Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Gender dysphoria

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748278138}}

{{drn filing editor|Chrisdevelop|16:48, 28 April 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|Pākehā}}

Users involved

• {{User|Chrisdevelop}}
• {{User|Traumnovelle}}

Dispute overview

The issue is that {{tl|citation needed}} tags placed by Traumnovelle remain live after I supplied 4 sources, on grounds given that the sources I posted do not verifiably corroborate the contributions in the paragraph. If you read carefully through the dialogue, you'll see that my relationship with the other editor is that of servant>master. The easiest way to get a grasp of the problem is to read through the Talk page entry linked to under "Resolving the dispute" below. All I want to know is, what is still unverified?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:P%C4%81keh%C4%81#Citations_needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1287841168 (archived)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I have added 4 citations, which I believe satisfy WP:WTC and WP:V, plus one from a self-published source by Jodie Ranford. I can't remove the {{tl|citation needed}} tags until this is resolved, and it appears Traumnovelle has disengaged from discourse, and has no intention of removing them. I would therefore like an opinion on which contributions in the disputed paragraph are unverified, and WP:Likely to be challenged.

I've stopped replying as I am just going to be repeating the same points. The citations simply do not verify the specific text, that can be confirmed by simply reading the text and reading the citations. The material was challenged (hence the CN tag) and thus they require a citation it does not matter whether it is supposedly obvious which direction Maori rowed in. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P%C4%81keh%C4%81&diff=prev&oldid=1288025547 This edit] has in the meantime removed a citation that corroborated Māori perception that the European landing ships were rowed by supernatural beings. Rather than being deleted, it should have been moved, and the contested paragraph should be left as is while this is being resolved. For now I have added an image copied from the waka article, which shows Māori rowers facing forwards, which they do in every image you see them depicted. Please specify exactly which contributions you believe are not verified by the 4 supplied citations read together, such that they are WP:Likely to be challenged and why. Moreover, why do you not simply supply citations you deem necessary yourself? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't believe you understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P%C4%81keh%C4%81&diff=prev&oldid=1288040011] you cannot cite an image for a claim. The fact that the content has citation needed tag means it has been challenged and requires a citation, one that does not require interpretation of other material to verify it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If you believe the image of the waka is irrelevant to the paragraph about waka, then you can delete it with an explanation. Forward facing direction of Māori rowers is an WP:acceptable example of common knowledge, that is [https://www.google.com/search?q=maoris+rowing+canoes&client=firefox-b-e&sca_esv=28365adf0b6f92db&udm=2&biw=2560&bih=1356&sxsrf=AHTn8zpwB4uUWN2sX8tIXCyldR2VZTsDhA%3A1745982063728&ei=b5IRaMKgLLGehbIPsLCLuAM&ved=0ahUKEwiClMWF4v6MAxUxT0EAHTDYAjcQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=maoris+rowing+canoes&gs_lp=EgNpbWciFG1hb3JpcyByb3dpbmcgY2Fub2VzSI8kUP4FWNAhcAF4AJABAJgBfaABtQ-qAQQxMi44uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIJoALvB8ICBxAjGCcYyQLCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICBRAAGIAEwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiKBcICBxAAGIAEGArCAgoQABiABBixAxgKwgIEEAAYHsICBhAAGAoYHsICBhAAGAgYHpgDAIgGAZIHAzMuNqAHhjOyBwMzLja4B-8H&sclient=img easily verified], so why is the forward-facing direction of Māori rowers WP:Likely to be challenged, and why do you not simply supply citations you deem necessary? Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am not sure this really needs DRN. The issue is the citations provided are either self-published or simply don't verify the given claims. I am not the only user to point this out and Chris keeps pointing to non-policy/guidelines to justify the removal of the tag despite the issues. If you, {{U|Robert McClenon}}, do wish to moderate this I'll respect any outcome but I am not the only editor involved in this. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor does not appear to have notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks. Added just now - I had wrongly assumed that would happen automatically as a result of setting this up. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:As we appear to have hit an impasse, what happens next? Request for protection while this dispute is in progress was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=next&oldid=1288058851 declined]. My closing argument is under the above heading Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle. Summary of my argument below:

:#Māori impression that the European rowers were supernatural beings was based on their pale skin colour and the fact they rowed facing backwards. Citations I added from the NZ government's Te Ara encyclopedia verify both of these claims, an extract of which I copied into block quotes (some of this may have been reverted so it may be necessary to browse the Edit History).

:#The claim in the text that Māori rowed forwards is justified on the basis of:

:#*WP:acceptable example of common knowledge that is [https://www.google.com/search?q=maoris+rowing+canoes&client=firefox-b-e&sca_esv=28365adf0b6f92db&udm=2&biw=2560&bih=1356&sxsrf=AHTn8zpwB4uUWN2sX8tIXCyldR2VZTsDhA%3A1745982063728&ei=b5IRaMKgLLGehbIPsLCLuAM&ved=0ahUKEwiClMWF4v6MAxUxT0EAHTDYAjcQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=maoris+rowing+canoes&gs_lp=EgNpbWciFG1hb3JpcyByb3dpbmcgY2Fub2VzSI8kUP4FWNAhcAF4AJABAJgBfaABtQ-qAQQxMi44uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIJoALvB8ICBxAjGCcYyQLCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICBRAAGIAEwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiKBcICBxAAGIAEGArCAgoQABiABBixAxgKwgIEEAAYHsICBhAAGAoYHsICBhAAGAgYHpgDAIgGAZIHAzMuNqAHhjOyBwMzLja4B-8H&sclient=img easily verified]. Canoes are paddled facing forwards.

:#* If Māori rowed facing backwards like the Europeans, why would they be astonished at the European rowers' backward facing direction? Traumnovelle has not adduced any examples of waka being rowed facing backwards.

:# {{citation needed}} tag should be added only if there is a greater than 50% likelihood of being challenged. To this point, the only challenge has been that of Traumnovelle, and no other editors have contributed to this discussion.

:The contribution thus far of Traumnovelle to this matter has been to revert rather than move a citation, and to stand by the {{citation needed}} tag rather than supply a citation, when in my view, our respective time could have been far more productively spent on collaborative editing. Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The other editor has made a brief statement, but it is not obvious whether they are agreeing to take part in moderated discussion. So I will ask each editor to read DRN Rule A and state whether they agree to take part in moderated discussion subject to the usual rules. Taking part in DRN is voluntary. If both editors agree to take part in moderated discussion, I will then ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article (or leave the same), but I am not asking that now. My question is whether both editors agree to moderated discussion.

Do the editors have any questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for offering to set up a moderated discussion. I have read DRN Rule A and agree to abide by its terms. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

One editor says that there are other editors who are involved in this dispute. If there are other editors, they should be listed and notified.

It appears that there are issues about the reliability of sources. Those issues should be raised at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I would like each editor to make a concise statement as to what material in the article (what paragraphs or sentences) they would like to change that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

After any additional editors are notified, after any source reliability questions are asked at RSN, and after each editor has made a statement of what the content issues are, we will be able to decide what to do next. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you following up and explaining the sequence of next steps. As soon as Traumnovelle has listed and notified the other editors involved, and raised the issues about reliability of my cited sources with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I can go ahead and write my statement. However, if the RSN preemptively rules that the Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand sources I cited are not reliable, then that would presumably end the matter. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that neither editor has added any editors. I see that neither editor has made an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Are the two editors ready to be the only users discussing the article? Are there any article content issues that one editor wants to change and another editor wants to leave unchanged? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for following this up. The other editor has stated they’re not the only editor disputing my citations, so I assume they will contact the other editor(s). If they do not wish to, then I am happy to proceed with the resolution between just the two of us with moderation. Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I will make a thread at RSN about maorinews.com. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{U|Chrisdevelop}} I've opened the RSN thread. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary to list any changes that are dependent on a question about the reliability of a source.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have no further questions and am ready to present my case. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there still a content dispute? If so, will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The other editor has stated there are other editors involved who hold the same views they do. Do we know who they are and whether they've been contacted? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Are the two of you trying to game the system of dispute resolution? Neither dispute resolution nor the editing of Wikipedia is a game in which there is a concept of winning, and so trying to game the system is counterproductive and silly.

I am trying to determine what the content dispute is. That is why I am asking each editor to state what you want to change in the article. That question can be answered without knowing whether there are any other editors involved. Either answer the question by telling me what you want to change in the article, or don't answer the question, but if you don't answer the question, I will assume that you either do not have a content dispute, or are not ready to settle the content dispute by moderated discussion. If I don't get two answers, I will conclude that there isn't a content dispute, and will close this dispute. I may close it as a general close, or as a failure, depending on what happens. Either answer the question to take part in moderated discussion, or don't answer the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there still a content dispute? If so, will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no intention to 'game the system', I have been waiting for the other editor to say something, since I laid out my argument already in detail above.

Below are the claims made in the section 'Etymology and history', to which I added citations disputed by the other editor(s):

1. The most likely sources are the Māori words pākehakeha or pakepakehā, which refer to an oral tale of a "mythical, human like being, with fair skin and hair who possessed canoes made of reeds which changed magically into sailing vessels". Citation provided: cite journal |last=Ranford |first=Jodie |date=2000 |title='Pakeha', its origin and meaning |url= https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/items/0b66e93e-34bb-434f-88ad-dd916fd642f5 |journal=ACE Papers |volume=6: Graduate Student Work – Issues in Contemporary Education. |article-number=Paper 8 |publisher=Auckland College of Education |pages=64–70 |access-date=11 May 2025 |via=University of Auckland
2. When Europeans first arrived they rowed to shore in longboats, facing backwards. Citation provided: cite encyclopedia |first=Te Ahukaramū Charles |last=Royal |date=2005 |title=Māori – The arrival of Europeans |url= https://teara.govt.nz/en/maori/page-3 |encyclopedia=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |access-date=30 April 2025
3. blockquote|We stayed at Whitianga and their ship arrived. Our elders saw their ship and said that it was a god and that the crew were goblins. The ship anchored and a boat started to row to shore. Our elders then said, "Indeed they are goblins as they have eyes in the backs of their heads. That is why they row with their backs to the shore." Citation provided: White, John. Ancient History of the Maori. Vol. 5. Wellington: Government Printer, 1888, p. 105.
4. In traditional Māori canoes or {{Lang|mi|waka}}, paddlers face the direction of travel. This is supposed to have led to the belief by some, that the sailors were patupaiarehe (supernatural beings). blockquote|Pakepakehā is another word for patupaiarehe. It may have given rise to the term Pākehā (a New Zealander of European descent). To Māori, Europeans resembled the pakepakehā or patupaiarehe, with their fair skin and light-coloured hair. Citation provided: cite encyclopedia |first=Martin |last=Wikaira |date=2007 |title=Patupaiarehe – Encounters with patupaiarehe |url= https://teara.govt.nz/en/patupaiarehe/page-2 |encyclopedia=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |access-date=30 April 2025

Read as a whole, either the citations added corroborate the claims in the section, or the claim in the text that Māori rowed facing forwards is justified on the basis of:

• WP:acceptable example of common knowledge that is [https://www.google.com/search?q=maoris+rowing+canoes&client=firefox-b-e&sca_esv=28365adf0b6f92db&udm=2&biw=2560&bih=1356&sxsrf=AHTn8zpwB4uUWN2sX8tIXCyldR2VZTsDhA%3A1745982063728&ei=b5IRaMKgLLGehbIPsLCLuAM&ved=0ahUKEwiClMWF4v6MAxUxT0EAHTDYAjcQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=maoris+rowing+canoes&gs_lp=EgNpbWciFG1hb3JpcyByb3dpbmcgY2Fub2VzSI8kUP4FWNAhcAF4AJABAJgBfaABtQ-qAQQxMi44uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIJoALvB8ICBxAjGCcYyQLCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYCsICBRAAGIAEwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiKBcICBxAAGIAEGArCAgoQABiABBixAxgKwgIEEAAYHsICBhAAGAoYHsICBhAAGAgYHpgDAIgGAZIHAzMuNqAHhjOyBwMzLja4B-8H&sclient=img easily verified]. Canoes are paddled facing forwards. Māori seafaring transportation was and is the Canoe. While there are thousands of images of Māori rowing canoes facing forwards, there are none of them facing backwards.
• If Māori rowed facing backwards like the Europeans, why would they be astonished at the European rowers' backward facing direction? Traumnovelle has not adduced any examples of waka being rowed facing backwards.
• {{citation needed}} tag should be added only if there is a greater than 50% likelihood of being challenged.

Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

When I ask what you want to change in the article, maybe you didn't notice what I wasn't asking. I was not asking why you want to change it (or leave it the same). This is an article content dispute. At least, this noticeboard is for article content disputes. So please tell me exactly what you want to change in the article, without going into why. Also, if this appears to be a tagging dispute, I will either close the dispute, because tagging disputes are essentially useless, or will refocus the dispute on what the tag is trying to call attention to.

So: What do each of you want to change in the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I want the {{citation needed}} tags removed from the 'Etymology and history' section of the article, on the grounds already supplied above. If it turns out this is the wrong Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to have raised this on, then please can you point me to the correct Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to raise this on. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a noticeboard for tagging disputes, which are a distraction from trying to build a high-quality encyclopedia. A maintenance tag is a way of indicating that an editor thinks that content in an article should be changed. DRN is a forum for discussing the improvement of an article, not for discussing whether we think that the article needs improvement, which would "kick the can" of improving the article down the road. Rather than discuss whether an article should be tagged, we should discuss whether the article needs to be changed.

If the editor who applied the tag thinks that the statement to which they applied it is not verifiable, then I am willing to change this to a dispute over whether to remove the sentence that the tag was applied to.

What in the article text or infobox does each editor want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what does each editor want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That would mean deleting the contribution copied below, which surely cannot improve either the section or the article. Is there no way to challenge gratuitous {{cn}} tagging? This is a real discouragement to research for sources, only to have unsightly tags left there, with no collegial interaction from the tagging editor as to how to improve the section such as by supplying citations themselves:

----

The etymology of {{Lang|mi|Pākehā}} is uncertain. The most likely sources are the Māori words {{Lang|mi|pākehakeha}} or {{Lang|mi|pakepakehā}}, which refer to an oral tale of a "mythical, human like being, with fair skin and hair who possessed canoes made of reeds which changed magically into sailing vessels".{{cite journal |last=Ranford |first=Jodie |date=2000 |title='Pakeha', its origin and meaning |url= https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/items/0b66e93e-34bb-434f-88ad-dd916fd642f5 |journal=ACE Papers |volume=6: Graduate Student Work – Issues in Contemporary Education. |article-number=Paper 8 |publisher=Auckland College of Education |pages=64–70 |access-date=11 May 2025 |via=University of Auckland}} When Europeans first arrived they rowed to shore in longboats, facing backwards:{{cite encyclopedia |first=Te Ahukaramū Charles |last=Royal |date=2005 |title=Māori – The arrival of Europeans |url= https://teara.govt.nz/en/maori/page-3 |encyclopedia=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |access-date=30 April 2025}}{{further citation needed|date=May 2024|reason=Source verifies little of the provided text}}

{{blockquote|We stayed at Whitianga and their ship arrived. Our elders saw their ship and said that it was a god and that the crew were goblins. The ship anchored and a boat started to row to shore. Our elders then said, "Indeed they are goblins as they have eyes in the backs of their heads. That is why they row with their backs to the shore."White, John. Ancient History of the Maori. Vol. 5. Wellington: Government Printer, 1888, p. 105.}}

{{multiple image|perrow = 1|total_width=300

| image1 = An account of the voyages undertaken by the order of His present Majesty for making discoveries in the Southern Hemisphere, and successively performed by Commodore Byron, Captain Wallis, Captain (14796336363).jpg

| caption1 = Drawing of a traditional waka showing Māori rowers facing forwards (1773)

| caption2 =

| footer =

}}

In traditional Māori canoes or {{Lang|mi|waka}}, paddlers face the direction of travel. This is supposed to have led to the belief by some, that the sailors were patupaiarehe (supernatural beings):{{citation needed|date=May 2024}}

{{blockquote|Pakepakehā is another word for patupaiarehe. It may have given rise to the term Pākehā (a New Zealander of European descent). To Māori, Europeans resembled the pakepakehā or patupaiarehe, with their fair skin and light-coloured hair.{{cite encyclopedia |first=Martin |last=Wikaira |date=2007 |title=Patupaiarehe – Encounters with patupaiarehe |url= https://teara.govt.nz/en/patupaiarehe/page-2 |encyclopedia=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |access-date=30 April 2025}}}}

{{DR case status|hold}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749002769}}

{{drn filing editor|Protector100|02:06, 7 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|Snowy owl}}

Users involved

• {{User|Protector100}}
• {{User|Needsmoreritalin}}

Dispute overview

Hi there. Sorry, this is the first time I request for dispute resolution. Here's the thing: I added two images to the page snowy owl as lead images.

thumb

thumb

The male image is Picture of the Day and Featured Picture, while the female is Quality image. They are used to replace the image

thumb

, whom I don't know if the owl is juvenile or adult female. Plus, the user, Needsmoreritalin, did not get consensus in the talk page. They also did not even place their request. They also just tell me to stop without valid reason. I am just trying to help.

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

Talk:Snowy owl.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I do not know about the "perfect requirements" of the lead image, as I just bowed down to the other user's wishes for "Picture of the day, featured picture, and quality image". Besides, about having two images as lead images: There

are pages which also have two lead images showing male and female respectively, like lion, moose, red deer, gaur, and walrus etc. I mean, nothing is perfect. Just to let you know that I'm not always active 24/7. Please just resolve this as best as you can. Thank you.

The main image for the Snowy Owl article, on and off for several years, was one of a Snowy with a black duck. Last July and August, it became a QI, FP (both in Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia) and a POTD later in 2024. On March 4, 2025 Protector100 replaced the image with image:Bubo_scandiacus_male_Muskegon.jpg an XGA resolution image with poor contrast and lack of detail. I undid the revision indicating the previous image was "higher resolution, a featured picture, and a picture of the day."

Three days later Protector100 reverted my edit and indicated "We need adult image. Please make sure your high quality image is an adult." Another user reverted that edit, two hours later. A note was left on the talk page, but only I responded:

"Feel free to add the image to the article if you feel it improves the article. However the lead image you have replaced, twice, is a picture of the day, featured picture and quality image. It is an action shot that depicts a Snowy Owl with prey. This image has been featured in periodicals, science articles and even on a Japanese Television show (in 2014.) Its a much more compelling image than the lower resolution shot (VGA quality) you propose which also lacks contrast, sharp focus and includes significant noise, and depicts a static subject."

On May 6, Protector100 left a note on the talk page followed by an edit replacing the main image with two images, both of captive birds. One is a QI, FP and POTD uploaded on 2012. The other, a lower resolution image, NOT the one included in this dispute, but this image as you can see from the history page. image:Snowy_Owl_-_Schnee-Eule.jpg Neither replacement have a wow factor, in my opinion.

I suggested that the constant edits should be resolved in this forum.

Is this a dispute about images? Are there any content issues other than the choice of image or images? I will be researching the policies and guidelines on images shortly. In the meantime, I have collapsed three images because they were too large. That was a quick fix for a problem that was making it difficult to read the noticeboard. I will ask more questions later, but I thought I had to do something quickly. Also, in using acronyms to discuss images, please follow the rule of spelling out the acronym the first time that it is used. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. Yes, for some reason the other person involved in the dispute, has fixated on removing the lead image and replacing it only justifying the changes initially by saying there should be a male lead image.

:I suggested bringing the dispute here, if they wanted to have another party or parties assist us in resolving our differences.

:I also posted on their talk page, and they deleted my message.

:I'm a reasonable person, and if a picture improves and article I have, I'm all for it. And as the creator of the image being replaced, obviously I have a bias too. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The only issue I had against the other user's image is whether the bird is juvenile or adult female, as both juvenile and adult female looks almost the same in appearance. They also added another similar image under prey spectrum section. I don't know if there's rule against having two similar images in a page. Plus, they do not even get consensus or placing their request in the talk page.

:To be frank, I really don't know about the "perfect requirements" of lead images. Since the other user said something about QI, POTD, and FP, I just bowed down to their wishes. I don't upload images to Wikipedia, so I find images which are QI, POTD and FP, thus I found two. The male image is POTD and FP, and was used as lead image for years even before the other user came along last year on August. The female image, which I found today, is QI and above VGA resolution. It is better than the one I found yesterday, which was barely above VGA as the other user said. Both images depict snowy owl closer in view than the other user's image. Besides, I do not remove their image from the snowy owl page itself at all. I just place it under prey spectrum. Since it is POTD, QI and FP, it deserves to stay in the article. But the other user removed the two QI, POTD and FP images completely from the article by reverting my edits. Protector100 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I indicated to Protector100 that the reverting could lead to an edit war and that if there was an issue to bring it to this forum, which they did. The images selected are of birds in captivity. One in a zoo and the other in an aviary. The male image doesn't show the yellow eyes of a Snowy because its underexposed with a bird in confinement. The female image is almost identical to another image from the same photographer and location already in the article. The image with the Snowy Owl with prey is a juvenile male within the normal wintering range for the species.

::I left messages with the edits and on their talk page asking them not to make revisions and to leave the page at the status quo antebellum pending the outcome of dispute resolution, but they made an additional edit. I left a message on their talk page asking them to revert the most recent change or that they would violate WP:3RR They left a message on my talk page instructing me to make the changes. I believe that would put me in violation of WP:3RR

::This is not personal, and I hope that Protector100 doesn't feel that it is. They made a lot of edits to the page, other users reverted some. As indicated in my messages on their talk page, I assumed they were trying to improve the article. It is important that we act in good faith and I hope that this forum can provide a resolution to our differences of opinion related to the image which I made the main image on August 3, 2024 after it became a Featured Picture. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I really hate to be so pedantic, but in one of the deleted messages on their talk page I stated "I do not understand your objection to the main image. It's well exposed, a sharp, action shot with a wow factor, It has served as the main image on and off since 2014. A higher resolution version was uploaded in July and the image became FP, QI and POTD in quick succession. I understand that you want two images, male and female, and those images can be placed under the description.

:In the last edit from Protector100 included a portion of my sentiment - "Just place the two somewhere else in the article, like under description section. The male image had been the lead image since before 2014." Needsmoreritalin (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I have modified and unhidden the images in question. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask questions, and the editors will answer the questions. Please state concisely what the issues are about the images.

If you include any images in this noticeboard, please make them thumbnail size by putting |thumb]] after the image.

If you use acronyms, such as FP, VGA, QI, or POTD, spell out what the acronym stands for the first time you use it.

Please state concisely what the image issues are, and what any other issues are.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I must apologise for having missed that rule. I have now stopped editing the article. I believe that the lead image of snowy owl should be an adult bird instead of juvenile. Almost all articles of animals whose lead images showing them as adults. The image showing the owl carrying prey is clearly a juvenile. The two images proposed by me are adults, male and female. And they are also POTD (picture of the day), FP (featured picture) and QI (quality image). Protector100 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on the history, it appears that the only image in dispute is the image in the infobox. However, I see discussion of other images in the discussion here. I see that the current image in the infobox is an owl with a duck kill that is thought to be a juvenile (presumably a subadult because large enough to take a duck), and that the question is whether to replace it with a picture of an adult male. Are there any other images in question, or is this only a question about which image to display in the infobox?

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No other content issues, only about which image to display in the infobox. The image about the owl with duck is confirmed by the other user a juvenile male. The main image should be adult image, as all articles of animals whose main images are adults. The snowy owl have different appearance in gender, the male is mostly white with few spots, while the female is more spotted. So, two images shall display in the infobox. Some animals, like lion, moose, red deer, gaur, Andean condor etc., whose articles had two images (one male, one female). These are two images I'm talking about.

thumb

thumb

They are proposed by me to be main images. And no other images in question.Protector100 (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Snowy Owl adults typically stay further North in winter. They are better skilled and capable of surviving and establishing territory. This is why so many of the images in the commons are of sub-adults. Younger owls push further south to establish territory, and the younger males usually push further south than the younger females, particularly in irruptive years. This makes them visible to far more people.

The Snowy Owl is recognizable regardless of its age or sex. While dimorphic, the appearance of a large white owl with some black feathers and yellow eyes, are the field marks necessary for positive identification.

The image that is featured now is a snowy owl in its natural habitat, not a bird in a zoo, nor a bird in an aviary. It captures the essence of this predatory bird. It shows the strength of the Snowy Owl, carrying prey that is more than half of its own weight. There is no hard and fast rule that requires an adult, male, to be the main image in the letter box, is there? And I ask you, subjectively, which photo is more likley to draw a reader in to read the article? --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

And there is no rule against having an image showing an animal in captivity as lead image, is there? Adult Snowy owls are different in sex. And almost all animals whose main images are adults, are there anyone of them showing calves, cubs, juveniles, or chicks? And there is no rule requiring that the main image must be image which draw readers in to read articles , is there?Protector100 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{-}}

It appears that one editor wants to keep the current image of a juvenile owl with a duck kill as the lead image in the infobox, and the other editor wants to replace that image with the two images that they have selected of an adult male and an adult female. Is that correct, and is that the only issue? Do not state your case, and do not reply to the other editor. Just answer the question by the moderator as to whether that is the scope of the dispute. If that is the scope of the issue, then a Request for Comments will be used to choose between the current one image and the proposed two images.

Are there any questions, or shall I prepare a draft RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is the scope of the issue. No other questions. I may need your help in preparing a draft RFC. Protector100 (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Not entirely. If an image is an improvement, I see no reason to retain the old image. The suggested replacements have some issues.

--Needsmoreritalin (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have composed a draft RFC, which is at Talk:Snowy owl/Draft RFC on Image. Please comment on it, or, if you know how to tweak the placement of the images, edit it to tweak the placement of the images. I have found that the placement of the images is not always straightforward. It is important that the responding editors know what images are A and B.

When the RFC is launched, you will vote in it along with everyone else, and can make statements in the Discussion.

Are there any questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. We have been chatting on my talk page. As adult females and immature Snowy Owls are the same visually (see Cornell Lab of Ornithology [https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Snowy_Owl/overview - Adult Female / immature are represented with one image ] What if the current image is the top and the captive adult male is image two? Needsmoreritalin (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

No other questions, just teach me how to tweak the placement of the images. Protector100 (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I know very little about tweaking the placement of the images. What I know about images is mostly what I learned to moderate this dispute. The instructions that I read, which are not straightforward, are at Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax . I think that I have gotten it close enough to what I want after the third edit. If you can improve it, that is good. Otherwise what you see is what will be published.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on an editor talk page, I am placing this case on hold for one week for discussion between the editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your assistance and your patience. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749845739}}

{{drn filing editor|Bosomba Amosah|20:15, 16 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|Bono dialect }}

Users involved

• {{User|Bosomba Amosah}}
• {{User|Kwamikagami}}

Dispute overview

According to Dolphyne(source), Bono dialect is dialect of the Akan language and mutually intelligible with Akuapem, Asante, Akyem, Fante etc. One editor thinks it’s a dialect cluster within Akan language but nowhere did the source says Bono is a dialect cluster within (of) Akan language. It specifically says it’s a dialect of Akan language. Again, he has been clearing the relevant information such as Bono is mutually intelligible with the aforementioned dialects. Dolphyne is the better source yet he isn’t following the source.

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

Talk:Bono dialect#Protected

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I have tried my best to solve the differences but it’s quite disappointing as we haven’t reached a goal. Here is the best option for fair consideration into the matter. With your good faith view, kindly look into the sources and the issue for better mutual understanding

as for the first/primary statement, bosomba has already acknowledged that Dolphyne characterizes bono as a dialect cluster, contrary to his claim here. his argument is that we need to disregard that because she says 'the bono dialect is actually a dialect cluster' [or words to that effect; the exact quote is in one of the previous discussions]. specifically, because she uses the word 'dialect' before she clarifies that bono is actually a dialect cluster, we must not call it a dialect cluster.

as for the second claim, as per below intelligibility decreases with distance. generic rs's count bono as a distinct language. distinguishing languages is a common problem with dialect continua; take the romance 'languages', for example, all of which are mutually intelligible with neighboring dialects but which we nonetheless count as distinct languages. and indeed on p 54 Dolphyne says that 'a fante speaker will be right in looking on bron [bono] as a different language.' all we can do is follow secondary sources and note the intelligibility of neighboring lects. I'm happy to discuss how to deal with this, as it's an actual issue with the data/sources. but considering that the article is already named 'bono dialect', rather than 'bono language' as ISO, glottolog and ethnologue would have, I'm not sure what the issue is.

Discussion at the article talk page is required prior to moderated discussion at DRN. There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it was a few weeks ago. So I have a four-part initial statement:

1. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Discuss for at least 48 hours with at least two posts by each editor.
2. DRN Rule X is a subset of rules that are always in effect at DRN, some of them because they are always in effect in Wikipedia. Follow DRN Rule X.
3. The purpose of discussion at DRN is to improve the article. Each editor should make a concise (one-paragraph) statement saying what they want to change in the article (and where) that another editor disagrees with, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not reply to these statements. Just say what you think the disagreement is.
4. I am putting this DRN case on hold while discussion is in progress. If discussion is inconclusive after 48 hours, I will open this case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I acknowledge Robert McClenon (talk) for the guidance and DRN resolving issues. Dolphyne is the better source which we all agreed to use. According to Dolphyne, “Bono is is a dialect of Akan language and mutually intelligible with Akuapem, Akyem, Asante, Fante etc”. The issue can be found in the first line of the body of the article, and it should be changed to reflect the source. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to have been enough discussion to indicate a content dispute, but I will reopen this case to see if it is worth discussing. Each editor should state concisely what they want to change in the article. Please do not discuss sources. Please only state what you want to change in the article.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749848551}}

{{drn filing editor|Bosomba Amosah|21:02, 16 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|Akan language }}

Users involved

• {{User|Bosomba Amosah}}
• {{User|Kwamikagami}}

Dispute overview

It’s about the dialects section/sub heading of the Akan language. According to source, the Akan language (per the clade or tree) is arranged in one line as Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante in that respective order. The source also explains Bono is the oldest in respective order to Fante the newest. However, one editor has tilted the arrangements of the dialects forming two lines, making some dialects more Akan than the other. The editor’s arrangement goes against the source cited. The source also says, all the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other, as a result a common neutral name Akan was chosen, however he has been clearing such relevant information. Dolphyne is the better source which we all agreed to use, as against the editor’s non-better source claiming Bono and Wasa are less Akan or separate dialects. This deviates from the source of Dolphyne

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

Talk:Akan language#Protected

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It is unfortunate this issue has come this far. Please your fair view opinion is needed. Kindly look into the sources and the matter for mutual understanding because the source clearly says everything.

the arrangement/classification of the akan dialects in this article is taken straight from Dolphyne, as can be easily verified by checking the sources, one of which is available online and the other of which can be downloaded from online libraries. there's no apparent reason to dispute it, esp since bosomba is the one who introduced Dolphyne as our primary reference [which was a good thing; she's an excellent resource].

ISO, ethnologue and glottolog count bono and wasa as distinct languages. i don't know how true that is, but it is what rs's say. Dolphyne notes that intelligibility decreases with distance, as is often the case with dialect continua, and on p 54 that 'a fante speaker will be right in looking on bron [bono] as a different language'. if bosomba can point out something specific that is wrong, we can discuss that.

BTW, Dolphyne and Dakubu disambiguate akan multiple times as 'twi-fante', so i think we should add that as an alt name in the info box. that would help identity the scope of the language to editors who assume that the 'akan language' is what the akan people speak, and so try to include the bia lects.

Discussion at the article talk page is required prior to moderated discussion at DRN. There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it was a few weeks ago. So I have a four-part initial statement:

1. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Discuss for at least 48 hours with at least two posts by each editor.
2. DRN Rule X is a subset of rules that are always in effect at DRN, some of them because they are always in effect in Wikipedia. Follow DRN Rule X.
3. The purpose of discussion at DRN is to improve the article. Each editor should make a concise (one-paragraph) statement saying what they want to change in the article (and where) that another editor disagrees with, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not reply to these statements. Just say what you think the disagreement is.
4. I am putting this DRN case on hold while discussion is in progress. If discussion is inconclusive after 48 hours, I will open this case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Appreciate your guidance through DRN Robert McClenon (talk). Dolphyne is the better source which we all agreed to use. According to Dolphyne, the dialects are arranged as follows: “Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. Bono is the oldest in that respective order to Fante the newest. All the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other, as a result a common neutral name Akan has been chosen”. The issue can be found in the dialects subheadings of the article, particularly the clade/tree and the first line after the clade. It should be changed to reflect the source Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to have been enough discussion to indicate a content dispute, but I will reopen this case to see if it is worth discussing. Each editor should state concisely what they want to change in the article. Please do not discuss sources. Please only state what you want to change in the article.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{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)

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750040590}}

{{drn filing editor|Wikipedious1|02:23, 19 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 Pahalgam attack}}

Users involved

• {{User|Wikipedious1}}
• {{User|Kautilya3}}
• {{User|Gotitbro}}

Dispute overview

There is a claim that I want to introduce into the Background section of the article, which amounts to "Some analysts have described the [2019 revocation of status of Jammu&Kashmir] as settler colonialism". There are ~15 sources to back this claim, the majority of them being RS such as the AP. The exact sources and relevant quotes are in the talk page threads.

Around 4/30 I introduced this to the article (with less sources).

By 5/3 myself and Kautilya3 entered something of an edit war over this material, was brought to WP:AE and closed.

By 5/15 myself and Kautilya3 discuss the dispute on the talk page. Kautilya3 maintains that there is no hard evidence of settler colonialism occurring in Kashmir, and that mentions of settler colonialism are "fluff" without evidence, and that the situation is not settler colonialism. Kautilya3 states "I will be damned if I allow such fake propaganda to be included in Wikipedia, especially because it is the same propaganda that the terrorists have used to kill 26 innocent people." Meanwhile I maintain that the claim is different from "settler colonialism is occurring", and the claim backed by the sources. Arguments are repeated. Eventually I find more sources to back my claim and Kautilya3 responds by only reiterating that settler colonialism is not occurring. By this point I feel that the conversation is over and I'm good to make the edit to the article.

On 5/17 Gotitbro entered the discussion on Kautilya3's side, opposing the change I seek so as "to not buttress the claims of extremist groups...to [not] advance claims which on the face of it appear legitimate and benign but are actually couch their own extremist bigotry in academic language...settler colonialism is not what it is nor what any historian of Kashmir would call it." To me this is just Kautilya3's argument. Recently I have attempted to reintroduce to the material to the article, with concession to Kautilya3 and Gotitbro, Gotitbro reverts and tells me not to edit war.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Settler_colonialism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#On_the_settler_colonial_narrative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wikipedious1

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to hear outside perspectives on this dialogue, input on what should be included in a wiki article, and how to resolve this dispute. I do not want to hear the same arguments about how settler colonialism is not actually occurring, etc.

If there is behavior on anyone's part here that is not conducive to civil discussion, fit for Wikipedia, or is rule breaking, please point it out.

I think the editor misrepresents what the dispute was about. Before they self-reverted the content, it looked like this:

{{talkquote|Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.[35][36][37] {{!xt|Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".[38]}}}} (the red bits being the disputed content).

From this it can be seen that it is the potential for demographic change that has been termed "settler colonialism". Here they are claiming that the revocation of special status itself is supposed to be settler colonialism. It doesn't make sense and neither has any source said so.

I am happy to participate in a DRN case because the talk page discussion is going nowhere. But the editor would need to clarify first what their understanding of the dispute is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In response to {{U|Robert McClenon}}, I think the debate is about WP:DUE of the red bits above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It is telling that among the sources put forward to advance this insertion none specialize in or are historians of Kashmir. All of the sources are either opinion pieces of fears of "settler colonialism" or single-line mentions of the term in news reports. E.g. (from sources which do delve into the topic) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/05/indias-settler-colonial-project-kashmir-takes-disturbing-turn/] (about fears of settlerism), [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/qa-india-israel-azad-essa/] (more about India–Israel relations than settlerism), [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2021.1984877 ] (which argues that military occupation maybe viewed as settler colonialism itself).

Obviously these views are not mainstream, as evidenced by the fact that even those writing about it do not present it as a contemporary reality. Why we need to introduce as contentious a material as this in the body of an article barely related to the topic also goes beyond me. Calling the removals activist (on the Talk page) is interesting while mostly citing opinion pieces to justify your additions. Gotitbro (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Volunteer question - Do the questions involve the reliability of sources? If so, the Reliable Source Noticeboard may be a better forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors are requesting moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and read the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. If you agree to take part in this discussion, you are agreeing that India and Pakistan, and their disputed territory, are a contentious topic.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I will ask each editor to make a concise statement as to 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). Please Be Specific at DRN, and indicate what paragraphs in the article you want to change and what wording you want to change.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

; Kautilya3

My position is that the red bits in this fragment are unnecessary and WP:UNDUE:

{{talkquote|Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.[35][36][37] {{!xt|Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".[38]}}}}

The substance of the situation is already described in the first sentence. The second sentence is only trying to introduce a POV term, which is inflammatory, propagandistic, and frankly inaccurate.

There is also now the question of what the OP means by "these policies". I understood it to be a reference to the policies that potentially cause demographic change. But here he says it refers to the 2019 revocation of the special status of Kashmir. If it is the latter, we would need to see sources that use the term for the 2019 revocation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

; Wikipedious1

The background section as it exists now is:

{{talkquote|In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir.[29] Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats.[30] Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.[31][32][33]}}

As Kautilya3 states, this is the disputed change:

{{talkquote|Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.[35][36][37] {{!xt|Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".[38]}}}}

And yes Kautilya3 is correct: it is the change in residency laws (domicile laws) that is being described as settler colonialism. At the same time, the change in laws is inextricably linked to the 2019 revocation.

The 2019 revocation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir specifically) is inextricably linked to the Pahalgam attack (and thus the article) because it is the context of the Pahalgam attack. The change in domicile laws, which themselves are directly linked to the 2019 revocation as they follow from it, was stated by TRF as a motive of the attack. Against the backdrop of the 2019 revocation and military lockdown of Kashmir, some analysts and locals have described the change in domicile laws, allegedly allowing Indians to settle into Kashmir, as settler colonialism.

I recognize that this claim (the claim of settler colonialism) is not a claim that a majority of experts are stating, nor does it appear much in RS reporting of the Pahalgam attack itself, and it is a claim often made in passing in the sources I have. Nevertheless, it is still a significant view of the situation, and the proportion of this content to the rest of the Background and article is appropriate. Because the claim is not stating that settler colonialism is occurring, and is instead stating that some analysts hold that it is occurring, I think my sources are enough for the term to appear in the article in the way we are discussing, without the sources needing to be more rigorous or scholarly. I also want to point out that Kautilya3 says the "substance" of this claim is made by the preceding statement, about "fears". To me it is not enough to only have this sentence, it is insufficient for the situation. Without surprise, 2/3 of the sources for this "fears" sentence are opinion sources from Indian news outlets, one of them discussing fears of settlerism as "hysteria". To leave the discussion about settler colonialism alone with just this sentence is insufficient and not neutral.

The claim that "Some analysts describe the situation as settler colonialism" is attested by the 11 sources I add in my most recent edit ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1291088781 diff]).

Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Before I get into the details of this dispute otherwise, I have a terminological question. Can someone please explain to an American what is meant by settler colonialism in Kashmir? I thought that I knew what settler colonialism is, and Wikipedia's article on settler colonialism is consistent with what I know about the history of the United States, in which European, mostly British, settlers came to North America and took the land that had previously belonged to indigenous North Americans. So can someone explain what settler colonialism either is or is said to be in this context? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

; Wikipedious1

Settler colonialism in this context involves the changing of residency laws by the Hindu fascist Modi govt to allow non-Kashmiri Indians to buy land, reside in, and take up jobs in Kashmir. The fear from locals and experts is that this will change demographics in Kashmir and "crush" or "annihilate" Kashmiri identity. This change in residency (domicile) laws was preceded by the 2019 revocation of the special status of Kashmir. In 2019 the Indian govt controversially revoked the status of the disputed provinces Jammu and Kashmir (not entirely sure about Jammu, but I know that India and Pakistan both entirely claim Kashmir and administer some parts, and Kashmir has been disputed between them since 1948; China claims some parts; and as reported in some of the sources below, the majority of Kashmiris are Muslims who support independence or joining Pakistan). Among other things the 2019 revocation of special status of Kashmir revoked local laws and special protections against non-locals buying land, residing in, and taking jobs in Kashmir. This revocation was followed by a military crackdown against Kashmir, involving a communications blackout (i.e., the Indian govt blocking internet access) and the arrests of thousands of Kashmiris, including politicians and leaders.

Amidst the post-2019 Indian military occupation of Kashmir, Israel-esque atrocities have been reported to have been perpetrated against Kashmiris. Kids being tagged as terrorists and killed by soldiers, the govt holding Kashmiri leaders' corpses to prevent funerals and public outrage, mass surveillance, attacks on journalists, etc. Such atrocities have been discussed in the context of settler colonialism (Some of the sources go into this more). But it's important to note that the primary factor of settler colonialism in Kashmir, as discussed by the sources, is the change in laws which allegedly will change the demographics and people. Nevertheless the parallels between other situations described as settler colonialism, such as Israel-Palestine, are there, which is also what some of the sources discuss.

[https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-ap-top-news-religion-international-news-india-e9b74f494df8592c3b87944d570dc039 Per AP], {{talk quote block|For almost a century, no outsider was allowed to buy land and property in Indian-controlled Kashmir. That changed Aug. 5 last year when India’s Hindu nationalist government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi stripped the Himalayan state’s semi-autonomous powers and downgraded it to a federally governed territory. It also annulled the long-held hereditary special rights its natives had over the disputed region’s land ownership and jobs. Since then, India has brought in a slew of changes through new laws. They are often drafted by bureaucrats without any democratic bearings and much to the resentment and anger of the region’s people, many of whom want independence from India or unification with Pakistan. A year later, things are swiftly changing on the ground. Under a new law, authorities have begun issuing “domicile certificates” to Indians and non-residents, entitling them to residency rights and government jobs. Many Kashmiris view the move as the beginning of settler colonialism aimed at engineering a demographic change in India’s only Muslim-majority region. Amid growing fears, experts are likening the new arrangement to the West Bank or Tibet, with settlers — armed or civilian — living in guarded compounds among disenfranchised locals. They say the changes will reduce the region to a colony. “Given the history of Indian state intervention in Kashmir, there are efforts to destroy the local, distinctive cultural identity of Kashmiris and forcibly assimilate Kashmiri Muslims into a Hindu, Indian polity,” said Saiba Varma, an assistant professor of cultural and medical anthropology at the University of California, San Diego.}}

Feel free to examine the sources I want to use as part of the disputed edit which go deeper into this question. [https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-ap-top-news-religion-international-news-india-e9b74f494df8592c3b87944d570dc039] [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/modi-meets-kashmir-leaders-for-the-first-time-after-altering-region] [https://apnews.com/article/india-kashmir-de33936be7dcf5c210d975b638cf428f] [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/7/empty-grave-for-kashmir-teenager-killed-by-indian-forces] [https://apnews.com/article/f00195936cf7475eb363efb3d2536644] [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/8/10/kashmiri-pandits-must-reimagine-the-idea-of-return-to-kashmir] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/05/indias-settler-colonial-project-kashmir-takes-disturbing-turn/] [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/qa-india-israel-azad-essa/] [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/5/indias-kashmir-clampdown-continues-four-years-after-article-370-abrogated] [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/qa-india-israel-azad-essa/] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2021.1984877]

Wikipedious1 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

; Kautilya3

As part of the "special status" Kashmir had in India till 2019, it had the ability to define the rights of "permanent residents" (and conversely deny those "rights" to non-permanent residents) in contravention of the Indian constitution. The Kashmiris got used to calling these non-permanent residents as "outsiders". When the special status got abolished those old laws became unconstitutional. Any Indian can now buy a house in Kashmir (though not agricultural land) and settle down. Those old non-permanent residents who lived in Kashmir all their lives can also get domicile certificates and obtain all the rights. This has been termed "settler colonialism" in Kashmir. In 2021, TRF (the same group that did the recent terror attack) shot and killed a 70-year-old jeweller who lived in Kashmir for 50 years, saying that he was aiding India's "settler-colonial project".[https://www.thequint.com/news/india/the-resistance-front-the-invisible-let-backed-outfit-terrorising-kashmir]. His crime was getting a domicile certificate.

How widespread these ideas are in the wider society is not clear. But "settler colonialism" is just a fashionable term. Israel is called a settler colonial polity pretty much throughout the Muslim world, and its settlements in West Bank are often cited as examples of settler colonialism. This was done by the Associated Press journalist that the OP quoted above, for example. Fenced compounds have indeed been constructed in Kashmir, but not for settlers. They have been constructed for Kashmiri Pandits (native Kashmiri Hindus) who fled the valley during the insurgency. Some of them wanted to return to Kashmir but became targets of terror attacks. So, some fenced settlements have been constructed for them. I suppose that the Kashmiris begin to see Israeli-style "settler colonialism" in these compounds, and expect that India will settle large number of Hindus from outside to cause a demographic change in Kashmir.

Kashmir was 97 percent Muslim before the insurgency, but now close to 100 percent because of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits. They expect that India will settle so many Hindus in Kashmir that the Kashmiri Muslims themselves will become a minority. So a whole lot of irrational fear is attached to this term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

In case that sounds preposterous, an article in Deutsche Welle claimed that migrant workers in Jammu and Kashmir constitute 11 percent of its population, and all of them now qualify for domicile status.[https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-land-laws-militancy/a-56277000] On double-checking the data I found that they inflated the figure by a factor of 20.[https://kashmirlife.net/122587-inter-state-migrant-workers-in-jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-382014] So there seems to be a powerful propaganda machinery that is pumping up the irrational fears and is even able to hoodwink respectable international media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. So the issue is whether to say that settler colonialism is being used to conquer a bordering region (when historically settler colonialism has been a method of conquering a continent).

Am I correct then that the one article content issue is whether to remove or to leave in the following: {{tq|Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".}}. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

; Kautilya3

"Conquering a bordering region" may be too strong a phrasing, but to change the demography in some decisive way is what seems to be meant.

But you are right that the inclusion or exclusion of the statement you have displayed is the crux of the dispute.

I also have issues with the phrase "numerous other commentators", who are neither "numerous" nor all independent of the Kashmiri view. There is also the question of what "these policies" means, even though as the text stands, it clearly refers to the policies that potentially cause demographic shift. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750249344}}

{{drn filing editor|Andrzejbanas|12:22, 21 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|Agent_Carter_(TV_series)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Andrzejbanas}}
• {{User|Adamstom.97}}
• {{User|Tduk}}

Dispute overview

In the Agent_Carter_(TV_series) article, three editors discuss how to handle a television series' genres.

• An editor believes that the genres for a television series can easily be interpreted from the users and/or that the implied source is the Disney+ listing of the show per WP:COMMONSENSE and that third-party sources for additional genres are only needed for genres not covered this way. (Note: there is no cite in the article, the editor said on the talk page that this is where the genres were initially from)
• Two other editors disagree, stating this would be against various rules on WP:WEIGHT, MOS:TVGENRE, amongst others rules involving third-party sources being preferred and as genre is subjective, it requires third-party analysis.

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

Talk:Agent_Carter_(TV_series)#Genres, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Genre sourcing

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe we need a third uninvolved party to step in as the discussion seems to boil down if third-party sources are preferred for material like genre for television series.

This dispute overview is misleading. There are two different disputes here: one about how genre lists for television series should be determined in general; and one about what the genre list for Agent Carter should be. Discussion of the first dispute was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Genre sourcing as a more appropriate forum for discussing series in general. I have attempted to keep the discussion at Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)#Genres focused on the genre list for that series, including suggesting a new list of genres (with clear reasoning) and asking for input from other editors on that proposal. Andrzejbanas and Tduk have made some comments on my proposal, but they do not appear to be interested in working together to come to a compromise and insist on switching focus to other issues that should be discussed at the WikiProject thread.

I think bringing this issue to dispute resolution now is a bit premature, I think we could have given some time for other users to give input on my proposed list before coming here. I'm also completely unclear what outcome Andrzejbanas is hoping for here, whereas my desired outcome is simple: let the discussion at Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)#Genres proceed so we can come to a compromise on what genres are in the list, and let any widespread changes to genres across WikiProject Television be determined through discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Genre sourcing. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just to clairfy, I do feel the conversation I posted on WP:TV is valid, as it was to clarify the information from the community at large. I could ask for further comments, but I feel they would just echo what was already said in that conversation and as I'm not a member of the project, I didn't want to post what I felt was basically the same question twice to nag the community. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Andrzejbanas’ summary. I disagree that there are two different disputes here - I believe there is a consensus on how genre fields are determined, but I believe what is being disputed is how to best follow this. I have suggested removing the field entirely if it can’t be properly sourced, and got some agreement there, but that has not resulted in any resolution of this issue. I believe that generally it is known that for information like this, third party sources are better that primary ones, especially promotional material, and that this is true even if this thinking hasn’t been all that well enforced in the past. I suspect this dispute resolution has been created because most of the people involved in this don’t feel like the disagreeing parties are listening. Tduk (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this content dispute if the users want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to follow the rules. Participation in DRN is voluntary but encouraged. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers and comments to the moderator (me) and to the community.

The purpose of moderated discussion, like other dispute resolution processes, is to improve the article. I normally ask each editor to state concisely what they wish 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. This appears to be a dispute about the Genre field in the infobox. I am more specifically asking each editor what genre(s) they want shown in the infobox. Do not explain the methodology for choosing what genre(s) you want to select, at least not now. Just tell what you want the infobox to say. We may discuss the methodology later. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If there are any other content disputes, please state concisely what they are.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Robert! I have read Wikipedia:DRN Rule A and I agree the terms of it. To answer your questions, its not so much that I want specific genres, its that I would like it to follow WP:WEIGHT as I believe we should use third-party sources if available (as this was a major network program, I have found many which I shared on the talk page). The issue to my understanding is not so much what they are, because I believe in not working backwards assuming genres, its better to just look for sources and see what they say first instead of assuming the answer and searching for it. So I have no genres I'm pushing, I'm pushing that we all seek out material to comply with WP:WEIGHT and MOS:TV. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Robert, I agree to the terms at DRN Rule A. I am proposing the following list of genres, though I am open to changes to this as long as we are following WP:WEIGHT:

:* Action-adventure

:* Period drama

:* Science fiction

:* Spy fiction

:* Superhero

:Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard is intended to resolve article content disputes. This noticeboard is not intended to be the forum to discuss methodology or guidelines, except as far as they affect article content (which is their purpose). There has been discussion of the methodology for identifying genres at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Genre_sourcing. I don't normally like to refer to editors by name, but I will do that now. I see that User:Adamstom.97 wants to include the genres of Science fiction, Spy fiction, and Period drama, replacing Spy-fi and Historical drama. That is a change to the article, and so is what we discuss here. User: Andrzejbanas has not mentioned any changes to the article, but wants to discuss methodology. Why do you want to discuss methodology here, rather than WikiProject Television? Is there a reason why the methodology for genre listing should be different for this series than for other series? If not, are you coming here because you want a third (or fourth) party to offer an opinion on the methodology of genre sourcing? If so, do you want me to comment at WikiProject Television?

There has been a suggestion to change the genres. Is there any objection from the editors here to changing the genres?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Robert. I am presuming you want me to respond here (if this is against the rules or standards, please correct me as DRNs are a little new to me). This is where I'm a bit confused on what to do. The MOS:TV already states "{{gt|All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead, should comply with Wikipedia's due weight policy and represent the genre(s) specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.}}" Because of this, I do not believe there is a reason for me to promote any change because I find this basically inline with what I propose. My issue is with the genres on how they are listed is that, to my understanding on how due weight policies work, listing them is not the agree upon way to go approach it.

:So with this, when I did discuss how genre was handled on the WP:TV talk page, my understanding is that the handful of regular editors there seem to not really follow the MOS:TV standards but there also was no consistent form in how they approach it.

:I don't believe the methodology for this series should be any different from any tv series, It only came up here as this was where the discussion happened to start as I viewed the article, saw the genres had no inline citations, and opted to remove them which led to the discussion on the talk page at hand. If anything, my preference may be that the genres could change, but we should follow the rules and standards on how we approach a conclusion on it. I have no real opinion if you approach WP:TV on the topic, but I believe the standards for it as set up by the current MOS are probably the best approach that aligns itself with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

:As for your question on objections to changing the genres, I do not have any specifically. (Apologies, this was long, I tried to be concise) Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what User: Andrzejbanas is discussing. I do not really care where you reply , although I did provide a space for first statements by editors, which is where editors can reply to my questions. However, replying below my statement is clear enough.

Is your question about the infobox for Agent Carter (TV series), or about the guidelines of WikiProject Television? If it is the latter, as I think, is it that you want the guideline revised, or that you think that the guidelines are being ignored? You wrote: {{tqb|So with this, when I did discuss how genre was handled on the WP:TV talk page, my understanding is that the handful of regular editors there seem to not really follow the MOS:TV standards but there also was no consistent form in how they approach it.}} If you think that there is a failure to follow the guidelines, or that the methodology is not being used consistently, then this is not an article content dispute, but a policy issue. If discussing it at WikiProject Television is not working, maybe it is a policy issue to be discussed at Village Pump (policy).

Are there any other article content questions? Are there any other policy questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), I don't see it as a place to bring up that policy does not appear to be followed. If I do have a question about policy, is that adam and myself seem to have different ideas on how WP:WEIGHT is applied in this situation. I'm sure some policies are up for interpretation, but whose interpretation should we follow here? this is the main issue I brought it up as we had reached an impasse on this topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree to follow Wikipedia:DRN Rule A as best I can. I came here as an at-first neutral third party, and at this point the only proposal I can accurate suggest (not having done as much research as the more involved editors) is removing the Genre field until it can be properly sourced with several third party sources. My strongest interest is removing the unsourced ones. I’m not sure where to put the comments. Tduk (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Andzejbanas’ position, this dispute started when they removed some unsourced genres from the article, which were there in violation of the rules as they (and I) understood them at MOS:TV. The other user involved disagreed with this removal, and insists that the unsourced genres should be there. That is my understanding of what is happening. Tduk (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Another editor has joined the moderated discussion, and has raised the issue that genres must have a citation. There is a difference between the content guidelines in the MOS at the WikiProject level and the requirement for verifiability. The content guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They describe existing practice, and should be followed for new articles, but if articles are regularly deviating from the content guidelines, the content guideline should be revised to follow the practice of the community. On the other hand, verifiability is a policy, and is a non-negotiable policy. Articles must have verifiable content. Non-verifiable content must be removed or sourced. Also, genre is an item that does not always appear in the body of the article. An item that appears in the body of the article should be sourced in the body of the article. If a genre is mentioned only in the infobox, it must be sourced in the infobox, or removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Taking the policy on verifiability into account, I will again ask the editors what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If you want to remove the Genre field, please say that you want to remove the Genre field.

We are discussing article content of Agent Carter (TV series) here. We are only discussing policy to the extent that it is relevant to the article in question.

I don't know what the forum is for discussion of failure to follow policy. I would ask at Village Pump (policy) what the right forum is, but I am trying to resolve an article content dispute about an infobox.

Are there any other questions either about procedures, about policies, or about content?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have proposed a new list of genres, listed above, which has a few changes from the current list. There is a breakdown of the sources that I am basing this new list on at the article's talk page. I can restate my arguments here if necessary. I do not believe any in-line citations are required to support the entries in this list, but I am open to using appropriate third-party sources for specific genres if necessary (i.e. if others disagree with me that "Period drama" is supported by sources already in the article, there are many reliable third-party sources that can be added to the article to further support this claim). - adamstom97 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll re-state what I did from a brief overview of searching third-party sources on the talk page and add add few more. I do not believe in assuming a genre and seeking it out as I feel that goes against principals of of neutrality. I could find sources that tell me my own personal bias towards what I believe something is categorized as, but on looking at sources, its not always what I had once presumed. With that, here is the results of my search.

:::* New York Times "conglomeration of nostalgia, postwar intrigue, comic-book science fiction and screwball comedy" [https://web.archive.org/web/20150106064850/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/arts/television/marvels-agent-carter-debuts-on-abc.html here]

:::* Hollywood Reporter "Marvel and ABC finally get it right with this fun, entertaining period piece" [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-reviews/marvels-agent-carter-tv-review-761413/ here]

:::* Slate "Instead of riffing on noir or screwball, or really any genre with dialogue and great outfits, Agent Carter dedicates huge portions of both episodes to incoherent action sequences that at their very best look like they belong in a laughable B-movie, and at their worst serve as a surprisingly effective soporific." [https://slate.com/culture/2015/01/agent-carter-review-abc-superhero-show-is-boring-and-mostly-about-men.html here]

:::* AV Club "Hour-long action-adventure drama" [https://web.archive.org/web/20150109021528/http://www.avclub.com/review/marvels-agent-carter-snazzy-retro-and-super-cool-213419 here]

:::* Vox "Despite the premise of espionage, Atwell tackles a lot of comedy — more than enough of it physical." [https://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507545/agent-carter-abc-marvel here]

:::* Polygon "As adventure-drama Agent Carter is pretty standard:" [https://www.polygon.com/streaming/2021/2/22/22295349/watch-netflix-tribes-of-europa-hunter-hunter-justified here]

:::* Time "the show’s superhero-less world requires no suspension of disbelief, since the Captain is on ice for the decades until the present-day of The Winter Soldier.)" [https://time.com/3654678/review-agent-carter-delivers-a-super-heroine/ here]

:::* Huffington Post ""Agent Carter" doesn't reinvent the spy game on TV, but it's a crackling start to what I can only hope is a long-running, female-centered Marvel adventure tale." [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/agent-carter-review_n_6422942?utm_hp_ref=maureen-ryan here]

:::* SFGate: "fits the sprightly period piece about a female secret agent fighting bad guys and sexism just after World War II." [https://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/Agent-Carter-review-Cool-addition-to-5990386.php here]

:::* Newsday: "[https://web.archive.org/web/20150107011154/https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/marvel-s-agent-carter-review-off-to-a-good-start-1.9768824 source]

As these reviews mostly comment on just the first season or the pilot, I've searched beyond as well.

In more thorough look at the show and its genre, the book The Marvel Studios Phenomenon is a bit iffy on it being a superhero show. Specifically that the superhero genre is are potentially "open in ways that promote vibrancy and the evolutionary process" but that this terminology breaks down with work like Agent Carter which is about the absence of a superhero, in this case, Captain America. [https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Marvel_Studios_Phenomenon/fP7XCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=agent+carter+genre&pg=PA94&printsec=frontcover here] It describes the show as a "period, semi-noir buddy show with a feminist slant" and was "unusually comedic".

The book What to Watch When refers to it as a "spy drama" [https://www.google.ca/books/edition/What_to_Watch_When/jgr0DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=agent+carter+genre&pg=PA144&printsec=frontcover here]

While I do not think we should play this up as a numbers game, the genres that appear to appear the most or have the most applied to it are "Period", "Comedy" "Spy/Espionage" and Action with that one reviewers who focuses on how the show continiously goes into action. We could include adventure, but I feel like the spy and action votes cover similar ground. There is not a lot of discussion of it being science fiction so perhaps that can be passed and probably pass on superhero as that appears to be iffy, it takes place in the world of the Marvel comics character Captain America, but without him a character in the series. Based on my research with weight, this is what I would go towards, but am happy to hear more interpretations/sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

In an atttempt to be brief, I think Genre, if it is there, should contain Action-adventure, Period drama, and Spy fiction. Tduk (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)