Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Hizbul Mujahideen

{{DR case status|open}}

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

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

{{collapsetop|Noise. }}

:Block them 2600:100C:B28B:B05C:1C3A:1E00:C5F9:F97 (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

The text by Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk (There is one by both authors and another just by Şevket Pamuk.). One quote is "Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million." The other quote is "Total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated at close to 2 million."

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the dispute can be resolved if the line in question is determined to be original research or not. The line in question is this: "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline."

One quote is "Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million." The other quote is "Total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated at close to 2 million."

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

The issue is if and how these two sources, [https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century] p. 11 and [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economics-of-world-war-i/A9528E1394637261A7ABD08D9D7148B5 The Economics of World War I] p. 131, should be added into the article. The first one was already in the text, and I removed it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290861325&oldid=1290829007]

These sources are not specifically about persecution of Muslims, so they can be removed. But they can also be included given the overlapping dates with the article topic. But if they are to be included, there should be no OR. These diffs should explain my position [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1291007890&oldid=1291005699][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1291020691&oldid=1291019871][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1291022226&oldid=1291022061] Let me know if more information is required. Bogazicili (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:{{tq2|The emerging Christian nation states justified the prosecution of their Muslims by arguing that they were their former 'suppressors'. The historical balance: between about 1820 and 1920, millions of Muslim casualties and refugees back to the remaining Ottoman Empire had to be registered; estimations speak about 5 million casualties and the same number of displaced persons}}

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

:{{tq2|Traumatic waves occurred in 1875–1878 and 1912–1923, but in all, between 1821 and 1922, 5.5 million Muslims died and 5 million became refugees in conflicts with Christian forces in the Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus.}}

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

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

::I am convinced you have not read the requisite quotes which I have extensively cited with surrounding context. You are trying to appeal to different sources referring to what they themselves are estimating. I cannot figure out how you do not realise the irony of doing WP:OR whilst claiming this line is: "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." We are writing about Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's estimate not these other sources. Also we do know the cause of Kurdish population decline includes ottoman persecution as you can see here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportations_of_Kurds_(1916%E2%80%931934)#Background_and_Ottoman_deportations_(1916)] so you cannot assert it must all be Christians. This is documented and accepted as having occurred by reliable sources such as in Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 9 here:

::{{tq2|Whereas many Kurdish tribes joined the Young Turks, some Kurdish groups like the Alevis from Dersim (today Tunceli) decided to oppose the government and gave refuge to Armenians.}}

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

::{{tq2|The Kurds of the Dersim had to pay a high price for their courage. Riggs noted in his report: “One distressing incident which followed the uprising of the Kurds in the Dersim was the effort on the part of the Turkish government to terrorize those Kurds by treating them as they had treaded the Armenians.”}}

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

::{{tq2|It is, however, important to acknowledge that the Young Turkish leaders aimed at eliminating Kurdish identity by deporting them from their ancestral land and by dispersing them in small groups. The Young Turks partially implemented these plans during World War I: up to 700,000 Kurds were forcibly removed; half of the displaced perished.}} John Not Real Name (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Volunteer Note - The No Original Research Noticeboard has a record of not answering inquiries. It may not have its own squad of volunteer editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - User:M.Bitton has erased the notice of this filing, and can be assumed to have declined to participate in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - There is a thread at WP:ANI about this dispute. The ANI appears to have been stalled, maybe because it is thought to be a content dispute rather than a conduct dispute. However, DRN does not work on a dispute that is also pending in any other forum including WP:ANI. I am placing this dispute on hold until the WP:ANI dispute is resolved, and may then either open or close the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I believe that matter has been resolved. That was a filing against my conduct I believe and I have addressed it. I have done third-party and now have come here. This is a separate issue. Also, the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thing has been archived: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1291057566] and this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1291057445]. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Agree to the moderated discussion and DRN Rule A.

The issues are

• 1) If two sources ([https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century] p. 11 and [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economics-of-world-war-i/A9528E1394637261A7ABD08D9D7148B5 The Economics of World War I] p. 131) are WP:DUE
• 2) If they are WP:DUE, how they should be added into the article.

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

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

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Is there an article content issue at this time? I am asking each participating editor, {{ping|John Not Real Name|Bogazicili|EducatedRedneck}} to state concisely whether they want to change anything in the article that another editor does not want to change.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{od}}

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

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

{{collapse top|Sources}}

• [https://books.google.com/books?id=j3i8muwLf8AC&pg=PA336 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}}

• Anscombe, Frederick F. [https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-031-16266-4_3 Attitudes to Islam and Muslims in the Christian Balkans]. pp. 41-66

{{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.}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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

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

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

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

{{hat|Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)}}

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

:Here is another source:

:"Subtracting the estimated population pyramid in 1923 from the stable pyramid shows that the population stock was short by about two million persons (15.36 — 13.22 = 2.14 million). This shortage can be interpreted as an estimate of excess mortality, possibly including some unrealized fertility, as well. Most likely the losses were concentrated in the decade before independence. The estimate is a minimum one because some additional losses could have occurred and been hidden from view by the absence of any survivors in the young age group (15-19) that was used here as a benchmark."-THE POPULATION OF TURKEY AFTER THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE (1985) By Frederic Claiborne Shorter This estimate is that the muslim population decline was only 2,140,000 in the last decade of ottoman Anatolia (Compared to around 3,000,000 for McCarthy.). What @Bogazicili seems to want for whatever reason is to both deny these sources exist when they do and attribute the losses to agents that the authors in question do not.

:The second error he makes, linked to the second change I want, is that he seems to think the sources are making an overall population decline estimate of muslims between 1821 and 1922 but if you read McCarthy's book it is pretty clear that he is adding up his various estimates for excess deaths per event (So Greek War of Independence (1821-1832), Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878), Balkan Wars (1912-1913) e.t.c.). This leads me to the issue, McCarthy's estimate for the number of muslim deaths during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) is 632,000 not 1,450,000. This means the final death-toll figure cited in the Wikipedia article is off by over 800,000. This is not even me stating this:

:"The Balkan Wars of 1912-13 comprise the whole of McCarthy's chapter 5. Relying mainly on Western sources, he describes the political background of the war and then how Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro managed to eliminate, by killing and eviction, 62 percent of the Muslim population of European Turkey; in all, 812,771 people were made refugees and 632,408 were killed (p. 167). "-"Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. By Justin McCarthy. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, Inc.,1995. Pp. 368. $35 (c)." (1997) By Kemal Hasim Karpat, page 471

:"Of the 2,315,293 Muslims who had lived in the areas taken from the Ottoman Empire in Europe (excluding Albania), 1,445,179 (62 percent) were gone. Of these, 413,922 were migrants to Turkey during and after the Balkan Wars ( 1912-20); and 398,849 came to Turkey between 1921 and 1926, most as part of the Greek-Turkish Population Exchange. But 812,771 Muslims from Ottoman Europe had survived as refugees. The remaining 632,408 were dead. Twenty-seven percent of the Muslim population of conquered Ottoman Europe had died."-DEATH AND EXILE The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922 (1995) By Justin McCarthy, page 164

:"Some 2,315,000 Muslims had lived in the conquered areas of Ottoman Europe; 1,445,000 remained at the end of the wars. The Ottoman Refugee Commission recorded the number of refugees settled in the Empire, 414,000 in total. Of these, most were placed in eastern Thrace and western Anatolia; some were placed as far afield as Syria, a few hundred in eastern Anatolia. From 1921 to 1926 399,000 others came to Turkey. Some 632,000, 27 per cent of the Muslim population of Ottoman Europe, died in the Balkan Wars."-"THE OTTOMAN PEOPLES AND THE END OF EMPIRE" (2001) By Justin McCarthy, page 92

:Again, this is Justin McCarthy himself writing this! In a table entitled: "Muslim Population Loss in War zones, 1912-1922"-Population History of the Middle East and the Balkans (2002) By Justin McCarthy, page 38 he lists "Balkan Wars"-Ibidem as "632,000"-Ibidem.

:I have just cited three times Justin McCarthy himself as well as Kemal Hasim Karpat on the matter of what the death-toll actually is during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) according to McCarthy and yet @Bogazicili cannot seem to grasp that.

{{hab}}

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

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

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

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Robert McClenon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:John Not Real Name - It appears that the first sentence, about what Biondich has written, is already in the article. So are you proposing to add two sentences? {{tqb|Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population. However the text does not specify it is only about Christian attacks.}} Is that correct? User:Bogazicili - Do you agree to the addition of the first sentence, quoting Owen and Pamuk? Is the disagreement about both sentence, or only the second sentence?

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

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

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

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

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

{{u|Robert McClenon}}:

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:{{u|Robert McClenon}}, where do you plan to advertise the RfC? Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

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

{{DR case status|open}}

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{reflist-talk}}

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

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

Yep, the text above was my proposed version, so naturally I support it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

After I inserted the Bennett paragraph, Popcornfud removed a substantial part of it on the grounds that it was unsourced. After I reverted that edit, Popcornfud deleted my contribution entirely. I consider this an act of edit warring, bordering on vandalism. A more collegial approach would have been to place a {{citation needed}} tag, and then start a discussion on the Talk page. Every action taken by an editor should serve the interests of improving the encyclopedia. Deleting my entire contribution did not improve the article, nor did removing uncontentious parts of my contribution, specifically, "arranged for a big band lineup". I draw your attention to WP:CCPOL and WP:LIKELY:

{{Blockquote|Wikipedia's content policies require inline citations for all direct quotations, for contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons, and for any material that has been challenged, or is "likely" to be challenged. Wikipedia's community uses the ordinary, everyday definition for the word likely: "probable; having a greater-than-even chance of occurring" or "having a high probability of occurring."}}

What this amounts to is that editors should not arbitrarily revert or delete contributions that are not contentious, or likely to be challenged. Bennett's covers of pop and rock songs with big band are neither "contentious" nor "likely to be challenged", because they are easy for a user to find in record catalogues, e.g. Creep on Mercury Records Cat. 534343-2, 24822 and in online videos such as the live performance of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDr_35aVOI Creep with big band] on Bennett's official YouTube channel (under his real name, Dave Wray) and recording catalogues such as on Bandcamp [https://frankbennett1.bandcamp.com/album/frank-bennett-5-oclock-shadow Frank Bennett 5 O'Clock Shadow]. Moreover, Bennett's work with big bands is noted in the WP article on Rock Music in Australia, where it states:

{{Blockquote|Frank Bennett covered many of the fashionable alternative rock bands in big band mode. His version of Radiohead's "Creep" was his most well known recording. His music was less danceable than overseas Retro swing acts Big Bad Voodoo Daddy and Brian Setzer Orchestra. Frank Bennett was deeply ironic and only had moderate success with audiences who were attracted to the romanticised Harry Connick, Jr. Music in the style of Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett was unfashionable in the Alternative rock scene, stigmatised by the derisive term Lounge Lizard. Singers Dave Graney, Tex Perkins and Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (particularly for their album The Good Son), also drew on the styles. By the end of the decade there was renewed interest in Lounge music from elements of the club scene, the interest being in both the composition and the campness.}}

Bennett's unorthodox treatment of songs from the Top 40 is primarily what made him notable in the first place, because it gave listeners an entirely new jazz perspective on pop and rock music they already knew well. Moreover his recordings rated in the charts and earned him nominations in the ARIA Awards.

Note that Bennett's real name is David Wray, aka 'Dave Wray', and that before appearing as 'Frank Bennett', Wray performed under another name blend, 'Tony Sinatra', so the YouTube channel I adduced under that name is actually another of Wray's official channels. There is also a [https://davegraney.substack.com/p/players-please-play-arn-dave-wray blog] that links to a [https://soundcloud.com/dave-graney-lym/play-arn-dave-wray-aka-frank-bennett 90 minute live interview] by Dave Graney on Soundcloud.

In the first reversion, Popcornfud stated "almost none of this info is in the provided sources". This is not correct. From 1997 for Creep (Breakthrough Artist – Single) from the cited album Five O'Clock Shadow (Best New Talent) I provided (among others) the following:

• [https://www.aria.com.au/awards/past-winners/1997 ARIA Awards 1997: Nominees] (Official site). ARIA Music Awards of 1997.
• {{cite web|url=http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history/year/1997 |title=ARIA Awards – History: Winners by Year 1997 |publisher=Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) |access-date=21 March 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071222011152/http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=1997 |archive-date=22 December 2007 }}

If you browse to the ARIA official website [https://www.aria.com.au/awards/past-winners/1997 Awards > Past Winners > 1997] and then search for the categories named, e.g. 'Breakthrough Artist - Single' and then click Nominees, a new page 'Nominees for Breakthrough Artist – Single' opens, one of which is 'Creep - Frank Bennett'.

Citations are necessary for verification of contentious material, but they can also link to useful further information. So long as the contribution is already verified, or is verifiable, or has a less than even chance of being challenged, then I see no problem with also citing links to other occurrences, such as Dutch Charts. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you read Rule A.4, "Comment on content, not contributors". One of the statements is mostly a lengthy complaint that another editor made cuts and deletions to their addition of the Bennett cover. We are not discussing conduct here. The objective is to resolve the article content dispute. So I will ask two related questions. First, does each editor agree to the compromise? Second, what does each editor want to change in the article that other editors want to leave the same, or what does each editor want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. I only am asking about proposed article content. I am not asking at this time for reasons, even for policy reasons. Just answer whether you will accept the compromise, and what you want to change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about Rule A.4 - I got carried away. I do not see the pruning and subsequent deletion of my contribution as having improved the article. I would like my contribution as it stood at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creep_(Radiohead_song)&oldid=1295765111 most recent edit] to be reinstated. As outlined and cited in my "lengthy statement" above, I have since come across [https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/7587912?keyword=Frank%20Bennett an entry] in the National Library of Australia archives for 'Five O'Clock Shadow', a [https://soundcloud.com/dave-graney-lym/play-arn-dave-wray-aka-frank-bennett live interview] by Dave Graney on Soundcloud, and a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDr_35aVOI YouTube recording] of a live performance of 'Creep' with big band from Dave Wray's official channel, cited above. If my contribution is reinstated, I will amend the citations to reflect these. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears that there is disagreement about the Frank Bennett cover, and that the only way to resolve the disagreement will be a Request for Comments. I will draft a draft RFC for review. The community will be asked to choose between the original longer version of the mention and the shorter compromise version. Should the community also be given the option of omitting mention of that cover, or is there consensus that it should at least be mentioned with the shorter compromise version?

Are there any other questions? Are there any other content issues?

I'm happy to mention the cover in the article as it appears to meet the criteria at WP:SONGCOVER. (I mean... I think it does.) Popcornfud (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree to the Request for Comments proposal by the Moderator. Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:PS prior to asking the Community to decide, I would like to amend the citations in light of new sources I have since accessed. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Creep (Radiohead song)/RFC on Bennett Cover for your review. The references are not currently included in the draft RFC, because they are not critical to the RFC, and can be added later.

Please comment on the draft RFC. When we are in agreement as to the RFC, I will move it to the article talk page and activate it. Do not vote in the draft RFC at this time.

Are there any comments or questions about the RFC? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the situation has changed a bit. Chrisdevelop above provided a valid source for one of the previously uncited claims (the nomination for the ARIA award), so I now think that would be a good inclusion.

I'm finding their arguments and explanations a bit hard to follow (I think there's a bit of a WP:WALLOFTEXT issue going on), but they say above they would like to change or add other sources, too. As my main objection was that the original wording wasn't supported by the sources, perhaps it would make sense to let Chrisdevelop propose a third version with their new sources before we can continue? Popcornfud (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course either editor is welcome to propose any new versions of the description of the Frank Bennett cover complete with references. Any new version may either be accepted or may take a place in the RFC. Please provide any new proposed versions. Be concise. Overly long explanations are not useful.

Are there any comments or questions about the RFC. Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

First off, my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creep_(Radiohead_song)&oldid=1295765111 last edit] adduced by Popcornfud did contain verification of the nomination of the Bennett cover of "Creep" for the Aria Award, as already exhaustively outlined above. You need to drill down to find it, as there is no direct link, but it is easy to get to in three clicks. The Bennett cover of "Creep" is also included in the linked-to WP articles. Here it is again:

[https://www.aria.com.au/awards/past-winners/1997 ARIA Awards 1997: Nominees] (Official site). ARIA Music Awards of 1997

In addition I already provided a citation for Bennet's ARIA Award for Breakthrough Artist – Single for his cover of Creep, which was also listed in the Triple J Hottest 100, 1996:

{{cite web|url=https://i.imgur.com/dx7woKW.jpg|title=The ARIA Australian Top 100 Singles Chart – Week Ending 22 Sep 1996|publisher=ARIA|via=Imgur.com|accessdate=14 June 2025}}

I also already provided a link to a YouTube video from David Wray's official YouTube channel for his stage name 'Tony Sinatra' showing him performing the song accompanied by a big band arrangment that is obvious to the ear:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=npjifynD8l27Hu36&v=CsiP-GrbbD0&feature=youtu.be Frank Bennett: 'Creep']. Label: Mercury Records (Australia) ref: 534 343-2). Tony Sinatra playlist, YouTube

The additional citations show alternative locations that the Bennett cover of "Creep" appeared in, and do not in my view infringe WP:CITATIONOVERKILL.

Notwithstanding that the above citations were never "likely to be challenged", the citations I have referred to that I would now like to introduce are as below:

1. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDr_35aVOI YouTube recording] of a live performance of 'Creep' from Dave Wray's official channel, cited above. This should replace the Tony Sinatra version, because it has live recorded video of the actual band.
2. [https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/7587912?keyword=Frank%20Bennett An entry] in the National Library of Australia archives for 'Five O'Clock Shadow' - this could replace the Dutch Charts and Imgur citations above.
3. A [https://soundcloud.com/dave-graney-lym/play-arn-dave-wray-aka-frank-bennett live interview] by Dave Graney on SoundCloud, that backgrounds David Wray's innovative big band covers of rock and pop songs.

I am happy to craft a new version along these lines, and post this to the RFC page.

Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment by User:Chrisdevelop that they are willing to create a new version of the description of the Bennett cover and post it to the RFC page. Post it here, with references. If you want to post it to the RFC page with references, please add the references to the other options in the RFC. If you want the references included in the RFC, please say that you want the references included in the RFC. In any event, please post the revised version of the description here.

Are there any comments or questions about the RFC. Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Revised contribution below:

In 1997, Australian singer and saxophonist Frank Bennett released a cover of "Creep" on his album Five O'Clock Shadow, arranged for a big band lineup, reaching 65 in the ARIA Charts for that year.{{cite book|last=Ryan|first=Gavin|title=Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010|year=2011|publisher=Moonlight Publishing|location=National Library of Australia |edition=PDF|page=28=45 in orig.|url= https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/4775209|access-date=30 June 2025}}[https://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Frank%20Bennett%20And%20The%20Orchestra%20Royale&titel=Creep&cat=s Australian Top 100 Singles.]. Imgur.[https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/7587912?keyword=Frank%20Bennett "Five o'clock shadow (sound recording) / Frank Bennett."]. Tracklist. Sydney: Mercury Records, 1996. Trove: National Library of Australia.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDr_35aVOI 'Frank Bennett Creep Live 1998']. Dave Wray official channel: YouTube. Bennett's cover was listed in the Triple J Hottest 100, 1996 and earned him two Aria Award nominations in 1997, one for Breakthrough Artist – Single and the other for Best New Talent.[https://www.aria.com.au/awards/past-winners/1997 ARIA Awards 1997: Nominees] (Official site). ARIA Music Awards of 1997.{{cite web|url=https://i.imgur.com/dx7woKW.jpg|title=The ARIA Australian Top 100 Singles Chart – Week Ending 22 Sep 1996|publisher=ARIA|via=Imgur|accessdate=30 June 2025}}Graney, Dave. (12 June 2024). [https://davegraney.substack.com/p/players-please-play-arn-dave-wray 'Players Please! Play Arn Dave Wray aka Frank Bennett aka']. Substack.Dave Graney and Clare More. (12 June 2024). [https://soundcloud.com/dave-graney-lym/play-arn-dave-wray-aka-frank-bennett 'Play Arn Dave Wray aka Frank Bennett']. Live interview (90 minutes). SoundCloud.

Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Chrisdevelop has proposed another version of the statement about the Frank Bennett cover. It appears to be almost the same as the previous version but with more sources. The options for how to go forward at this point are:

• 1. If Popcornfud agrees to the new version, then we can close this dispute as resolved.
• 2. We can run the RFC with the new proposed version as option B.
• 3. We can include options A, B, and C in the RFC for two proposed versions. I do not recommend this option but am including it for completeness.

So does Popcornfud agree to the new version, or do we run the RFC with their version and Chrisdevelop's new version?

Are there any comments or questions about the RFC? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

My original post already contained all the sources needed to verify the claims, and these were all also listed in the WP articles I linked to anyway. It was therefore not likely to be challenged, i.e. more than a 50% likelihood such as to warrant deletion in its entirety. I also dispute that my contribution fits the criteria for "wordy".

To find Bennett's nominations in the ARIA Awards external references I cited, it is necessary to click down through the listed categories in the ARIA official website, but they have all been there from the start. The extra sources I have now adduced provide a better live video of Bennett actually performing his "Creep" cover in front of a big band (David Wray official YouTube channel), and a Dave Graney interview of Bennett about "Creep" and other covers on SoundCloud. Ref. 7 in the above reference list could possibly be deleted, since the summarising Graney article links to the SoundCloud interview in Ref. 8.

If my current edit is not agreed to at this point (Option 1), I will abide by RFC consensus for options 2 or 3, but you could remove the current option A (my original longer version) if you like and make it just between my new longer version and the original B (Popcornfud's original shorter version, or a new version they propose). Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I have revised the RFC to include the newer long version and the short version. The revised draft RFC is available for review at Talk:Creep (Radiohead song)/RFC on Bennett Cover. Should any more changes be made to it, or should I move it to the article talk page and launch it?

Are there any comments or questions about the RFC? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The previous RFC showed citations as unlinked text [1][2][3][4] etc. Should this too? And should the actual refs be also included to allow other editors to make a more informed choice? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy for the RFC to go ahead. Popcornfud (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I have disambiguated Frank Bennett to Frank Bennett (singer) on the RFC. Are we also allowed to vote for option A or B ourselves, with explanation? And can the WP links and citations be copied to the proposed versions? Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Chrisdevelop - You may insert the references into the draft RFC. Do not vote in the draft RFC, because it is not active yet. After I move the draft RFC to the article talk page and activate it, you may vote in it with statements and are requested to vote in it with statements. After the references are added, if there are no other comments, I will move it to the article talk page and activate it.

Are there any other comments or questions about the RFC? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have copied the source for both contributions. Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I have launched the RFC. You may now make statements in it and vote in it.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. I've voted and commented. No questions from me. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I notice that Popcornfud has created a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creep_(Radiohead_song)&oldid=1298575694 duplicate survey] on the Talk page. Is this allowed, and if so, what do we do with the survey you posted? Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Either the moderator is confused or one of the editors is mistaken. User:Popcornfud has voted in the survey. I do not see a duplicate survey. Please either explain in more detail here if there is a problem, or say nothing more, in which case the moderator will also ignore the comment. The RFC appears to be proceeding normally. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other questions?

I assumed the RFC was here, and voted there. But now I see a notice saying it is an archive. Do I assume the RFC takes place on the article’s Talk page? Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Chrisdevelop - I am not sure what the question is. I had said: {{tqb|Do not vote in the draft RFC, because it is not active yet. After I move the draft RFC to the article talk page and activate it, you may vote in it with statements and are requested to vote in it with statements.}} I said that I would move the RFC to the article talk page and activate it when it was time to do that. RFCs about an article are almost always held on the article talk page, and this was not an exception. You voted in the draft RFC, because you misread my instructions. That has been marked historical. You also voted in the live RFC, which is what you were supposed to do. Your vote in the live RFC will be taken into account by the closer when the RFC is closed in thirty days. Is there a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not participated in a RFC before, and your 14th Statement said "I have launched the RFC. You may now make statements in it and vote in it," and that closure notice appeared sometime after I had voted on that page. I thought that was all I had to do, and so I didn't read back up the thread to review your 13th statement about moving it to the article talk page. Had you in your 14th statement reiterated that you'd moved it there, I would have voted there, and not on the RFC draft page. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|open}}

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Ba 'Alawi sada}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

Kabul madras keeps on trying to add a claim about falsifying the Ba 'Alawi sada lineage using youtube videos and an Indonesian book by "Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani" on the first paragraph of the lead section, which I've removed for being WP:UNDUE, but they insist on placing the claim by al-Bantani in the lead section. This is coming after I've removed a WP:OR and non-neutral section written by Kabul [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba_%27Alawi_sada&diff=prev&oldid=1290854843]

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

The entire talk page of Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada is about this:

• Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Using YouTube content as a source
• Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#A quotation by Shaikh Shauqi 'Allam
• Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#The use of Y-DNA testing to trace distant paternal lineage.
• Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Disputes and rebuttals section
• Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#controversial statement
• Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Is the extent of the disagreement worldwide?
• Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Critics for claim

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By removing the statement from the lede entirely and keeping it in the Ba 'Alawi sada#Questioning their lineage section with attribution to al-Bantani

What I did was totally in line with all Wikipedia rules and didn’t break WP:OR or WP:UNDUE policies at all. All the references used as sources are already cited, easily traceable, and still comply with all Wikipedia policies. The wording is also neutral and unbiased. Actually, this issue was already settled about 8 months ago. Back then, me and User:Abo Yemen agreed to put the problematic section at the start of the article. You can check it out in the talk page section titled 'controversial statement.' Somehow, that sentence got deleted, and when I tried to put it back, this disagreement kicked off.

It’s clear there’s no way me and @Abo Yemen are gonna agree here, so we need a senior admin to step in and figure out who’s right. Since all my sources are in Indonesian, it’d be great if the admins could bring in an Indonesian Wikipedian like @Fazoffic or someone else to weigh in. Meanwhile, about the stuff labeled as WP:OR that got deleted, that happened when I was inactive on Wikipedia, so I couldn’t defend myself. Once this dispute is sorted out, I’m definitely gonna try re-adding the "WP:OR stuff" following all Wikipedia rules, and yeah, I’ll probably end up meeting with User:Abo Yemen again here.

I am ready to act as moderator of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. If I understand correctly, this family is from the southeastern corner of the Arabian peninsula, but some of its members have migrated to southeastern Asia and Indonesia. I also understand that the family claims descent from the Prophet Muhammad, but some authors question that descent. Is the article content dispute about the validity of the descent from Muhammad? I think that much of the article is poorly written and not clear, but we will not try to improve it unless the wording is relevant to any content disputes.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that other editors do not want to change, or what you want to leave the same that other editors want to change. It is not necessary to explain why you want to change the article at this time.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{yo|Robert McClenon}} I have read DRN Rule A. Your understanding is correct, apart from the fact that those "some authors" is just one guy ({{ill|Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani|id|Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani}}). The content dispute is that Kabul is trying to frame al-Bantani's views on the family's lineage as the only definitive truth, when that's not the case as shown by multiple RSs:
• https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TRS20_23.pdf
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2025.2508025#d1e844
• https://jurnal.jagadalimussirry.com/index.php/ojs/article/view/169
• [Indonesian] https://ojs.iaisumbar.ac.id/index.php/ikhtisar/article/view/626

:I do agree that that part of the article is really poorly written and should be changed. What I want is to remove al-Bantani's views on the family's lineage from the infobox, and instead, we can have a section on the modern dispute of the Indonesian branch of the family's lineage. (Also, please ping me since I dont seem to receive notifications from DRN, thank you) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for stepping in as a mediator on this case. The crux is this sentence.

: "This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad."

: That sentence is what user abo yemen wants to cut from the article, while I'm fighting to keep it. The refs I used are clearly laid out in the article. If you dig into all of the references, it clearly says that in Indonesia, their lineage connection to Muhammad is being heavily questioned. There’s no consensus between those who buy it and those who don’t. To be real, there’s probably too much glorification in the article, and that glorification does lean on sources Wikipedia considers reliable. Kabul madras (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be about the sentence {{tq| This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad.}} at the end of the first paragraph of the lede section. One editor wants to remove the sentence, and another wants to keep the sentence in. Is it correct that that sentence is the issue? If there is no compromise or other agreement, we will rely on a Request for Comments to ask the community to answer the question. Is there any possible compromise? Is the next step an RFC?

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:That's all from me for now. Proposing an RFC. Thanks. Kabul madras (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the dispute about the sentence {{tq| This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad.}} at the end of the first paragraph of the lede section. Unless I get some other input or questions, I will compose a draft RFC on whether to delete that sentence.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:no. Lets go to the next step. Kabul madras (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I have prepared a draft RFC for review. It is available for review at Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada/RFC on Lineage. Please review it and comment on whether it asks the question that you want asked. Please do not vote in it yet, because it is not live. After it has been approved, I will move it to the article talk page and launch it, and it will become live. Is it satisfactory?

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the RfC is good but needs a little more background, since the statement: "This claim has recently faced criticism as several public figures and researchers in Indonesia began to question the direct lineage to Muhammad" is nowhere mentioned in Bantani's book, as the book is his own research of the lineage, and not a statement issued by multiple figures and researchers 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added a Background section to the draft RFC, after the introductory material but before the Survey. If an editor thinks that background material is needed, please insert it into the Background section. I will review it for neutrality.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

{{Yo|Robert McClenon}} I've added a small background section. Feel free to review it and point out any confusion and or unclear points in it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The explanation in the Background section is, in my opinion, non-neutral, and I will be removing it before the RFC goes live. That statement should be made as an explanation in the Survey, or can be made in the Discussion.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:Just wondering,should we note that the ref's (for that sentence) already in the article?I'm a bit worried voters will see the claim and think it has no source. Kabul madras (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm, alright then. Feel free to remove it or move it to the discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I will be launching the RFC by moving it to the article talk page within 24 hours unless there is a new objection. An editor may provide background information with their statement in the Survey, or in the Discussion section.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753147855}}

{{drn filing editor|Hlmrjk|01:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Milsons Point railway station}}

Users involved

• {{User|Hlmrjk}}
• {{User|Servite et contribuere}}
• {{User|Fork99}}
• {{User|Qwerty123M}}
• {{User|Mounstreip}}
• {{User|Leuthguui}}

Dispute overview

The dispute is over the inclusion of local government areas (LGAs) to the short description and lead section of railway stations across Sydney in New South Wales, Australia. No station articles previously mentioned LGAs before a series of edits in the last few months which have added them to a handful of railway stations. The relevancy of LGAs as well as the method of inclusion has been contested in previous discussion. For context (see Local government in New South Wales) "local government areas" are the lowest level of government in New South Wales.

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

Talk:Milsons Point railway station#LGAs on railway station pages

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An opinion by DRN on the consensus, or the help in aiding a formation of a clear consensus over whether or not LGAs should be included on the mentioned railway station articles specifically so that if they are, a resolution can then be found over how or where to better include them.

In the discussion, there was clear consensus to remove from short description. So we can easily do that. I feel like LGA'S was somewhat more divided in the lead. Some argued for regions to be included which I am happy to do. I would argue that we could just remove the LGA(S) and specify the region instead. I would support an exception for administrative centres of an LGA like Gordon, Hornsby or Chatswood. For example: Saying {{TQ|Wahroonga Train Station is in Ku-ring-gai Council, New South Wales, Australia}} (Without mentioning it is in Sydney and relying on Sydney Trains being in there) might have people asking: Where on Earth is that in Australia? Whilst saying {{TQ|Wahroonga Train Station is on the Upper North Shore region of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia}} would possibly have people thinking: "It's in Sydney, more specifically the Upper North Shore part of Sydney". So it is at least part of somewhere people know about. One other thing I would argue is to keep North Sydney (Maybe not the council) as Ku-ring-gai doesn't give people an immediate idea whilst with North Sydney, it is pretty easy to tell it is in Sydney. Thank you for your understanding.

Apologies for not responding to this for a few days (@Robert McClenon).

The main issue is whether including the name of the LGA (local government area) in which a railway station is located in, in the article's lead and/or infobox is too much information. Australia's LGAs are somewhat analogous to US counties, UK counties or London/NYC boroughs. However, this discussion has only occurred on one particular article's talk page for a location in Sydney, New South Wales, and would likely set precedent for other geographical articles, both in NSW and the rest of Australia. For now, I believe the scope of the dispute is currently limited to railway stations in NSW, possibly starting with Sydney only.

One of the arguments against this is that if you want to find out what LGA a place is in, the wikilink to the suburb/locality in the lead will always have it mentioned there.

Some of the guidelines cited include WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, MOS:LEAD and WP:SD40. Fork99 (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The filing editor listed and notified five other editors. Three of them have not edited in the past five days. One of them has not responded here, and is assumed to have declined to participate (or possibly is not interested in discussion). One of them responded on 24 June 2025, and forgot to sign their contribution. Discussion can continue between the filing editor, User: Hlmrjk , and the other editor User:Servite et contribuere, but only if there is a difference of opinion about article content. I am willing to act as the moderator if there is a difference of opinion. Please read DRN Rule A.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It appears that the issue, or one of the issues, has to do with whether to include the township name in the short description. Are there any other article content issues?

Are there any other questions, either about the article or the process? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I have read and agree with DRN Rule A. The issue is whether to include the LGAs ("township" in the sense of administrative subdivisions) in the lead and/or infobox for railway stations in Sydney. It has also been suggested that instead of LGAs which are political divisions, Regions of Sydney could be included which are informal geographical divisions, though some are coterminous with LGAs.

I personally would rather said railway station articles exclude both as has been standard, as neither would be article improvements. LGAs have no influence over railway operations and would be irrelevant to these articles. Though Regions of Sydney are somewhat more logical as they are commonly referenced for geographical clarity, these are formally undefined and some boundaries such as that of Western Sydney are quite controversial within Sydney.

Hlmrjk (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:My opinion is that the previous stable version prior to this dispute of not including the LGA at all in these articles is sufficient.

:Railway stations in Sydney are usually named after the suburb/locality that it is in. Note that the definition of an Australian suburb/locality is different to the US definition (see the wikilink before for more info). Even if the station name does not match the suburb/locality name, all articles mention and link to the suburb/locality that it is in. The suburb/locality article will also link to the LGA(s) that it is in. For example, Milsons Point railway station has a link to Milsons Point (suburb it's in), which links to North Sydney Council (LGA it's in). All of these also link to or at least mention Sydney, the city as the whole metropolitan area (per MOS:GEOLINK).

:In addition, all station articles name what line(s) (otherwise known as "services") the train operator Sydney Trains operates there and its adjacent stations, which also help place the station's geographic context. Fork99 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears that all of the editors who have responded have agreed that the Local Governmental Authority (LGA) name should be removed from the short description. It appears that this agreement applies to all of the articles about railway stations on this line. Unless there is disagreement, I will close this dispute as Resolved with local consensus to remove the LGA name from the short descriptions of all of the railway stations.

Are there any other questions, either about the article or the process?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here: yes, the original discussion was opened with the short description in mind, but the bulk of the discussion (and the dispute) was about the lead/infobox. Fork99 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

There apparently is consensus to remove the Local Governmental Authority from the short descriptions, but that is apparently not the issue.

Will each editor please state what they want to change in this article, in the lede paragraph, in the infobox, or elsewhere in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The stable status quo prior to the dispute was no LGA in the infobox nor the lead. I believe it is best that it is changed back to the way that it was before, no LGA in the infobox and no LGA in the lead. Fork99 (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

:Fork99 Since there is no third statement by moderates yet, here's what I would argue: Just saying Sydney might make people think there is one mayor for the whole metropolitan area when there are many mayors for different LGAS. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hlmrjk
I believe that LGAs should not be included in the infobox nor in the lead section, due to the reasons I wrote in my zeroth statement. For railway station pages, I don't think readers need any more information than whether the station and suburb are in, or not in, Sydney. LGA information is already included in each suburb's page. Hlmrjk (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There apparently is consensus to remove the Local Governmental Authority from the short description, from the infobox, and from the lede paragraph. Is that correct? If that is correct, then can we close this DRN as resolved?

If the question is whether to remove the Local Governmental Authority from other Australian railway station articles, then that should be discussed at a WikiProject and may require an RFC, but is not within the scope of this DRN.

Are there any other content issues?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753385439}}

{{drn filing editor|Bosomba Amosah|19:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Akan language }}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

; Bosomba Amosah

Change this in the Name section

{{tq2| The language was originally referred to by local designations such as 'Twi' (/tʃwiː, twiː, tʃiː/;[12][13] Akan: [tɕᶣi]), 'Fante' and 'Brong'.}}

Change these in the Dialects section

{{tq2| {{clade

|label1=Akan

|1={{clade

|1={{clade

|1=Brong ({{aka}} Bono; a dialect cluster)

|2=Wasa dialect

}}

|2={{clade

|1=Asante-Akyem-Kwahu dialect

|2={{clade

|1=Akuapem dialect

|2=Fante (Agona, Gomua, Abura, Anomabu dialects)

}}

}}

}}

}}}}

And this

{{tq2| Brong and Wasa have limited mutual intelligibility with each other, and so are separate languages by that standard.}}

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

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

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

My questions at this point for Kwamikagami are:

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

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

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

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

2, I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consider the western romance languages, which are all 'mutually intelligible' in the sense that all neighboring dialects are intelligible, from Lisbon and Normandy to Sicily. despite that, we count french, spanish, portuguese, italian, and multiple others as separate languages, because intelligibility does get difficult with distance

— kwami (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

;Bosomba Amosah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

;Bosomba Amosah

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

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

Are there any other questions?

; Bosomba Amosah

Change the following

1. In the Name section

:::{{tq2| The language was originally referred to by local designations such as 'Twi' (/tʃwiː, twiː, tʃiː/;[12][13] Akan: [tɕᶣi]), 'Fante' and 'Brong'.}}

To

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

2. In the Dialects section

:::{{tq2| {{clade

|label1=Akan

|1={{clade

|1={{clade

|1=Brong ({{aka}} Bono; a dialect cluster)

|2=Wasa dialect

}}

|2={{clade

|1=Asante-Akyem-Kwahu dialect

|2={{clade

|1=Akuapem dialect

|2=Fante (Agona, Gomua, Abura, Anomabu dialects)

}}

}}

}}

}}}}

To

:::{{clade|label1=Akan|1={{clade|1={{clade|1=Bono-Wasa dialect|2={{clade|1=Asante-Akyem-Kwahu dialect

::::|2={{clade|1=Akuapem dialect

::::|2=Fante (Agona, Gomua, Abura, Anomabu dialects)

::::}}

::::}}

::::}}

::::}}

::::}}

3. In the Dialects section

:::{{tq2| Brong and Wasa have limited mutual intelligibility with each other, and so are separate languages by that standard.}}

To

:::{{talkquote|All the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other with the neutral name Akan.}}

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

{{tq2| collectively known as Twi}}

should be removed

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 08:19, 06 July 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Hocikre|06:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed without prejudice due to lack of notice. The filing editor has not notified the other editor, on their user talk page, three days after being told that notification was required. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion continues to be lengthy and inconclusive, at least 48 hours from now, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Badr Jafar}}

Users involved

• {{User|Hocikre}}
• {{User|Thenightaway}}
• {{User|Graham87}}

Dispute overview

My new changes, which enlarged the page (per the request of the COI editor at the talk page), are hostilely greeted by another Wikipedia user who considers only their version of the page neutral and good, and anything else is not interesting, not notable, puffery, etc. Instead of step-by-step work they just revert everything back and complain about past edits of past editors, etc. I think, if the content keeps getting deleted, the request page itself may also be removed, as it might appear deliberately non-notable.

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

Talk:Badr_Jafar

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate a neutral third-party review of the content and if someone could just help to find the common ground. I know that a step-by-step friendly discussion would help us reach consensus, and it will not allow subjective dismissals.

I've redone the revert of the additional content and added my piece to the talk page, but I'm not exactly a neutral party because of my history with the filing user so that course of action might not have been wise. Perhaps this needs to be punted to some other venue. Graham87 (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:yes, you are the least neutral person here:) Please stop commenting on my edits on Wikipedia. I've explained on the Talk page your possible misuse of primary sources as a reason for reverting my edits. Hocikre (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Please notify the other editor on their user talk page. Do not tell a third-party editor not to comment. Any third-party editor has a right to comment on edits, and the third party is being listed as an editor in the dispute. (It is not necessary to notify them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1754119903}}

{{drn filing editor|Logoshimpo|07:31, 5 July 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|JEL classification codes}}

Users involved

• {{User|Logoshimpo}}
• {{User|Closed Limelike Curves}}
• {{User|John Quiggin}}
• {{User|DandelionAndBurdock}}

Dispute overview

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

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

Talk:JEL_classification_codes#Is_this_a_notable_topic?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Establish consensus.

:I honestly think this is fairly premature (and for that matter, I wouldn't really consider myself a party to this so much as an observer); my only contribution was suggesting and attempting to implement a compromise, and then suggesting to LogoShimpo that they try to seek consensus rather than reverting another time. I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the talk page yet. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I created the page around 2006, and have found it a useful resource both for referring to JEL codes and for finding my way around Wikipedia. I visited it not long ago and found that, after an unsuccessful proposal to delete the article User:Logoshimpo had removed most of the content. I reverted this change, sought a third opinion and proposed a discussion to reach consensus. User:Logoshimpo has sought to impose their view unilaterally JQ (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

:I don't agree with this characterization of the situation. And to keep it short: I'll focus on the facts. The 30 opinion cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE a section of WP:NOT which I cited. User:John Quiggin hasn't cited any policy based reason to keep the exhaustive copy of the classification system. If he has a reason: he should quote it in the discussion section. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

::This response seems to confirm my summary. Logoshimpo is uninterested in discussion, and thinks that citing policy justifies edit warring. Logoshimpo has been warned about this before, I think. JQ (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion and if this turns out to be a content dispute for which DRN is an appropriate forum. Please read DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator asks the questions, and the editors answer the questions. It appears that the filing editor nominated this article for deletion. While the deletion discussion was in progress, the filing editor deleted most of the content of the article. The article was kept. More recently, two other editors have restored the deleted content of the article, and that restoration was reverted, and reverted again. The editors have now come to DRN as an alternative to edit-warring. The use of DRN as an alternative to edit-warring is a good idea.

I have a few questions. First, the case opening form asks how we can help resolve the dispute, and that was answered: {{tq|Establish consensus}}. Does that mean establish a consensus as to whether to restore the deleted details?

Second, are there any other article content issues other than whether to have a long version of the article (approximately 50K bytes) or a short version of the article (approximately 3K bytes)?

Third, how many primary JEL categories are there, 20, 26, or some other number? I can see that the long version of the article says that there are 26 primary categories, and defines 20 categories in detail.

If the question is whether to have a long version of the article or a short version of the article, and there is disagreement, then consensus will be established by a Request for Comments. The AFD established consensus to keep the article, but did not address whether to keep the long or the short version, since the article was shortened during the AFD (and no one commented in the AFD on that). I don't think that local discussion is likely to result in consensus.

So the fourth question is whether each editor wants the long version or the short version. Do not answer why you want the long version or the short version. Just answer the question so that I will know whether there should be an RFC.

The fifth question is whether there are any procedural questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

:Ι think there are three options. First, the current version, which is close to what was there before Logoshimpo's proposal for deletion. Second, a shortened version, keeping the main 26 categories, but eliminating the detailed subcategories, and expanding discussion of how the system works. Third, Logoshimpo's preferred version which amounts to implementing their unsuccessful proposal for deletion. Having put a fair bit of work, along with others, into the current version. I'd prefer it. But my reading of the discussion is that the second version would be preferred by most, so I will go with that. JQ (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor has said that an RFC on the length of the article should provide three options, a long version, a short version, and a medium version. It appears that the current version is a long version, and that a short version exists in the article history, and so can be linked in the RFC. Does a medium version exist? If not, then in order to publish a clear RFC, someone will need to compose the medium version in a sandbox, so that participants in the RFC can view it.

My third question should also be answered, because otherwise editors taking part in the RFC may be puzzled, just as I am. How many primary categories are there?

Are there any other content issues, or any procedural questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a while, so I don't know about sandboxes. If you point me to an explanation of them, I will offer a medium version. JQ (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand there are 2 versions what User:Robert McClenon calls long and short versions. The long version is what is current at time of writing. The short version had been active for months before User:John Quiggin protested against it.

{{collapsetop|Discuss edits, not editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

I would advise User:John Quiggin to WP:AGF.

{{collapsebottom}}

Currently, there are 4 editors engaged in the talk page discussion:

• User:DandelionAndBurdock who commented as a neutral editor from WP:30
• User:Closed Limelike Curves who commented as an observer
• User:Logoshimpo who is the filing editor
• User:John Quiggin who would be the respondent

In particular, User:John Quiggin's following comment: "Logoshimpo is uninterested in discussion, and thinks that citing policy justifies edit warring." is inaccurate and astonishing when User:DandelionAndBurdock clearly cites WP:INDISCRIMINATE in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JEL_classification_codes&diff=prev&oldid=1298645571 this].

{{collapsetop|Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

There seems to be a trend of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on behalf of User:John Quiggin. User:John Quiggin's comments and behavior here on WP:DRN is concerning.

{{collapsebottom}}

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

For reference: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Logoshimpo/sandbox&oldid=1299399082 here] is the permalink for the short version. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

:Just to clarify that the long version was in place for nearly 20 years, and was regularly reviewed and approved in that time. The short version was in place for a few months. JQ (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The editor who provided the Third Opinion should have been listed. The Third Opinion should also have been mentioned as an effort to resolve the dispute.

The filing editor writes: {{tq|I understand requests for comment can be helpful but in this situtation: I don't see them as gainful.}} Do you have a better idea for how to resolve this dispute? If it is my judgment as moderator that there is a content dispute that cannot be resolved by compromise, I will initiate an RFC unless I am shown a good reason why one should not be conducted. So why do you question the value of an RFC, and what alternative do you propose? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

:Again to clarify, I was the user who asked for a Third Opinion. I wasn't sure where this should be mentioned. JQ (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

::I have now created a sandboxed "medium" version of the article at User:John Quiggin/sandbox. AFAICT, I was the only editor in favour of the long version and only User:Logoshimpo objects wants the short version (effectively, the deletion they proposed earlier). So, if Logoshimpo can agree to the medium version as a compromise, we could resolve the dispute now. JQ (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if this is in the wrong section - I'm a bit thrown by being invited half way through.

My position on the content remains as what is now being called the "Medium Version" i.e. to keep the top level codes, but not the full list. I see indiscriminate inclusion and wholesale deletion of both baby and bathwater to be two side of the same low-value coin - as editors we should be discriminating, and discerning what is worthy of inclusion: in this case, enough of the JEL codes to be fully illustrative of what the JEL schema covers. I certainly don't object to an RFC though. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|4vryng|06:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as improperly filed in two ways. First, the filing editor did not notify the other editor on their user talk page. Second, the filing editor made a statement in the section for a statement by the other editor. So the other editor has not been notified of this filing. I am closing this case without prejudice. Discuss on the template talk page for another 24 hours. If that does not result in agreement, a new case request can be filed here, with notice to the other editor, and not making any statements for the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Template:Russia–United States relations}}
• {{pagelinks|Template:Soviet Union–United States relations}}

Users involved

• {{User|4vryng}}
• {{User|WikiCleanerMan}}

Dispute overview

We are having a discussion in regards to the current state of the template versus the older version of the template.

Current version (Russia): Template:Russia–United_States_relations

Older version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Russia%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832906

Current version (Soviet Union): Template:Soviet_Union–United_States_relations

Older version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832738

To reduce repeating the same discussion we simply have it on one talk page:

Template_talk:Russia–United_States_relations#Template_Reversions

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

We have tried discussing this but we are not getting much accomplished.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a third opinion/feedback, at the current rate 4vryng and WikiCleanerMan may not come to an agreement so its better to get a third party invovled.

4vryng wants to use the current template.

WikiCleanerMan wants to use the older template.

To reduce repeating the same discussion we simply have it on one talk page:

Template_talk:Russia–United_States_relations#Template_Reversions

I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D and the arbitration ruling that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. One of the reasons for that ruling was to limit battleground editing about the Cold War and related conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. It is my understanding that the issue is that one editor wants to make certain changes to the two templates, and the other editor does not want to make the changes. DRN Rule D says not to make any changes to the article while discussion is in progress. That should be interpreted as not making any changes to the template, after the template is unlocked.

I would like each editor to provide two concise paragraphs. The first paragraph should state what they think the changes to the templates are and do. I am aware that I am asking both editors to describe the same changes. The second paragraph should state why you want to make those changes or why you do not want to make those changes.

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will respond.

Are there any other content issues besides the contested changes to the templates? I will assume that the answer is no unless someone explains what the other issues are.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, note: there are no other content issues that I am aware.

My counterpart in the discussion is requesting we use the old version of the Template:Russia–United States relations ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Russia%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832906 old version]) and Template:Soviet Union–United States relations ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832738 old version]). They believe the size of the current templates are too large now, requiring extra scrolling and making it harder to find links.

I do not believe any updates need to be made to the current templates for both Template:Russia–United States relations and Template:Soviet Union–United States relations. Yes I do acknowledge the templates have become larger in appearance when scrolling vertically, however the level of organization provided now compared to the older versions before makes the update a huge improvements for all Wikipedia users using the template. An example of how the current templates' layouts/appearances are now advantageous compared to the old templates are that the older versions compressed way too many links/information in too few sections making it harder for a person to find a specific topic. It felt like I was randomly trying to find an article in the many links that had been provided - giving it the feeling like your reading a book trying to find a topic that could have been better organized/structured. As an example, look at the Template:Soviet Union–United States relations. Lets say a user is looking for a "policy" - maybe its a middle school student writing a paper for class but the student has no knowledge base on the subject or what links/articles/words to look for. In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832738 old version] how do they know which article to look at first given how the words are back-to-back in large numbers in few sections and its unclear which links are "policy" related - do you just click all the links and hope for the best? This can take a long time given all the links and this is not efficient. But with the current version it can now be easily found which you can check are: Containment, Détente, Linkage, Rollback, Stimson Doctrine [Welles Declaration], Triangular diplomacy, Zero Option. Robert try looking at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832738 old version] of the template and try to figuring out which links are policies. Much harder versus the current Template:Soviet Union–United States relations template right? The small amount of extra scrolling vertically in the new version is worth it and can save a person the troubles of trying to search through all those links in the older version; this small size difference should not be relevant given how big the change has been for those trying to search for something. Also the templates can be set to collapsed mode using the code {{Russia–United States relations|state=collapsed}} and {{Soviet Union–United States relations|state=collapsed}} - as shown on their template pages - if its the only template on an article, giving the user the option to expand it or not without having catch a users eyes during the initial read of the article prior to reaching the template at the bottom of the article. One other example, lets so you are trying to find info on Space. If you look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832738 old version] you may have hard time trying to focus on links specifically on space because its not clear where to look first and which links are specifically on that subject matter (unless maybe the link has a space related term in it) versus the newer version.4vryng (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Hammelsmith|17:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed without prejudice as inadequately filed. The filing editor has not listed or notified any other editors. The other editors must be listed,and must be notified on their user talk pages. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion continues to be lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here, listing and notifying all of the other editors who have taken part in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Michael Jackson}}

Users involved

• {{User|Hammelsmith}}

Dispute overview

I recently made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1299402588 this edit] w/ my edit summary: "needs to be rewritten, sources don't fairly imply he "possibly had altered his genitals", opinions shouldn't be in WikiVoice, WP:WHYCITE: "sources required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", WP:SOURCESDIFFER: "articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority & significant-minority viewpoints by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view"

As follows:

"Prosecutors sought out Jackson's doctors and family inquiring about the possibility the singer had altered his physical appearance so as not to match the description.{{cite news |last=Newton |first=Jim |publication-date=March 16, 1994 |title=Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson's Mother to Testify |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-16-me-34715-story.html |archive-date=August 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/uS2Jw |url-status=live |access-date=July 7, 2025}} In January 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that the photos of Jackson "do not match descriptions given by the boy."{{cite book |first=Ian |last=Halperin |year=2009 |title=Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-1-4391-7719-8 |url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=wyaFQdNxU7sC&pg=PT84&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=USA%20Today&f=false |access-date=April 27, 2019 |archive-date=March 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240305111949/https://books.google.com/books?id=wyaFQdNxU7sC&pg=PT84#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }} In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."{{cite news |first=Josh |last=Mankiewicz |publication-date=February 17, 2003 |title=New look at dark accusations |work=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3080078 |archive-date=March 1, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250301000330/https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3080078 |url-status=live |access-date=July 7, 2025}}"

This is quoted content from the LA Times in dispute: "Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim".

Please please help us.

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

Talk:Michael_Jackson#I_think_this_edit_is_more_than_fair._Thoughts?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think I have made a fair edit that accurately reflects the sources, & I want it neutral. Other editors seem more concerned about disrespecting Michael Jackson in some way. I have said that I don't mean for my edits to POV-push regarding anything he did or didn't do. I don't mind a lot of scrubbing & re-wording. My interest is what we can fairly report on Wiki. Please please help us.

{{ref-talk}}

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jan200101|19:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as probably not the right forum. As a minor point, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. The more important issue is that this appears to be a copyright concern. If the filing editor thinks that the article contains copyright violations, they should report it to Copyright Problems and let administrators and other editors who are familiar with copyright concerns look into the possible problem. DRN does not handle a dispute for which there is another noticeboard or another procedure. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and has procedures for dealing with copyright concerns. Resume discussion on the article talk page, or report the concern at Copyright Problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|V (programming language)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jan200101}}
• {{User|Wukuendo}}

Dispute overview

The Syntax highlight section has entire subsections copied directly from the V Documentation without proper citation or proper credit.

The Structs, Heap Structs and Error Handling sections are directly lifted from the following sources:

https://docs.vlang.io/structs.html

https://docs.vlang.io/structs.html#heap-structs

https://docs.vlang.io/type-declarations.html#optionresult-types-and-error-handling

https://docs.vlang.io/type-declarations.html#handling-optionsresults

The Heap Structs section was removed by me under the initial believe that it was simply a violation of WP:COPYPASTE

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=1299077008

After this I had realized that the documentation is under MIT and was not properly cited to which I opened a section on the talk page.

Wukuendo then changed the example code to be slightly different from the V documentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=1299286929

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:V_(programming_language)#Remove_Heap_Structs_section]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:V_(programming_language)#copy_pasted_article_contents]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A decision needs to be made if the contents are in violation of WP:COPYPASTE and the MIT license.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1754426177}}

{{drn filing editor|Jursha|20:36, 8 July 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|Category:PlayStation 5-only games}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jursha}}
• {{User|WikiAnsweredNow}}

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1754428370}}

{{drn filing editor|Hammelsmith|21:12, 8 July 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|Michael Jackson}}

Users involved

• {{User|Hammelsmith}}
• {{User|TruthGuardians}}
• {{User|SNUGGUMS}}
• {{User|ianmacm}}
• {{User|Wallby}}
• {{User|Israell}}
• {{User|castorbailey}}
• {{User|Slackergeneration}}
• {{User|Never17}}

Dispute overview

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=1299402588 My edit] w/ summary: "needs rewrite, sources don't fairly imply "possibly had altered his genitals", opinions not WikiVoice "sources required for material that is challenged or likely to be" "NPOV, fairly representing all majority & significant-minority viewpoints by reliable sources, in rough proportion to prominence of each view"

"Prosecutors sought Jackson's doctors & family inquiring about possibility the singer had altered his physical appearance so as not to match the description.{{cite news |last=Newton |first=Jim |publication-date=March 16, 1994 |title=Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson's Mother to Testify |work=LA Times|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-16-me-34715-story.html |archive-date=Aug 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/uS2Jw |url-status=live |access-date=July 7, 2025}} In Jan 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that the photos of Jackson "do not match descriptions given by the boy."{{cite book |first=Ian |last=Halperin |year=2009 |title=Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-1-4391-7719-8 |url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=wyaFQdNxU7sC&pg=PT84&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=USA%20Today&f=false |access-date=April 27, 2019 |archive-date=March 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240305111949/https://books.google.com/books?id=wyaFQdNxU7sC&pg=PT84#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }} In Feb 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."{{cite web |publication-date=February 17, 2003 |title=New look at dark accusations |work=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3080078 |archive-date=March 1, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250301000330/https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3080078|url-status=live|access-date=July 7, 2025}}"

Please help.

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

Talk:Michael_Jackson#I_think_this_edit_is_more_than_fair._Thoughts?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think I have made a fair edit that accurately reflects the sources, & I want it neutral. Other editors seem more concerned about disrespecting Michael Jackson in some way. I have said that I don't mean for my edits to POV-push regarding anything he did or didn't do. I don't mind a lot of scrubbing & re-wording. My interest is what we can fairly report on Wiki. Please please help us.

{{ref-talk}}

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