Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 254#Gulf of Mexico

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|SheriffIsInTown|15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|This dispute has been resolved by opinions at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.}}

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|SheriffIsInTown}}
• {{User|WikiEnthusiast1001}}
• {{User|Veldsenk}}

Dispute overview

The content removed in this [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imran_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1264927684&diffonly=1 diff] had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, Reham Khan is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled Reham Khan (memoir), published by HarperCollins. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Wikipedia article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Wikipedia editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored.

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

Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 6#Reham Khan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources.

Violates several key Wikipedia policies especially Wikipedia:BLP, which states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

While the book was published by a reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, [https://www.geo.tv/latest/375879-reham-khan-loses-defamation-case-to-zulfi-bukhari-to-pay-50000 she lost the case] and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election,{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=The News (Pakistan)|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}} suggesting a potential motive for bias.

The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

• Volunteer Note - Is this dispute at least partly about the reliability of sources? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard first, before any other content issues are discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a biography of a living person? If so, it might be answered more quickly at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• :The matter concerns a BLP, but I’ve observed requests on that noticeboard being archived without a response. Since we are already on this noticeboard, with a request filed and another editor having responded, it seems more practical to build on that progress and resolve the issue here, rather than moving to multiple noticeboards. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on editing of biographies of living persons. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community.

I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, 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.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.

I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute:

Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in her book that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018.{{cite web|url=http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|title=Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan|date=12 July 2018|website=dnaindia.com|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=10 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810012850/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|title=Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book|website=Deccanchronicle.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714021013/https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|title=Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan|website=hindustantimes.com|date=13 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309050635/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|url-status=live}} Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth."{{cite news|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|title=Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan|work=Mumbai Mirror|date=15 July 2018|access-date=11 August 2018|first=Vijay|last=Tagore|archive-date=11 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811101603/https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|url-status=live}} Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects.{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=The News (Pakistan)|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

I also agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.

I strongly object to including the unverified allegation by Imran's ex-wife about his alleged children out of wedlock. This claim solely from her and lacking independent confirmation, violates key Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:GRAPEVINE, which discourage sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal claims. Despite the book's reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is questionable as she had been sued for libel and defamation by one Khan's former aides. As a result, [https://www.geo.tv/latest/375879-reham-khan-loses-defamation-case-to-zulfi-bukhari-to-pay-50000 she had to publicly apologize.] Additionally, the timing of the book's release just 13 days before the 2018 election suggests potential bias.{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=The News (Pakistan)|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}} These claims have not been independently verified, failing Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated view. As User:Veldsenk pointed out, without further corroboration or direct involvement from the alleged Indian mother(s), this accusation appears baseless. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{collapsetop|Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:@WikiEnthusiast1001 Can you record your zeroth statement here so this dispute can be resolved? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

The issue appears to be whether to include in our biography of Imran Khan the allegations made by his ex-wife. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? Has Imran Khan (or anyone acting as his spokesman) commented on the veracity of the allegations? If so, where? Have reliable sources, such as newspapers, discussed the allegations and commented on their accuracy?

The memoir by Reham Khan is a primary source. The policy on biographies of living persons says that extreme caution should be used in the use of primary sources. It says that we may use the material in the primary sources if secondary sources have referred to the primary sources. So a major concern is whether secondary sources have discussed the allegations.

Are there any questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:You are correct and this is the only issue. Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects.{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=The News (Pakistan)|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}} Khan's party information secretary alleged that the PML-N was behind the book and that "photograph of Ms Khan and her son with former US ambassador Hussain Haqqani doing the rounds on social media was sufficient evidence. Discussing yet another photograph of Ms Khan, this time with former PML-N MNA from Rawalpindi Hanif Abbasi, Mr Chaudhry claimed that the PML-N leader had asked “what will Imran do if Reham’s book is published before the election?"{{cite news|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1412320|title=Contents of Reham’s book are against family values: Fawad Chaudhry|date=6 June 2018}} Khan commented on the book in 2022, stating that his ex-wife had been paid by the Sharif family to write a book against him.{{cite web|url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/reham-khan-was-paid-to-write-book-against-me-in-2018-imran-khan-390701|title=Reham Khan was paid to write book against me in 2018: Imran Khan|date=30 April 2022}} WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Following secondary sources and many others have covered the allegations:{{cite web|url=http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|title=Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan|date=12 July 2018|website=dnaindia.com|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=10 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810012850/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|title=Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book|website=Deccanchronicle.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714021013/https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|title=Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan|website=hindustantimes.com|date=13 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309050635/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|url-status=live}}{{cite news|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|title=Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan|work=Mumbai Mirror|date=15 July 2018|access-date=11 August 2018|first=Vijay|last=Tagore|archive-date=11 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811101603/https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=The News (Pakistan)|date=12 July 2018|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

The memoir is a primary source, but secondary sources have reported on the allegations in the memoir, and the content dispute is about whether to report on the allegations. I agreed to consider this dispute at DRN because the filing editor expressed a concern that some cases at the biographies of living persons noticeboard are not answered and are archived unanswered. However, I will take my chances on whether there is an answer at BLPN. I will be putting this dispute here on hold while I see if I get an answer. I have posted the dispute at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imran_Khan, and you may discuss the issues there. Be civil and concise, because that is always good advice about disputes.

Please be patient. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{DRN archive top|I'm closing this one as resolved, as the consensus of the editors involved here, as well as in associated talk page/ANI threads is clear against inclusion. The burden is on editors that want to include disputed content in an article to form a consensus for the inclusion, and no such consensus exists. I would recommend that the editors here move on to other topics, or on improving the articles in question.}}

{{drn filing editor|77.49.204.122|18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Movement for Democracy (Greece)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Hellenic Rebel}}
• {{User|Rambling Rambler}}

Dispute overview

The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group.

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

• Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#5/300 *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Disruptive editing *Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece#Movement for Democracy (Greece) *Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated pov pushing *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Discussion *Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 - Dispute over whether the party has MPs or not

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament.

;Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel

Hello dear users, those are my points:

• Lack of Consensus:

Contrary to claims that the community rejected my point, only two users disagreed with me, while one agreed that the party has 5/300 MPs. The original article mentioned this, and while the page was locked for consensus, no actual consensus was achieved. It should have reverted to its original version.

• Evidence from Sources:

Reliable sources and reputable newspapers (e.g., To Vima, Nea), confirm that the Democracy Movement has five MPs affiliated with it. Also, we have sources that state the membership of this MPs, for example:

• Documento: [https://www.documentonews.gr/article/kinima-dimokratias-oi-5-anexartitoi-voyleytes-toy-yperpsifizoyn-tis-amyntikes-dapanes-toy-proypologismoy/ the five MPs who have left SYRIZA and joined the Democracy Movement..]
• Politic: [https://www.politic.gr/politiki/vouleftes-kinimatos-dimokratias-i-dolofonia-tis-evgenias-na-simanei-to-telos-tis-adraneias-tis-politeias/ The five MPs belonging to the Democracy Movement]

Similar language is used across multiple reliable sources.

These sources clearly describe the MPs as belonging to the Democracy Movement.

• Policy Misinterpretation:

Some argued that specific phrasing in the sources (e.g., “stand for”) was absent, invalidating their use. However, I have identified sources stating that the MPs belong to or joined the party. Later the users tried to interpretate the policies strictly, but this is rigid and inconsistent with similar cases on Wikipedia (e.g., SSW, UDI, DemoS). The accepted practice allows acknowledging parties represented by MPs without a parliamentary group.

Additionally, Rambling Rambler used tactics like WP policies overloads (which in reality was not even responding to my contributions as I demonstrate to users through my responses) and ad-hominem attacks, focusing on my block history instead of addressing my arguments, which I find irrelevant and unconstructive.

• Parliamentary Website Context:

The Hellenic Parliament website lists only parliamentary groups, not individual parties represented in parliament. This does not mean a party lacks representation. The Democracy Movement’s five MPs are validly affiliated with the party, even without forming a parliamentary group. Additionally, an MP with no Parl. Group, is called "independent" in the Hellenic Parliament, that's why you see sometimes the term "independent" as a reference to those 5 MPs.

• Request for Fair Evaluation:

I urge users and admins to thoroughly review the discussion and evidence. The version I support is based on clear, reliable sources. If the community, after proper review, agrees with the opposing view, I will accept the decision. However, there is currently no consensus to override the original version.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

;Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler

Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity.

However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party.[https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/en/Vouleftes/Ana-Koinovouleftiki-Omada/][https://www.documentonews.gr/article/kinima-dimokratias-oi-5-anexartitoi-voyleytes-toy-yperpsifizoyn-tis-amyntikes-dapanes-toy-proypologismoy/][https://www.tanea.gr/2025/01/05/greece/vouleytes-kinimatos-dimokratias-i-dolofonia-tis-eygenias-na-einai-i-teleytaia-fora-pou-i-politeia-argise/][https://www.in.gr/2025/01/05/politics/politiki-grammateia/vouleytes-kinimatos-dimokratias-dolofonia-tis-eygenias-na-einai-teleytaia-fora-pou-politeia-argise/][https://www.documentonews.gr/article/kinima-dimokratias-oi-5-anexartitoi-voyleytes-toy-yperpsifizoyn-tis-amyntikes-dapanes-toy-proypologismoy/]

The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future.[https://www.enikos.gr/politics/avlonitis-ston-realfm-978-gia-to-kinima-dimokratias-meta-ta-christougenna-tha-echoume-schimatisei-kai-koinovouleftiki-omada/2277160/]

While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Wikipedia as well.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c978m6z3egno][https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?partyid=8][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom]

Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party.

;Summary of dispute by 77.49.204.122

I am user 77.49.204.122 who submitted the request but unfortunately through no fault of my own, my ip has been changed. I don't know if I can participate, - if I can't, please take the trouble and delete my edit. Since I speak Greek I wanted to contribute with a parliamentary question by MP Giota Poulou

MP Yiota Poulou, who belongs to the Movement for Democracy, when she submitted a question to the Parliament, described herself and the other 5 MPs as Independents belonging to the party. According to the Greek parliamentary concept, as expressed by the Greek Parliament on its website, MPs are described as independent - that is, they do not represent their party in Parliament, but only themselves. [https://yotapoulou.gr/%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BF-%CF%84%CF%85%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CF%80%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%B2%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CE%B2%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%B5/ On the initiative of the independent MP of Viotia Giota Poulou, which was co-signed by the five Independent MPs of the party "DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT", a Question was submitted to the Parliament on the problem of the road blockade of Delphi due to rockfalls on the National Road of Livadia-Amfissa.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Steve, and I'm a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. My approach is significantly different to others that contribute here, and is less structured, but as always, a reminder to remain focused on the content issues at hand. This one is relatively clear cut, but I'll explain in a little more detail, but there are a few content related policies that apply here, broadly the ones that cover articles on living people and reliable sourcing. Both of these are key to any discussion regarding a dispute on content, and even a limited consensus on a talk page, or even here, cannot override our requirement to abide by these article policies. Having read several of the linked discussions, editors have correctly noted the need to observe what reliable sources say regarding the MPs and their party affiliation/membership. While some of the sources that were presented mention affiliation with the party, reviewing the sources provided, the point that the IP editor here mentioned here is accurate: "We care what the sources say. And the sources describe them as Independent MPs who belong to the party. Ιn terms of their parliamentary presence, they are listed as independent. And (sic) infobox is asking for the listing of parliamentary presence."

In this situation, as editors we also weigh the sources provide to ensure we balance coverage in the article, and ensure we don't give specific sources undue weight. While one source was provided [https://www.politic.gr/politiki/vouleftes-kinimatos-dimokratias-i-dolofonia-tis-evgenias-na-simanei-to-telos-tis-adraneias-tis-politeias/ that mentions that they belong to the party], the majority of sources provided do not make this distinction. I don't see anything here as a DR volunteer that would give precedence to the one viable source provided against all others, and while it's not my role to make "decisions", the consensus here and in other discussions is quite clear against inclusion in the infobox based on the sourcing provided. As always, consensus can change, but I would advise additional discussions would likely be unproductive without additional, substantial sourcing in favour of changing the status quo. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Steven Crossin Good evening. I have a small observation to make. There is no disagreement about whether these MPs are members of the Democracy Movement. They are, and this is obvious, the only we wanted was one-two sources to to verify it, and we found them. The disagreement stems from the fact that, based on the rules of the Greek Parliament, the formation of a parliamentary group is not carried out with less than 10 MPs. Thus, these 5 MPs are called parliamentary independents. That's why the sources call the MPs independents. The users believe that the fact that the parliament recognizes them as independent automatically makes them non-representative of the Democracy Movement party. Me on the other hand, believe that the status in parliament is something different from whether and how many MPs each party has in it, citing the above and other similar cases abroad. This is the disagreement, and that is where the community should focus. No more is needed, the rest are just big debates and meaningless fights that confuse the community. So based on this, isn't the logical thing to do to add the 5 MPs bar? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for providing this clarification. The discussion that has been had around whether to add them in the infobox as MPs part of a recognised parliamentary group are based on coverage in reliable sources, and the rules of the parliament in question. These are documented in the parliamentary article, too - Hellenic_Parliament#Parliamentary_groups - "A parliamentary group in the Hellenic Parliament should consist of at least ten MPs who are members of the same party.[13] Five MPs should also suffice provided the party they belong to had ballots in at least two thirds (2/3) of the constituencies and got at least three percent (3%) of the total number of valid ballots in the country.[14]. So as editors (and DR volunteers) we evaluate the article and whether they meet that threshold. I can see two parties are mentioned on the Hellenic Parliament page as a parliamentary group with under 10 members, Course of Freedom (with 6) and Spartans (Greek political party) with 5, and according to the results of the June 2023 Greek parliamentary election, both received at least 3% of the national vote, which is why they meet the criteria set by parliament of a "parliamentary group". Even with 5 MPs affiliated with this party, it is clear they are a new party per the article, and did not stand in the June 2023 elections (as they did not exist) and thus, don't meet the defined criteria of the parliamentary body to be described as a parliamentary group, and describing it as such on their own article would ignore the defined rules of the parliament. I'm afraid this is pretty clear cut - unless the governing body changes their defined parliamentary rules for recognition as a parliamentary body, noting them as such on their Wikipedia page (or on the parliament page) is not in line with policy. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Steven Crossin Yes, here is my opinion: are based a) on coverage in reliable sources, and b) the rules of the parliament in question. I agree with a, and in our case there is coverage in reliable sources. I remind, that the term "independent" in the sources, does not contradict the status of party membership: this is evident both from the Parliament's regulations and from the fact that a source refers to "independent members of the Democracy Movement". So, we have reliable sources that consider 5 MPs of parliament to be members of the party, and no source that disputes this. Regarding b, we disagree here. The Parliament's regulations on parliamentary groups are something different with the number of members of each party. Please, just look at the examples of other countries that I cite, and they do not have P.G. but despite this, no one has questioned the appearance of their members in bars. To give an example: "{{small|New Democracy, with 156 MPs, could have an internal parliamentary disaggrement, and so the P.G. could decide to create two different parliamentary groups, the «P.G. New Democracy - Liberals», and the «P.G. New Democracy - Moderate Conservatives», without dissolving the New Democracy party itself and without any MPs leaving the party}}". In this hypothetical scenario, New Democracy would clearly still have 156 MPs, even though it would not have any P.G. that identifies with the party. One thing is the P.G., another is the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@Hellenic Rebel, thanks for your reply. There's a few things to consider, and a common frequently quoted guideline is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's more specific to why certain articles can't exist when others do, but it's still a good point here. The presence of content in an infobox in one article doesn't always mean it should be in another article - we weigh the policies and guidelines applicable, plus information we can find in reliable sources. In your examples provided, we can't consider what's the standards applicable in other countries, as the reliable sources here that define inclusion are specific to the Greek Parliament (their regulations on recognised political groups). As discussed above, they have defined criteria for recognising a political group, which this article does not meet. You also mentioned a hypotheitcal scenario where an existing PG splits into two - as per the article and provided requirements from the parliament, if one of the factions had less than 10 members, and didn't have a specific vote share in the most recent election, it too wouldn't be recognised. The Hellenic Parliament article infobox only lists the count of members of recognised political groups, with the remainder grouped under "independents". Adding this proposed bar to the Democracy Movement party would not be in line with policy. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Steven Crossin Here lies my main disagreement: why should the bar of political parties, specifically and especially in the case of Hellas, refer only to the parliamentary groups of these parties? The articles are clear. They refer to the Movement for Democracy party, the KKE party, the New Democracy party, etc. Not to their parliamentary groups. For example, in the case of France there are different articles for parliamentary groups and different articles for parties (and this is the most correct in my opinion). When you have an article that refers to a party, then the bar should refer to the elected members of parliament who are members that party or represent it. Clearly, the parliamentary group that the party has - if it has one - is mentioned within the article, but the bar simply refers to the members of parliament of the party. There are reputable sources for Greek data that refer to the 5 MPs as members of the Democracy Movement. At the same time, there is no source that disputes this. Is that against the WP policy?

:::::Regarding the citation of the WP policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yes, I saw it, but I think that in our case, the citation of examples that I made above is NOT something like "since there is an identical article, let's do the same here". In the discussion of the article, I have cited more examples, and in general if we start searching in all the parties of all the countries, the pattern is the same. The examples that I give are simply indicative, and in this case if we don't add the bar, we are creating a "hellenic" exception to the general pattern that is followed everywhere, throughout Wikipedia. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Steven Crossin just wanted to thank you for taking the time to look into this. I am of course glad that you have concurred that this is a simple matter of BLP and reliable sources and that at present the evidence doesn't support the desired changes by Hellenic Rebel. I hope as they stated in their opening summary that they will accept the decision and this can finally be laid to rest until such a time sources demonstrate otherwise. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm leaving a message here, because the bots consider the conversation closed and archive it. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm afraid there's not much else to add here. We need to consider the rules of the body in question as per reliable sources, and not necessarily what the rules of other countries are, and the consensus of other editors. Articles and discussions on Wikipedia require consensus, and there's no consensus here, or in any of the other conversations, to add this to the infobox at this time. While I as a mediator am not a decision maker, none of the information that's been presented here gives me reason to think that the consensus of the other editors here is not in line with policy. The onus is on an editor wanting to include content in an article, is to form a consensus for such an inclusion, and no such consensus exists. My advice to Hellenic Rebel would be to move on to another topic area, if there is a time that this body is recognised as a PG on the main article due to meeting the requirements by parliament, I would think that this could be re-evaluated at that time. As such, I'm going to close this discussion. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|Further discussion on the talk page is recommended. A third opinion can also be requested later, if required.}}

{{drn filing editor|Nodumbdumbs|19:33, 24 January 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|Rue Landau}}

Users involved

• {{User|Acroterion}}

Dispute overview

We disagree over the relevance of Landau being Jewish. She is the only current Jewish member of City Council, has talked about the importance of being Jewish and tikkun olam, has talked about being Jewish in terms of her Israel-Palestine politics, and has repeatedly shared messages as a member of the Philadelphia Jewish community. See:

https://x.com/RuePhilaCouncil/status/1763288889349808552

https://www.instagram.com/ruephilacouncil/p/DAqupXQp0DG/

https://www.instagram.com/ruephilacouncil/p/DA59qpnp6nW/

https://www.jewishexponent.com/representation-matters-for-rue-landau/

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rue_Landau

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Third party needs to way in after pointless and repetitive back and forth about this.

• Volunteer note - Closing. {{ping|Nodumbdumbs|Acroterion}} This dispute is one day old, and discussion seems to be proceeding more-or-less OK-ishly. As this is between two editors, I would recommend WP:Third Opinion. Lack of WP:AGF on both sides. Take heed. Refile in the future if necessary, or ping me to reopen. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{DRN archive top|Dispute has been successfully resolved, with the revisions to the article agreed by all editors, which have been enacted. Great work! Steve Crossin 12:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Clovermoss|18:57, 18 January 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|Jehovah's Witnesses}}

Users involved

• {{User|Clovermoss}}
• {{User|Jeffro77}}

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1262618226] but it was objected to on January 10. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=1268686209] My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback.

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

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Lead sentence

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background.

; Summary of dispute by Jeffro77

In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. [Roman] Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at religious group, that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--Jeffro77 Talk 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::That sounds alright to me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yep. Thanks. I might not always be able to reply in a timely fashion during the work week.—Jeffro77 Talk 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Steve Crossin}} It's okay if you need more time to reach a decision, I just want to make sure that you haven't forgotten about this since you gave a timeline earlier. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi there, haven't forgotten, sorry! Had quite a busy week so I will be reviewing this weekend. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:User:Jeffro77, User:Clovermoss, thanks for your patience while I reviewed this. I've read the associated conversations and the opinion provided by the third opinion editor. I believe that the crux of the dispute that I can see (and correct me if I am wrong) is disagreement on the description of the group in the first sentence of the lede, in particular, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1262618226 this diff] - we have three potential versions of the lede sentence proposed: "Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious group that is an outgrowth of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century.", some variant of "Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination that grew out of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century." and the current version: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian, millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination. The group grew out of the Bible Student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century.". Now, looking at these, the feedback from the 3O editor and MOS:FIRST I'd agree that the current lede sentence isn't ideal, and that option 1 or 2 should be considered. Now, reviewing the standard lede sentence in a random selection of religious articles that I've taken from List of Christian denominations (which JW is mentioned in) is commonly structured as "X is a protestant/evangelical/etc etc Christian denomination...". Considering this, and that a few of our articles on Wikipedia refer to JW as a Christian denomination (specifically, grouped under Restorationism), and noting that I've not dug into sources in deep context, would a lede sentence along the lines of "Jehovah's Witnesses is/are a restorationist Christian denomination that grew out of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century.? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::I suppose my main objection to that is that Jehovah's Witnesses are not universally recognized as a Christian denomination, hence why I think the "generally classified" part to be important. There's significant disagreement in reliable sources about what labels might otherwise apply, so I'm not exactly comfortable stating it without softening the claim a little. In my opinion, it's awkward to do that in the first sentence, so I'd prefer that information to be elsewhere in the first paragraph. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The most common argument about JWs not being 'real' Christians is that they are not Trinitarians, but nontrinitarianism is broadly recognised as a subset of Christianity. Encyclopedias of religion routinely classify Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian, either explicitly or as a subset of Adventism. It isn't even the case that the Catholic Church is universally classified as Christian, and it similarly isn't necessary to depart from a neutral point of view here just because other denominations don't consider JWs to be 'real Christians'.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it'd be misrepresenting sources to do otherwise. For example, Zoe Knox, which is cited in history says this on page 19 of her book: "The descriptors 'church', 'denomination', 'new religious movement' and (in particular) 'cult' are a terminological minefield". I'm not disputing the term Christian, but I am disputing the unquestioned status of the word denomination. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::The quote from Knox that there is a 'terminological minefield' does not constitute any clear statement that JWs are neither Christian nor a denomination.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::She goes on to state that sociologists have debated these terms for a century in the next sentence. Given that she explicitly mentions "denomination" as one of those terms, I think this is incredibly relevant. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe it'll help if you provide your best sources for denomination? What I've been reading lately rarely uses the term. I'd say Chryssides is the only author I've read that uses it somewhat frequently, but even he alternates between that and "religious community". I know you don't agree with me, but I don't think it's all that controversial to say "religious group" in the first sentence, explain the bible student connection, and then get into the dispute about classification after that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The fact that 'sociologists have debated those terms' isn't even a statement about classifying which term best describes JWs. I think if Knox provided a more direct statement that 'JWs are not a denomination', you would have provided it. In addition to routinely referring to JWs as Christian, various encyclopedias of religion also refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as a denomination.[https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Religion_in_the_South/yx2EarrpKGUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22jehovah's%20witnesses%22%20encyclopedia%20%22denomination%22&pg=PA403&printsec=frontcover][https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Protestantism/bW3sXBjnokkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22jehovah's%20witnesses%22%20encyclopedia%20%22denomination%22&pg=PA5&printsec=frontcover][https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_American_Civil_Rights_an/R7vOEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22jehovah's%20witnesses%22%20encyclopedia%20%22denomination%22&pg=PA523&printsec=frontcover] Wikipedia's articles on the The New Church (Swedenborgian) and Christadelphians also refer to those as denominations, and they (also restorationist nontrinitarian groups) are considerably smaller than JWs.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Just confirming that from what I've read of her book, she does not say that JWs aren't a denomination. But I do think that what she said about the term being debated among sociologists is important enough on its own. Given that she is one of few scholars that focus on JWs, I give her opinion slightly more weight than passing mentions in other sources. It's possible I'm wrong on this, but that's definitely my opinion. When reliable sources disagree, we're supposed to express each viewpoint and mention that sources disagree, which is why I'm not comfortable stating definitively that JWs are a denomination. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That sounds like synthesis. One could argue that because sociologists have 'argued about the terms', then we shouldn't call any religious group a denomination, but it doesn't indicate anything specific about JWs.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The body of the article already states that "The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult. Usage of the various terms has been debated among sociologists", which would seem to adequately cover the (fairly ambiguous) disagreement about calling JWs a denomination. There are also frequently neutrality issues involved with sources that do not want to call JWs a 'denomination' (or 'Christian').--Jeffro77 Talk 09:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The source literally states that denomination is one of the terms that sociologists argue about applying to JWs, so it's not synthesis by any means. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Maybe. It wasn't evident from the quote you provided. I don't have access to the source. And it hasn't been made clear how much weight should be given to the sociologists who don't want to call JWs a 'denomination', or if there is any bias involved. In any case, that point of debate is still captured by the statement in the body text already indicated. Encyclopedia's of religion classify Jehovah's Witnesses as a denomination, and the size and distribution of the denomination are consistent with the usage of that term.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::(Since the suggested wording is substantially what I suggested but with the addition of "restorationist", I don't have any major problem with it. As a minor point, is is the correct verb when referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as the name of the denomination, for the same reason that Hogan's Heroes is—not are—a television series.)--Jeffro77 Talk 08:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd like to see more sources here and policy arguments for both proposals, as I've also got a copy of the text in question from Knox and can see it's not 100% clear cut. I'm leaning towards having each of you propose a draft that might be taken to an RFC, backed by sources (which is something I can help frame) if it's not something we can find a compromise on here, and aim to gain a wider community consensus based on said proposals. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I'll work on a subpage that goes into more detail then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Here is my assessment as a Jew who did university level research over 40 years ago about the theological differences and similarities regarding the opposition to military conscription among the Quakers, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the various Mennonite groups in the United States. Personally, I have no problem recognizing at least five, maybe more, Jewish denominations but that is not the issue here. Our article Christian denomination says {{tpq|A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity that comprises all church congregations of the same kind, identifiable by traits such as a name, particular history, organization, leadership, theological doctrine, worship style and, sometimes, a founder.}} From my point of view, this definition is a good one and better describes the Jehovah's Witnesses than the Quakers and the various Mennonite groups. It took me years of study to fully appreciate the significant differences among various Quaker identified groups that allowed Richard Nixon to be categorized as Quaker although the differences among Mennonite groups are more easily apparent. The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, appear to conform to the definition much more closely, with a totally hierarchical structure that tolerates no dissent, and that operational centralized control based in Brooklyn has been in place for many decades, until they cashed out and moved to Warwick, New York in recent years. I am aware that, unsurprisingly, there are a variety of splinter groups of the Jehovah's Witnesses out there, but as far as I know, they are of little significance. So, I definitely see the Jehovah's Witnesses as a "denomination" and see no benefit in contesting what seems obvious to uninvolved observers. Cullen328 (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Cullen328}} I see a clear benefit. I'm contesting "the obvious" because I want this to be thoroughly discussed before it gets to FAC (it's one of the more obvious things that may be challenged). Also because we're supposed to provide WP:DUEWEIGHT to all perspectives expressed in reliable sources and the labels applied to JWs by reliable sources are not quite so clear cut. I do not want to imply that there is a definitive correct way to see things when said labels are contested. I will explain this point-by-point in the subpage I am currently in the middle of drafting: User:Clovermoss/Sandbox/Jehovah's Witnesses (I will comment here when I have finished it). Maybe from there an RfC on the lead could be initiated? I'd also like to state that the splinter groups are not of little significance historically (about 75% of Bible students left with Rutherford's leadership and he's the one who came up with the JW name). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Although this has kinda prompted me into thinking that I should probably just worry about crossing that bridge if it happens instead of worrying about it pre-emptively. Maybe I'm overthinking all this. I'll keep the subpage draft in case anyone brings it up in the future, but how about for now we agree on similar wording to a previous compromise? I'm going to be bold and add it to the article now, but if it doesn't end up working out that's fine. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Jeffro77}} I apologize for dragging you into a massive back and forth argument the past week and a half. I was so convinced that I was right that I basically ended up with tunnel vision. Writing it all out in my own subpage helped me realize that this wasn't nessecarily the best use of everyone's time. Rereading the same few paragraphs over and over in the same book also made it click in a way that it didn't before. I think Steve was on to something with it not being entirely clear cut and if it's just the one source, it isn't really WP:DUEWEIGHT to overrule everything else on the one term, is it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks Clovermoss. I've reviewed the change (and while we would generally encourage a consensus to happen here on a proposed change before it's made (if we have an open dispute), I think this proposal could work. User:Jeffro77, what are your thoughts on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=1271724404 this version of the lede sentence?] Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Part of the reason I went ahead with it so boldly is that it's pretty much something that was suggested as a compromise before we even came to DRN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=next&oldid=1270155395] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's 100% fine then, I missed that! I'll await comments by Jeffro77, but I think this one should be resolved soon. I'm glad I was able to provide input on this dispute, and that were able to discuss this and work together to come to a resolution, and thank you to User:Cullen328 for providing your insight too. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Happy with the changes as it stands now. Thanks for the extra eyes on the matter. Editing on mobile which I find a bit cumbersome so I’ll leave it at that if that’s ok.—Jeffro77 Talk 12:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No worries at all, thanks for your response. I'll close this one off as resolved. Thanks everyone for participating here, I'm glad we were able to assist. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Resolved on talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatiana_Kurtukova&diff=prev&oldid=1271815987] Xavexgoem (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|92.243.181.179|20:56, 25 January 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|Tatiana Kurtukova }}

Users involved

• {{User|DACartman}}

Dispute overview

The opponent is involved in edit warring while not understanding what they're doing: the subject 's birth family name is Kurtukova and Nikita Makeev is her husband.

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

Talk:Tatiana Kurtukova

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Undo the opponent's edit

• Volunteer note - Closed. There is, in fact, no discussion on the article's talk page. Talk to each other first. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Wikieditor662|21:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The dispute presented here, at DRN, appears to be not about what wording should be used, but instead, how the consensus should be evaluated. Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, not on WP:VOTEs. DRN probably wouldn't be helpful, so I recommend an WP:RfC to resolve the dispute. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 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|Talk:Donald Trump#Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2}}

Users involved

• {{User|Wikieditor662}}
• {{User|Mandruss}}

Dispute overview

We're trying to figure out how to write the intro, and there are a bunch of proposals with different ideas and we can't seem to agree. There is a box showing everyone's votes and people are considering adding the option with the highest score, but isn't majority voting against Wikipedia policy? One user, Mandruss, is arguing that it's okay to have majority votes.

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

Talk:Donald Trump#Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2 there is a ton of discussion, one about consensus is collapsed in green

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Figure out how we can reach consensus and decide which option to go with.

I have no experience with DRN, but I'm guessing I'm required to comment here since I'm one of the two named parties. It's like a subpoena, I suspect: ignore it at your peril. "Summary of dispute" from my perspective: The process currently in use for determining this consensus is accepted by a good majority of the participants to date, it has been actively defended by multiple experienced editors, and it's a process that has worked for us a number of times in the past. We are trying to stabilize the first two sentences of the article with a consensus, but the wording differences are relatively minor and inconsequential to readers. Getting to the consensus in a timely manner is more important than the consensus itself. Therefore this is a mountain being made out of a molehill by a relatively inexperienced editor. That's all I have to say here. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that this 'dispute' be held at WP:CONSENSUS's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Omg the talk is listing 69 points of consensus. No wonder it still looks like a new article full of clickbait sources. How is anyone supposed to upgrade the article to academic sources if no one can edit anything. Moxy🍁 01:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Wikieditor662}} Why is there a link to a page (Sentences 1 and 2) that doesn't exist? Best you fix up your mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Warriorsocial1234|16:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. Firstly, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. Secondly, there was no talk page discussion, which is a requirement before filing at DRN. The filing editor listed {{tqq|Requested Third-Party Input (RFC)}}, although there is no sign suggesting that this took place. Discuss on the article's talk page. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 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|S N Subrahmanyan}}

Users involved

• {{User|Warriorsocial1234}}
• {{User|Babysharkboss2}}

Dispute overview

I attempted to revise the "Workweek Debate" section of the Wikipedia article on an Indian business personality S N Subrahmanyan to ensure a neutral and balanced representation of the issue. The previous version of the section only included criticism of Subrahmanyan’s remarks without acknowledging any supportive perspectives, which I believe violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy.

To improve neutrality, I added perspectives from reliable sources such as:

Amitabh Kant (Former G20 Sherpa), who argued that hard work has historically driven success in countries like Japan and Korea.

Sanjeev Bikhchandani (Founder of Info Edge), who supported the idea that hard work is a key driver of economic progress.

P. Chidambaram (Former Finance Minister of India), who took a nuanced stance, stating that work policies should focus on efficiency rather than just longer hours.

Additionally, I included Larsen & Toubro’s official clarification, which stated that the remarks were intended as motivation rather than a directive.

Despite all sources being from reputable news outlets, my edit was repeatedly undone by another editor without proper discussion. I engaged in the Talk Page to explain my rationale, citing Wikipedia's content guidelines, but the user continues to revert the edits without meaningful engagement. My edits can be found in the edits section

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

1. I have engaged in talk page discussions

2. Cited Wikipedia Policies & Sought Consensus

3. Requested Third-Party Input (RFC)

Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S._N._Subrahmanyan

page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Subrahmanyan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This dispute can be resolved by ensuring the "Workweek Debate" section follows WP:NPOV and includes both critical and supportive perspectives. A moderator can review the section, facilitate Talk Page consensus, and prevent edit warring. I’m open to compromise edits, but the opposing editor reverts without discussion. Moderator guidance on neutrality and dispute resolution is needed to ensure fairness.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Abo Yemen|19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Most issues have been resolved. There appears to be consensus that the listed sources {{em|are}} reliable {{em|for the local myth}}; if there is still disagreement about that, then discuss that at the talk page. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 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|Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Abo Yemen}}
• {{User|Javext}}

Dispute overview

Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the Portuguese Navy) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per WP:RSP). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.

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

Talk:Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)#Infobox "Result"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous WP:NPOV

Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:

-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"[https://www.google.pt/books/edition/The_Career_and_Legend_of_Vasco_Da_Gama/8wqMWl6sSwwC?hl=pt-PT&gbpv=1&dq=Xael+1523&pg=PA291&printsec=frontcover]

-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"[https://whenmelodiesgather.supdigital.org/wmg/the-mahra-the-al-kathir-and-the-portuguese]

-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked."[https://www.academia.edu/36608808/OTTOMAN_DOMINATION_IN_THE_ARAB_LAND_AND_ITS_EFFECTS_ON_MUSLIM_INDIA] In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the

11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."[https://www.academia.edu/36608808/OTTOMAN_DOMINATION_IN_THE_ARAB_LAND_AND_ITS_EFFECTS_ON_MUSLIM_INDIA]

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:

-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."[https://www.google.pt/books/edition/Pillaging_the_Empire/OTU-CgAAQBAJ?hl=pt-PT&gbpv=1&dq=Portuguese+piracy+Indian+ocean&pg=PA159&printsec=frontcover]

-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."[https://www.google.pt/books/edition/Dawn_of_the_Raj_The_Company_that_Ruled_I/Hvq0EAAAQBAJ?hl=pt-PT&gbpv=1&dq=Portuguese+piracy+Indian+Ocean+16th+century&pg=PA184&printsec=frontcover]

So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

Thank you for whoever reads this. Javext (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Wikipedia's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.}}
{{pb}}First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory}}
{{pb}}Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here.{{pb}}Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
{{tq|1=For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.}}
Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.{{pb}}Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy}}
Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.
{{tqb|1=The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.}}
Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "{{tq|1=(as already stated in the sources above)}}" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...{{pb}}{{tqb|1=It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.}}
I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this Abo Yemen✉ 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Wikipedia's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."

::.

::'''Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Wikipedia. According to WP:RS, the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.

::-'''

::"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."

::.

::You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.

::-

::"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."

::.

::What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..

::-

::''"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;

:: 'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.'

::Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."

::.

::I already responded to this above

::-

::"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."

::.

::Hello?? "defended itself from the invaders" - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, [...]"[https://www.academia.edu/36608808/OTTOMAN_DOMINATION_IN_THE_ARAB_LAND_AND_ITS_EFFECTS_ON_MUSLIM_INDIA]

::-

::"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."

::.

::I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."[https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/91643/1/Corsarios_e_Piratas.pdf]

::-

::"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."

::.

::I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet wikipedia standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. "None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..." Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out.. Javext (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of Wikipedia:DRN Rule D. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a contentious topic; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are WP:AWARE of this.

I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind WP:OR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I have read and am willing to follow WP:DRND. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
(Do we state what changes we want now?) Abo Yemen✉ 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Yes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::Alright,
Changes that I want to be made:

::* I want the old article section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff

::* The infobox should Include the Mahra Sultanate with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text[https://whenmelodiesgather.supdigital.org/wmg/the-mahra-the-al-kathir-and-the-portuguese]: {{tq|1=However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).}}

::* As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about Battle of al-Shihr (1531) and Battle of al-Shihr (1548)).

:: Abo Yemen✉ 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.

For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. Javext (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because he doesn't like it. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints should be included Abo Yemen✉ 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read WP:RS.

::If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. Javext (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like [https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9% this one] from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources [https://www.alayyam.info/news/9BF8VY7O-80M1BP-62EE from al-Ayyam] (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the [https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs Sanaa university press] (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::::It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?

::::Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? Javext (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A{{pb}}https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at WP:RSN Javext (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. Javext (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{talkreflist}}

It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at WP:RSN and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit Abo Yemen✉ 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? Abo Yemen✉ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins Abo Yemen✉ 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The thread at RSN {{Diff2|1270464721|has been archived}}, and it appears to me that the consensus is that the listed sources are not reliable in this context. Taking this into consideration, what are the issues that remain? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've restored it for a bit wait 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:No issues remain. Without those listed sources there's nothing he can change. The article is good as it is now. Javext (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Kovcszaln6 so according to gordan from the rsn, using those sources to expand the other sections of the article that aren't related to the battle/fighting itself is fine (link) but Jav seems to ignore gordans message that I've linked and he says:
{{tq|1=there's no way you are going to use those arabic articles to cite content.}} here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|WP:DRND 1.1. --Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)}}

::You are the one ignoring Gordon's message, he stated very clearly and I quote: "[...] none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Wikipedia." ; "[...] you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source."

::He NEVER supported you using those arabic amateur essays to cite content. You also chose to ignore my last reply in that debate and chose to come here instead to beg Kovcszaln for help as a last solution, you are clearly desperate lol Javext (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#c-GordonGlottal-20250203001000-Javext-20250128220200 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|1=You also chose to ignore my last reply in that debate and chose to come here instead to beg Kovcszaln for help as a last solution, you are clearly desperate lol}}
And yes, that's what I did. I am not willing to continue the back and forth between me and you that led us to those noticeboards in the first place 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

The defenders of the city "were horribly routed."Azmat Alishah. [https://www.academia.edu/36608808/OTTOMAN_DOMINATION_IN_THE_ARAB_LAND_AND_ITS_EFFECTS_ON_MUSLIM_INDIA Ottoman Domination in the Arab Land and Its Effects on Muslim India]." Retrieved January 22, 2025. Routed refers to being "defeated overwhelmingly," signifying a decisive victory for the invading forces. Manuductive (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to ask the editors to remain civil.

The consensus at RSN is that the local myth may be included in its own section, carefully attributed. So I hope there's no disagreement here; feel free to implement these changes.

So again, taking into consideration that the sources listed at RSN were deemed to be unreliable in other contexts, what are the issues that remain? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. There aren't any other issues 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:There's still disagreement there and I have replied to Gordon.

:Other than that, I don't think any issues remain. Javext (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{notelist}}

{{ref-talk}}

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|87.220.122.213|12:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. Firstly, the filing editor has not notified the other editor(s). Secondly, the purpose of this noticeboard is not to rule that one editor is "right" and the other one is "wrong", and neither is {{tqq|making him understand that WP:Neutrality must be preserved}} in the scope of DRN. Also, the incivility and failure to assume good faith by the filing editor ({{Diff2|1273352496}}{{Diff2|1273479963}}{{Diff2|1274503996}}{{Diff2|1274604538}}) make it difficult to discuss anything. Refrain from edit warring and please see Wikipedia:Criticism. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:39, 8 February 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|MG4 EV}}

Users involved

• {{User|Andra Febrian}}

Dispute overview

See discussion on talk page.

Basically, Andra Febrian insists that car issues cannot be cited in the MG4 EV article. He does not care that other articles have similar section and that WP:Neutrality must be preserved.

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

Talk:MG4 EV#Know issues

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By making him understand that WP:Neutrality must be preserved.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Spanishcheese31|11:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature. The filing party has not listed the other editors or notified them. The discussion on the article talk page has not been lengthy, and has not involved one of the editors who have been editing the article. Continue discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Clarissa Wei; that's what article talk pages are for. If discussion becomes lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here or at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 9 February 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|Clarissa Wei}}

Users involved

• {{User|Spanishcheese31}}

Dispute overview

I respectfully request the removal of the following sentences:

“In February 2022, The New York Times removed a video of Wei's Singaporean chicken curry following criticism, including from several high-profile Singaporean chefs. A Malay Mail commentator described the result as an 'insipid-looking stew.'”

Grounds for Removal:

History of Bias in the Edit History: There is a clear pattern in the article’s edit history where an editor has repeatedly removed or downplayed Clarissa Wei's significant achievements, including recent awards. This pattern suggests an ongoing bias against her, which further undermines the neutrality of the article. These actions demonstrate a deliberate effort to portray her in an unbalanced light, which reinforces the need to remove the undue focus on this minor

Undue Weight: This incident is a minor, isolated event that does not hold lasting significance in Clarissa Wei's career or public life. Wikipedia guidelines require that content included in biographical articles be notable and have a lasting impact. The inclusion of this brief controversy gives disproportionate attention to a single moment that does not reflect her professional body of work.

Lack of Relevance: The controversy surrounding the video does not meaningfully contribute to the overall portrayal of Wei’s career. The focus on this isolated event detracts from a more balanced representation of her journalistic achievements and personal contributions to her field.

Neutrality Violations: The phrase "insipid-looking stew" is a subjective and critical comment that introduces bias. While the statement is quoted from another source, the inclusion of this particular critique violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy by presenting an unbalanced portrayal of Wei's work.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that these sentences be removed to maintain a neutral, relevant, and accurate representation of Clarissa Wei’s career in line with Wikipedia’s content policies.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarissa_Wei

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The section about the chicken curry controversy should be reviewed to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV). While the incident may be mentioned, it should not dominate the article or be presented in a way that emphasizes negativity. The language used should be neutral—terms like “insipid-looking stew” introduce bias and should either be omitted or placed in proper context to avoid misrepresentation of Clarissa Wei’s work.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Wikaviani|09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as resolved, based on a report by the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 10 February 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|Law of cosines}}

Users involved

• {{User|Wikaviani}}
• {{User|Jacobolus}}
• {{User|XOR'easter}}

Dispute overview

As [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_3_sources_for_the_history_of_law_of_cosines said] at WP:RSN, I want to include the sentence "in the fifteenth century, the mathematician al-Kashi was the first to give a general proof for any triangle with the introduction of trigonometry" that has been reworded by the volunteer who answered me, with the 2 sources that have been dubbed reliable there, {{u|Jacobolus}} disagrees with that.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:As I said repeatedly, I believe this statement to be factually inaccurate. The previous statement was unacceptably vague and also in my opinion misleading. Wikaviani: you should try actually engaging with my arguments on the talk page instead of constantly changing the subject, edit warring to re-insert your preferred new text without consensus, and now venue shopping. I doubt anyone who stops by here is going to have significant familiarity with the history of trigonometry. If you want more eyeballs, it's more useful to ask for help somewhere like WT:WPM where the participants are knowledgeable and interested about mathematics (though few if any are mathematical historians). But for anyone reading here, the context is:

:* special:history/Law of cosines

:* {{slink|Talk:Law_of_cosines#Recent_reverts_by_Jacobolus}}

:* {{slink|WP:RS/N#Reliability_of_3_sources_for_the_history_of_law_of_cosines}}

:* {{slink|WP:AN/3#User:Jacobolus_reported_by_User:Wikaviani_(Result:_No_violation)}}

:* (and earlier, on a different subject, {{slink|Talk:Binomial_theorem#History_section}}, WP:AN/I/Archive1174 § Jacobolus and WP:ASPERSION, and WT:WPM/Archive/2024/Dec § Help resolving disputes about history at Binomial theorem)

: –jacobolus (t) 12:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I already told you that it's quite odd how you say the opposite of what reliable sources say about the works of these scholars. All your comments at Talk:Law of cosines are pure speculation and based on your POV. The works of those scholars are in Arabic, a language that I do not speak and, besides, humbly, analyzing primary sources is the job of secondary sources, a task that is beyond my competences. Also, with all due respect, I'm not inclined to continue to discuss with someone who repeatedly accuses me of political agenda, this kind of remarks are deterring and non constructive, sorry. I came here because I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1274142796&oldid=1274142543 advised] to do so at WP:ANEW.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Issue extensively discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_of_cosines#Recent_reverts_by_Jacobolus here].

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like your opinion about that addition.

I've participated a tiny bit at Talk:Law of cosines; I agree with jacobolus here, pretty much. The proposed statement is not backed up by adequate sources, and it is just about as vague and confusing as the one it replaced. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, I shot an email to Glen Van Brummelen asking for his thoughts about this question. I have gotten email replies from him in the past, but he's pretty busy and my questions to him weren't completely trivial, so I don't have any particular expectations for a reply (but I'll keep my fingers crossed). –jacobolus (t) 18:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:"The proposed statement is not backed up by adequate sources" : The sources seem to be ok according to WP:RSN.

:"The statement is just about as vague and confusing as the one it replaced" : I can understand that "suitable for modern usage", that is used by Pickover though, might be a bit vague, but I really don't see any vagueness in this new statement. Again, as I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaw_of_cosines&diff=1272827201&oldid=1272827085 asked you] at Talk:Law of cosines, if that sentence is not convenient for you, why don't you propose another one ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::It's not "a bit vague"; it's completely free of content and meaning. I have no idea what Pickover was trying to say. Phrasing like {{tq|with the introduction of trigonometry}} is obscure and unhelpful, too. Why doesn't the proposition in Euclid qualify as "trigonometry"? Why is the dividing line between trigonometry and not-trigonometry drawn at al-Kashi and not either earlier or later? How does any reader benefit from having an assertion about "the introduction of trigonometry" or "modern usage" dropped into the article, when the article already explains what al-Kashi actually did? It seems to me that you are asking for little tweaks of phrasing or word choice, but there's no way that little tweaks of phrasing or word choice can fix a sentence that is fundamentally unclear and extraneous. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|Be civil, and be receptive to third party comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)}}

:::Firstly, please stop flooding this noticeboard with your comments, you should have posted your comments at Talk:Law of cosines.

{{hab}}

::: Secondly, I will say it for the 3rd time, if you disagree with that specific sentence, please go ahead and make another proposal. Finally, Euclid never used trigonometry in his works, because the law of cosines requires trigonometric functions like cos and sin that were introduced in India about 10 centuries after Euclid's lifetime, ask Jacobolus, he seems to be an expert in the study of primary sources, not me, I go by what reliable published sources say. I will not comment or answer to any other post of you guys here before an uninvolved volunteer steps in. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::What counts as "trigonometry" is quite subjective, but often the dividing line is put at Hipparchus (mostly as transmitted to us in Ptolemy's Almagest) who, it is thought, synthesized Mesopotamian arithmetical/metrical methods related to arc lengths with Greek geometrical ones. However Hipparchus's (and Ptolemy's etc.) work was based on chords rather than sines, so some people might move their concept of "modern" trigonometry to medieval India, the Islamic Golden Age, Renaissance Europe, or even to the 18th century, since there has been significant change through time and across cultures in concepts, methods, notation, and point of view. –jacobolus (t) 19:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You are presuming that a proposal is necessary. I have proposed no alternative because I do not share that presumption. I do not believe that any sentence of the sort that you are calling for is either necessary or warranted. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for clarifying, at last. I told you to make a proposal in order to find a compromise.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Two editors, the filing editor and another editor, are listed here. However, three editors took part in the discussion at the article talk page, and the third editor has also offered an opinion here. Is there a reason why the third editor was not listed in this filing? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Okay. The filing editor was advised to try DRN. Another editor has offered an opinion. Is there a reason why their opinion is being ignored by the filing editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The opinion of XOR’easter was expressed 8 days ago and no other comment from that editor was posted at the article’s talk page until today, several hours after I filed this report, this is why XOR’easter isn't listed here. Besides, another opinion was expressed at WP:RSN by the volunteer who handled my request and the phrasing of the sentence has been changed in the meantime.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion if the editors are ready for moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to these rules. Be civil. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and the editors will answer my questions. Address your answers to the moderator and the community. Do not make any reports or inquiries at other noticeboards.

I have forgotten all the higher math that I learned in college. I have not forgotten the math that I learned in high school.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state exactly what language in the article you want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what language you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not explain why you want to make the change or why you disagree with the change. We can discuss that later. For now, tell me and the community what language in the article there is disagreement about.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current text of {{slink|Law of cosines#History}} discussing Jamshīd al-Kāshī's contributions are sufficient and don't need to be extended by further claims of al-Kashi's priority. What I aimed to do in writing the current version of this section is explicitly describe/explain what al-Kashi did and how it relates to earlier work, and let readers draw their own conclusions.

I believe it is problematic to say that al-Kāshī was any of:

• "first" to prove this relation (not true, a clear proof found in Euclid, and in many other sources in between Euclid and al-Kāshī – and in my opinion al-Kāshī's text does not constitute a "proof" per se)
• "first" to use it to solve triangles (not true, that was done many centuries earlier, e.g. by al-Bīrūnī)
• "first" to use it as part of a systematic description of ways of solving any arbitrary triangle (not true, we can find this e.g. in Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī's book, and there might be even older sources I don't know about)
• "first" to explicitly involve sines and cosines, or "trigonometry" (not true, we can clearly find that also in al-Ṭūsī's book)
• "first" to make the statement "modern" (undefined and in my opinion substantially misleading, since notation and conventions have changed dramatically and the form of the typical 20th–21st century presentation is substantially different)

I do not believe the sources given for adding statements to the effect of any of the above were adequate, and in some cases were being used to make claims not found in the sources. I reverted addition of such sentences primarily because I think such claims are inherently problematic (with or without sources), but in general I am opposed even to adding claims along the lines of "so-and-so author says that al-Kāshī was first to XYZ", because I don't think they are helpful to readers, and may be misleading.

I even think it's problematic to say that al-Kāshī was the "first" to write this as a single trigonometric formula, since al-Kāshī himself does not claim any priority or state that his presentation is novel, and claiming that he was first is not a provable claim (though it might be disprovable by discovery/closer examination of earlier documents); it is entirely plausible that earlier authors already wrote the same thing in roughly the same manner, in books that are no longer extant or remain unrecognized in some obscure archive of ancient manuscripts. In general, claiming "firsts" in the history of science is a risky business, and such claims are often falsified by new historical research.

I think we should stick to what is known, and explain it, instead of speculating about things that are unknowable, to give readers the clearest idea we can of the state of current historical knowledge. Statements along the lines of "Euclid's Elements contains the statement A. This was used for B by al-Bīrūnī. al-Ṭūsī recommended a systematic method including C. al-Kāshī wrote this in form D. Viète turned sentences of prose into a more concise notation of form E." Etc. Readers can make up their own minds about what the relationship is between these different approaches, we don't need to tell them what interpretation to make. –jacobolus (t) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment : Given the new insight given at Talk:Law of cosines, you can close this case. Thank you for your time.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|RJANKA|17:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature. The request for a Third Opinion was declined both because there had been more than two editors, and because of inadequate previous discussion. The requirement of prior lengthy inconclusive discussion is also applicable to DRN, and there still has not been lengthy discussion. The filing editor also has failed to notify the other editors; a reminder would be in order if that were the only issue, but more discussion is needed. Resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Bell number. If further discussion does not resolve the issue, a new request can be filed here. I am willing to offer a Fourth Opinion (or Fifth Opinion, if another editor joins the discussion at the talk page) in place of mediation if a new request is made. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 12 February 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|Bell number}}

Users involved

• {{User|RJANKA}}
• {{User|David Eppstein}}
• {{User|JayBeeEll}}

Dispute overview

I think the word "genji-ko" written in Bell number#History is MOS:UL, so I rewrite "medieval Japan" as "medieval Japanese incense art which is called Kōdō, but this rewrite is reverted because "I don't think it's relevant to this particular article that the parlor game in question is part of a broader Japanese tradition of discerning incense scents (the topic of the link) and so I think that going on about this irrelevant material is an unneeded and unwanted distraction from the article ". I hope know applicable conditions of MOS:UL in historic trivia in mathematics article.

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

Talk:Bell number#History: Is this not justifies?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope know applicable conditions of MOS:UL in historic trivia in mathematics article. Please discussing mathematics user and other.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739378392}}

{{drn filing editor|Bogazicili|16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as fizzled out. Neither editor has edited in the past week. I am closing this case for now. If one editor resumes editing the article, they may edit it boldly but not recklessly, and should be prepared to discuss on the article talk page with the other editor or any third editor. If the two editors resume editing and still or again have an article content dispute, they should discuss on the article talk page. If that discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, another request may be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 4 February 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|Urartu}}

Users involved

• {{User|Bogazicili}}
• {{User|Skeptical1800}}

Dispute overview

Multiple issues discussed in Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes.

I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.

::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.

::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.

::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.

::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.

::Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Resolve issues with respect to WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:OR, and removal of content

::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.

::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.

::Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:

::"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"

::User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.

::Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.

::The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:

::"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"

::So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).

::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.

::Here is the quote in question:

::"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"

::User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.

::"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."

::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu

::User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:

::Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. "The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."

::and:

::Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 "Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, [Urartu] was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."

::It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?

::Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: "Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."

::It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.

::To the previous point, there's also the following: "Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."

::Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.

::There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Wikipedia is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Wikipedia appropriate?

::These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Skeptical1800}}, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.

I had reverted your recent changes based on WP:BRD and had removed content I added that you object to based on WP:ONUS, so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::Undid recent edits, as requested.

::Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Skeptical1800}}, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a contentious topic. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:

• Removal of content from the lead. {{tq|Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".[10]}}
• Removal of content from Urartu#Appearance_of_Armenia: {{tq|The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".[78]}}
• Removal of this content, or where it should be put: {{tq|These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.[9]}}
• Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urartu&diff=1268481278&oldid=1268480334 this edit]. Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: Talk:Proto-Armenian_language#Recent_edits and Talk:Origin_of_the_Armenians#Recent_edits. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation.
• I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. Bogazicili (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here.

{{hat|Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}

Your stalking of my activities on Wikipedia is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with.

{{hab}}

Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:

:::* Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.

:::*Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.

:::*Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.

:::*Article should not include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages unless the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the Language section. It should not be in the lead.

:::*Article should not include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of WP:UNDUE as it contradicts numerous WP:RS included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.

:::*Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.

:::Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Be civil and concise. A few of the statements here have not be civil. I will advise the editors again to comment on content, not contributors. If you want to make allegations of stalking or of misrepresenting sources, read the boomerang essay first, and then report the conduct at WP:ANI, but we will not discuss content here while conduct is being discussed anywhere. Please use some other term than saying that an editor is misrepresenting sources, which may imply intentional misrepresentation. If you think that another editor is misinterpreting sources, you may so that.

Do any of the content issues have to do with questions about the reliability of sources? I see statements that content was removed. If an editor removed content, or wants content removed, please state whether the removal is because of source reliability issues, or due weight, or other reasons.

Please reread DRN Rule D and again say whether you agree that we will only discuss content. Please also state whether there are any questions about source reliability, and what are any other reasons for removal of content.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree to only discuss content.

{{collapsetop|TLDR - Too long, no wiser after reading once. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:There is no issue with the quality of sources (although some are outdated as they were published in 1980 or before). However, the editor is misinterpreting the Areshian source ("Bīsotūn, ‘Urartians’ and ‘Armenians’ of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya"), which was explained to editor more than once. Their interpretation of said quote is that "'The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds'". While the page and sources do not claim that Urartians were Armenians, outside of the context of the full source, this statement can be confusing, and lead to WP:RS, as it is widely accepted there was an Armenian presence in Urartu.

:Editor removed information derived from the following source (which was published in the same collection as the Areshian source), that suggested some of the etymologies of Urartian kings' name could be Indo-European:https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu This source was published by Archaeopress Publishing.

:Please note the abstract of the above source (emphasis mine): "Some names of Urartian kings have good parallels in the Balkans, the others are etymologisable in the Indo-European ground."

:Editor also removed information saying some of the Urartian kings came from a region called Armarili, which may have been located near Lake Urmia in northern Iran or may have been located near Lake Van. The section that was removed was: "According to Sargon II, the hometowns of some of the Urartian kings were located in Armarili (or Aramali) district, which was probably located to the west of Lake Urmia (perhaps near modern Salmas, Iran) or near Lake Van." The following was the source: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/18115/1/Cifciali_May2014_18115.pdf This source is a thesis published by a doctoral candidate student from the University of Liverpool who is now Assistant Professor in Ancient History at Marmara University, and was a Senior Fellow at the Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, who has published several articles on Urartian archaeology.

:Here is the relevant passage: Levine (1977a: 145, Fig. 1) considered the Ushnu/Solduz Plain as a possible location of Amarili, but Zimansky (1990: 16) proposed a northerly location and considered the Shahpur (Salmas) Plain -a location in the north-west shore of the Lake Urmia.

:Another relevant passage from this source is here:

:Further evidence in regard to events of this period may be found in Sargon II’s ‘Letter to the God Assur’, where two different noble families were mentioned, one in the city of Arbu being ‘the father's house of Ursa’(Rusa) and the other in Riar as ‘the city of Ishtarduri’ (Sarduri).

:The following source was not included, but could be, as it supports the (removed) statement on page, that some of the Urartian kings came from Armarili: Riar (Rijar), city in the Urartian province Armarili and Arbu, Urartian city in the province Armarili. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_acta_iranica_51_2012.pdf

:The above source was from an academic symposium about Urartu, co-chaired by Paul Zimansky, a Urartologist, whose work the editor has cited elsewhere.

:The editor misinterpreted the Areshian quote in order to suggest there was no scientific evidence linking Urartians and Armenians. However, this is in direct opposition to numerous sources already on the page (as I have referred to in other comments in this discussion thread, using excerpts from Drews and Zimansky). I added this, which was removed, even after I changed the writing to reflect the editor's suggestions: "A 2022 study found that Urartian-era samples from Hasanlu Tepe in the Lake Urmia region of northern Iran possessed ancestry patrilineally related to earlier Bronze Age samples from Armenia. Both groups were discovered to be related to the Yamnaya culture, who are commonly thought to have been the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian, however, they also said it was possible the language spoken was a non-Indo-European language. However, the study found that Urartian-era individuals from Çavuştepe on the southeastern shore of Lake Van had increased Levantine ancestry and lacked the Indo-European-related ancestry found in contemporaneous individuals from Armenia and northern Iran. The researchers suggested these distinct genetic communities could indicate the presence of Hurro-Urartian and Armenian-speaking populations and their respective geographic positioning during the Urartian-era."

:The source was the following: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ This study was published in Science.

:Here are the cited excerpts from the source (emphasis mine):

:"An even more striking case is that of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu situated in the mountainous and geographically fragmented regions of eastern Turkey and Armenia where the linguistic landscape must have been complex in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The people at the center of this kingdom in the Lake Van region of Turkey (Çavuştepe) and its northern extension in Armenia, were strongly connected by material culture, and were buried only ~200km apart, yet formed distinct genetic clusters with little overlap during the kingdom’s early (9th-8th c. BCE) period (Fig. 2). The Van cluster is in continuity with the pre-Urartian population (~1300BCE) at neighboring Muradiye also in the Van region, and is characterized by more Levantine ancestry and the absence of steppe ancestry. It contrasts with the cluster of Urartian period individuals from Armenia which have less Levantine and some steppe ancestry like the pre-Urartian individuals of the Early Iron Age (1). Our genetic results help explain the formation of linguistic relationships in the region. Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon."

:Also this:

:"When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran (~1000BCE), we observe that the Hasanlu population possessed some of Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry, but to a lesser degree than their contemporaries in Armenia. The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)." [...]"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there".

:The editor's rational for removal was that the area in question (northern Iran) was not part of the "core" Urartu. However, numerous sources consider this region to be Urartu, and this is the same general region where some of the Urartian kings were said be to be from, according to Sargon II (as previously discussed in above sources). In fact, the Radner source calls Armarili "a Urartian province."

:Lastly, the inclusion of Hurro-Urartian potentially being connected to Northeast Caucasian languages is fine. The editor cited an excerpt from Zimansky. However, the full quote must be included (i.e. including the last two sentences). I have highlighted the last two sentences of the quote in question, which was repeatedly omitted: "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet yearlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."

:Leaving the last two sentences of the above quote out give the impression that a Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection to Northeast Caucasian languages is far more certain than the full quote implies.Skeptical1800 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

I am going to start over, by asking, first, whether there is still an article content dispute. At the outset, I asked each editor what changes to the article were at issue. User: Bogazicili listed three sentences that had been removed from the article. User:Skeptical1800 provided six bullet points, four of which were about sources (two to include, two to exclude) and one of which was general. Then when I asked whether there were questions about the reliability of sources, they provided 1400 words.

Is there still an article content dispute? Do the editors agree that we can start by discussing the removal of the three sentences?

Are there any other concise comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Robert McClenon}}, thanks for looking into this. Yes, there is still a content dispute. I think there are 3 issues.

{{ordered list

| Removal of sourced content. 3 sentences that we talked about. Wording of these sentences.

| Wording of new additions.

| Where things should go (body vs lead, etc)}} Bogazicili (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Bogazicili identifies three issues: first, three removals; second, wording of new additions, and third, some questions of moving material between the lede and the body. I will ask Bogazicili to restate briefly what the three removals were (I know that we have already seen them listed above), and to explain briefly what they want to add, and to explain the lede-body issues briefly. I will ask Skeptical1800 to explain briefly why they made the three removals, no more than 100 words for each removal. We can then decide, concerning the three removals, whether compromise is possible.

Are there any other concise comments or questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|CurryTime7-24|01:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature. The discussion has not been going on for 24 hours. The information at the top of this noticeboard says that the discussion should have continued for two days. Sometimes either discussion or a day of reflection or a night of sleep can bring the editors closer to compromise. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is still inconclusive after 48 hours, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 14 February 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|Symphony No. 2 (Walton)}}

Users involved

• {{User|CurryTime7-24}}
• {{User|Tim riley}}
• {{User|SchroCat}}

Dispute overview

Yesterday, I rewrote and significantly expanded the article on the composer William Walton's Second Symphony. Because nearly the entire article was new ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Symphony%20No.%202%20%28Walton%29 see the page statistics]), it seemed acceptable to use the citation style that I'm familiar with, although to be honest this was not a matter I had considered beforehand. Earlier today, another editor disputed the rewrite and the use of a new citation style at the article. They also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphony_No._2_(Walton)&diff=prev&oldid=1275599068 deleted the entire new article], in favor of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphony_No._2_(Walton)&oldid=1275605469 the previous one]. I contacted the editor at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley&diff=prev&oldid=1275602096 their talk page], then later brought the matter up at the article talk page at their suggestion. In the meantime, they deleted the newly rewritten article once more. As I was preparing to solicit a third opinion, a previously uninvolved editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CurryTime7-24&curid=37034029&diff=1275617534&oldid=1273693967 sent me an edit-warring warning]. For context, I am also currently participating with these same editors in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Malcolm_Sargent another ongoing discussion at the DRN].

While posting this, I learned that the other editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphony_No._2_(Walton)&diff=prev&oldid=1275618985 also deleted] the new version of the article.

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

Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Walton)#Citation_style

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determining whether or not the newly rewritten article needs to be jettisoned because of the citation style. If the new version is acceptable, then help is needed to determine whether the new citation style can remain, be replaced, or modified.

This is ridiculous. There has been no real effort on the talk page into coming to a suitable conclusion. There is no need to waste other people’s time without expending a little effort first. - SchroCat (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note: An editor {{Diff2|1275631314|has made}} the requested compromises. Is there still a dispute? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :There probably wasn't really one before - this was opened ridiculously early without any effort being made on the talk page to settle this. A passing (extremely helpful) editor did what was necessary without any fuss or the additional dramah of filing at a noticeboard. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|CurryTime7-24|22:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as resolved. There was no disagreement with the wording proposed by CurryTime7-24, which maintains verifiability and neutral point of view by using the words used by the commenters. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 18 February 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|Malcolm Sargent}}

Users involved

• {{User|CurryTime7-24}}
• {{User|Ssilvers}}
• {{User|Tim riley}}
• {{User|SchroCat}}
• {{User|Hugh7}}

Dispute overview

The first paragraph of the "Private life" section, which discusses subject's marriage and extramarital relationships, concludes: "Less savory encounters are alluded to by the young woman who said, 'Promise me that whatever happens I shan't have to go home alone in a taxi with Malcolm Sargent.'" The implication of this passage is uncertain. Given the context of both article and cited source, it could either imply that the subject was a persistent womanizer or that his behavior was possibly criminal. Unfortunately, sources are also vague on this matter and open to interpretation. It seemed to me that the passage could be removed based on MOS:EUPHEMISM, MOS:WEASEL; or that the accusations needed to be substantiated or at least attributed, rather than presented in wikivoice. My edits were reverted by two other editors; in the article talk page, another has voiced their objections to my concerns. If I'm wrong on this matter or if my behavior has not been conducive to collaboration, I'm ready to apologize to other involved editors and refrain from making any further edits to this article.

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

Talk:Malcolm Sargent#Some room for improvement...

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A proposal to either keep the passage in question as is, eliminate it, or help provide a reworded compromise version that appeases the concerns of everybody involved.

The article attempts to summarize Sargent's reputation as a cad who would, for example, touch women sexually in taxis, or at least this was such common knowledge at the time that women were afraid this would happen. It is true that the press of the time was not explicit in reporting what, exactly, Sargent did to these women, but the article summarizes the sources at no more than appropriate length (and probably more ink would be warranted about Sargent's reputation as a "bounder", but it would also suffer from the vague way in which such allegations were reported in the press of the day). Deleting the sentence would be highly misleading. The person who initiated this DRN has been requested more than once to supply any better/clearer sources that they can find, but apparently they have not found any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We have provided the complainant with an impeccable corroborative second source for the allegation that women feared to go in taxis with Sargent. The description "Less savoury" (not "savory", which is a herb) was added in March last year by an editor who has not been invited to the present discussion. The previous text (drafted by me, I think) was "More casual" but the alteration seemed and still seems to me appropriate. We cannot know precisely what Sargent was guilty of but the sources are wholly clear that it was something reprehensible and non-consensual. The complainant falsely claims in his/her last edit summary not to have access to the cited source despite being informed that it is available in the Internet Archive. (Chronological sequence of exchanges: that edit summary came before the complainant was told where to go to find the source.) Tim riley talk 09:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The passage reflects the sources, which is all we can do as editors. If the sources do not go into the details, we can’t just make them up to satisfy one editor’s needs. Removal would be a poor step. These are matters that are reported in more than one source, so it would be dishonest of us to censor this aspect of the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to try to facilitate the resolution of this dispute. I will start by asking my usual opening question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or any activity intended to resolve a content dispute, is to improve the article. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. It appears that the main issue is how to summarize Malcolm Sargent's reputation for what in the twenty-first century would be called sexual harassment.

Are there any other issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"Less savory encounters are alluded to" needs to be clearly explained per WP:EUPHEMISM. However, both sources that I've consulted (one of which is cited in the article) at best only possibly imply "sexual harassment". [https://www.classical-music.com/features/artists/malcolm-sargent One which was presented in the talk page] states that Sargent was a "terror to women", but this occurs in a section titled "Extramarital liaisons", the implication then that this remark was in reference to his indefatigable womanizing. The use of "bounder" in the cited source suggests as much (adultery was viewed far more negatively in Sargent's time). Affirming or even implying one interpretation over the other, however, is WP:SYNTH.

Ideally, the passage would be reworded so as to adhere strictly to what the sources say and let the reader make up their own minds. Something like: "According to the music critic Michael Kennedy, Sargent was 'a terror to women'. In a letter to George Lyttelton, Sir Rupert Hart-Davis recalled a young woman he once met at a party who approached him with a request: 'Promise me that whatever happens I shan't have to go home alone in a taxi with Malcolm Sargent'."

No other questions at this time. There were other disputes in the talk page, but this was the biggest one. I'm confident that if this is resolved, the others can be worked on in amicable collaboration. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The only editor who has commented is User:CurryTime7-24, who has made what seems to be a reasonable suggestion to state exactly what the sources say that two people said about Malcolm Sargent. Does anyone disagree? If no one disagrees, I will close this discussion by saying that there is a rough consensus (one-to-zero is a rough consensus) to change the wording as proposed.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:I should feel unhappy if the editor who made the change to which CurryTime724 objects, User:Hugh7, were not consulted before his/her addition is reverted. Tim riley talk 18:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I can wait a few more days for the other editor to chime in, although their edit history suggests that they contribute sporadically and, therefore, may not reply in a timely fashion. Even if they do, the problem at hand remains: their edit merely replaced one euphemistic phrasing and synthesized implication with another. My proposed alteration is clear, adheres strictly to what the sources say, and eliminates any persuasive language or synthesis. Aside from this, I have no further questions and concerns. All other outstanding issues can be resolved amicably in the article talk page. If not, we can always come back to the DRN. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I am confused. Have I missed something, or has User:Tim riley missed something? Tim riley writes: {{tq|I should feel unhappy if the editor who made the change to which CurryTime724 objects, User:Hugh7, were not consulted before his/her addition is reverted. }} I don't see any edits by Hugh7 either to the article or to the talk page. Please provide me with a diff or a link to the edit that CurryTime7-24 is taking issue with.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Sargent&diff=prev&oldid=1211329455 this is the edit in question]. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I asked if I had missed something. I missed something, and was shown something that I had missed. It was one edit, almost a year ago. I will add User:Hugh7 to the list of participants and invite them to this discussion.

I will again ask whether there is any objection to the wording proposed by User:CurryTime7-24, which maintains verifiability.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I will be closing this thread in 24 hours as resolved by the acceptance of the wording proposed by CurryTime24-7, which maintains neutral point of view and verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Vacosea|21:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. There wasn't adequate discussion on the article's talk page, which is a prerequisite for DRN. I'd suggest following the advice of WP:DISCFAIL. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 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|Amdo}}

Users involved

• {{User|NicolasTn}}

Dispute overview

Should the details of the region's names go into the lead paragraph, its connection with China qualified by repeating statements already present in the lead and other parts of the article, are NicolasTn's own descriptions such as "Tibetan speakers of non-Tibetan origin" and "such description is of question" as well as other changes accurate and neutral? They are represented by these two revisions of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amdo&diff=prev&oldid=1272486070] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amdo&diff=prev&oldid=1276132885].

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

Talk:Amdo#Disputed edits September 2024

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Unresponsive editor

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1175#Tendentious editor

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There is not a lot of prior discussion due to NicolasTn's reluctance to engage, but this has been suggested by an admin so I thought it may be worth a try.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Lincoln2020|12:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. Firstly, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. Secondly, this dispute is ridiculous. The filing editor said {{tqq|I do not see an RFC for The Gulf of Mexico (or America)}}, but then continued rambling about the RfC. The listed "policy violations" are unfounded: see WP:CON ("Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable)"). {{tqq|I don't see any sort of reasonable explanation for not having it mentioned.}} It is mentioned.{{pb}}There is consensus (by that RfC) not to include it in the lead. If you believe the RfC was closed incorrectly, DRN is not the right place to raise that at. What you are doing is tendentious. This dispute falls within the American politics contentious topic, so if you continue with your behavior, expect to be blocked. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 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|Gulf of Mexico}}

Users involved

• {{User|Lincoln2020}}
• {{User|Valereee}}
• {{User|Objective3000}}
• {{User|Simonm223}}
• {{User|Chess}}
• {{User|Chessrat}}

Dispute overview

Recently, the Gulf of Mexico (The Gulf of America) underwent an official name change in the United States. This was followed by changes in official systems as well as changes in the largest map providers' platforms (Google, Apple, etc.).

I think many assumed Wikipedia would reflect this name change, somehow, or at least acknowledge that the largest English speaking nation bordering the Gulf has made an attempt to officially change its name.

However in reviewing the changes, there was not only no change, but a very lengthy discussion page. This included an improperly conducted RFC. This RFC is now being used as a cudgel, shutting down any conversation of consensus or compromise.

Why the RFC was improperly conducted:

-In reviewing active and archived RFCs, I do not see an RFC for The Gulf of Mexico (or America).

-The rationale listed for closing the 'RFC', and thus finding a consensus, seems to have some policy violations, or at least rationale inconsistent with the RFC and Consensus pages.

--Great weight was given toward voting/majority. "Consensus on Wikipedia (is not the) result of a vote." Wikipedia:Consensus

---"Most cogent policy reasons" ... "but they were vastly in the minority"

---Many opinions went against wiki policy WP:TPNO

--->Eg:"I sincerely oppose any name change to Gulf of America. I am a US citizen and I do NOT agree to the name change whatsoever and I sincerely hope Wikipedia does NOT feel intimidated by Trump to change it"

--"Recentism" was listed as the rationale for closing it. I think this would have been appropriate if, say, one official mentioned this body of water by a different name. Yet as noted, official sources have changed it. Recentism's page also notes that recentism shouldn't be an argument against updating pages with new developments (noting a trial which changed daily, for example).

Wikipedia's neutrality is at stake here. Clearly doing nothing is unreasonable. Ty. Probably applies to Denali too.

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

Have tried having rational discussions on the merits but currently there's an attempt to silence any dissent with a moratorium conversation.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Honestly I'm not sure. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased, neutral source for information. Anyone can see that today, it's clearly not that, and that's really frustrating and unfortunate.

At the very least, the article should have reference to the major changes which have occurred. Whether or not they're lasting, it becomes its main name, whatever, I'm not sure ... but I don't see any sort of reasonable explanation for not having it mentioned.

This is a tendentious submission and should be closed. There is an RfC that closed significantly less than a month prior and that determined consensus was to exclude "Gulf of America" from the lede. I am tired of people acting as if consensus doesn't matter if the topic is an executive order from the president of the united states. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:Also this dispute resolution request fails to properly frame the dispute. There is mention in Gulf of Mexico regarding the efforts of the US President to rename the body of water. It's at Gulf_of_Mexico#Gulf_of_America - the dispute is over whether to include mention of this trivia in the lede of the article. The consensus decision of the RfC is that would be undue. Lincoln2020 and certain other very new editors don't appear willing to accept the RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}