Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#BlackLight Power discussion

{{DR case status|hold}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750005545}}

{{drn filing editor|John Not Real Name|16:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction}}

Users involved

• {{User|John Not Real Name}}
• {{User|Bogazicili}}
• {{User|M.Bitton}}
• {{User|EducatedRedneck}}

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, [https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century] p. 11 and [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economics-of-world-war-i/A9528E1394637261A7ABD08D9D7148B5 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290861325&oldid=1290829007]

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1291007890&oldid=1291005699][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1291020691&oldid=1291019871][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1291022226&oldid=1291022061] Let me know if more information is required. Bogazicili (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:[https://books.google.com/books?id=j3i8muwLf8AC The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History], p. 336:

:{{tq2|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}}

:[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-16266-4 Antisemitism, Islamophobia and the Politics of Definition], p. 55:

:{{tq2|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)

::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)

::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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportations_of_Kurds_(1916%E2%80%931934)#Background_and_Ottoman_deportations_(1916)] 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:

::{{tq2|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:

::{{tq2|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:

::{{tq2|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)

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)

: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)

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

: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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• :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)

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)

: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)

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)

: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)

Agree to the moderated discussion and DRN Rule A.

The issues are

• 1) If two sources ([https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century] p. 11 and [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economics-of-world-war-i/A9528E1394637261A7ABD08D9D7148B5 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.

{{u|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)

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)

:@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)

Is there an article content issue at this time? I am asking each participating editor, {{ping|John Not Real Name|Bogazicili|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)

: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)

: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)

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

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)

: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)

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)

: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)

::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)

{{DR case status|active}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750874360}}

{{drn filing editor|ZLEA|17:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Shenyang J-35}}

Users involved

• {{User|ZLEA}}
• {{User|Nafis Fuad Ayon}}
• {{User|Lgnxz}}

Dispute overview

Since November, several editors have attempted to remove sourced material from Shenyang J-35. The material in question is the entry for the "J-31B Gyrfalcon" in the variants section. For context, the J-31B is an enlarged version of the FC-31 prototype revealed in a video released by the aircraft's manufacturer, Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, in November 2024. This fact has been covered in numerous sources, including [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3269372/chinas-latest-stealth-fighter-jet-j-31b-ready-military-service-cctv-video-post-suggests South China Morning Post], [https://asiatimes.com/2024/07/china-redefining-air-power-with-huge-stealth-fighter-rollout/ Asia Times], and [https://interestingengineering.com/military/china-j31b-jet-rivals-f35 Interesting Engineering]. More recently, the production version of the FC-31 was given the military designation "J-35" rather than "J-31" as was speculated by western media. Regardless, the J-31B variant revealed by Shenyang has not (yet, at least) been given a "J-35" designation for some reason.

Both Nafis Fuad Ayon and Lgnxz have repeatedly attempted to use this fact to justify the complete removal of all information about the J-31B, among other reasons that all amount to WP:OR. Nafis Fuad Ayon even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shenyang_J-35#c-Nafis_Fuad_Ayon-20250528043600-ZLEA-20250525030100 falsely claimed] that [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3291826/pakistans-reported-j-35-deal-shows-chinese-stealth-fighter-ready-global-market-analysts South China Morning Post] said "J-31B is J-35", despite the term "J-31B" not appearing even once in that article. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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

User talk:Lgnxz#J-31, Talk:Shenyang J-35#J-31B

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to give Nafis Fuad Ayon and Lgnxz the opportunity to make their case for the removal of the J-31B from the article, and would like an opinion from DRN as to whether their reasons justify the removal of sourced content. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

There is not a single new reference available from a reliable source about the so called "J-31B" variant after the official J-35 name announced. J-31 name never finalized instead the J-35 name officially chosen. J-35 is the naval variant and J-35A is the land based variant. These references might be helpful: ([https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/assessing-the-j-35a-the-chinese-air-forces-new-stealth-fighter/] , [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3291826/pakistans-reported-j-35-deal-shows-chinese-stealth-fighter-ready-global-market-analysts] , [https://www.deccanherald.com/world/pakistan-plans-to-acquire-40-planes-of-chinas-latest-stealth-fighter-j-35-report-3329592]).Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In summary:

1. Lack of evidence in the real world outside of mere CGI created on July 2024 (not November 2024 as claimed above), prior to the official unveiling and public first flight of J-35A in 2024 Zhuhai Airshow, which is the event that's on November 2024. So what's going to happen if that keep being the case in the future, the aircraft's existence will hinge on that CGI from a single promotional video forever?
2. Technical/physical space impossibility on some its claimed features, especially for having side weapon bays and carrying 2 missiles each, which for a medium weight fighter is something unheard of. No FC-31 variants spotted in the real world, whether the 2 prototype variants or the 2 confirmed official adopted aircrafts (naval J-35 and land-based J-35A) have that feature either. Neither does any other fighter in the world for that matter, as even the heavier F-22, J-20, and Su-57 have side bays but only carry 1 missile each.
3. Unexplainable departure from the rigid PLA's naming convention, skipping both J-31 and J-31A, despite the fact that such naming convention is still followed, as applied for the J-35 and the J-35A.
4. Multiple sources denying the usage of the J-31 name that was provided by {{User|Nafis Fuad Ayon}} on the J-35 talk page, which in my opinion considering that the J-31B is supposed to be a subset of the J-31, such denial for its J-31 superset should be considered as enough grounds for not using the J-31B name, and/or questioning its existence.
5. Infallibility of the chinese state media, which is what the whole existence of J-31B really hinges on. Of course, like any other government or SOE run by mere human beings, plenty of mistakes happen, have happened, and will happen. I personally have shown ZLEA in User talk:Lgnxz#J-31 to be the case as well, that official chinese state media made mistakes.

This will be my only statement, as I don't want to spend anymore time to delve in this dispute debate. Do what you will, but please consider the removal of the J-31B as a variant of J-35 based on my statement, or as a compromise separate/move the page for only the J-31B given that it already have different name and features (side weapon bays) very different to the rest of FC-31/J-35 variants. That is all, thanks. Lgnxz (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi folks. As I understand it, this dispute is over whether or not to use the term "J-31B" instead of "J-31" or "J-35" for a particular model variant of fighter jet. Please let me know (anyone) if I've failed to get that right.

@ZLEA, since @Lgnxz has declared their desire not to participate past this point and @Nafis Fuad Ayon has yet to appear here, we don't really have much of a discussion on our hands to go forward with yet. I'm happy to leave this open for a few days to see if that changes, but this may ultimately be a no-go if we don't hear from either of them.

@Lgnxz, I worry a little from your statement "Do what you will" that you might be viewing this as a place where an ultimate judgement on this issue will be handed down or something like that. This is more of a place for everyone to work together to settle everything with a little more structure and oversight than might exist in a regular talk page discussion. I don't have any more authority on this issue than anyone else; I'm just here to help everything go a little more smoothly (hopefully). Any thoughts I might have about the meat of this dispute don't carry any more intrinsic weight than that of a random talk page participate who might happen to pass by. If you really don't want to participate anymore, that's your right of course.

I do want to say in passing, any question of this sort should be resolvable through close, plain attention to the reliable sources at hand. If we have reliable sources that use the term "J-31B", I'd say it's fair game for the article period, even if we personally think they were wrong to do so. We can debate over what sources should be considered reliable on this issue, and we can debate over how we should couch the material we get from them in the article, but if we have RS that use the term "J-31B" it's not really our place to quibble with them about whether or not that's the right terminology. If we have other RS on hand that say the designation is wrong (directly, plainly, not based on indirect interpretation), then we can cite both sets of RS and say that sources differ on the issue, but it still wouldn't support leaving the term out of the article entirely. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 02:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Mesocarp}} Not sure if this is the correct way to respond, but I'd like to clarify that the dispute is about whether the J-31B variant should be covered at all. The designation is just one of several reasons cited in an attempt to justify its complete removal from the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I guess the argument is more over whether or not it really exists as a discrete variant? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 02:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::That and, if it is a discrete variant, whether western analysts and sources were simply [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-Lgnxz-20250530021900-Summary_of_dispute_by_Lgnxz misled by a mistake on the part of the Chinese state media], among other things. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, great, thanks. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 05:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

All right, since Nafis Fuad Ayon has appeared (hi Nafis), I think we can at least approach the discussion and see how it goes. Lgnxz, if you decide you want to jump in at any point, feel free.

So, I think the first thing that would probably be good to do in this case is see if we can agree on a pool of reliable sources. There have been six cited in this discussion so far, three by ZLEA and three by Nafis. I think there was at least one more in the talk page discussion but this seems like a good pool to start with to me—feel free to bring up more as needed but we probably don't require a huge amount to work from here.

The main question to settle at this point is if we think these sources are sufficiently credible. Of course, we shouldn't only trust our own opinions; if we find ourselves in disagreement about this, we can look at RSN, past RFCs, etc. to see if there's already relevant discussion we can consider.

I've gone through each source and picked out what seems to me like a relevant/representative quote for our purposes here. We're not yet trying to say what we should do with these, only if we think these sources are sufficiently reliable to be used in this case.

{{collapse top|South China Morning Post: [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3269372/chinas-latest-stealth-fighter-jet-j-31b-ready-military-service-cctv-video-post-suggests "China’s latest stealth fighter jet ‘J-31B’ ready for military service, CCTV video post suggests"]}}

{{Blockquote

|text=China’s latest stealth fighter jet with carrier-based potential may be ready to enter military service, a manufacturer’s video posted by state media suggests.

The FC-31 Gyrfalcon, with a variant now officially revealed as the “J-31B”, is expected to complement the J-20, China’s most advanced stealth fighter which entered service in 2017.

…

The aircraft, captioned in the video as “Gyrfalcon”, has the name “J-31B” painted on its fuselage.

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|Asia Times: [https://asiatimes.com/2024/07/china-redefining-air-power-with-huge-stealth-fighter-rollout/ "China redefining air power with huge stealth fighter rollout"]}}

{{Blockquote

|text=J-31B and J-20 fighters will boost carrier aviation, long-range maritime strike and deep penetration capabilities vis-a-vis US and India

This month, Nikkei [https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/China-develops-new-stealth-aircraft-likely-to-be-deployed-on-carriers reported] that China’s new stealth combat aircraft, the J-31B, is expected to be deployed on its third aircraft carrier, the Fujian.

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

(That Nikkei article they mention might be a good source to use as well—Nikkei is a Japanese paper of record. It looks like they link to a lot of other articles from good sources too, if we need more.)

{{collapse top|Interesting Engineering: [https://interestingengineering.com/military/china-j31b-jet-rivals-f35 "‘F-35 rival’: China’s 5th gen J-31B stealth jet readies for combat role"]}}

{{Blockquote

|text=China’s new J-31B stealth fighter, designed for carrier use, may soon join the military to support the J-20.

The Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) released a video revealing the new J-31B “Gyrfalcon” stealth fighter. The J-31B is significantly larger than the original FC-31 model introduced a decade ago, evolving from a medium to a heavy fighter.

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|The Diplomat: [https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/assessing-the-j-35a-the-chinese-air-forces-new-stealth-fighter/ "Assessing the J-35A: The Chinese Air Force’s New Stealth Fighter"]}}

{{Blockquote

|text=The revelation of J-35A being intended for service in the PLAAF coincided with the Air Force’s 75th anniversary, and multiple different prototype airframes were flown over multiple days at Zhuhai. Subsequent coverage in official state media and on social networks followed, essentially “declassifying” the J-35A, as PLA norms go. At present, the J-35A has yet to enter frontline service.

…

In past articles, I’ve covered the aircraft types that preceded the J-35A. First, there was the original FC-31 developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) as a technology demonstrator and potential export product, albeit without any PLA commitment at that time. Two flying prototypes and multiple static prototypes were developed, with the two differing prototypes flying in 2012 and 2016. During this time, the FC-31 was sometimes called the “J-31,” but the name was not official given the lack of PLA commitment.

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|South China Morning Post: [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3291826/pakistans-reported-j-35-deal-shows-chinese-stealth-fighter-ready-global-market-analysts "Pakistan’s reported J-35 deal shows Chinese stealth fighter is ready for global market: analysts"]}}

{{Blockquote

|text=Another national television network, BOL News, reported in July that PAF pilots had officially begun training for the J-31 stealth fighter jet in China. The J-31 is called the J-35.

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|Deccan Herald: [https://www.deccanherald.com/world/pakistan-plans-to-acquire-40-planes-of-chinas-latest-stealth-fighter-j-35-report-3329592 "Pakistan plans to acquire 40 planes of China’s latest stealth fighter J-35: Report"]}}

{{Blockquote

|text=The land-based version of J-35 was called J-31, according to previous reports. China is currently the only country in the region to have developed stealth aircraft.

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

My personal take is that all of these are probably fine except maybe Interesting Engineering, which is too obscure to have a Wikipedia article and strikes me as a little "clickbaity" looking around at it. I think we can do without it though; it doesn't seem to really say anything other sources don't to me. We could maybe replace it with [https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/China-develops-new-stealth-aircraft-likely-to-be-deployed-on-carriers the Nikkei article] if needed since Nikkei is generally reputable on factual matters; they're kind of like the Japanese Wall Street Journal.

I know the credibility of SCMP is sometimes called into question on certain topics (especially politically-sensitive ones) since the CCP presumably exercises editorial control over its content, but in this case that might actually be to their credit. I know Lgnxz has raised the point that other Chinese state-run media (Xinhua) has mislabeled "the Su-57 prototype as the J-35A" in a tweet implying that we should doubt all Chinese state-run media on this topic, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources claiming that tweet is in error, only some Twitter comments; even if true though, I don't really see how it calls these SCMP articles into question, since every news source makes mistakes sometimes. A reliable source saying directly that SCMP had used the J-31B designation incorrectly would be another matter—if you have anything like that, Lgnxz or anyone else, feel free to share.

Does anyone else have issues to raise about the credibility of any of these sources, disagree with my analysis, etc.? Once we're satisfied we can move on to weighing what they actually say. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 08:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:@ZLEA, @Nafis Fuad Ayon, @Lgnxz, do y'all want to continue this discussion? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 13:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think I've said all that needs to be said. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think I've said all that needs to be said too.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=The other named participant, GhostOfDanGurney, has {{Diff2|1293827890|said}} that they feel DRN is premature and they're unwilling to participate at this stage; talk page discussion is indeed ongoing and more editors have joined in since this case was filed. (Full disclosure, I've participated in the discussion some myself at this point; I'm only closing because of GhostOfDanGurney's statement. If anyone else feels this is improper please let me know.) 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 04:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750981150}}

{{drn filing editor|SteeledDock541|23:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|2025 IndyCar Series}}

Users involved

• {{User|GhostOfDanGurney}}

Dispute overview

There has been a dispute between myself and GhostOfDanGurney about whether or not to include flagicons for each team in the Confirmed entries section of the 2025 IndyCar Series page. I believe that including flags for each team adds visual information for the reader, indicating which country each team is based in.

GhostOfDanGurney has said that the inclusion of the flags for the teams is in violation of MOS:FLAGCRUFT, claiming that it is an exercise in nationalism. This is not the case. MOS:FLAGCRUFT states that you cannot emphasize nationality without good reason. Nowhere does it say that the inclusion of flagicons is a part of violating MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Also, in this instance with the teams listed in the article, the flagicons are meant to convey visual information for the reader, indicating which country each team is based in, as stated previously.

GhostOfDanGurney has also claimed that because the IndyCar Series is a "national championship", which is not the case as they race in both the United States and Canada, that the inclusion of flagicons for teams is simply "irrelevant to said championship". He has not cited a reason further than that other than saying that in his opinion flagicons are irrelevant. If he is going by that reasoning, the 2025 Super Formula Championship has flagicons for every team even though the series only races in Japan.

From my side, I think that the inclusion of flagicons for teams does not harm the article but instead further adds information from a visual perspective to readers which is crucial. Team nationality in championships is an important aspect and I feel as though it should not be absent from the page.

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

Yes:

• 2025 IndyCar Series page in dispute
• Talk: 2025 IndyCar Series#FLAGCRUFT discussion on talk page
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney&oldid=1292939480 Discussion with User] GhostOfDanGurney has deleted this discussion between the two of us.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There is precedent across multiple motorsports' season articles where flagicons for teams are included in the page. I believe that including them for the IndyCar Series would add informational value from a visual sense for readers. Including the flags also does not diminish any aspect of the page. Having users external to the situation and a broader topic can assist in bringing this to a cordial resolution.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=The editors in favor of including the material under debate, including Actualdragarchivist, have been indefinitely pagebanned from the page under discussion, so I think this case is moot. Let me know if there's any reason it should be reopened. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 13:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751300445}}

{{drn filing editor|ZimZalaBim|16:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Drag pageantry}}

Users involved

• {{User|ZimZalaBim}}
• {{User|Actualdragarchivist}}

Dispute overview

The article has included long lists of winners and runners-up from multiple pageants, without any sourcing, any indication that the pageants are notable, and seemingly simply as a means to archive this information, which not what Wikipedia is for. Attempts to clean this up have been reverted by a brand new account User:Actualdragarchivist, initially without comment or discussion at all. The user posted "try again!" on their talk page when I posted a sourcing warning. The user has noted in various subsequent article talk page messages that they entend to simply revert/restore. I argue that listing this unsourced/non-notable content is clearly outside the purpose of an enecylopedia article on drag pageantry. I feel disurption will continue, and I want to avoid an edit war.

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

• Talk:Drag_pageantry#Unsourced_collection_of_random_results
• User_talk:Actualdragarchivist#Welcome!

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Need someone to provide an assessment of the appropriateness of content Actualdragarchivist wishes to keep in the article, versus the argument for removal provided by me (ZimZalaBim). My attempts of pointing to WP policies isn't getting through.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752477478}}

{{drn filing editor|Kowal2701|07:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Bono state}}

Users involved

• {{User|Kowal2701}}
• {{User|Norcer}}
• {{User|AkanArchives}}

Dispute overview

Dispute is centred on the origins of the Akan people, specifically Bono state#Formation of inland Akan polities and the origin sections of other articles on Akan states. One side considers the Akan to originate from the northern part of the forest region of Ghana (i.e. a dispersal from there), the area inhabited by the Bono people which was home to the Bono state, the first Akan state, with the main early settlements being Begho and Bono Manso. The other side rejects this as having been revised, pointing to settlements in the interior such as Adansemanso and Asantemanso which predate the two early settlements in the north. There are various sources to discuss.

: Btw, if the moderator could ping us all after their comments that’d be great as I don’t think there’s a way to watch/subscribe to just this section? May be wrong Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, understood thanks. The section has been refactored during the discussions, regarding the current version it's the first clause {{tq|It is widely acknowledged that Akan trace its origins to Bono}} that is most in dispute. The current version does do the balancing of POVs as you say, however the only one supporting a Bono origin ([https://archive.org/details/historyofghana0000buah/page/n6/mode/1up Buah]) is from 1980, and republished in 1998 with some changes however precolonial history was untouched (as said in the preface). WP:AGEMATTERS is most relevant here, as the other sources are from 2010, 2014, and 2016. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Bono state#Polities From Bono, Talk:Bono state#Comment on Origins of Akan States, Talk:Bono state#Integrating Oral, Archaeological, and Historical Sources

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Assessing the quality of arguments and interpretation of sources

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion to try to resolve an article content issue about the Bono state. Please read DRN Rule A.

If there are two (or more) different views by historians about the origin of the Bono state and the Akan people that are supported by reliable sources, we should present both of them, giving due weight to each of them.

The purpose of article dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary to state why you want to make the change.

By the way, an editor can subscribe to one thread in DRN.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Really appreciate your effort. The current version, {{tq|It is widely acknowledged that Akan trace its origins to Bono}} should be maintained as it reflects the source.

:These are the sources cited by the opposing editor:

:[https://www.scribd.com/document/863310005/The-Akan-Diaspora-In-The-Americas-Kwasi-Konadu-pdf-download Kwasi Konadu (2010): The Akan Diaspora In the Americas. Page 34]

:[https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780822374961_A35619839/preview-9780822374961_A35619839.pdf Kwasi Konadu and Campbell (2016): The Ghana Reader-History, Culture, Politics. Page 33]

:They all point to Akan origins in the north area of Bono, just as previous historians and scholars. Norcer (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752543366}}

{{drn filing editor|Chrisdevelop|01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Creep (Radiohead_song)#Covers}}

Users involved

• {{User|Chrisdevelop}}
• {{User|Popcornfud}}

Dispute overview

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creep_(Radiohead_song)&diff=next&oldid=1295765111 this edit], user {{User|Popcornfud}} reverted my entire contribution, giving as a reason that it was improperly sourced. So, as of now, there is not a trace of Bennett's cover version of the Radiohead song 'Creep' to be found anywhere in the article.

The contribution should have {{citation needed}} tag placed, only when it is likely to be challenged, i.e. there is more than a 50% likelihood. Deleting the entire contribution means it sinks without trace, unless the contributing editor happens to notice their contribution has vanished.

This was the second of two reversions. After noticing that my contribution had been reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creep_(Radiohead_song)&diff=prev&oldid=1295667547 the first time], I raised the question on the article's Talk page, but there was no response until the other editor had already again reverted the contribution, instead of leaving it in place whilst its sources could be discussed. Moreover, it does not appear to me that the other editor has properly read through all the citations, e.g. the National Library of Australia citation, and as per the declaration on their home page, "I believe more in the scissors than I do in the pencil," prefers deletionism as their first course of action. Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Creep_(Radiohead_song)#Reversion_of_Frank_Bennett_(singer)_inclusion_in_Covers_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Deleting the whole paragraph did not improve the article. An entire contribution should not be deleted because of an issue with one of the citations. Instead, {{citation needed}} should be used, or a version thereof. I would prefer not to continue in a Master/Servant relationship with the other editor, where they delete/tag etc. without contributing to the research. I would like my contribution reinstated whilst we go through the citations in a collegial manner.

I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. It appears that the issue is the exclusion as inadequately sourced or inclusion of a cover. I will ask my usual opening question by asking each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave unchanged in the article that another editor wants to change. After we verify the exact focus of the dispute, we can discuss the policy on verifiability.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Here's the paragraph added by Chrisdevelop's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creep_(Radiohead_song)&oldid=1295765111 most recent edit]:

::{{tq|In 1997, Australian singer and saxophonist Frank Bennett released a cover of Creep on his album Five O'Clock Shadow, arranged for a big band lineup, reaching 65 in the ARIA Charts for that year.{{cite book|last=Ryan|first=Gavin|title=Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010|year=2011|publisher=Moonlight Publishing|location=National Library of Australia |edition=PDF|page=28|url= https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/4775209|access-date=15 June 2025}}[https://dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Frank+Bennett+And+The+Orchestra+Royale&titel=Creep&cat=s 'FRANK BENNETT AND THE ORCHESTRA ROYALE - CREEP']. Dutch Charts[https://www.aria.com.au/awards/past-winners/1997 ARIA Awards 1997: Nominees] (Official site). ARIA Music Awards of 1997.[https://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Frank%20Bennett%20And%20The%20Orchestra%20Royale&titel=Creep&cat=s Australian Top 100 Singles.]. Imgur.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=npjifynD8l27Hu36&v=CsiP-GrbbD0&feature=youtu.be Frank Bennett: 'Creep']. Label: Mercury Records (Australia) ref: 534 343-2). Tony Sinatra playlist, YouTube. Bennett was nominated for an ARIA Award for Breakthrough Artist – Single for his cover of Creep, which was also listed in the Triple J Hottest 100, 1996.{{cite web|url=https://i.imgur.com/dx7woKW.jpg|title=The ARIA Australian Top 100 Singles Chart – Week Ending 22 Sep 1996|publisher=ARIA|via=Imgur.com|accessdate=14 June 2025}}}}

:I think this is a little wordy, and some of the information doesn't appear to be in the provided sources — specifically the name of the album, the description that the song was "arranged for a big band lineup", and the nomination for the ARIA Award.

:Additionally, this looks like a case of WP:CITATIONOVERKILL to me; we don't need so many sources repeating the same information, and citing an unofficial YouTube upload doesn't help anything (see WP:YT).

:Here is my proposed rewrite, sticking to what I could verify in the sources:

:: {{tq|In 1997, a cover by the Australian singer Frank Bennett reached number 65 in the ARIA Charts and was listed in the Triple J Hottest 100, 1996.{{cite book |last=Ryan |first=Gavin |title=Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010 |publisher=Moonlight Publishing |year=2011 |edition=PDF |location=Mt. Martha, VIC, Australia |page=28}}{{cite web |title=The ARIA Australian Top 100 Singles Chart – Week Ending 22 Sep 1996 |url=https://i.imgur.com/dx7woKW.jpg |accessdate=14 June 2025 |publisher=ARIA |via=Imgur.com}}}}

:Popcornfud (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

It appears that one editor inserted a description of the Frank Bennett cover, and the other editor removed it, saying that it was too long. There is now a compromise proposal for a shorter reference to the Bennett cover. Can we agree on the compromise proposal?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752549404}}

{{drn filing editor|SheriffIsInTown|03:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|2025 India–Pakistan conflict}}

Users involved

• {{User|SheriffIsInTown}}
• {{User|Gotitbro}}
• {{User|King Ayan Das}}

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns whether to include a separate section titled "Aftermath" to cover post-conflict developments. It also involves whether to allow the inclusion of following content:

{{tq|The announcement of the ceasefire by U.S. President Donald Trump triggered a political controversy in India.{{cite news|title='Operation Sindoor': Congress's fresh 'Narender surrender' salvo at PM Modi features Trump's red MAGA cap|work=India Today|date=5 June 2025|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/operation-sindoor-congresss-fresh-narender-surrender-salvo-at-pm-modi-features-trumps-red-maga-cap-2736281-2025-06-05|access-date=11 June 2025}} On 3 June, Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.{{cite news|title=Rahul Gandhi accuses PM Modi of 'surrendering' to U.S. pressure over Indo-Pak ceasefire|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/madhya-pradesh/rahul-gandhi-accuses-pm-modi-of-surrendering-to-us-pressure-over-indo-pak-ceasefire/article69653581.ece/|work=The Hindu|date=3 June 2025|access-date=11 June 2025}}}} and {{tq|On 3 June, several Indian opposition parties demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor, following Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's admission that India had suffered aerial losses during the conflict. The Congress party began collecting signatures to formalise the request, urging the government to brief Parliament. However, government indicated that there were no plans to convene such a session.{{cite news|title=As Oppn pushes for special Parliament session on Op Sindoor, govt not keen: 'No plan as of now'|last1=Mathew|first1=Liz|work=The Indian Express|date=3 June 2025|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/oppn-pushes-for-special-parliament-session-on-op-sindoor-govt-not-keen-10044883/lite/}}}}

{{reflist-talk}}

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

2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Aftermath

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like a neutral editor to help determine whether this content can be added to the article.

• Volunteer Note - There has been no discussion here for five days after this dispute was filed. There is discussion elsewhere on the article talk page, but not about the Aftermath, which appears to be the topic of the dispute. If there are no comments by the other editors, this case will be closed as declined, and the parties will be advised to continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752838523}}

{{drn filing editor|Abo Yemen|11:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Ba 'Alawi sada}}

Users involved

• {{User|Abo Yemen}}
• {{User|Kabul madras}}

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba_%27Alawi_sada&diff=prev&oldid=1290854843]

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

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.

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1752999036}}

{{drn filing editor|Nghtcmdr|08:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|People's Liberation Army Rocket Force}}

Users involved

• {{User|Nghtcmdr}}
• {{User|RovingPersonalityConstruct}}
• {{User|Thehistorianisaac}}

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the appropriateness of attaching Chinese translations to commonly used English names for PLARF entities. RovingPersonalityConstruct and I don't think the translations are appropriate, while Thehistorianisaac does; the issue is that Thehistorianisaac has reverted our attempts to remove their translation additions from the article even though the current consensus is to exclude them.

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#When_to_add_Chinese-language_translations]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Return the article back to state it was in prior to Thehistorianisaac's translation additions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force&diff=prev&oldid=1296298110]

It started like this:

User:RovingPersonalityConstruct did not like me adding translations and the military unit cover designator, and reverted it. I then reverted it back to the original, and we discussed this on WT:MILHIST. Here is the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700-When_to_add_Chinese-language_translations]

As for User:Nghtcmdr, he has given me personal attacks multiple times, and I highly suspect a case of WP:HOUNDING here. I already have posted this on WP:ANI(Which he has refused to address, despite several other editors pointing out his incivility) at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Thehistorianisaac-20250618030600-User:Nghtcmdr], and I would suggest you check it out.

During the discussion regarding translations, Nghtcmdr got involved on the WT:MILHIST discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621174200-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700], spreading false claims about me, and then they reverted my edit WHILE the discussion was still active, taking my quote that there was no consensus out of context on WP:AN/3.

Again, I would highly suggest checking out the ANI discussion on Nghtcmdr, as they have shown high levels of incivility towards me, and have also blatantly ignored other users attempts to explain policies correctly to them. As for the content dispute, I think it is currently fine in regards to the WT:MILHIST discussion.

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753034942}}

{{drn filing editor|162 etc.|18:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Taylor Hill (model)}}

Users involved

• {{User|162 etc.}}
• {{User|Hipal}}
• {{User|JeffSpaceman}}
• {{User|Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon}}

Dispute overview

User:Hipal has been edit warring at the Taylor Hill (model) article, attempting to remove any and all usage of the word "actress" in reference to her. This is despite a verified filmography that includes several films which meet WP:GNG. Talk page discussion has occurred, and there appears to be no consensus in favour of these changes.

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

Talk:Taylor Hill (model)#Actress

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Recommend that the article be reverted to the stable, pre-edit war version.

• Comment User:Hipal has responded on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:162_etc.&oldid=1296857850#DRN my user talk]. 162 etc. (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification on the user talk pages is required. One editor has responded on the user talk page of the filing editor and so is known to have taken notice, and does not need to be notified. I am aware that the other editor objects to this filing, saying that it does not Focus on Content. Focusing on Content is always a principle of DRN, and is stated as "Comment on content, not contributors" and "Discuss edits, not editors". The naming of editors and complaining about their edits does not invalidate a request for DRN. A DRN case has a moderator, and it is the job of the moderator to instruct the participants to focus on content. The editor who has criticized the filing has taken notice of the filing, and may choose to participate or not to participate. The other editors must be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)