Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#National Recording Registry

{{DR case status|hold}}

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree to the moderated discussion and DRN Rule A.

The issues are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Wikipedious1|02:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. An RFC is being used to resolve the issue of whether to include the sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|2025 Pahalgam attack}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I will ask each editor to make a concise statement as to what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Please Be Specific at DRN, and indicate what paragraphs in the article you want to change and what wording you want to change.

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

; Kautilya3

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

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

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

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

; Wikipedious1

The background section as it exists now is:

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

As Kautilya3 states, this is the disputed change:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Wikipedious1

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

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

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

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

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

; Kautilya3

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Kautilya3

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

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

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

; Wikipedious1

"Historically settler colonialism has been a method of conquering a continent" this is not true, and in any case it's not necessarily where the dispute lies. The settler colonialism wiki article has some examples of settler colonialism in history: {{tq|The settler colonial paradigm has been applied to a wide variety of conflicts around the world, including New Caledonia,[23] Western New Guinea,[24] the Andaman Islands, Argentina,[25] Australia, British Kenya, the Canary Islands,[26] Fiji, French Algeria,[27] Generalplan Ost, Hawaii,[28] Ireland,[29] Israel/Palestine, Italian Libya and East Africa,[30][31] Kashmir,[32][33] Hokkaido, Korea and Manchukuo,[34][35] Latin America, Liberia, New Zealand, northern Afghanistan,[36][37][38][39] North America, Posen and West Prussia and German South West Africa,[40] Rhodesia, Sápmi,[41][9][page needed][42][43] South Africa, South Vietnam,[44][45][46] and Taiwan.[7][47]}} Please note that in many of these cases they did not involve the conquer of an entire continent. Settler colonialism involves the populating/settling of an area that is inhabited by an indigenous people with the foreign settlers of (typically) an imperialist country, who displace the indigenous people of that land and block them from living, working, owning economic resources, governing etc, on that land. Colonialism is intimately linked with destruction of indigenous people and their identity. Leaving all else aside, it is not inaccurate to describe Indian government policy in Kashmir as settler colonialism because "that only applies to the conquering of continents", if that is your point.

You are correct that that is the disputed content. As discussed in the sources I bring to support my edit, some analysts have compared Indian government policies allowing non-Kashmiris to live, work, and settle in Kashmir as settler colonialism and there have been fears that the demographics of Kashmir will change as a result, and that Kashmir will be reduced to a colony of India. That fact alone remains whether the fears are actually real or only imagined.Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the one article content issue is whether to remove or to leave in the following: {{tq|Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".}}. If there are any other content issues, please state them. I would like a concise statement from each editor as to why the questioned statement should or should not be in the article.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:On mobile and it's a bit difficult for me to format my response properly, so I'm just going to respond to you with my statement: I have no other questions, and I believe the questioned statement should be in the article because it is attested by numerous reliable sources and is directly relevant to the article as it provides additional context and background info of the attack. Wikipedious1 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the only question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There is agreement that the one article content issue is whether to remove or to leave in the following: {{tq|Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".}}.

One editor has made a brief statement as to why the statement should be left in. Other editors should make comparable statements.

If there is no agreement, then a Request for Comments will be submitted to the community. I would prefer to have agreement either to leave the statement in or to remove the statement, or an a compromise, but an RFC is the binding way to resolve content disputes.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with the RFC being submitted to resolve this now 2 month dispute. I can't see a compromise occurring since the disputed content is a short sentence (there is not much "room" for compromise).

{{tq|One editor has made a brief statement as to why the statement should be left in. Other editors should make comparable statements.}} I doubt you'll get much, since the opposition is entirely ideologically motivated. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Can you point to that statement please? Or copy it here so that we are clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• My objection(s) to the inclusion remains the same which I had stated in the opening statement (and prior to that on the Talk page). Being that the sources themselves are not upto par and lean into WP:CRYSTAL, a resort to RfC is not going to solve this. Finally, militant organizations cite a myriad grievances whether true or false (e.g. motives for the September 11 attacks) it is ultimately onto editors whether to elucidiate further on them based on legitimacy and WP:DUE, which as I argue is entirely absent here. That the content that is vied to be included in the article is untethered to it is backed by the fact that no extensive coverage of the attack itself has engendered any serious deliberation of the topic including in passing. Gotitbro (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• [I can't really find any brief statement having been made by the filing party other than to say "some analysts" have "compared" the Indian government policies to "settler colonialism".] I don't believe there are any analysts among the citations and the authors are mostly reproducing what the Kashmiris themselves say. The Kashmiris have either expressed fears, or produced fake and incompelete statistics by randomly throwing around terms like "outsiders" or "non-locals". See the discussion in Domicile (Jammu and Kashmir). The best source the filing party has produced is a journal article, which self-describes itself as an "essay" and it claims that it is using settler colonialism as an "interpretive framework" to understand Indian policies. That seems like a prejudgement rather than an "analysis". None of the sources have provided any evidence of "settler colonialism" occurring. So this claim doesn't belong in the Wikipage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I do not want to open a dialogue with you here because I don't believe that's the point of the DRN, but I wanted to share that since an RfC has been opened at the talk page now, if you have reliable sources that discuss why the situation in Kashmir is not settler colonialism, or rebuke the settler colonial argument, please feel free to share them at the RfC. Otherwise, I'm confused why you believe your citation-needed arguments have more weight here than what the Associated Press, among others, have printed. Wikipedious1 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I have prepared a draft RFC on the question, which is at Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/RFC on Settler Colonialism. Please review and comment on the draft RFC. When we have reviewed it, I will move it to the article talk page and tweak it to make it a live RFC. Please do not vote in the draft RFC until it becomes live.

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am ok with the wording of the RfC. As a minor revision, the second occurrence of Background should perhaps be changed to "the second paragraph", because the entire Background section is longer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Sorry to have placed this on the RfC page instead of here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I have copied the RFC to the article talk page, so that it is now a live RFC, and wlll run for thirty days. Please express your opinions in the RFC.

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|open}}

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

{{drn filing editor|Andrzejbanas|12:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Agent_Carter_(TV_series)}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any other questions?

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

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

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

:* Action-adventure

:* Period drama

:* Science fiction

:* Spy fiction

:* Superhero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that two editors have stated what genres they want listed in the infobox, and one has made a longer statement that probably does identify the genres but is not concise. So I will ask each editor to state, concisely, possibly again, what genres they think should be listed. It is not necessary to list the sources at this point, but you must have sources available. After the editors have listed their candidate genres, we can then see whether we can agree on a set of genres that there will be agreement on.

Are there any other content issues about the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the excessiveness, felt I had to show my work. From that work, I would suggest "Comedy" "Spy" and or "Espionage" and action. They should link to Television comedy, Spy fiction, and Action television accordingly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Repeating my suggested list: "Action-adventure", "Period drama", "Science fiction", "Spy fiction", "Superhero". There are no other content disputes with this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I think Genre, if it is there, should contain Action-adventure, Period drama, and Spy fiction. Tduk (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are what the editors have said they want listed in the infobox:

• Andrzejbanas: Television comedy, spy fiction, action television

• Adamstom97: : Action-adventure, Period drama. Science fiction, Spy fiction, Superhero

• Tduk: Either leave blank, or Action-adventure, Period drama, and Spy fiction

There is agreement on Spy fiction. I will ask the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion to agree on the remaining genres.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

While I'm happy with agree with at least one, I have a few issues with others. Action adventure would link to a video game genre, not a television or even a film one and the links that do go to vague information that has little info for readers. Hybrid genres are complicated matters, the disambiguation page for both just states its one or the other, with telling an audience what elements of either genre from what we perceive as that genre are the parts that belong to this, or any show. If I were going on the premise of the show in the article alone, I wouldn't recognize obvious elements of adventure in terms of spectacle or travel. I don't see how the other genres are essential to understanding the show if their elements aren't even mentioned in this section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at some other examples of what series are linking to, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be a good "Adventure television" genre page to link to, I would support replacing "Action-adventure" with Action. I stand by my argument for Period drama and am happy to provide reliable sources to further support it. I feel that Science fiction is a no-brainer given what happens in the show. I won't strongly push for Superhero if others think there isn't enough explicit superhero-ing in this show. That would give a potential compromise list of "Action", "Period drama", "Science fiction", and "Spy fiction". - adamstom97 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would support linking to action, namely per the Action film article where Yvonne Tasker states that "both the action and adventure are often used in hybrid or as interchangeable terms", so this is probably the best way to go about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think we're facing the problem that the genres, as represented by the third party sources, don't all actually have proper precise relevant Wikipedia articles to link to. Similarly, Period drama actually says it is synonymous with Historical drama, which I'm not sure we all agree with; this may be causing some of the disagreement here. Tduk (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Generally speaking, many articles on genre in various forms on Wikipedia are relatively weak with tossed together sources and assumptions (understandably so, how often do we say it's hard to describe a genre but we "know it when we see it"?) I would agree with your ascertation on that genre, but also would find that yes, if we looked for sources that briefly call it on genre or another, we can do that, but a bucket load of genres isn't helpful, especially when a plot summary that suggests the setting already captures the details I believe we are already trying to get across with either "period" or "historical" and it might be problematic to in call it either due to various/unclear definitions of the genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't really see a solution to this other than removing Genre - I reluctantly came up with a list but I would not argue for them. I think having a list of terms that may or not apply at the moment, linking to poorly sourced articles whose content may change in the future, may not be the best way we can present information. Tduk (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::To clarify, do you mean from just this article? or from the tv infobox in general? I know that the film infobix has been against adding genres for a long period of time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Well, it's a very different discussion to have it removed from the Infobox in general. Right now I'm only talking about within the article - in theory the result of that discussion could trickle upwards. Tduk (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I still don't see a need with removing the parameter completely, there is no good reason to treat this article any differently from every other TV article. If you think we should get rid of the genres from all TV articles, I have already expressed support for that. But while this is a standard parameter for TV articles, and while there is a good list of genres that can be included, I think we should keep it. I'm not really following what the concerns are with my most recent compromise proposal, it sounds like you are concerned about the links but not the actual list? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::There's no need to feel a need to put values in all optional parameters in an infobox. We've both explained this quite clearly and yet you keep responding by saying that discussion needs to be had elsewhere. That's not what this dispute is about; in this specific case, the Genre field may not serve a purpose and will only confuse readers, if editors feel obliged to put it in. Tduk (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I apologize for my question in retrospect as I feel it made us go a bit off rails and that was not my intention, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding the other editors POV on what their statement said. I'll re-iterate with my genre points. I would be pretty happy with it just citing action television and spy fiction per the above statements. The period/historical statement is vague and I feel that I have not seen convincing arguments for the other genres outside that would not fail WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Once again, I feel you two are derailing the discussion. I have provided a clear compromise list that tries to balance everyone's concerns, and instead of agreeing or making specific suggestions for further tweaking that list you have both gone off on tangents and made vague, unhelpful comments. {{tq|in this specific case, the Genre field may not serve a purpose and will only confuse readers}} -- there is nothing about this series that makes a list of genres particularly difficult or confusing to put together. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I just went back to trying to reframe the conversation about genres that apply based on established guidelines. How is this derailing it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Adamstom.97 I don't appreciate your portrayal of my attempts to find clarity here. I don't see this discussion moving forward if every time someone makes a point, instead of addressing it you try to portray it as either being in the wrong place or nonsensical. That is why we are here in the first place. Tduk (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You keep saying 'this is too difficult, why don't we just get rid of the genre list entirely' when there is absolutely no reason to be saying that. This series has clear genres that can be listed in the infobox, we just have to get through this discussion to find a final list. If you stick to the topic at hand, this whole thing can be sorted quickly.

:::::::::::::Once again, I have tried to balance all of our thoughts when coming up with this compromise proposal: "Action", "Period drama", "Science fiction", and "Spy fiction". If you think something should be added to this list, please clearly state so with your reasoning. If you think something should be removed from this list, please clearly state so with your reasoning. If you can do that without going off on an irrelevant tangent, it would be very much appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::At this point I am not sure how to proceed, as this discussion is devolving in the same way as the original, per WP:DRNA Rule 4. Also, I'm not sure if this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Carter_(TV_series)&curid=42705775&diff=1294547220&oldid=1294471034] violates Rule 5. Until I hear back from a moderator like @Robert McClenon regarding these two rules and how they apply, I think it best if I do not participate in this further, as it's clearly just confusing things. Tduk (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Per your request, I don't think we should do it due to WP:WEIGHT standards. The majority of sources I've found have only stated the sources I have found. I believe you said I have misinterpreted weight, if you can clarify what it actually means in this case, I'll probably be able to understand your concerns more adamstom97. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It would be great if @Robert McClenon could weigh in here as this is basically the same point we got to on the previous discussion. I am trying to stick to a debate on which genres should be kept in / which should be kept out and I think I am being generous with the amount of time and effort I am putting into trying to get a solution here. It's pretty difficult when the other editors involved refuse to make clear, specific comments about the actual topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Adam, I have answered your question directly and explained my reasoning as you asked. I'm not sure how I am not sticking to the debate. If there is anything I missed in the response you asked, please let me know. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::All you said is we should follow WP:WEIGHT, that is not clear or specific. We are putting together a bullet point list, and I think it should be pretty straightforward to point to the bullets you want removed and the bullets you want added with clear reasoning for each point. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Okay, I am trying to keep brief per the standards of the DRN and I've said this before but you have said in the past you did not like my quoting policy. I've stated before that WP:WEIGHT states: {{gt| Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,}}. In short, this should apply to genres as well by looking up reviews of the show and how it has been described by critics.. I've listed my research above on how the show has been described. I have shown my research above on what sources have described the show in terms of genre and I looked them up without hunting for any specific genre in an effort to be neutral. My results were the genres I've suggested initially. I'm happy to meet half-way in calling action-adventure as action per the vagueness of that category, and academic material saying the genre is used interchangable with action. While I did include comedy, both other editors did not seem that should be in the forefront. That is why and how I've selected my genres and I see no reason to add others. There are several genres we could apply to several things, but its not useful to have several, and if we want to apply the weight rule and remain neutral, we should list the ones as described by third-party sources which are preferred over first-party ones, especially as something as subjective as genre.

::::::::::::::::::Again, I'm only saying this again, as it was requested for more detail on how I came to my decision. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::You looked at five reviews. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Adam, with respect, I looked at more than that, this is what I found. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears that this discussion isn't getting any closer to agreement. If there is no agreement, it will be necessary to post a Request for Comments. Rather than asking the community to choose between three packages of genres, the RFC will list all of the genres that are in contention, and will ask the community to vote Yes or No on each of them. The genres in question appear to be:

• Television comedy,
• action television,
• Action-adventure,
• Period drama.
• Science fiction,
• Superhero

The editors can resume discussion as to which of the genres they think should be included.

Are there any questions about policies and guidelines? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:As I stated above, I would like to understand how point #5 from WP:DRNA applies; as I think the way it is worded might be considered vague. Apart from that, I think it's also unclear whether Period drama should link to Historical Drama or Historical Fiction. As I've said before, the genre pages are a confusing mess; so I would appreciate if a clear option for "no genre field" which may gain no traction at all was presented in the RFC. Tduk (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, but the one genre that seems to have vanished that we all seemed to agree upon (spy fiction) has vanished, I'm gathering that's because it's not in question at the moment? If possible, is my understanding of WP:WEIGHT as it applies here appropriate. I'd like to withhold my vote if I'm suggested by a neutral party that I'm way off here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I would support this format, I don't think we are getting anywhere with the current discussion and I strongly feel that sticking to a debate about each bullet point and whether they should be in or out is the best way to come to a final list. I am happy to include all of these options in an RfC and provide my reasoning for and against each one. If we all do that and are able to keep our thoughts concise we might actually get thoughts from other editors who have likely been scared off by the wall of text that we have had so far in the discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There was a question about rule A.5, but I do not think that I understand it. Rule A.5 says not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Is there a question about it? If there is a question about some other point in the rules, please copy the rule, so that I will know that I am answering the question about the rule in question.

I did not list Spy fiction because I thought that there was a local consensus to include it, so that we are not asking about it. If the editors would like it also included, I will add it.

I expect to have a draft RFC available for review in less than 24 hours.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:In terms of the rule for WP:WEIGHT, I can try and clarify my question here. Most of my votes for genre are trying to be inline with following WP:WEIGHT. Specifically that {{gt|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all}}. and that MOS:TV states {{gt| All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead, should comply with Wikipedia's due weight policy and represent the genre(s) specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.}} I have combined these to make my votes and have not really been giving my own personal opinion on the genre, but have been trying to follow the guidelines. Is this the proper approach? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't seem to be able to reply directly in the field below. Re: @Robert McClenon asking about "Rule A.5 says not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Is there a question about it?", I asked because one of the editors involved in this discussion did in fact edit the article while the discussion was going on - but the edit was not about the Genre field, so I wanted clarification on how that rule applies to what happened. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The violation of Rule A.5 was, in the judgment of the moderator, not significant.

I do not plan to tell the editors what the proper approach is to assessing due weight or to choosing genres. The editors who are taking part in this DRN are good-standing members of the community, and the community will be deciding on the genres via the RFC.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:To clarify, I'm not asking (nor have I asked) for anyone to tell some other editor. I'm asking for an opinion on whether or not I am misinterpreting a guideline here. If you do not feel comfortable doing that, I understand, but please do not misinterpret the question this way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying, the RFC sounds like the right solution, though I don't know enough about them to know how to get enough input for it. I trust it will happen. Tduk (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have composed a draft RFC on the genres to be listed in the infobox for Agent Carter (TV series). It is available at Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)/RFC on Genres. When we agree that it is ready for the community, I will copy it to the article talk page, Talk:Agent Carter (TV series), and tweak it so that it becomes a live RFC. Please comment on it if you think that any changes to it should be made before I copy it over to the live talk page.

Please do not vote in the RFC until it becomes live.

Are there any comments on the draft RFC? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No concerns from me. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I find it a bit confusingly worded regarding omitting the field from the infobox - perhaps it would be better to simply have the option of voting "no" to all genres - and in the end, in the unlikely even that no genres get a majority of yes's (or something similar), the field would be eliminated as there is obviously no reasonable consensus. Tduk (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

While I hope we do not have to come to removing all the genres for this specific infobox, I do agree with Tduk's request. Perhaps "Should the listing of genres be omitted from {{gt|this}} infobox?" instead. A really mild change, but one we might as well make clear. Otherwise, I don't think there are any issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's not clear what action would be taken if, say, 10 people comment, but there are no genres which 5 people support. What happens in this case? Tduk (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)/RFC on Genres, the current set-up of it appears to be like a vote and I'm not sure what happens after it. Do we state our case on a specific genre? or just say yes or no? What happens after the poll is conducted? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The procedure for the RFC is that it will run for thirty days and then will be closed by an uninvolved editor. The closer will decide what the result is for each genre. I have tweaked the infobox so that it specifies Spy fiction, so that that is what we will default to in the event of No Consensus on all of the genres.

Should I remove the question about deleting the genre field, or does someone have an alternate wording?

Please do not vote in the RFC until it becomes live.

Are there any other comments on the draft RFC? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see any reason to overrule a consensus NOT to include "Spy fiction" if the RFC leans that way by not reaching any consensus. Could you explain the rationale there? Tduk (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, the current version will be unchanged, which has an infobox that lists only Spy fiction. I am not sure whether that answers the question because I am not sure what the question was. No Consensus on any other genre does not include the genre.

Are there any other comments on the draft RFC? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'm confuse about why a "no consensus" on if Spy Fiction should be included in the RFC shouldn't override our small consensus. Is Spy Fiction not being listed in the RFC? Tduk (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Not sure what is happening but I keep getting notifications for this comment. Hoping this stops them. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Tduk - I don't think that I understand your question. I would like to get all of the questions answered before starting the RFC, but first the questions need to be asked so that they are answerable. What is the question? If I don't understand the question again, I will start the RFC anyway.

User:adamstom.97 - You may have accidentally clicked on a Subscribe button at the top corner of this section of DRN. If there is an Unsubscribe button now, click it. This is a relatively new feature of talk pages that sometimes serves as a misfeature because it is easy to subscribe to a discussion by an accidental click. Maybe it should respond with a prompt rather than simply subscribing the user, and should require two clicks, one on the Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other comments on the draft RFC? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon stated that "If there is no consensus, the current version will be unchanged, which has an infobox that lists only Spy fiction.". However, the RFC draft also features "Spy fiction" as an option. My question is, if "Spy fiction" does not receive a consensus at the RFC, and nothing else does as well, why is "Spy fiction" getting special treatment? Presumably everyone involved in this DRN will also participate in the RFC, so it 5 other editors come along and do not support "Spy fiction", why are we not supporting their positions? Tduk (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps we could amend it that saying Spy fiction has already been agreed upon by the three previous editors as valid per sources. We could give people the option to suggest its not it, but I doubt there will be much push in this direction. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::For simplicity's sake we could just list spy fiction as one of the options and have the three of us give our support for it. That way, if more editors are against it and consensus ends up being to not include it there is no confusion about how to deal with that situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah that's probably good enough. I think we'll be going in to comment on our reason for including them anyways. If there is consensus against us on that one, it'll probably be a pretty good one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That is also what I was suggesting. Glad we can all agree on that! Tduk (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have launched the RFC. Please vote in it.

Are there any questions about the RFC? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|active}}

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Shenyang J-35}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

In summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{Blockquote

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

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

…

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

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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

{{Blockquote

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

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

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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

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

{{Blockquote

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

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

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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

{{Blockquote

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

…

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

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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

{{Blockquote

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

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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

{{Blockquote

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

|multiline=yes}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{DR case status|closed}}

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|2025 IndyCar Series}}

Users involved

• {{User|GhostOfDanGurney}}

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Yes:

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Drag pageantry}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Thedarkknightli|08:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed due to lack of participation. Only one editor has replied, and this noticeboard is for moderated discussion. Do not edit-war. Any editor has three options. First, they may resume discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Mohamed Hadid. Second, they may request advice at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Third, they may submit a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 15 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|Mohamed Hadid}}

Users involved

• {{User|Thedarkknightli}}
• {{User|Huldra}}
• {{User|Quaerens-veritatem}}
• {{User|Nswix}}

Dispute overview

Huldra and I believe we should include MH's Palestinian identity in the lead. Quaerens-veritatem and Nswix disagree, stating it is "not relevant to his notability" and against MOS:ETHNICITY.

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

Talk:Mohamed Hadid#National identity in lead, Talk:Mohamed Hadid#National identity in infobox, User talk:Thedarkknightli#Mohamed Hadid

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I still don't understand why MH's Palestinian identity shouldn't be included in the lead at all. However, if there's something I'm missing, please don't hesitate to note it. Thanks in advance!

His Palestinian identity has become more prominent after the start of the Gaza war, and his daughter's Gigi and Bella's support of the Palestinian cause. I could bring any number of recent news-articles about it, but I presume people can manage to google for themselves. I really don't understand why some people wasn't to censor out the fact that he is Palestinian, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

(1) {{no ping|Thedarkknightli}} has related that 10 reliable sources have called Hadid “Palestinian”; however, there would not be reliable sources for this if he was not notable solely for being a rich U.S. real estate developer known for building luxury hotels and mansions, mainly in the Bel Air neighborhood of Los Angeles and the city of Beverly Hills. If he was not such a U.S. developer, his self-declared opinion as to his ethnicity would neither be covered, nor would he have a Wikiarticle at all. (I question whether his article meets notability in the first place.) None of the 10 sources claim he was notable solely because he said he was Palestinian. The sources just use the ethnonational group of which he declared himself a member, not derived from outside sources. There is no source that independently found him to be a member of the Palestinian ethnonational group. MOS:FIRSTBIO "Context (location, nationality, etc.) ...for the activities that made the person notable. ...The main reason the person is notable..." MOS:ETHNICITY: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." He was not notable because he was a self-declared Palestinian real estate developer, he was notable for being a real estate developer mostly in Beverly Hills, with or without being self-declared Palestinian.

(2) Hadid was born in Nazareth, in the Northern District of Israel, and is a citizen of the U.S. and Jordan. He is neither now, nor was in the past, a citizen of the State of Palestine. He apparently has made no effort to be a citizen of the State of Palestine. MOS:ETHNICITY: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. "...this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national (i.e. a citizen) or permanent resident;..".

(3) As far as placing Palestinian in his Infobox, we cannot use "nationality" per WP:INFONAT: "In biographies, a nationality= field should not be used.' citizenship = field can be used,..." As aforesaid, Hadid was born in Nazareth and is a citizen of the U.S. and Jordan. He is neither now, nor was in the past, a citizen of the State of Palestine. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I maintain that per MOS:ETHNICITY, if he was notable as some kind of Palestinian activist, it would make sense, but as it stands now, he is notable as a real estate developer in the US. Nswix (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Volunteer Notes - The discussion at the article talk page has not been within the past two weeks. Since the subject article is a biography of a living person, the editors might get an additional opinion (perhaps a fifth opinion?) more quickly at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on editing biographies of living persons and state whether you agree to the rules. I see that one issue is the nationality of the subject in the infobox. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Are there any other article content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, I do. 1) Huldra and I want to change the lead sentence to "{{tq|... is an American real estate developer of Palestinian origin}}", with which Nswix and Quaerens-veritatem disagree. 2) Huldra wants to include {{para|nationality|Palestinian}} in the infobox, with which Quaerens-veritatem, SNUGGUMS (who's been neither listed nor notified), and I disagree. 3) I've proposed changing {{para|citizenship|{{ubl|US (naturalized)|Jordan}}}} to {{para|citizenship|{{ubl|US (naturalized)|Jordan{{efn|Hadid identifies as Palestinian.}}}}}}; Huldra and Quaerens-veritatem disagree with it, but SNUGGUMS considers it fine. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Only one editor has responded to my question in four days. This noticeboard is for moderated discussion, not statements of disagreement. If there are no statements by other editors, I will close this dispute and recommend that the editors take it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status}}

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Bono state}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Assessing the quality of arguments and interpretation of sources

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

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

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

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

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

{{DR case status}}

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

:I think this is a little wordy, and some of the information doesn't appear to be in the provided source — 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)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Crystalbaman12|03:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page by the parties. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to DRN, and should precede all other forms of dispute resolution. Discuss on the article talk page for at least 48 hours. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 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|SSSniperWolf}}

Users involved

• {{User|Crystalbaman12}}
• {{User|Yoshi24517}}
• {{User|Augmented Seventh}}

Dispute overview

There is a persistent issue with biased editing and gatekeeping on the SSSniperWolf article. Multiple editors appear to be selectively allowing negative information while repeatedly reverting good-faith, properly sourced contributions that highlight her professional accomplishments. These include:

Omission of verified career achievements such as her appearance on Ultimate Expedition, hosting Clickbait on Fullscreen, and a streaming partnership with Mobcrush.

Lack of balance: The page disproportionately emphasizes controversies and omits neutral or positive milestones in her career, violating Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy.

Inconsistent enforcement of sourcing standards: Edits citing reliable sources have been removed or reverted, while other claims remain that are either poorly sourced or violate the biographies of living persons (BLP) guidelines.

Edit warring and refusal to engage: Editors revert changes without discussion or consensus, refusing to address concerns on the Talk page or acknowledge alternative perspectives.

This behavior undermines Wikipedia’s commitment to fairness and neutrality, especially on a BLP. I am seeking a fair resolution, where edits are judged on their merit and sources—not on personal bias against the subject.

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

Made good-faith edits to add well-sourced and verifiable information about SSSniperWolf’s career, including her appearances on Ultimate Expedition, Clickbait, and her Mobcrush streaming deal.

Provided reliable sources for every addition, including mainstream articles, official announcements, and coverage from verified media outlets.

Avoided edit wars by not repeatedly re-adding content after reverts.

Used the Talk page to try and reason w/ users

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow neutral editors who do not have a personal bias against the subject to contribute to the article. A balanced biography should include both well-sourced controversies and career accomplishments.

Removing personal information that includes where she lives.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status}}

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

{{reflist-talk}}

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

2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Aftermath

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jonesey95|23:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed at DRN, because this dispute is now pending at WP:ANI. Any discussion can take place at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 19 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|User talk:Ohconfucius#Erroneous_addition_of_EngvarB_by_your_script}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jonesey95}}
• {{User|Rich Farmbrough}}
• {{User|cagliost}}
• {{User|Ohconfucius}}
• {{User|GiantSnowman}}

Dispute overview

This editor is repeatedly adding {{tl|EngvarB}} to articles in ways that are contrary to the template's documentation and in ways that contradict the instructions for the script that they are using. They are the maintainer of the script. DRN may not be exactly the right venue for this dispute, but I hesitate to bring this to ANI since it does not appear to rise to that level yet.

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

User_talk:Ohconfucius#Erroneous_addition_of_EngvarB_by_your_script

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am primarily requesting third-party input to see if the editors objecting to Ohconfucius's edits have valid objections. The editor has not responded to multiple requests to stop their editing pattern, so some sort of third-party input may be helpful.

As per MOS:RETAIN, users should not add {{tl|EngvarB}} to articles which already have a valid language tag, and should not remove valid language tags without a good reason. Ohconfucius has not responded to requests to stop doing this, and has recently stated they refuse to stop doing this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohconfucius#c-Ohconfucius-20250611222800-GiantSnowman-20250611175600].

There are, at this time, at least two problems with this request. I am not closing it because I have looked at the problem and I think it is important that the problem be resolved as soon as possible. The first problem is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Pinging the users is not sufficient because some users have disabled notification of pings. The second problem is that this is not an article content dispute, so DRN is not the right forum. It is my opinion that WP:ANI is the right forum, because the user has been notified about the problem several times, both with warning templates and with text, and has not responded to the notifications. Since they have not responded to the notifications, I doubt that a voluntary procedure like DRN will be useful. What they are doing is contrary to the documentation for {{tl|EngvarB}}, which says not to replace a variant-specific template, such as {{tl|Use Ugandan English}} or {{tl|Use British English}}, with EngvarB unless there is a consensus, which there was not. It seems to me that this is comparable to edit-warring, good-faith but improper conduct that degrades the encyclopedia. If there is a specific reason not to use ANI, I can inquire as to what is the proper forum, but my opinion is that, after multiple unsuccessful notifications, ANI is the next step.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I looked for notification instructions but was unable to find instructions about notifying the other editors. When I search for the string "notif" on this page, I find nothing in the instructions. I assumed at that point that it was not necessary for this process, that it would be done in some other way. As a matter of courtesy, I posted a notice about this discussion at the original talk page discussion and pinged all of the above editors. I will proceed with this discussion or post to ANI, as you recommend. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::I have now notified all parties to the dispute on their talk pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just seen this. I have blocked Ohconfucius. I agree with Robert McClenon that ANI would have been the ideal venue to discuss this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reported the disputed editing at WP:ANI. While I was writing up the report for WP:ANI, administrator Martin partially blocked Ohconfucius from mainspace (see note above). I will be closing this thread. Please discuss at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your help with this report, even though it appears to have been not quite in the right forum. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Dipu Theyyamveetil|11:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature, as inadequately filed, and as the wrong venue. There has not been extended discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not listed or notified any other editors. Also, this appears to be a dispute over the primary title of an article, in particular over the spelling of a place name (which may be a dispute over transliteration into the Latin alphabet). A dispute over the title of an article should be resolved first by discussion on the article talk page, and then by a Requested Move. Discuss on the article talk page, and then Request the Move of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 19 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|Malleshwaram}}

Users involved

• {{User|Dipu Theyyamveetil}}

Dispute overview

Malleshwaram is not the right spelling of the place. The actual name of the place is Malleshwara derived from the Temple - Kadu Malleshwara located in the vicinity..

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleshwara,_Bengaluru

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleshwara,_Bengaluru

User Dipu Theyyamveetil has not discussed this on the talk page, and (therefore) has not produced any evidence to support their claim. The existing name is supported by the article references. Speedy close.

{{DRN archive bottom}}