Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#The Poison

{{DR case status}}

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

{{drn filing editor|Chrisdevelop|16:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Pākehā}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do the editors have any questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748278339}}

{{drn filing editor|Bosomba Amosah|16:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Twi}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

Twi is a common name to Akan without Fante. In actual sense, Twi isn’t used by Fantes only. All the other Akan uses it. However one user thinks the name applies to Asante and Akuapem alone. On top of it, he is using a fake reference for such claim. None of such claims can be found in the source he cited. I have tried to engage him severally yet, he still stick to the unsupported claim. He sent the issue to ANI which was overlooked in good faith. Another claim of his, is Twi is only spoken in Ashanti region. Which is all false and misleading. And the moment, your good faith are needed for mutual understanding.

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

Talk:Twi#Protected

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&oldid=1277155512#Misleading_and_misrepresentations]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It is quite unfortunate as this matter has gone this far, as a result, I would appreciate your fair or good faith opinion and a look into the cited sources for better and mutual understanding

This dispute is one element in an attempt by Bosomba to push the importance of Bono at the expense of other varieties of the Akan language, for example in listing it as one of three dialects of Twi, a position contradicted by his own sources.

Of the four Bono-related articles that Bosomba is disputing, this would appear to be closest to resolution, now that he has apparently abandoned his claim that 'Twi' is named for the Bono king Twi, something that is not even mentioned in the accessible ref that he has provided but which he is still fighting for elsewhere.

I am ready to try to act as moderator of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion 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 wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not make a statement that is longer than the stub article.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Per the sources provided and a name definition to Twi. Twi is general name for Akan without Fante. Which is acceptable to all. Unfortunately, Kwami wants to push an Ashanti agenda limiting it general importance to Ashanti and Akuapem whiles it is widely regarded as for Akan that is not used by Fante. Claiming since Asante and Akuapem is literary, it should be limited them alone. Kwami’s limited rendition of the name goes against the definition and acceptable name for Twi. As this is not defined by Dolphyne, the best source which we all agreed to use, Or any other source which defines Twi. For better understanding, I suggest reading Dolphyne’s book for the definition which is accessible and acceptable to all. https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20p.8,10,11 and https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/lctlresources/chapter/about-akan-twi/. And it is spoken in the various regions as highlighted in the source, not just one region. Lastly, the source Kwame is using to claim his definition for Twi is fake, through the entire book, nothing is said in that source. This is the book https://www.scribd.com/document/499620036/Kwame-Arhin-A-profile-of-Brong-Kyempim-1, nothing of such is said in the book. Most importantly, we have never used (Ethnologue and Glottolog) as a source, as it isn’t a better source than what we are currently using. This is agreeable. As a result we mostly use Dolphyne or any other Bosomba Amosah (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

As I acknowledge Robert McClenon, and per the sources provided.

Twi is a common name to Akan excluding Fante. The definition per sources, it should be maintained as such.

In the infobox, the regions in which it is spoken in include Ahafo, Ashanti, Bono, Bono East, Central and Eastern. So it is not just one region.

The various dialects should also be included in the infobox, as a listed sub dialects of Twi, with no limitation to any dialect. This is fair and assumes good faith definition of Twi.

There are three literary standards for Akan -- Asante, Akuapem and Fante. In this context, 'Twi' covers the first two, 'Fante' the third. Thus Glottolog lists Twi under Akan and gives its varieties as two -- Akuapem and Asante, just as we show it in the currently protected version of the article. Bosomba has abandoned his claim that Bono -- which is largely unwritten -- is the fourth literary standard of Akan, though he continues to push it as being more important than other non-literary Akan dialects, as in the dialect list in his version of the language info box.

It is important for us to clarify that Twi is not a distinct language, but rather an autonym for Akan that is rejected by the Fante. That is, if we are not using it as a label for the standard language, which Bosomba is opposed to, then it should either be a redirect to Akan language, with the term explained there, or it should be an article on the word itself. Personally, I don't think it's worth a content fork or a dictionary-type entry and should be merged, just as it is merged into Akan in Ethnologue and Glottolog. The only thing IMO that makes it separately notable is that it's been assigned the ISO codes [tw] and [twi] for its use as a standard language.

I object therefore to listing dialects of Twi in the info box, as Bosomba has done: names don't have dialects. This is further misleading because Akuapem is more closely related to Fante than it is to Asante or Bono, according to the classification in Bosomba's primary source of Dolphyne, who is widely respected and is probably the best source for these articles. A list of dialects in a language info box suggests a relationship among them that is contradicted by Bosomba's sources.

Here is how 'Twi' is addressed by M E Kropp Dakubu of the University of Ghana, in the 2nd edition of the ''Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics:

{{blockquote|The name ‘Akan’ is not generally used by speakers of the language, who refer to their language as Fante, Twi, or Brong [i.e. Bono -- ed.]. These Akan speech forms constitute a dialect continuum running from north to south in Ghana. ‘Fante’ refers to the dialects spoken in those regions that reach the sea, in the Central Region and parts of the Western Region of Ghana. ‘Twi’ is the most general term, referring to a wide range of dialects, of which the best known are Akuapem, the main tongue of the Eastern Region, and Asante, the dialect of the Ashanti Region. Others are Akyem and Kwahu. }}

I'm not clear to me whether this last statement means that Akyem and Kwahu are 'other' in the sense of being groups in addition to the Fante, Twi and Brong already mentioned, and thus do not use the autonym 'Twi', or in the sense of being groups in addition to the Asante and Akuapem who do call their language 'Twi'. Note that Bosomba has provided evidence, backed up by Ethnologue, that the Brong/Bono also call their language Twi [eg 'Bono Twi'], though per Dolphyne, Ethnologue and Glottolog, Brong/Bono is more distantly related to the rest of Twi than Fante is, another reason to not list dialects of Twi as if Twi were a coherent linguistic grouping. In Dolphyne's classification tree of Akan dialects, there is no node that corresponds to Twi.

I will again ask the editors for concise descriptions of what are the areas of the content dispute. It appears that there are issues about the infobox, and issues about the body of the article. So please state exactly what items in the infobox the issues are about. Also state exactly what sentences in what paragraphs of the body of the article are in dispute. You don't need to explain why you want what you want. We can get into that in the near future. Just say what you want to change (or what you don't want to change).

Are there any questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:First issue:

:{{blockquote|Twi is the common name of the Akan literary dialects of Asante and Akuapem.}}

:That needs to changed

:Second issue:

:{{blockquote|as Akuapem Twi is more closely related to Fante dialect than it is to Asante Twi.}} That needs to be cleared.

:First Infobox issue:

:It says Twi is spoken in Ashanti region alone. That needs to be changed.

:Second infobox issue:

:Standard forms-Asante and Akuapem. That needs to be changed. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

in response to bosomba's 1st statement in the previous section,

the standard forms of twi are Asante and Akuapem. this is backed by numerous sources. glottolog lists them as the two forms of twi.

akuapem is more closely related to fante than it is to asante. this is stated several times by bosomba's preferred ref, dolphyne.

if we keep this as a separate article, agreed that the region should be corrected. twi is more widespread than just asante. agreed also that we should also state the various non-literary dialects that are called twi, per various refs. we need to be clear however that twi is not a language, but rather one of several autonyms for akan.

however, there's a reason that reliable sources such as the encyclopedia quoted above, glottolog, ethnologue and dolphyne all merge twi into akan. i think we should do the same, and turn this into a redirect. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

note that one of bosomba's sources, Kwame Arhin 1979 A Profile of Brong Kyempim, repeatedly speaks of 'the akan or twi language', further demonstrating that twi and akan language are not distinct topics — kwami (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title=extraneous comments}}

:Firstly and most importantly, Glottolog and Ethnologue isn’t a better source, which is agreeable. Having stated that, it would be advisable and best for us all, for you to provide the link of the source(s) which says Twi is only the literary standard forms of Akuapem and Asante. This is good for our perusal and this conversation. The dialects are related to each other,as it can also be stated that Bono is closely related to Asante or Wasa than Akuapem and so forth.Bosomba Amosah (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::i never said that twi is only the literary standards.

::you wanted dolphyne as a ref, we use dolphyne as a ref. now you want to ignore her when she disagrees with you. she agrees with glottolog and ethnologue, btw, on the very pages you cite. presumably because they use her as a source. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, of course we are using Dolphyne. Dolphyne explains it is a general name to Akan excluding Fante. You appears to mention other source(s) which says the standards forms of Twi are Akuapem and Asante which you are limiting the name definition to. And I’m responding, kindly provide a link to that source for our perusal. This is simple. Again, you keep mentioning Glottolog and Ethnologue which you and I admit it isn’t a better source than Dolphyne, which is agreeable. Or does that mean you want to re-introduce your non-better source? Bosomba Amosah (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::i am not 'limiting the name definition'. as i've said many many - many - times, i have no problem listing the dialects whose speakers use the autonym 'twi', and indeed have said that's something we should do if we keep this as a distinct article — kwami (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

So, per what I have highlighted above, and per the sources. Everything agrees, per the name definition, the listing and the rest. This is what I have been saying. I also have no problem keeping Twi as a distinct article as it is already. Twi is without Fante whiles Akan includes Fante, so that makes it for their own articles.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

One issue that has been raised is whether Twi should continue to be a separate article, or it should be redirected. Other than that, there have been long statements about how the article should be rewritten. Can either editor make a concise statement about what they want to change in the article? If either editor thinks that the article should be redirected, then we will start an Articles for Deletion discussion. Please do not make statements that are longer than the article.

Are there any questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

assuming we keep the article, i agree that the 'region' entry in the info box should be changed per bosomba's comments.

the 'ethnicity' entry in the box should be removed altogether; it's just been a place for bosomba to push the bono at the expense of others, and there's little point in listing speakers of all dialects.

per bosomba's comments, the opening line 'twi is the common name of the Akan literary dialects of asante and akuapem' should be changed to something like, 'twi is a common autonym of the akan language. it is used by most speakers apart from the fante, and for the literary dialects of asante and akuapem.'

the standard forms should remain as asante and akuapem, per all sources. bosomba had originally pushed for bono as a third literary dialect, but after that was debunked, tried to delete asante and akuapem instead. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Twi should continue to be a separate article.

Per the sources;

The infobox region should include all the regions where Twi is spoken without any limitation.

The various dialects should be listed in the infobox without any limitation

Twi definition should be changed to, Twi is a common name/autonym of Akan speakers apart from or without Fante. The literary dialects of Akuapem and Asante should be removed, it’s an agenda by Kwami to push Ashanti at the expense of other dialects.

The standard forms of Akuapem and Asante should also be removed or changed to include all the dialects. As there is no source to support that claim, it’s just an agenda to push at expense of other dialects. The source speaks for itself

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The areas of dispute appear to be:

• 1. The Region field in the infobox. There is agreement on a change.
• 2. The Ethnicity field in the infobox. One editor proposes to delete the field.
• 3. The Standard Forms in the infobox.
• 4. The first line in the body of the article.

Is it correct that we have agreement on point 1? Is it correct that one editor wants to leave the Ethnicity as is and one wants to delete it? If there is disagreement on points 3 and 4, please provide the exact language that you want in each of those places.

Do not say what the other editor wants, and in particular do not say why they want it. Those are comments about contributors rather than content, and I will collapse them. ( Do not collapse anything that the other editor has written. Only the moderator should do that.)

Are there any other areas of disagreement?

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:correct, and wording as above — kwami (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:1.Yes, agreement on region field.

:2.The ethnicity should be deleted.

:3.The standard forms should be changed to include all the forms of Twi (Akuapem, Akyem, Asante, Asen, Bono, Dankyira and Kwawu)

:4.The first line should be changed, Twi is Akan without Fante.

:Lastly, the third line {{blockquote|as Akuapem Twi is more closely related to Fante dialect than it is to Asante Twi}} should be deleted, the dialects are closed to each other Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

looks like we're on agreement on 1 and 2.

disagree on 3 - for the standard forms, we should list the standard forms.

disagree on 4 - twi is not akan without fante, but just a name for akan that's not used in fante dialect. it was proposed as the name of the entire language, but the fante objected because the don't call their language that.

disagree on 5 - akuapm is more closely related to fante than it is to asante, per dolphyne and other sources. that's important to include because saying 'twi is akan without fante' makes it sound like akan is divided into two, twi + fante, which it is not. i hadn't realized that until bosomba introduced dolphyne as a source.

— kwami (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Per the source,

3.It says dialects/forms of Twi. None of the source mentions standard forms. List all the dialects as aforementioned

4.Exactly Twi is name for Akan not used by Fante. It is the same thing I have said several times.

5.Per source and Dolphyne, Bono is closely related to Asante and Wasa than Akuapem. Akuapem is also related to Fante than Asante. There is little point in including all these.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

To restate, the areas of disagreement are:

• 1. The Region field in the infobox. There is agreement on a change.
• 2. The Ethnicity field in the infobox. There is agreement to delete the field.
• 3. The Standard Forms in the infobox.
• 4. The first line in the body of the article.

Is it correct that we have agreement on point 1? Is it correct that there is agreement to delete the Ethnicity? Please state what should be listed as the Standard Forms. Please state what you wish to list as the first line in the body of the article.

Please provide your wording for the third sentence in the article.

Are there any other areas of disagreement?

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, agrement on 1 and 2

the standard forms are akuapem and asante. or at least they were -- it's possible that's only historically accurate and that there is now no standard form of twi, only a single standard variety of akan as a whole. older sources at least state that the standard forms of akan are asante, akuapem and fante, with the 1st two of course being twi. if twi is no longer standardized, then the 'Regulated by' section of the info box should be removed

the 1st sentence as i suggested above - 'twi is a common autonym of the akan language. it is used by most speakers apart from the fante, and for the literary dialects of asante and akuapem.'

the 3rd sentence should be simplified to what it was when the article was protected, 'It is not a linguistic grouping, as Akuapem Twi is more closely related to Fante dialect than it is to Asante Twi'

the same recent editor added a bunch of stuff about the bia languages, which are outside the scope of the article and so should be reverted - the problem is partly one of ambiguity in the scope of the word 'akan', but that we define at 'akan language', with akan + bia being 'central tano' instead

Per source, there is agreement on 1 and 2

3. The standard forms should be changed to include all the dialects (Akuapem, Akyem, Asante, Asen, Bono, Dankyira, Kwawu and Wasa). As they are all forms of Twi per source.

4. 1st line suggestion “Twi is a common name/autonym of the Akan language. It is used by the speakers apart from Fante.” That’s the definition per source. There is no such thing as “for the literary dialects of Akuapem and Asante”. Per source, it was rejected by Fante or not used by Fante.

5. 3rd line suggestions

-“It is not a linguistic grouping as it was rejected by Fante”.

-“It is not a linguistic grouping as Bono is more closely related to Wasa and Asante than Akuapem, so as Akuapem is more closely related to Fante than Asante”. This is per Dolphyne.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status}}

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

{{drn filing editor|Protector100|02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Snowy owl}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

{{collapsetop|First oversized image of owl. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

File:Bubo scandiacus (Linnaeus, 1758) Male.jpg

{{collapsebottom}}

and

{{collapsetop|Second oversized image of owl. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

File:Schneeeule Bubo scandiacus Grugapark 2013.jpg

{{collapsebottom}}

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

{{collapsetop|Third oversized image of owl. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

File:SnowyOwlAmericanBlackDuck.jpg

{{collapsebottom}}

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

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

Talk:Snowy owl.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{DR case status}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749155714}}

{{drn filing editor|Titan2456|20:35, 8 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|Imran Khan}}

Users involved

• {{User|Titan2456}}
• {{User|SheriffIsInTown}}
• {{User|WikiEnthusiast1001}}

Dispute overview

I believe the new section added named “Relationship with the military” under #Public image is an unnecessary section and should be removed. User:SheriffIsInTown is arguing for its inclusion. I believe It has many issues but lacks relevance, it describes his “Perceived” relationship with the military through heavy reliance of quotes, such as an entire paragraph on the words of Ashok Swain, a professor, it does not fall under “Public image” and it links to an already faulty and problematic (POV) article Project Imran Khan. The main issue is that the article was already tagged by SheriffIsInTown for being “too long”, any article can be bloated with enough quotes and analysis on a figure like this. You could create sections for opinions, relationships, and perceptions of basically anything, and no other article of any major Pakistani political figure holds a similar section, even when others have a more documented relationships with the military. Khan’s stance against several military generals (which I provided links to in the talk page) was also completely ignored, violating NPOV. Overall, it is not significant enough in terms of WP:WEIGHT.

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

Talk:Imran Khan#Unnecessary section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I applied WP:BRD to remove the section until consensus is established for its inclusion, which SheriffIsInTown reverted, saying BRD doesn’t apply and the section should stay up despite discussion. I am also taking this to DRN because there is clear WP:IDHT and WP:SNOWBALL in the talk page discussion. An overall implementation of policies and guidelines would be helpful in the discussion and article such as BRD and IDHT.

The section "Relationship with the military," initially titled "Perceived relationship with the military," was added to the Public image section based on reliable sources documenting Khan's perceived support from heads of Inter-Services Intelligence. Multiple editors, including myself, contributed to its development. The OP, initially stayed on the sidelines hoping another editor would remove it, later argued for its removal based on mere disagreement citing WP:BRD. However, this view misinterprets WP:CONSENSUS, which must be policy-based, not simply based on disagreement. The OP labeled the section unnecessary but failed to explain why during the talk page discussions. Unable to justify their stance, they escalated the issue to DRN, but could not cite policy violations and accused me of displaying WP:IDHT behavior, which they themselves exhibited.

The article Project Imran Khan (PIH) further documents this relationship, and linking articles at the top for context is standard practice. The OP has a history of attempting to suppress content they perceive as politically negative toward Khan. WikiEnthusiast tried to delete the PIH article twice within 24 hours, using bogus reasons. The [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Imran_Khan&diff=1287714805&oldid=1271562438 first attempt, using multiple tags], was [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Imran_Khan&diff=next&oldid=1287714805&diffonly=1 reverted by Bbb23] with the summary "some of these criteria made zero sense," and the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Imran_Khan&diff=next&oldid=1287715682&diffonly=1 second attempt, which used one of the same tags], was [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Imran_Khan&diff=next&oldid=1288019757&diffonly=1 reverted by Sir Sputnik]. This demonstrates the level of desperation by these two editors to censor any content they deem negative toward Khan.

The OP also continues to accuse me of tagging the article as too long, despite my repeated clarifications that the original tag was added by another editor, Nikkimaria. I support the tag, as the article exceeds 17,000 words, well beyond the ideal 10,000. When unable to identify policy violations, the OP used length as an excuse to censor specific content. Articles should be thoughtfully condensed, not arbitrarily reduced, as I demonstrated with the Pakistan article, where I reduced it from over 16,000 words to 10,000 through copyediting. I intend to apply the same approach here. Condensation should not be used to remove one aspect of Khan's life. The OP's examples from other articles lack policy support, as there is no policy requiring uniform structure. The links they provided do not present any contrary perspective on Khan's relationship with those ISI heads, lacking merit for an NPOV violation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. It is not necessary to notify an editor who has already responded, but the editor who has not responded must be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I tagged and notified both editors in my comment in the talk page discussion. Titan2456 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Abhilashkrishn|16:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The dispute should have been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page. Continue discussion there, and if it is insufficient, you may re-file this here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:34, 9 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 India–Pakistan standoff}}

Users involved

• {{User|Extorc}}

Dispute overview

Dispute summary:

I proposed including India’s claims about shooting down Pakistani jets, based on multiple attributed reports from Economic Times, NDTV, India Today, and DD News (state broadcaster). I used WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to clearly state this as India’s claim, while also mentioning Pakistan’s denial.

Other editors have repeatedly removed the content, arguing that no international media or official press briefings confirm it, and that Indian media reports quoting government sources are not sufficient.

Despite attempting to discuss this on their talk page and proposing balanced attribution, I’ve received no response or consensus.

Differences in position:

I believe per WP:RS, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:NPOV, it is valid to include India’s claim with proper attribution.

Other editors argue it should not be included without broader international confirmation, dismissing Indian sources as speculative.

Talk page discussion links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff

Request:

I would like neutral input on how to present the claims properly and whether attributed reporting from Indian reliable sources is sufficient for inclusion.

Thank you.

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

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan standoff#India Goverment claims shot down of Pakistan jets

User talk:Extorc#India's claim removal from 2025 India-Pakistan standoff

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like help to determine if India’s claims, reported by state media (DD News) and major national outlets, can be included with attribution, while also noting Pakistan’s denial. I believe attributing both sides follows WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, rather than omitting claims. DRN can guide how such military disputes are usually handled and if government media is sufficient when properly attributed.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|OrionNimrod|18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as also pending in another forum. The filing editor has also started a poorly formulated RFC. DRN does not handle a dispute that is also pending in another forum. The RFC is likely to be closed,but as long as it is open, it is the only forum for this issue. Either take part in the RFC, or wait for it to be closed, and resume discussion, and then open a new DRN thread if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 9 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|List of_wars_involving_the_Czech_lands}}

Users involved

• {{User|OrionNimrod}}
• {{User|Czech98006}}

Dispute overview

The Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor Conrad II started a campaing against Kingdom of Hungary in 1030, Duchy of Bohemia and Bohemian Prince Bretislav I (Czech land) was part of that imperial campaign. The outcome was Holy Roman Empire defeat, and even Hungarians captured Vienna (Holy Roman Empire land).

The article title: "List of wars involving Czech lands", Czech land/Bohemia was part of that campaign and Prince Bretislav I led an army in the campaign, Emperor Conrad II was his overlord.

Czech98006 is making an edit war, claiming that it was not a defeat or it was just indecisive, even he removes the Holy Roman Empire participation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_the_Czech_lands&diff=prev&oldid=1289608430

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_the_Czech_lands&diff=prev&oldid=1288298253

Strange, he removes the Holy Roman Empire, but he mentions the emperor...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_the_Czech_lands&diff=prev&oldid=1289544712

I provided in the talk page several academic sources, Hungarian and German sources, while Czech98006 has claim whitout showing a proper source, or he has just a personal blog, even dates does not match there, he also has fringe claims, that Bretislav conquered huge part of Hungary 1030-1044, of course no any academic sources doest not know about that, and I do not understand then why the emperor lost his campaign. I asked many times to follow Wikipedia rulers, like no original research, use academic reliable sources

I quoted many academic sources in talk page, a German example: [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zuKIX5g6MgoC&printsec=copyright#v=snippet&q=threatened%20by%20starvation&f=false 1]

Another one: [https://epa.oszk.hu/01500/01536/00026/pdf/EPA01536_ungarn_jahrbuch_26_005-012.pdf 1] "Emperor Conrad marched with an army into Hungary and spent the night in the monastery of Niederaltaich on Sunday, June 21st (1030). But he returned from Hungary without an army and without having accomplished anything, because the army was threatened by hunger and was either taken captive by the Hungarians in Vienna or — and here opinions diverge — Vienna was taken by the Hungarians."

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_the_Czech_lands#1030_+_1051_German_campaign_against_Hungary_was_not_a_victory

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

All other relevant articles all consistent and sourced regarding that campaign:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_I_of_Hungary#Conflicts_with_the_Holy_Roman_Empire_(1024–1031)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Hungary
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Holy_Roman_Empire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Hungary

{{DRN archive bottom}}