceptable so "however the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks." That does not assert it is by anyone else and clarifies for the reader.

Here are the sources that specify it. Bolding is mine:

Ignoring above sources, finding a different source, and then adding something that is not in that different source (what you call "negative formulation") is against core Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I will again ask each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not ask to include anything that is contrary to guidance from the Original Research Noticeboard.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what I want changed is two-fold. I want a formulation which acknowledges that the source which I wish to include by Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk as well as by Pamuk separately (It can be a short sentence that cites both.) does not specify who or what caused a decline in the muslim population of Anatolia between 1913 and 1924. This can be a negative formulation which does not assert the text does state something (Which was the issue in the Noticeboard.). Thus compliant, there should be no problem there.

@Bogazicili seems to make two errors, he keeps appealing to different sources to make conclusions about the loss in the source I am referring to. That they attribute a decline to something does not mean Owen and Pamuk do (It is just not mentioned. Doubly so since their figure of nearly 2,000,000 is different to Justin McCarthy's by a million.). Ironically he keeps insisting on doing original research in this sense. Again they are different sources by different people. 

The figure of 1,450,000 includes emigrants who were not killed again according to the very source he is using! John Not Real Name (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change: I am against adding something that is not in a source, per core content policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR. The article's adherence to core Wikipedia policies should be left same. Bogazicili (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be concise. It is not necessary to quote from sources at length. If you want to change something in the article, please indicate what language you want to insert in the article and where you want to insert it, so that we can verify whether the language is consistent with the source and does not constitute original research and is not similar to language that the Original Research Noticeboard has reviewed.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Robert McClenon.

As I said multiple times in previous rounds, for content that is in a source, John Not Real Name is welcome to make a text suggestion. They can make a text suggestion for the article, with the source (source and page number, no quote necessary) and specify where they suggest the text should go in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction.

For content not in a source, see my response in Fourth statements by Editors.

Robert McClenon, would you mind reminding John Not Real Name to refrain from personal attacks and incivil comments such as yet @Bogazicili cannot seem to grasp that? Bogazicili (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I have collapsed most of the statement by User:John Not Real Name because it was an argument with another editor. It is not necessary to disagree with other editors by name. Their statements were also too lengthy. State exactly what you want to change in the article, not why. I am about to fail this discussion, but want to provide one more change for User:John Not Real Name to state what they want to change in the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my comment was inoffensive, I was merely stating that @Bogazicili was not understanding something but I am sorry if it counts as incivility. Also I have already stated what I want included multiple times above. I wish to add this:

"Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population. However the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks." The sources will be cited of course when writing.

I will deal with the other matter after we deal with this. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the comments made by User:John Not Real Name were uncivil. They repeatedly referred to User: Bogazicili. The instructions said, "Comment on content, not contributors" and "Discuss edits, not editors". The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, not to discuss what the other editor says about the article.

John Not Real Name wants to add a negative qualifying sentence reading: However the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks. Was the inclusion of this sentence what was discussed at the Original Research Noticeboard. If so, did the Original Research Noticeboard say that the inclusion of this sentence would be synthesis amounting to original research? I am also asking Bogazicili] whether they agree or disagree with the addition of the sentence. I am aware that I may be asking them a question that they have already answered.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is okay. I was worried my comments were uncivil, I did not intend them to be so. Be that as it may.

No, It was not. You can check right now if you wish but the formulation in the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard was a positive one, writing that the two sources includes all causes of population decline. So what I am proposing here does not go against that. John Not Real Name (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the WP:NOR discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the addition of that sentence. For the rest of the proposal, I guess we can discuss in the next round Bogazicili (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Not Real Name - Please specify exactly where, in the existing article, you want to add a negative qualifying sentence reading: However the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks. When you have told exactly where you want that sentence added, I will formulate a draft RFC for review.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to include the whole text I proposed above. The place where it would go is the Death Toll section. Thus the text would look something like this (With citations of course.):

"The historian Mark Biondich estimates that the number of emigrants and displaced from 1878 to 1912 reaches up to two million, and "when one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million." Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population. However the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks." John Not Real Name (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Not Real Name - It appears that the first sentence, about what Biondich has written, is already in the article. So are you proposing to add two sentences?

Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population. However the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks.

Is that correct? User:Bogazicili - Do you agree to the addition of the first sentence, quoting Owen and Pamuk? Is the disagreement about both sentence, or only the second sentence?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! No! I am sorry. I was trying to show you where I was going to include the sentence in the text. The Mark Biondich bit is already in the text and is not part of this dispute. I am sorry again. I only wish to include:

"Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population. However the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks."

Also the dispute is only over the second sentence, the first one seems to be acceptable. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below is my suggestion, using some of the wording from John Not Real Name:

Robert McClenon:

• I think John Not Real Name should add sourcing to their suggested text (source and page numbers)
• I think the RfC should be advertised at WP:CENT, given the Wikipedia-wide ramifications of adding what you call "negative qualifying sentence", which I think runs contrary to core content policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. "negative qualifying sentence" is not just a content dispute.

Bogazicili (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above information should also be added into Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#World_War_I_and_the_Turkish_War_of_Independence section. It should not be added into Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Death_toll subsection in Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Total_number_of_casualties section, since that is for the total numbers. I don't know if John Not Real Name contests this placement suggestion. Bogazicili (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to compose the RFC, but there seem to be differing opinions as to what it should say, just as there are differing opinions about the article. I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction/Draft RFC. Please comment on it, and add appropriate sourcing. Do not vote in it at this time, because it is not an active RFC. After the RFC is ready to publish, I will move it to the article talk page, and it will become active at the time.

I do not plan to advertise the RFC at Centralized discussion, because an RFC on one article is not a vehicle for changing policy. You may argue against the addition on the grounds that it is contrary to policy.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my piece in the discussion section. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, your RfC draft is insufficient as it ignores my text suggestion. You want me to edit your draft? Bogazicili (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, where do you plan to advertise the RfC? Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think John Not Real Name should add sources into his own proposal. The last sentence is unsourced. Bogazicili (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Not Real Name - The sources should be added to the proposed addition. There is no need to put sources in the Discussion, which may or may not be kept when the RFC is moved and activated.

User:Bogazicili - You say that my draft RFC is inadequate. I know it is incomplete, which is why I asked you for comments, because I didn't think I understood your sourcing suggestion. Please explain your sourcing suggestion in more detail.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the proposal including the sources. @Bogazicili noted that "The last sentence is unsourced." I can cite the source technically but it would seem strange. I would be citing that something is not there. As I noted in the discussion bit, both Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk mention the reasons for other population losses, the Armenians and the Greeks, yet does not for the muslim population and we do know there are other causes of specifically Kurdish population decline which involved movement out of Turkey and perhaps 350,000 deaths at the hands of muslims not Christians. So to be perfectly neutral we ought to point out at least that whether it is evaluating solely Christian culpability (The purpose of the article.) is not made clear.

I am a bit confused why the article contains a bunch of references not to Justin McCarthy but to people citing Justin McCarthy (As you can see in the latest article those sources are citing him.). I feel like it is a bit redundant. Furthermore, @Bogazicili's suggestion above including "Kemal Kirişçi mentions McCarthy's estimate of 2.5 million Muslim deaths in modern-day Turkey due to wars as the Ottoman Empire collapsed" is (Approximately.) correct but it is not comparing like for like. McCarthy's estimate for the whole of Anatolia is nearly 3,000,000: "For example, Muslim population losses in Anatolia from 1914 to 1922 were actually almost three million; only 2.4 million are listed in the table because central and northern areas of Anatolia that were not in the war zone have been excluded."-DEATH AND EXILE The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922 (1995) By Justin McCarthy, page 338 He is excluding non-war-zones where Christians were not. The paper I cited above "THE POPULATION OF TURKEY AFTER THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE" (1985) By Frederic Claiborne Shorter is based on the 1927 and 1935 census thus including all of Turkey. Owen and Pamuk similarly are writing about all of future Turkey. Their figures for those specific regions in Western and Eastern Anatolia would presumably be smaller. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I modified your draft by adding the option I suggested.[6][7] I figured that would be quicker. Let me know what you think. John Not Real Name already added the sources into text proposal [8]

Robert McClenon, which Wikipedia projects, if any, do you plan to advertise this RfC? Bogazicili (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the wording of the draft RFC, which is still at Talk:Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction/Draft RFC . I have removed the discussion, because the RFC is not yet a live RFC. Any discussion should be put into the live RFC when it is launched. I will launch the RFC by moving it into the article talk page after we conclude that it is ready.

I will be advertising the RFC in WikiProject Islam and WikiProject European history at a minimum. If there are any other particular projects where you think the RFC should be advertised, I can add it to them, or you can add the notice to them as long as the notice is neutrally worded.

Are you now satisfied with the RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed. A Request for Comments is being used to resolve the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ba 'Alawi sada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) Kabul madras (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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 [9] How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The entire talk page of Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada is about this: Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Using YouTube content as a source Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#A quotation by Shaikh Shauqi 'Allam Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#The use of Y-DNA testing to trace distant paternal lineage. Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Disputes and rebuttals section Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#controversial statement Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Is the extent of the disagreement worldwide? Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Critics for claim How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By removing the statement from the lede entirely and keeping it in the Ba 'Alawi sada#Questioning their lineage section with attribution to al-Bantani Summary of dispute by Kabul madras [edit] 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 [edit] 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) [edit] 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. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] @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: https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TRS20_23.pdf https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2025.2508025#d1e844 https://jurnal.jagadalimussirry.com/index.php/ojs/article/view/169 [Indonesian] https://ojs.iaisumbar.ac.id/index.php/ikhtisar/article/view/626 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) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] First statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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? Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] That's all from me for now. Proposing an RFC. Thanks. Kabul madras (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] Second statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] no. Lets go to the next step. Kabul madras (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] Third statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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? Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] @Robert McClenon: I've added a small background section. Feel free to review it and point out any confusion and or unclear points in it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fifth statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] Fifth statements by editors (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] Hm, alright then. Feel free to remove it or move it to the discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sixth statement by possible moderator (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sixth statements by editors (Ba 'Alawi sada) [edit] 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.

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)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Milsons Point railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hlmrjk (talk · contribs) Servite et contribuere (talk · contribs) Fork99 (talk · contribs) Qwerty123M (talk · contribs) Mounstreip (talk · contribs) Leuthguui (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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? Talk:Milsons Point railway station#LGAs on railway station pages How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 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 [edit] 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 [edit] 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. Some of the guidelines cited include WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, MOS:LEAD and WP:SD40. Fork99 (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Qwerty123M [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mounstreip [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Leuthguui [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Milsons Point railway station discussion [edit] 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) [edit] 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? Are there any other questions, either about the article or the process? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] First statement by possible moderator (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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. Are there any other questions, either about the article or the process? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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)[reply] Second statement by moderator (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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)[reply] Second statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] Third statement by moderator (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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)[reply] Fourth statement by moderator (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (Milsons Point railway station) [edit] 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)[reply] 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.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Akan language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bosomba Amosah (talk · contribs)
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Location of dispute Akan language#Name and Akan language#Dialects. According to source (Dolphyne), all the dialects of the Akan language are mutually intelligible with the name Akan. It further explains, Twi as a name was proposed for the dialects but was rejected by Fante whereas Akan was acceptable to all, Akan language(Twi-Fante). The source further list the dialects according to ages and from the oldest to newest as Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. However the article depicts something different and misrepresentation as well.

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

Talk:Akan language #Discussion_for_consensus which was reinstated Talk:Akan language#Support_revision_for_accuracy_and_reflection_of_source

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A look into the source and a neutral point of view for reflection on the article.

this is a randy-in-boise situation. requester refuses to accept his own sources, all the while insisting that they be followed. for instance, Dolphyne states that all dialects are not mutually intelligible, that intelligibility is difficult between neighboring subdialects of bono and indeed that fante and bono can be rightfully considered distinct languages, as has been cited on several talk pages and as is currently cited in the article.

i don't understand the point about the name. that's what we currently say in the article.

the list of dialects that the requester refers to is not a genealogical tree, but rather a ranking of how phonologically conservative they are, as has been explained to him multiple times by more than one editor. the article cites and follows Dolphyne's actual classification.

Is User:Kwamikagami declining to participate in moderated discussion? If so, I will close this case. Otherwise, please read DRN Rule A. Please state exactly what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to change the article if bosomba can give an intelligible reason, backed by our sources, that it should be changed, but as long as he simply denies that the sources say what they say, even when they're quoted, then there's nothing of substance to discuss. this has been going on since last year, and bosomba has never provided a cogent argument for these changes, so I'm not hopeful that we'll get anything better now. but who knows, maybe he will here — kwami (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is about what the sources say. Dolphyne is the best rs, as against Kwami’s non-better source which he is still using claiming distinct languages in the article. I keep prompting him with quotations, page numbers and Dolphyne source but he doesn’t follow, rather resorting to personal explanations of the source. Dolphyne source vividly saids Akan language (Twi-Fante) consists dialects of Akuapem, Akyem, Bono, Wasa, Asante, Fante etc. The source never said they are distinct languages of Akan language. It further says, the dialects are mutually intelligible. The source clearly states everything, and the source must be looked into because the opposing editor is misrepresenting the source and misleading with misquotings to ambiguate, as well as still using his non better source. The current article doesn’t follow Dolphyne and must be revised. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosomba Amosah

Change this in the Name section

The language was originally referred to by local designations such as 'Twi' (/tʃwiː, twiː, tʃiː/;[12][13] Akan: [tɕᶣi]), 'Fante' and 'Brong'.

Change these in the Dialects section

Akan	Brong (a.k.a. Bono; a dialect cluster) Wasa dialect Asante-Akyem-Kwahu dialect Akuapem dialect Fante (Agona, Gomua, Abura, Anomabu dialects)

And this

Brong and Wasa have limited mutual intelligibility with each other, and so are separate languages by that standard.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Bosomba Amosah has proposed some changes to the article. It still is not clear whether User:Kwamikagami is participating in discussion. They may be saying that Bosomba Amosah is using unreliable sources, or is misinterpreting what the reliable sources say.

My question at this point for Bosomba Amosahl is what source or sources support the proposed change.

My questions at this point for Kwamikagami are:

• 1. Are you taking part in this moderated discussion?
• 2. Do you agree to the proposed change?
• 3. If Yes to 1 and No to 2, what is the reason for your disagreement?

My question for both editors is whether they agree that Florence Dolphyne is the most reliable academic source.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1, I'm willing to take part, but not to repeat myself 20 times like i was asked to do in the last dr on this topic.

2, I disagree.

3, because, to the extent that they're intelligible, they contradict our sources.

Florence Dolphyne, whom bosomba introduced into the discussion [and i thank him for that], is the most reliable academic source that i'm aware of. however, there are other rs's, such as Dakubu 2006 in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics.

the problem is not the source, but in repeatedly misrepresenting her, even after those errors have been pointed out by other editors multiple times, something which he continues to do here.

although i think the article should be based largely on dolphyne, we should use her latest professional publications rather than cherry-picking isolated comments from early informal material and claiming that those negate her later material, and we should include other rs's as well.

for bosomba's first item, that statement is taken from Dakubu, and bosomba has yet to say what is wrong with it

for the second item, that tree is taken directly from dolphyne

for the last item, we have the issue that bono and wasa have different ISO codes based on a supposed lack of mutual intelligibility. ISO may very well be wrong -- it wouldn't be the first time -- but we do need a source that directly addresses the issue if we're to disregard the judgement of that rs. for example, dolphyne states that bono and fante are different languages based on mutual intelligibility at the same time as stating that [neighboring] dialects are all mutually intelligible, so blanket statements that [neighboring] dialects are mutually intelligible [while more distant dialects may not be] does not counter the ISO conclusion that bono and wasa are not mutually intelligible

consider the western romance languages, which are all 'mutually intelligible' in the sense that all neighboring dialects are intelligible, from Lisbon and Normandy to Sicily. despite that, we count french, spanish, portuguese, italian, and multiple others as separate languages, because intelligibility does get difficult with distance — kwami (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosomba Amosah

I’m the one using a better reliable source from Dolphyne. As against Kwami’s non-better source, and this is agreeable.

Again, Kwami is the one misrepresenting the source of Dolphyne and still using his non better source despite he [Kwami] promised dropping it. Upon several attempts, he is still misleading, misrepresenting the source, and cherry picking to ambiguate. It’s like I have been pointing it out and repeating myself several times, still he doesn’t follow.

The proposed change is from the source of Dolphyne, the better reliable source.

Firstly, until 1950s, there was no name for the dialects. Twi was proposed as a name but was rejected by Fante. However, Akan was acceptable to all. The language became Akan (Twi-Fante). So it must be changed to reflect the source.

Secondary, the clade has been misrepresented, that’s not how Dolphyne arranged the dialects.

Lastly, Dolphyne said all the dialects are mutually intelligible as Akan, nowhere did Dolphyne stated Fante and Bono are different languages from Akan, instead they are all dialects. This is misrepresenting and cherry picking to ambiguate by misquoting and citing discordant examples. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still is not clear whether User:Kwamikagami is participating in discussion. Participation in DRN is voluntary. In this case, User: Bosomba Amosah has proposed some changes to the article. You may choose to participate in discussion only for the purpose of saying "No" to the proposed changes, which will cost you very little. If you are not taking part in the discussion at all, I will close this thread, and advise Bosomba Amosahl to discuss their proposed changes on the article talk page or to initiate an RFC. If you take part in the discussion for the purpose of saying No, then I will probably formulate an RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i said above that i disagree, and spelled out why i disagree, but i'll repeat a 'no' here. an RFC would be fine. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate if discussion continues here and a look into the source, other than RFC. Or I just discuss my proposed changes on the article talk page if the opposing editor refuses discussion here at all. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosomba Amosah

I prefer continuing discussion here or discussing my proposed changes at the article talk page if Kwami refuses discussion here at all Bosomba Amosah (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am now asking User:Bosomba Amosah to state each of the changes that they want to make to the article, concisely, in list form. It is not necessary for User:Kwamikagami to reply to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other questions?

Bosomba Amosah

Change the following

1. In the Name section

The language was originally referred to by local designations such as 'Twi' (/tʃwiː, twiː, tʃiː/;[12][13] Akan: [tɕᶣi]), 'Fante' and 'Brong'.

To

Twi was proposed as a name for the dialects but was rejected by Fante, however Akan was acceptable to all. Akan: [tɕᶣi])'Twi' (/tʃwiː, twiː, tʃiː/-'Fante'

2. In the Dialects section

To

3. In the Dialects section

Brong and Wasa have limited mutual intelligibility with each other, and so are separate languages by that standard.

To

All the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other with the neutral name Akan.

4. In the main article, the first statement after infobox

collectively known as Twi

should be removed Bosomba Amosah (talk) 08:19, 06 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that changes 1 and 4 proposed by User:Bosomba Amosah are really two aspects of one proposed change, and that changes 2 and 3 are more or less independent. It appears that it may be in order to put together a three-part Request for Comments, where one part will ask whether to make changes 1 and 4, and two more parts will ask whether to make changes 2 and 3. Does User:Bosomba Amosah have a comment? Does User:Kwamikagami have a comment? ('No' is a comment, but is not required, and will be assumed if not stated otherwise.) If I do not hear otherwise, I will begin developing a three-part RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

kwami

opposed. 1 and 4 remove information for no clear reason [and in addition 1 is gibberish], whereas 2 and 3 are factually incorrect.

Bosomba Amosah

Support. Exactly the implication and that’s what I’m saying. 1&4 limits the definition of Twi as Akan language is Twi-Fante. 2&3 are correct and reflect the source of Dolphyne. The source must be looked into. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created three draft RFCs, in Talk:Akan language/RFC on Names, Talk:Akan language/RFC on Mutual Intelligiblity , and Talk:Akan language/RFC on Dialect Diagram .. Please review them and comment on them. Do not vote in them at this time. When we are ready, I will move them, one at a time, to the article talk page, and activate them. (They must be moved one at a time in order for the bot to recognize them as three separate RFCs, which will be started and completed at almost the same time. This is less difficult than combining them into one oversized RFC.)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• JEL classification codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Logoshimpo (talk · contribs)
• Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs)
• John Quiggin (talk · contribs)
• DandelionAndBurdock (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There's a combination of bad faith editing the page.

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

Talk:JEL_classification_codes#Is_this_a_notable_topic?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Establish consensus.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

The fifth question is whether there are any procedural questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

Are there any other content issues, or any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

I understand requests for comment can be helpful but in this situtation: I don't see them as gainful. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: here is the permalink for the short version. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The short version has nothing to do with deletion. It was a mistake to have nominated it for deletion. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are twenty - looks like saying "26" was the mistake. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None from me, RFC looks good to go. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to go to the RFC now JQ (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have launched the RFC in the article talk page. Please vote and discuss in the RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Category:PlayStation 5-only games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jursha (talk · contribs)
• WikiAnsweredNow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added lesser-known indie video games to the List of PlayStation 5 games page. At the time I did this, I was following WP:NOTEWORTHY. Particularly the part that says "The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria." Many of the entries I added to the stand-alone list have only a PlayStation Store URL as their citation.

I then proceeded to create hard redirect pages for all the entries I added to this list and included categories (allowed by WP:RCAT to my understanding) on the redirects, such as the PlayStation 5-only category. The user WikiAnsweredNow thought my additions and edits were in bad faith, and they removed only the PlayStation 5-only category from each of those redirect pages. I reverted all their edits, thinking they were vandalism. He started a discussion on the talk page of the article/category, and I think we don't see each other as acting in bad faith now, but we've seemingly come to a standstill on who's right.

WikiAnsweredNow seems to want the redirects to be deleted (or at least have the PS5-only category removed), citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. My opinion is that WP:NOTDIR doesn't directly apply to the List of PlayStation 5 games page since notability, by default, isn't considered for entries on stand-alone lists (and thus wouldn't apply to their redirect pages, or the categories on those pages). My thinking is that a consensus should be established on the List of PlayStation 5 games talk page about only including notable entries (i.e., entries with a link to a credible article and not just a digital store URL). I don't see redirect pages + their categories as needing to adhere to notability guidelines since they are just navigational guides for content on the aforementioned list; they should only be modified if the linked list entry is removed.

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

Category talk:PlayStation 5-only games#Bunch of worthless games

We've talked back and forth on this page, and another user chimed in and seemed to agree (I think with me) that things shouldn't be deleted based on "the personal, arbitrary quality threshold set by some editor." But I don't think WikiAnsweredNow understood that completely since they responded to that user asking me to delete (either the redirect pages themselves, or the categories from each page, I'm not sure).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think if we could have a more experienced editor or two chime in and interpret the finer points of Wikipedia's policy to us both, then we'll have a better understanding of what to do/not do. I'm willing to delete my list entries (and redirects) if need be.

This dispute began as the user Jursha explained. I noticed a huge volume of redirects page of low-effort / Shovelware titles being created and assigned categories. Due to the huge volume, I removed the said category from the redirect pages under bad faith. Jursha later reverted them, assuming vandalism. I initiated a discussion under an existing discussion talking about this same issue. After discussing our viewpoints, I no longer hold the belief that Jursha acted in bad faith. However, we have come to a standstill.

This dispute concerns the categorization of certain redirect pages under PlayStation 5-only games category. Many of these redirects point to list entries for low-effort or unverifiable titles (games by studios like Oiven Games, Colosseum Studio, Nextgo24 UG, etc. or games series like Cazzarion where its developer releases a new game each week) that lack independent coverage or reliable sourcing. While they technically meet the definition of “PS5-only” due to their platform exclusivity, they do not meet a reasonable threshold of verifiability or relevance per WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTDIR.

My position is that inclusion in this category should require some degree of verifiable significance, notability is not the issue, but verifiability and usefulness to readers is. This aligns with the intent of categories as navigational tools reflecting meaningful groupings of content, not indiscriminate collections of redirect links to entries in a list in List of PlayStation 5 games page.

Furthermore, per WP:CAT, "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category, except for talk pages, redirects, and user pages, which may optionally be placed in categories where appropriate." Many of these redirects offer no substantial information beyond what exists on the main list article and often mirror unsourced entries. Including them in a major category like "PS5-only games" creates an inflated and less usable category for readers seeking a practical overview of the exclusive titles.

My proposed solution is to remove the category from such redirect pages unless and until independent sources verify the game's relevance. Alternatively, consensus may be sought on Talk:List of PlayStation 5 games to remove the unverified entries from the list entirely, thereby rendering the redirects unnecessary.

This approach aims to keep the category informative and policy-consistent, rather than bloated with unsourced or just raw dump of content with no practical usefulness.

The category should have 10-15 titles by my calculations, but instead it has over 100 titles, most of which are low-effort titles. I'm not against inclusion of lesser-known indie titles like Climate Station or The Winds Rising. I'm only against inclusion of Shovelware titles. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to act as moderator if this dispute is one that can be worked at DRN. DRN usually handles article content disputes, and this appears to be a category dispute, so I am not sure at this time whether DRN is the right forum for this dispute, or what the rules should be, or exactly what this dispute is about. Please read DRN Rule X, which is the interim set of rules in uncertain preliminary cases.

I usually begin moderated discussion by asking each editor what they want to change, or leave the same, in a Wikipedia article. Since this does not appear to be an article dispute, I will ask each editor for a one-paragraph description of exactly what they want to change, and, if different from the above, a one-paragraph description of what they think the issue is.

Also, I see a long discussion of creating redirects from or to a list, but was not able to understand exactly what the purpose of the redirects was. Please identify a few examples of the issue so that I can review them and see if I can determine what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute does concern the PlayStation 5-only games category specifically, but it also involves the List of PlayStation 5 games page. I'll do my best to sum it up and include examples of the redirects, as requested.

I created redirect pages which point to list entries I added to the List of PlayStation 5 games page. Each of these redirect pages include categories, one of which being PlayStation 5-only games. These redirect pages correspond to video games that are exclusive to the PlayStation 5 system, but many of them are considered shovelware. Here are a few examples of the redirect pages:

Timothy's Night; Toy's Brawl; Steam Train Simulator; Labyrinth Run; Cazzarion: Cute Town; 1917: The Alien Invasion DX Remastered

There are a lot more, but these serve as valid examples. Some of these, like Timothy's Night, do have a citation (usually an article I found) that isn't just a link to the game's PlayStation Store listing, but the majority only have a PlayStation Store link as their sole citation.

-I believe the user WikiAnsweredNow considers these entries with only a PS Store citation as not conforming to verifiability guidelines. Therefore, the category (or all categories) should be removed from the redirect page(s) and/or the redirect page should be deleted outright. (WikiAnsweredNow, please correct me if I've misconstrued anything.)

-I think the redirect pages should not be deleted or have their categories removed as long as they link to an existing list entry. I think the redirect pages should only be deleted/altered if consensus regarding notability is reached on the talk page for List of PlayStation 5 games, like what happened with List of Nintendo Switch games. Basically, I think that a redirect page and its potential categories all abide by Wikipedia guidelines as long as they link to an article or list entry on a standalone list. –Jursha (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I want changed - I propose that every redirect on the category page that only leads to a list entry in List of PlayStation 5 games and whose only citation is a PlayStation Store listing should either have [[Category:PlayStation 5-only games]] (among other categories, if applicable) removed until the corresponding list entry is supported by reliable, independent source. Redirects whose list entries already contain such sourcing (e.g. The Winds Rising, Climate Station, etc.) may keep the category. This would trim the category from 110+ redirects to roughly 10-15 genuine PS5-only releases.

What the issue is - Categories are meant as navigational tools, not indiscriminate directories. A bare redirect that (1) offers no article-level content and (2) points to a list entry whose only citation is the store link itself fails WP:V and runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. Per WP:CAT, redirects "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category, except for talk pages, redirects, and user pages, which may optionally be placed in categories where appropriate." Until there is some independent verification, placing a high-level category tag on shovelware redirects, such as Cazzarion series, or games by shovelware studios, makes the category practically useless to the readers seeking a practical overview of PS5 exclusives. Requiring a minimal verifiability threshold (independent source or higher-quality coverage) before categorization will keep this category actually informative, policy-compliant, and most importantly useful to the reader. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. As I understand the issue, the issue has to do with article categories and what I will call stub redirects, redirects from titles that do not have an article but are mentioned in a more general article. I am familiar with redirects from a song title to either the album or the artist, and these appear to be similar. The issue appears to be that these redirects have been assigned article categories, which should only be used on articles. Redirects should have redirect categories, such as {{R from list topic}}, which I think would be appropriate. We can either close this dispute based on advice to the filing editor to change the redirects to redirect categories, and removing them from an article category, or I can put this case on hold while I consult with other experienced editors as to whether I am interpreting the guidelines on categorizing redirects correctly.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind, I would like to hear if the interpretation is indeed correct based on your consulting with other editors, though I have the feeling you're likely correct. Perhaps I have greatly misunderstood WP:RCAT. If you are correct, does this also mean that redirects such as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe should also have no article categories? I did read on WP:INCOMPATIBLE that article categories can be used on a redirect as long as the category doesn't wholly apply to the article itself. The Wile E. Coyote example in particular seems appropriate. Would PlayStation 5-only games not be exactly that, when compared to a general list of mostly multiplatform PlayStation 5 games? Or does the rule not apply when the redirect is to a list instead of an article subsection? (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:INCOMPATIBLE, it appears to be primarily concerned with alternative names. Both Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Wile E. Coyote are redirected to articles that are very specific to these topics and are highly relevant and include substantial information with high quality coverage and sourcing to these topics on hand.

I think this policy is not very relevant to our discussion. Most, if not all, of the redirects pages that we are discussing don't have any articles that are very specific to them and the general PS5-games list doesn't contain reliable independent high quality coverage or sourcing for these shovelware titles to be considered for this Wikipedia policy. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wile E. Coyote example is mostly what I wanted to show since it gives us an example of a redirect page with categories. I'd also like to bring up WP:LISTRCAT, which is definitely relevant since it also shows that redirect pages can have article categories. Its Eastenders example in particular. Eamonn Flaherty redirects to an Eastenders-related list, and its redirect page does have an article category: Beale family (Eastenders). The list entry actually doesn't have a citation to boot, just an invite to add to the section along with a summary; maybe all the list entries I added need something similar rather than outright deletion (be it their categories or altogether). Respectfully, I'd like to hear what Robert finds out before any big moves are made. Jursha (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hammelsmith (talk · contribs)
• TruthGuardians (talk · contribs)
• SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs)
• ianmacm (talk · contribs)
• Wallby (talk · contribs)
• Israell (talk · contribs)
• castorbailey (talk · contribs)
• Slackergeneration (talk · contribs)
• Never17 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My edit w/ summary: "needs rewrite, sources don't fairly imply "possibly had altered his genitals", opinions not WikiVoice "sources required for material that is challenged or likely to be" "NPOV, fairly representing all majority & significant-minority viewpoints by reliable sources, in rough proportion to prominence of each view"

"Prosecutors sought Jackson's doctors & family inquiring about possibility the singer had altered his physical appearance so as not to match the description.^[1] In Jan 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 Feb 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."^[3]"

Please help.

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

Talk:Michael_Jackson#I_think_this_edit_is_more_than_fair._Thoughts?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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.

I do not support including Bill Dworin’s retrospective statement in the article because it fails Wikipedia’s WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE standards. The article already reflects a balanced summary of the events, based on contemporaneous reporting from major reliable sources like Reuters, USA Today, and the LA Times, which stated that the photos taken during the strip search did not match the description provided by the accuser. These reports were published in 1994, just months after the events, while Dworin’s remarks came over a decade later and do not outweigh the earlier reporting, especially without corroboration. Are we to include comments by every single person that was involved with the case whoever made a statement about it over the course of the last few decades? No.

Dworin’s view is a singular, retrospective opinion, not supported by multiple independent reliable sources, and contradicts the broader factual narrative. Per WP:UNDUE, we do not give disproportionate prominence to a fringe or minority viewpoint, especially in sensitive biographies of living persons subject to WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPGOSSIP. This isn't about editorial disagreement or Jackson’s reputation, it's about upholding verifiability and due weight in line with Wikipedia policy.

The article currently includes mention of the strip search, the mismatched description, and follow-up actions by prosecutors and the grand jury. It is already comprehensive and neutral. Adding Dworin's remark would give an isolated, unsupported claim equal status with more widely reported facts, violating core encyclopedic principles.

I attempted to resolve this by engaging at length on the article’s talk page: Talk:Michael_Jackson. I have consistently proposed solutions rooted in policy, not emotion. Consensus has already formed against inclusion of the quote. I ask that DRN help reaffirm that editorial decisions must reflect policy—not persistence.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can't seem to fully agree on what wording to use. As long as it's accurate, concise, neutral, and appropriately attributed to credible sources, I personally don't have much of a preference on specifics, and have not contested any phrasing that isn't speculative. This might be all I say on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson was never found guilty of sexually abusing a minor by a court. Some of the arguments seem designed to imply that even though he was not found guilty, he may not have been innocent. This runs into problems with WP:RGW.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was summoned here, here is a link to another dispute involving Hammelsmith: [10]. Israell (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Which dispute should be resolved first? Israell (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the Last consensus on this matter which Hammelsmith posted below. The NBC source Hammelsmith cited for the Dworin comment states that Dworin said Chandler description was accurate as he described discolorations on Jackson's genitalia. This raises WP:NPOV problems as merely including that an LAPD detective said the photos corroborated what the boy said implies that his accusations were true. However, prior to the allegations but when the Chandlers already met him, Jackson talked publicly about discolorations caused by a skin disease in a widely seen interview with Oprah Winfrey, thus anyone aware of that would very likely describe the same as Chandler did, that his genitals also had discolorations. This would not corroborate his accusations. Dworin's comments made 10 years later without any information on what exactly was corroborated and how Chandler could easily be aware of Jackson's skin issues without ever seeing his genitals is for the sole purpose to imply guilt, it is not, to make the article more neutral.

If Michael Jackson were guilty, there wouldn’t be any need for speculation—there would be actual evidence. Considering the massive resources and manpower dedicated to investigating him, the absence of solid proof speaks volumes. Yet people constantly twist things like the civil settlement or the Martin Bashir interview to suggest guilt. But those aren’t evidence—they’re parts of a larger investigation that have been reinterpreted through speculation and bias. The whole argument for his guilt relies on projecting personal assumptions onto his actions, rather than facts. The reality is that no evidence was ever found to support the allegations. That’s why speculation dominates the conversation. It’s also why it matters that this article presents a balanced view—something that’s become increasingly rare in post-2019 media, which often ignores the defense’s side entirely largely because if they actually covered it fairly and showed this the narrative would collapse completely. Regarding the quote in question, it has various issues that don't hold up under cross examination, so it is not necessary for the article.

Hello, so there seems to be a soft consensus now. This process has been really exhausting & all the editors I involved probably don't like me very much, to say the least. I sense that the other editors are angry because they absolutely accept that the Reuters & USA Today sources are extremely reliable & completely true. I accept that they may be reliable & true, yet a big problem is that there is no direct link to those sources & no names are given. The editors & I had some conflicts about SYNTH because, EVEN IF the content the of Reuters & USA Today sources are true, we can't expand that into how the jury or detectives or whoever compared the Jackson pictures to the accuser's description. It was written in the LA Times source that there was *speculation* of physical alternations - we cannot know what any of that involved, how it originated, nor can we speculate with SYNTH. Also, we only have Ian Halperin's book to verify the content of the Reuters & USA Today sources. Now, Bill Dworin's statement, whether right or wrong, contradicts the content of those sources - and Wiki is supposed to include contradictory sources as long as they are reliable & have due weight.

To make this DRN worthwhile for all of us, could we please just have an opinion on the appropriateness or lack thereof of possibly including Dworin's comment? Hammelsmith (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dworin was a

part of the prosecution

—the

very same prosecution

that was

calling in Jackson’s mother four months after the strip search to see if Jackson could have done anything to alter the appearance

of his genitals to make it

“not match the description.” So he was lying, as his actions directly contradict the statements. [11]

[12]

("Ray Chandler: Lauren Weiss stated that Jackson has vitiligo, so anything Jordan says will be irrelevant", "Evan Chandler: This is good for us, because if the drawing is right it's right and if it's wrong we've got a explanation for why it didn't match") - More clear evidence of extortion

Larry Feldman (the lawyer representing the Chandler’s in their civil lawsuit)

filed a motion

where he gave Jackson a

multiple choice request

:

[13]

A). Jackson could provide copies of the police photographs taken of his body during the strip search

B). He could submit to a second strip search

C). The photos would be barred from being able to be used in the civil proceedings

However Jackson and his lawyers hadn’t even seen the photos their document was heavily redacted, to access the photos it has to be approved by the Judge overseeing the case. So it couldn't have been A. Civil Attorneys which Feldman was, can't submit strip searches as they do not have the legal authority to do so, and they had already conducted one on Jackson a week prior so Option B doesn't work either. This means the only possible motion for the prosecution was barring the photographs (their only piece of evidence against Jackson from the civil trial). It's worth mentioning again "Michael Jackson had never seen the photographs up to this point so this fundamentally can't be twisted to imply any guilt on his part, and neither can the settlement as he would have had to KNOW by seeing the photos that it matched for the logic to work"

Now i'll repeat: Why would the prosecution file a motion to bar their only possible evidence against Michael Jackson from their own trial if it actually matched? The answer is quite clear: It did not. So why did Sneddon and others in the prosecution claim it did later on? Because they failed to prosecute him and needed to cast doubt within the eyes of the public. By implying the drawing matched the prosecution could still fundamentally push the narrative that Jackson was guilty and used his money to evade "Justice".

Therefore i think it's unnecessary to include Dworin's claim, the article in question already discusses in detail how the prosecution made retroactive claims about how it allegedly matched. Never17 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last consensus:

"Prosecutors raided Neverland Ranch and other places of residency while Jackson was on tour in August, but no leads were found as the investigators ruled that there was no medical evidence or physical evidence. Additionally hundreds of children were investigated but all of them stated no abuse or improper behavior had taken place.^[1] Attention was later brought to two legal art books depicting featuring young boys playing, running, and swimming in various states of undress, however Jackson denied knowing of the books' content and claimed if they were there, someone had to have sent them to him and he did not open them. No child pornography or other incriminating evidence was found.^[2][3] In December 1993, Prosecutor Thomas W. Sneddon Jr. filed a court order to conduct a strip search of Jackson, based on a drawing provided by the accuser and submitted to authorities. According to Reuters and USA Today, the description of Jackson's genitalia did not match the photographs taken during the police investigation. Prosecutors sought testimony from Jackson’s doctors and family members. The grand jury subsequently subpoenaed Jackson’s mother, reportedly to assess whether there were any physical alterations compared to the description.^[4][5][6]" Hammelsmith (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see No issues with this Never17 (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion if I can determine what the issues are. For now, I will ask the editors whether they agree to moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule X, since I am not sure what the issues are. I am also asking each editor to state concisely (one paragraph is better than three paragraphs) what they want to change in an article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Just tell me what the article content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this statement, or something like it: "In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."^[7][8]"

should be incorporated into some Michael Jackson pages in some way, per WP:NOTEWORTHY & the principles of of due weight & balance. I hope the WikiVoice stays in WP:NPOV. I don't even mind if the Reuters & USA Today sources are treated as the majority viewpoint. I think the Bill Dworin statement should at least be treated as the minority view's perspective per WP:DUE: "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. The majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Other editors have said that they think Dworin's statement involves controversies regarding aspects of the minority view. In my view, it is just a noteworthy statement that could be wrong or right or just an opinion, yet I think it is noteworthy per WP:NRV: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Hammelsmith (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2003 was 10 years after the investigation where they had drawings and the prosecution filed a motion to bar the strip search photos from the civil trial. Why are you ignoring that fact? Never17 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Dan Gibson (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Azrl26 (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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? Talk:Dan_Gibson_(author)#Article_contains_incorrect_statements How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Fact check the sources Look through one of my alternative edits, one of them could be a compromise: [14] [15] Summary of dispute by Grayfell [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Dan Gibson (author) discussion [edit] 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.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• COVID-19 lab leak theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Just-a-can-of-beans (talk · contribs)
• McSly (talk · contribs)
• Bon courage (talk · contribs)
• Ratgomery (talk · contribs)
• AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs)
• TarnishedPath (talk · contribs)
• Just10A (talk · contribs)
• Objective3000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1. This morning I made edits to what I considered to be biased statements in the lead which misrepresent their citations. I added Template:POV and Template:Update as well, and made a talk page justification.

2. Since then, back-and-forth editing has occurred. Consensus was reached that the Update template was not appropriate; no consensus was reached for POV, and debate continued. Multiple users have maintained that there are no POV issues, and multiple users have maintained that there are major POV issues.

3. Edits constituting nothing more than addition of POV template (which requires consensus to remove, not to add) have been repeatedly deleted by users claiming there is consensus to remove them.

Specific examples are presented on the talk page to justify the inclusion of a page-heading cleanup template, as there is significant editorialization stretching across the entire article.

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

[16] [17] [18] (Pertinent recent debate where other users separately raised the same issues)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Evaluate the claims and specific presented examples of neutrality issues on the page and determine whether there are sufficient grounds to include or remove Template:POV from the article (and consequently begin reviewing the page for neutrality).

The is an attempt at "badge of shame" tagging without any point of substance provided. WP:TAGWAR suggests "The objective of disputes at noticeboards about article tags should be to resolve the issues one way or another, not to decide to put or keep a tag on an article". I therefore decline to participate here in this. Bon courage (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure I should be a participant as I have made a grand total of 1 edit and 1 comment to the article. That being said, as I understand it, several users are attempting to railroad a tag and/or cast doubt on the scientific consensus that the lab leak is unlikely and the zoonotic spillover is the likely origin of COVID-19. While I am not a doctor or a scientist (unless you count software engineering as computer science), that is my understanding of what the reliable sources say. I would say there are a couple of users that are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS despite there being a firm consensus against their actions. Andre🚐 03:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just-a-can-of-beans you need to leave notices on the talk pages of all the editors you've named in this request. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, thought it was one that did it automatically Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just-a-can-of-beans has made it clear that he does not like the way the article is written. What I have seen from him in the related discussions are a lot of assumptions of bad faith, original research, and attempts to shame-tag the entire article. (Oddly, as one of the five editors to remove this inappropriate tag, I was accused by him of edit warring despite the fact that I have only made one edit to the article this year.) What I have not seen are reliable sources cited to show any neutral point of view problem, much less an article-wide neutrality problem, Thus, there is nothing of substance to discuss at DR. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties in this case agree to moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and read the ArbCom ruling on Covid disputes. If you participate in this discussion, you are acknowledging that covid is a contentious topic. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, not to tag or untag the article. I have a two-part question. First, what article content changes does each editor want to make, or what article content changes does an editor oppose that another editor wants to make? Article content includes the short description, the infobox, the lede section, and the body of the article, but article content does not include any tags. Second, is this an article content dispute, or a tagging dispute? Any editor who has a tagging issue should try to rework or reword it as an article content issue. DRN does not decide tagging issues, but DRN does assist with disputes over article wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a push for a top-of-page POV cleanup template, with an implied subsequent effort to go over the page and remove or rewrite editorialized material. The only immediate change that would result from this dispute resolution is the placement of that banner and tag - but significant page-wide content changes would follow. In general, the citations are high-quality, with only a couple of unimportant exceptions. However, the content of the page does not always reflect these citations. A prominent example may be found in the first sentence of the final paragraph of the lead: Most scientists are skeptical of the possibility of a laboratory origin, citing a lack of any supporting evidence for a lab leak and the abundant evidence supporting zoonosis. This example is supported by a number of sources, but these only support the first clause in the sentence; the first citation is quoted, "but there is no good evidence for either version" - directly contradicting the claim of "abundant evidence supporting zoonosis" which represents an editorialized interpretation of information by a Wikipedia contributor.

The crux of this issue is that there is clearly widespread misrepresentation of sources throughout the page, with a resulting bias in the way in which information is presented. This will require significant and probably long-term effort from multiple users - but where we are right now, people are quick to dismiss the very idea that an issue exists. Notably, none of these people have actually responded to or justified the examples presented.

Additionally, when we attempted to treat this as a tag dispute, we were simply reverted (despite lack of consensus) and warned for edit warring. If you feel this is outside the scope of DRN, I can bring the matter to arbitration instead. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that User:Just-a-can-of-beans thinks that the article is non-neutral. They say that they want to apply a top-of-page {{POV}} tag to the page. There is already a local consensus that article satisfies neutral point of view. It is not clear what would be accomplished by applying the tag again. The other editors have already removed the tag several times, indicating that they do not think that neutral point of view rewrites are required. The filing editor writes: significant page-wide content changes would follow. By whom? If the filing editor wants to make significant changes, there are two ways to try to make those changes. The first is to propose one or more of the changes and submit a Request for Comments to obtain consensus from the Wikipedia community. The second is to make the change boldly. If so, it will probably be reverted, and then the revert can be followed either by another filing at DRN or an RFC.

User:Just-a-can-of-beans writes: Additionally, when we attempted to treat this as a tag dispute, we were simply reverted (despite lack of consensus) and warned for edit warring. That is incorrect. The multiple reverts demonstrated a local consensus against the tag. Since there is a local consensus against the tag, and that the article is neutrally written, overriding that local consensus will require a community consensus, which is obtained by RFC.

The filing editor writes: If you feel this is outside the scope of DRN, I can bring the matter to arbitration instead. I advise against taking the matter to arbitration, because I know what will happen then. The arbitrators will say that this is a content dispute, because it is a content dispute. On the one hand, ArbCom is one forum where the boomerang principle is not in effect, so ArbCom will not block the filing party. On the other hand, editors who file vexatious requests for arbitration are often topic-banned or partially blocked by the community. If your dispute is a tagging dispute, it is outside the scope of DRN and is outside the scope of arbitration.

If you still want to pursue this matter, RFC is the way that is most likely to be effective, although I cannot guarantee that any approach will be effective, because sometimes one is in the minority. Edit the article boldly and submit an RFC after being reverted, or accept being in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of possible moderator’s comments, but will add a few not so quick additions. An ArbCom filing would be considered premature and declined. 3O is useless when it is effectively WP:1AM and for CTOPs in general. A filing at AN/I or AE would most likely result in a boomerang. RfC’s are time consuming in general and more so in CTOPs. Before attempting one again, the OP must read WP:RFCBEFORE and the prior discussion should not be brief or lopsided in a CTOP. They should also respect previous archived discussions on the same subject.

Some comments I should not make in violation of FOC but in another attempt at advising the filer:

2.) Patience is a virtue is a phrase from the fifth century. Practice it and you may gain more support, feel better, and avoid sanctions, WP:NODEADLINE

3.) Assume good faith and be civil. I will not repeat the several odd accusations made against me here by the filer as I cannot ask for a sanction here and am quite used to such anyhow. But we are about collaboration and who wants to live in a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Besides, incivility never works and folks know when they are acting in good faith.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Scharnhorst-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 166.181.85.49 (talk · contribs) 92.19.12.76 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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? [[19]], [[20]] 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 [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 166.181.85.49 [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 92.19.12.76 [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Scharnhorst-class battleship discussion [edit] 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.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Munter He (talk · contribs)
• Jerium (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Throughout the years, many users have attempted to correct the first sentence that says "David was a king of ancient Israel and Judah and the third king of the United Monarchy, according to the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament", as the sources given and other sources all say that David was the second king of the United Monarchy, not the third (See Encyclopedia Britannica's first sentence: https://www.britannica.com/biography/David "David was the second ruler of the united kingdom of ancient Israel and Judah"). For consensus' sake, I tried even leaving it without a number, saying it as "was a king of the United Monarchy", but the same user who inserted the phrase years ago has reverted it 3 times today to the non-consensual form.

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

Discussions by other users with him in the past led to a stalemate - see "Second or third" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David/Archive_4#Second_or_third (Jerm is Jerium's former username), and I myself tried to point out five years ago already how the information he added (and refuses to let be changed) is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David/Archive_8#Error_in_infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By checking if his claim that there is undeniable proof that David was the "third king of the United Monarchy" is correct, and if it is not, enabling a consensual edit to be made.