Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 257#Akan language

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Sobek2000|22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. This was discussed with an administrator on the article talk page, and there does not appear to be any continuing content issue. If there is a content issue, discuss at the article talk page or start an RFC that is in draft on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Sharon Tate}}

Users involved

• {{User|Sobek2000}}
• {{User|Jersey Jan}}
• {{User|Knickiknacki}}

Dispute overview

It's discussion about listing Sharon Tate's child in infobox. I am aware that there were previously discussions wheter list him as 'unborn' or not at all - however I think there is third option: while child died in utero of mother, he was posthumously delivered with no signs of life, which constitues being stillborn, not 'unborn'. Hence, I decided it will be correct to list him in infobox under section of children as "1 [note: Delivered posthumously; stillborn]". There are precedence in wikipedia, for example on Keanu Reaves's stillborn child is listed in his infobox, so are children of Pharaoh Tutankhamun.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate#Unborn_baby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate#Why_no_section_listing_her_children_as_1?_Her_son,_who_was_even_named,_was_almost_9_months_(full_term)_and_was_buried_in_her_arms!

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe child should be listed as stillborn. Knickiknacki left their opinion years ago, so was not involved recently (but they left their mark in discussion, so I include them), however Jersey Jan actively insists that child cannot be described as stillborn. I want few other people to give their opinions - I brought into talks definitions what stillbirth means, while Jersey Jan gives their opinion what should be considered stillbirth (with no sources). I want more experienced editors to act.

• Volunteer Note - I have stricken the user ID of an editor who has not edited in eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I am ready to assist in formulating the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for your input. This is my first time I doing procedure, so you have to excuse me, but I don't know what should be next step. As for RfC, i don't know if you saw - I created one on Sharon Tate's Talk page. If you have your own advices, please list them either there or on Talk page under request:
• :"Do you think Paul Richard Polanski should be referred in infobox as Tate's child (with note "Delivered posthumously; stillborn" or "Unborn")! Sobek2000 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I am not really sure what happened here - I asked for your assitance, you volunteered, but you proposed no suggestion neither to me, nor to my opponent. You also did not voiced your opinion on the matter in Talk Page. This is the first time I was asking here for help in discussion - I am not really sure how it works, or how exactly looks role ofe mediator. I apologize if I didn't do something you expect - but I left my opinion on matter, and I really don't know what else I should do here. My opponent did not leave here their statement (though I notified them on matter) and now left message on Sharon Tate's talk page that they wish to withdrew from discussion. I don't think your assistence is needed anymore. If you have some opinion wheter and how Paul Polanski should be referred to in article, and advices which sources should be used in references, then you can give write them under discussion on Talk page, or you can write on my own Talk page. Sorry, again if you had problem how to act with the case I presented to you. Sobek2000 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Immediately after I offered to help formulate the RFC, I saw that User:Johnuniq is working on the article talk page, Talk:Sharon Tate, to formulate the RFC. It is not useful in Wikipedia to try to work to solve a problem in two different places at the same time. I will let User:Johnuniq facilitate the formulation of the RFC. I said that on the article talk page, Talk:Sharon Tate. Please work with him to formulate the RFC. I will mark this case as on hold, and will probably close it when the RFC is launched. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|2001:8003:268E:A800:B514:6A0F:FAD8:AE93|23:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as not an article content dispute. This is a dispute about a sandbox which is being used as a draft. Because it is in user space, it is primarily under the control of the user whose sandbox it is. It can be discussed on the user's user talk page, and is being discussed on the user's user talk page. However, it is primarily under the control of the user whose sandbox it is. If it is moved into draft space, then it becomes the property of the community and can be reviewed by AFC reviewers, or by any editor. There is no need at this time for moderated discussion. Either discuss it with the user whose sandbox it is, or move the sandbox into draft space. Continue discussion at the user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2}}

Users involved

• {{User|SteeledDock541}}

Dispute overview

Background: The article on motorsport team Iron Lynx is being split into articles "Iron Lynx" and "Iron Dames" and the user has asked for public assistance to split it in the provided sandbox.

The Iron Dames are not a 'team' in their own right; they are a commercial entity which provides sponsorship and drivers to actual teams that run cars for them. The owner of the sandbox is removing clarification and distinctions of this point because, quote "no other motorsport team article is written like that".

This article does not meet usual convention simply because the Iron Dames are not a team, but are a well-covered enough entity to warrant having their own article - articles are typically only made for teams.

From my perspective, there needs to be a paragraph in the opening section addressing that it is not a team for transparency. There's also no point having an 'entrant' column in the results section because the article is about the entrant; instead, this column should be used to clarify which actual team operated the cars and it would be misrepresentative not to do so. SteeledDock541 does not agree.

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

• User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2 page in dispute
• User talk:SteeledDock541#Iron_Lynx_/_Dames proof of discussion
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2&direction=prev&oldid=1286779705] IP's version of the page
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SteeledDock541/sandbox2&oldid=1286779705] SteeledDock541's version of the page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Having users external to the situation and broader topic, who can take into account its' unique nature, can assist in bringing this to a cordial resolution.

I want to first say that I do not mind there being a paragraph in the introduction stating that Iron Dames is not a team in the sense that they don't field their own cars as 2001:8003:268E:A800:B514:6A0F:FAD8:AE93 clarified. The entrant information in any motorsports results table is used to display the name that the team competed as. For example, in the 2021 FIA World Endurance Championship, Iron Dames had its own drivers and their car was branded with Iron Dames colors, but the entry was listed as Iron Lynx. The following season, the team went under the entry name of Iron Dames even though Iron Lynx was still operating that entry. Having 'Operating team' in the table is not standard in motorsports articles and is more confusing to the average reader. Also, teams running under different names are common. For example, Pure Rxcing has other teams such as Manthey Racing and CLX Motorsport operating their cars, but the entrants for those cars are still listed as Pure Rxcing. Another example is 99 Racing, their cars were run by TF Sport and Algarve Pro Racing, but again, their entries were listed as 99 Racing.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|DoctorEric|12:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as maybe abandoned. The filing editor was advised how to request a Third Opinion, but has not edited since filing that request and has not notified the other editor of this filing. Resume discussion on the article talk page when both editors are active. (The other editor is active, but was not notified.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}

Users involved

• {{User|DoctorEric}}
• {{User|Avatar317}}

Dispute overview

I offered a suggestion to improve the opening section of the article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Only one editor has responded so far, and he disagrees with my proposal. We've exchanged comments back and forth a couple of times, but I don't think we will reach an agreement. I let him know we needed to have a third party mediate our dispute.

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

Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Redundancy_in_opening_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute is over the format of the opening section of the article. There is no dispute over content, just where to include what details. I believe the other editor and I have clearly stated our positions. I hope that a neutral third party can offer guidance on which format for an opening section is preferable.

• Volunteer Note: To request a third opinion, please follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|FeaturingDallas|12:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as not discussed on the article talk page. DRN cannot take cases that have not been discussed thoroughly on the article's talk page. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on a user talk page is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, because third parties might be watching the article talk page and might take useful part in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Thawb}}

Users involved

• {{User|Abo Yemen}}

Dispute overview

User:Abo Yemen has twice removed an image of a Palestinian women wearing a thobe saying that "the article is not about that kind of thobes" and also added that "this article is about the male garment" when under the History section, it is stated that a thobe is worn by both men and women. Although the article is not about any specific type of Thobe, it is also not a dedicated page for the type of thobes that only men wear.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abo_Yemen#c-FeaturingDallas-20250425122500-Palestinian_thobe

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please do not remove image(s) of thobes to be used beside those that only men wear as long as it is a thobe since the article is not about a gender specific clothing (as stated in the history section)

This person literally came to my talkpage, asked me why I reverted his addition of an image of an unrelated garment to the infobox of the Thawb article, I've responded to him on why I did so, and then instead of replying they go and give me a really bad analogy "{{tq|so there cannot be a picture of Blue jeans on the page for jeans?}}" and starts this dispute resolution. We haven't even had a proper discussion, but it seems like they think that I am incapable of having a proper discussion, and had to bring it here. I'm also going to note that this person's contributions seem to revolve around adding an image of something related to Palestine to very unrelated articles, and this was noted by other contributors here, probably trying to do pro-Palestinian activism, but all that they're doing is making the Peo-Palestine community look bad cus of their vandalism. This is such a bad faith report 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF|04:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The other editor appears to have declined to take part in this discussion. Discussion at DRN is voluntary, and it is not useful to request discussion here by being uncivil. There is a discussion at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. Discuss either on the article talk page or at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard If there are any complaints about the conduct of any editors, they may be reported to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Near-death studies}}

Users involved

• {{User|MrOllie}}
• {{User|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF}}

Dispute overview

This i basically the same as the dispute about the "Near-death experience" page. This page should cover the range of approaches to near-death experiences, not just scientific and parapsychological ones. It ignores the study of the phenomenon in history, anthropology, and sociology. Here's a modified version of what I wrote in my other dispute because it's mostly relevant here, too.

MrOllie has arbitrarily decided that there is no need for a section on cross-cultural and historical near-death studies (NDEs) in this article. He based his decision on a number of ad hoc, specious arguments. I offered to improve it, but was dismissed. He has given no legitimate reason for his action. He throws around words like "fringe" and dismisses historians, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists as "parapsychologists". He is not familiar with the subject and has not read the work that he has formed opinions about. The scholars working in this area are not engaging with the debate about the veridicality of NDEs. Their main concern is with cross-cultural diversity and the various attitudes and perceptions of NDEs in different cultures and in different times. The scholars I was citing all have PhDs in their fields, and scholarly publications -- monographs with academic publishers and articles with peer-reviewed journals. They are not "parapsychologists" and their work is not "parapsychology." Not including this section means that the entire article is based on a Western stereotype of NDEs, and is frankly ethnocentric. It also ignores a whole dimension of near-death studies -- it's not just a question of "are they proof of life after death". It's ironic that the entire article as it stands is solely about that "fringe" parapsychological question, whereas the more neutral, objective, socio-historical discussion has been entirely removed.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Near-death_studies#Cross-Cultural,_Historical,_Anthropological,_and_Sociological_research

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow a section on near-death studies in the humanities and social sciences.

How was I uncivil? MrOllie has been dismissive, rude, and abrupt with me since the beginning of this discussion, including accusing me of being "disingenuous" and having some ulterior motive. He has not engaged in good faith discussion but merely restates his uninformed opinions as if they are fact, without being open to learning otherwise.

How exactly is continuing the discussion on the Talk page going to resolve anything when MrOllie appears to hold all the cards and refuses to engage?

There is no discussion on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard -- there is a single post. And it has absolutely nothing to do with my dispute, which is very specific.

What is the point of filing a Resolution Dispute if the response is to go back to the Talk page? The result is effectively that there is no discussion and a single individual, MrOllie, retains full control over all edits on the page.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF|04:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The notice to the other user does not appear to have been made in good faith, but it appears to have been declined by the other editor. Also, a third user has started a discussion at the fringe theory noticeboard, which would appear to be an equally good place for discussion. The unregistered editor is advised to register an account because it is difficult to engage in discussion with shifting IPv6 addresses. Discuss at the article talk page or at the fringe theory noticeboard If there are any complaints about the conduct of any editors, they may be reported to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

:Please explain this: "The notice to the other user does not appear to have been made in good faith." I filed the Dispute, went to MrOllie's page, and notified him of the fact.

:If the fringe theory noticeboard is an "an equally good place for discussion", and the discussion has completely broken down on the article's Talk page, what is Dispute Resolution actually for?

:There is no requirement to register an account to be able to edit or discuss edits. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:BC3E:A599:B81E:BE52 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not involved here and have no horse in this race, but I would respectfully recommend that you either drop the stick or register an account to continue the discussion at the appropriate venues. Continuing to disruptively push your point here runs the risk of getting your entire IP range blocked from editing. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Near-death experience}}

Users involved

• {{User|MrOllie}}
• {{User|2600:1700:A790:63B0:D59D:887D:EF0D:F8AF}}

Dispute overview

MrOllie has arbitrarily decided that there is no need for a section on cross-cultural and historical near-death experiences (NDEs) in this article. He deleted the entire section based on a number of ad hoc, specious arguments. I attempted to improve it, but if I try again I risk a 3-time reversal ban. He has given no legitimate reason for his action. He throws around words like "fringe" and dismisses historians, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists as "parapsychologists". He is not familiar with the subject and has not read the work that he has formed opinions about. The scholars working in this area are not engaging with the debate about the veridicality of NDEs. Their main concern is with cross-cultural diversity and the various attitudes and perceptions of NDEs in different cultures and in different times. The scholars I was citing all have PhDs in their fields, and scholarly publications -- monographs with academic publishers and articles with peer-reviewed journals. They are not "parapsychologists" and their work is not "parapsychology." Not including this section means that the entire article is based on a Western stereotype of NDEs, and is frankly ethnocentric. It also ignores a whole dimension of near-death studies -- it's not just a question of "are they proof of life after death". It's ironic that the entire article as it stands is solely about that "fringe" parapsychological question, whereas the more neutral, objective, socio-historical discussion has been entirely removed.

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

Extensive discussion in the Talk section. There were a couple of others involved at one point, but MrOllie is the most engaged and is calling the shots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Near-death_experience#Cross-Cultural_NDE_section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Near-death_experience#Historical_NDE_Section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow a section on historical and cross-cultural NDEs.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|SilviaASH|01:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. An RFC is being used to resolve the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}}

Users involved

• {{User|SilviaASH}}
• {{User|Andrzejbanas}}
• {{User|Barry Wom}}
• {{User|BarntToust}}

Dispute overview

User:Andrzejbanas is disputing the notion that Japan is one of the countries in which Sonic the Hedgehog 3 was produced, despite two reliable sources ([https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/482955#], [https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sonic-the-Hedgehog-3-(2024)#tab=summary]) stating that it is. Andrzejbanas asserts that there is a contradiction in the sources as some of them state that both the United States and Japan were countries of production, while others only list the United States. Myself and User:Barry Wom are confused by this assessment; the two of us are in agreement that there is no contradiction at all; it's just that some of the sources mention Japan, and some of them don't. In particular, Andrzejbanas contends that as the Japanese media sources they are able to find only say that Sonic 3 is an American film, the matter is still in question, because, quote, Japanese sources allegedly {{tq|wouldn't miss a beat mentioning that a film is a Japanese production}}, a notion I disagree with as the national origin of a source seems irrelevant to its capacity to overlook something. The dispute has become protracted as a result of differing interpretations of what, for the purposes of Wikipedia, constitutes "contradictory sources", how a film's country of production is determined, and the policy on original research.

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

• Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)#Japan_in_country
• User_talk:Barry_Wom#Japan_in_Sonic_3_article
• User_talk:SilviaASH#Film_nationality_discussion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe the dispute over this issue has reached an impasse, as seemingly neither side is understanding the other's rationale, and a third opinion is needed.

Two sources describe the film as American (Kinema Junpo, one of the oldest Japanese film publications), and Screen Daily, an American film magazine. Two other sources provided by that describe the film as both an American in Japanese co-production. The editors have brought up good points on the talk page that one of the main production companies is Japanese. For me personally this would be enough to clarify it as a Japanese film, but not by our wiki rules and standards. One of their own sources (Lumiere) states "{{gt|Defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. Different national records and the statistics on which they are based can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.}}" I believe ignoring the two sources that only state United States is a violation of WP:WEIGHT ({{gt|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.}}) or stating that since a company is Japanese, than the "American-Japanese" sources are the correct ones is a violation of WP:SYNTH ({{gt|"A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.}}). The infobox itself (Template:Infobox film), {{gt|If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.}} With the above, I have suggested following the rules, even if we add a hatnote explaining the discrepancy of sources between editors. This has led to a standstill. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Marza Animation Planet is a production company that worked on the film, as confirmed by the film's credits and promotional materials. Marza is also a Japanese company. When Andrzejbanas was asked if they disputed either of these facts, the response was {{tq|You both have stated that the company is Japanese. I don't know that, but the sources don't back that up}}. SilviaASH then provided a source which confirmed that the company was Japanese. Along with the two sources I supplied which list Japan as a production country, this should have been the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

There is no contradiction involved. This isn't a case of "one source says X and Y and another says X and Z". It's a case of "one source says X and Y and another says X". The source saying X isn't contradicting the source that says X and Y, it has just omitted Y. Andrzejbanas appears to be insisting on an explanation as to why sources that say just X don't include Y, which would be a virtually impossible task.

Comment Andrzejbanas and I have reached some common ground on this issue on the article's talk page. The discussion is not quite over, but we may be able to reach a resolution on our own sooner than I had anticipated. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Additional comment since my posting this, the discussion on the talk page has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)&curid=70085657&diff=1283953577&oldid=1283949968 turned to a disagreement] on how the topic specific guidance on Template:Infobox film and MOS:FILM is to be interpreted. While Andrzejbanas wishes to at some point in the future discuss the guidelines with the film WikiProject at large and suggest they be amended, I would hope for consensus to be reached on how we are to interpret the guidelines as they currently stand, in this case. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Comment: would this be better suited for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? - delta (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D. If this dispute is about an infobox, please be aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. By agreeing to take part in this content dispute resolution, you will also be acknowledging that you are aware that contentious topic sanctions may apply. My zeroth question for the editors is whether you still want moderated discussion. If you are not sure, and want to continue discussion on the article talk page, please say so, and I will wait to see if there is still a dispute.

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I am asking each of the editors, as the first question, to specify concisely what part of the article they want to change, or what part of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @Robert McClenon, I'm not sure if I can help out with the process of moderating, as while I have been wholly absent from this content dispute because of working on some other stuff, I am [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film) by vast numerics] the primary contributor to the article. Also, I am thus leading the charge to get this article in question up at WP:GA, and am set to be corresponding with the dispute-involved editor SilviaASH concerning that.

:If you find any value on my humble input, please let me know. I'll be following the state of the article anyhow. Thank you for offering to take up moderation of this.

:Also, ping @Barry Wom, @Andrzejbanas, and @SilviaASH to answer for Robert's request for to them to {{tq|specify concisely what part of the article they want to change, or what part of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change}} (if you have not already). I have no clue the particulars of this debate are from trying my damndest to follow the long dispute on the article talk, or from looking here either. BarntToust 16:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well, like I said below, I think that Japan should be included as a country of production, matching the sources, and that the article content and categorization should reflect that where relevant. I believe Barry feels the same and Andrzejbanas feels differently, but hopefully they can come and clarify that. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah to clarify we have some sources that only state one country as the country of production, and others of similar reliability that state two countries as the country of production. The standards in Template:infobox film ({{gt|If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.}}) suggest if there are discrepancies or contradictions, we should only list the common countries named. After a bit and back for discussing, I can't find any sources that goes into specific details on how they came to their conclusions on this, and we shouldn't make assumptions on how the sources came to these different conclusions. My suggestion is to follow the rules set out and only list the countries that are included in all the major sources (in this case, United States) found and potentially leave a hatnote stating that some sources included another country per WP:BALANCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Robert McClenon}} Barry Wom has not edited since their last comment on the article talk page a few days ago. If they do not respond to the discussion clarifying their preference in a timely manner, will the dispute be closed, or may we proceed with only myself and Andrzejbanas? silviaASH (inquire within) 23:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry folks, currently on vacation and unable to take part in the discussion at the moment. I think I've made my position clear in any case. Barry Wom (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The dispute is about the film infobox, although it also implicitly impacts the categorization of the page, since the outcome of the dispute would ultimately affect not only whether or not to list Japan as a country of production in the infobox, but also whether or not to categorize the film under :Category:English-language Japanese films and relevant subcategories. This has not been an explicit point of contention, however. Andrzejbanas has also floated the notion of whether or not to include the countries of production in the lead on account of their interpretation of one of the guidelines, although they seem unsure as to if this is a good idea. I personally do not see any cause for concern in the minor discrepancies in the sources that gave rise to the dispute, and think that Japan should be listed as a country of production in the infobox and the article should remain categorized as such, as is the case as of this writing.

I acknowledge Robert McClenon's statement. I have read DRN Rule D, and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in it. I have not taken this dispute to any other noticeboard or discussion venue, and I am unaware of any other active discussions on the issue elsewhere, if they should be occurring. (However, Andrzejbanas has come to my user talk page to discuss the guidelines they find issue with since I filed this dispute; I have linked that topic here for transparency and completion.)

I have only one question for the moderator before the discussion begins. Regarding the following rule, {{tq|Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed}}, does this rule apply to all edits to the article, or only to edits related to the issue of dispute (in this case, the film's country of production)? In other words, are unrelated edits to the article (for instance, technical corrections, copy-editing prose, answering other users' unrelated edit requests, or adding information otherwise not related to the film's country of production in the infobox) permitted, or are only minor edits permissible, or must all editing, related to the dispute or not, be entirely desisted from until the discussion concludes? (Whatever the answer, I will abide by the rule.) silviaASH (inquire within) 01:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

For the time being, I will ask the editors who are in the dispute not to edit any part of the article, until we have specific statements as to what the scope of the disagreement is. After the scope of the content dispute is defined, I may ease the rule about editing to allow edits that are non-contentious. I am again asking each editor to identify specifically what parts of the article, including but not limited to the infobox, you want to change, or that another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same. If you see multiple issues in different parts of the article, please provide a list, preferably in a bullet-point form. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:As I understand it as an uninvolved party, the scope of their dispute{{--}}about which countr(y)[ies] constitutes the country of origin of this film{{--}}lies with the infobox. At most, the disputed content could be included with a few words in the #Development section, like it could be "An American and Japanese co-production," or simply denoting it as an American film: but such an instance of content would be so minor that essentially all other editing broadly in the article would fall outside of the area of dispute. For example, if, say silviaASH was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)&oldid=1284508300 adding content about cinematography of the film], that would bear zero relation to the countr(y)[ies] of origin that this film is.

:And considering Barry is on vacation, hindering the editing ability of these other two on all matters until this content dispute is defined would not be the ideal path forward. @SilviaASH, @Andrzejbanas (and @Barry Wom, sorry to ping your vacay){{--}}have I defined this well enough to @Robert McClenon? I'd hate to see everyone with temporary editing restrictions, but if I haven't gotten this dispute defined properly, let me know. BarntToust 13:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::I personally do not consider it to be a problem. I was only asking about the scope of the rule to make sure I completely understood it, not because I had anything else I urgently wanted to add to the article. I don't have any issue refraining from editing the article for a day or two while we wait for Andrzejbanas to make their statement on the scope of the dispute. If I get the itch, I have other articles to edit. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::But also, sorry, yes, to answer your question, I do think you have accurately understood the scope of the dispute. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

To answer an earlier question, the minimum number of editors required for content dispute resolution is two. If the filing editor lists two other editors, and one of them replies, moderated discussion can take place between those editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for clarifying the rule. I will refrain from editing any part of the article until the discussion has appropriately progressed. Here is a brief summary of the dispute as I understand it:

• The dispute revolves around whether or not to state in the article that Japan is a country of production on the Sonic 3 film. All sources list the United States, whether by itself or alongside Japan.
• The position of myself, and Barry Wom, has been that the sources list both Japan and the United States, and that Marza Animation Planet, a Japanese animation and visual effects company, is credited for having assisted in its production, and therefore Japan should be listed.
• Andrzejbanas expresses the concern that as not all sources state Japan to be a country of production, and it is unclear why some sources do and some sources do not, we should not list Japan as a country of production without qualifying within the article (their proposed method is a footnote) that some sources only list the United States and some sources do not. They believe that this would be in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE.
• My counterpoint to Andrzejbanas is that, as the sources do not outright state how they have defined what a country of production is, or declare how they have determined which it is, and they do not declare their reasons for excluding Japan as a country of production (if they have any) we do not know whether or not the sources that do not list Japan have consciously made the editorial decision to exclude it from the category, or if they have simply overlooked the involvement of Marza. Therefore, I believe that such a footnote saying this would give the impression of an explicit disagreement between the sources when none is known to exist, violating WP:NOR, and that it would be simpler to list both Japan and the United States, satisfying WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. I previously stated this opinion in this diff.

What I believe is best to do is thus as follows:

• The current version of the article lists both the United States and Japan as production countries in the infobox, citing three sources (currently, they are [https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-review/5200227.article Screen Daily] (US), [https://lumiere.obs.coe.int/movie/482955# Lumiere] (US+JP), and [https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sonic-the-Hedgehog-3-(2024)#tab=summary The Numbers] (US+JP)). Andrzejbanas has pointed to other Japanese-language sources which only mention the United States, but they are not included in the current revision as of this writing. Accordingly, the article is categorized within :Category:English-language Japanese films.
• I believe, in essence, that these aspects should stay as they are, per my arguments.
• The infobox should continue to list both the US and Japan as production countries.
• No footnote pointing out the discrepancy between the sources should be added.
• The English-language Japanese films category would stay on the article.
• As such, additional relevant categories of Japanese films, such as :Category:Japanese sequel films, would be permitted.

Please feel free to ask if there is a need for me to further clarify my position. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The filing editor wants to list both the United States and Japan as countries of production.

The issue appears to be that some sources list only the United States, and some sources list the United States and Japan, and the issue is whether and how to note this discrepancy. Are there any other content issues?

The other participating editor has made an opening statement but has not made a follow-up statement. I would like each editor to make a brief statement as to what they think should be in the infobox and how their view is supported by guidelines, and a brief statement as to whether they think that any changes are needed to the text of the article. If you have already addressed these questions, you may say that you already addressed these questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are no other content issues with the article. I believe I have already thoroughly argued my position and how it is supported by policy, and I am not currently seeking any changes to any other part of the article.

{{ping|Andrzejbanas}} Are you able to make a follow-up statement on your position? silviaASH (inquire within) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In the sort-of-distant past, the only thing that could have been a content dispute (but wasn't serious enough for DRN) there were questions about whether a company, that was credited as an "in association with" party to the production of the film, should be placed in the infobox as a production company. This bit was resolved with a consensus to not credit the company as such, with an edit notice being successfully implemented to alert other users about this. However, that one was just routine talk page chatter: This dispute, about the "Japan question", would be the first bona fide content dispute to befall the article in its history. While I have had zero involvement in this content dispute and honestly couldn't care less about what is being fought about, and am only here because I am self-interested in doing whatever I can to ensure this article is stable enough for WP:GA, I can say that the scope of the content dispute between Andrzejbanas and Barry Wom + SilviaASH has been defined fully well to my knowledge. I hope to see this dispute resolved and will offer my disinterested input wherever fitting. Thanks to Robert for handling this. BarntToust 16:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

To follow-up, this is my only issue with the article. My main issue currently is that by adding the other country to the infobo, it would be ignoring the established rules I've stated from template:Infobox film about how to handle multiple sources when they disagree on the nationality of a film. While editors have provided interesting points, none have been shown to me as solid proof of how production is handled. As two Japanese sources and one American ond I've presented do not display japan as a production country, I'm not convinced they were just "missed" by the sources in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I will try to summarize the issue concisely. It appears that the underlying content issue is that some sources list the United States as the only country of production, and some sources list the United States and Japan as countries of production. No source explicitly states that Japan was not a country of production, or that the United States was the only country of production. So the question appears to be whether to list one country in the infobox, or two countries. Is that correct? Is there also an issue about the body of the article, or is there agreement that the details can be explained in the body of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Seems that the one-two country system is what they're disputing about. Like I mentioned somewhere, when it is decided whether or not Japan is recognized as a country of origin, if it will be, that would do well to be in the body as "A Japanese and American co-production..." or something like that.

:If the disputing parties would like to offer concurrent or dissenting opinions on my understanding of this, please speak. BarntToust 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::For my part, I do not think I would choose to list the information in the lede. It would likely lead to confusion as clarification as to how the film qualifies as being produced by one or both countries would then be required, and it does not seem necessary to aid a reader's understanding. Listing the companies and countries in the infobox for the benefit of any especially curious readers would to my mind be sufficient. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, the nationality of the film could be noted in #Development, where the production companies are listed. BarntToust 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::And maybe noting the nationality in the lede would be done like how it's done in, for example, Wild Tales (film). Does not require a lot of drawn-out explaining. BarntToust 01:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, in any case I think I am ambivalent on how this would impact the article body. I will leave that up to others to decide after the dispute is resolved. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I have read the text from Template:Infobox film which Andrzejbanas has cited as justification, and I don't see how the suggestions on the documentation page back up their arguments. For one thing, Template:Infobox film/doc is not a policy or guideline, it is a list of general suggestions for editors regarding how to fill out the infobox. Secondly, the phrases {{tq|conflict of information}} and {{tq|common published nations}} are vague and do not indicate an explicit definition of "conflict" or "common", and I feel that I could just as well interpret those words in support of my own position. As I said, I do not see an explicit conflict between the sources, and Japan is commonly listed as a country of production- there are two sources saying that it is, as mentioned earlier.

It is true that determining film nationality can be complex for the reliable databases. As the documentation page says, {{tq|the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research}}, but it says this in the context of giving guidance to editors as to what reliable sources to look at; {{tq|For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases}} (which would have performed this research). It does not suggest that the onus is on editors to perform this original research ourselves.

I find the arguments that neither I nor Barry {{tq|have been shown to me as solid proof of how production is handled}} and {{tq|I'm not convinced they were just "missed" by the sources in question}} to be irrelevant here. We do not need to know exactly how a reliable source came to its conclusions before citing it. Weighting our use of a source based on such unknowns, or editorially constructing the impression that the sources disagree on the issue when it is not known that they do, seems to me to constitute original research ({{tq|Take care not to go beyond what the sources express}} and {{tq|Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources}}). I still also do not quite understand how the nationality of a particular source is relevant here- Japanese or American sources are equally capable of making mistakes or overlooking information. American publications have made factual errors in covering American films, as have Japanese publications in covering Japanese ones.

We have sources which state that Japan is a country of production, and there are no sources that say that it wasn't, and that is all that we need to verifiably list Japan as a country of production in addition to the United States. Any speculation about editorial inconsistencies between these sources is not relevant here unless compelling evidence can be presented that one or another source has performed a mistaken or incomplete assessment, which so far has not been the case.

Additionally, both sources provided by Andrzejbanas which do not list Japan in the country of production field ([https://www.kinejun.com/cinema/view/100549], [https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-review/5200227.article]) still correctly state that Marza Animation Planet is a production company. Just as it can be argued that these two sources perhaps missed or chose not to acknowledge Japan as a country of production, it could equally be the case that it is their editorial standard to only list the primary country of production, or that they simply did not consider it that important. We do not know, and I feel that to assume their reasoning and weight our editorial decisions based on the assumption of an unknown and unstated view when we have reliable sources confirming Japan as a country of production based on Marza's involvement is, again, original research. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the issue comes down to the interpretation of the documentation for the {{tl|Infobox film}}. It states: {{tq| If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. }} So it appears that the first question is whether the listing of one country by some reliable sources and two countries by other reliable sources is considered a conflict. The second question is whether, as a compromise, the field can be left blank, or filled with a note, and the nationality discussed in the body of the article. Am I correct that the editors disagree as to the answer to the first question, because one editor thinks that the situation is not a conflict, and one editor thinks that it is a conflict?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Are the editors willing to agree to a compromise?

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Although Andrzejbanas has cited Template:Infobox film in their most recent arguments, they have previously also cited the essay Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, which I also find to not enhance their case for not listing Japan as that essay also does not helpfully define "conflict" in a way that would be meaningfully instructive for this situation, and much of what I have already argued about the Template guidance applies to that essay as well.

I shall note that the previous two films (Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic the Hedgehog 2) are listed as American-Japanese co-productions by the British Film Institute (BFI), which is noted within Template:Infobox film/doc as a reliable database with which to source the country field. ([https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/155764455], [https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/157997511]) The infoboxes of both films' articles reflects this finding. This does not have any immediate bearing on the outcome of this dispute, as the BFI does not yet have an entry for Sonic the Hedgehog 3 in their database, but given that the same companies produced all three films, I have little doubt that when an entry for it on BFI's database does emerge, the same conclusion shall be drawn about Sonic the Hedgehog 3. I assume that Andrzejbanas personally considers BFI reliable for this use case, as they cited it in an edit to the article on The Corpse Bride in that film's infobox's country field.

I do not think a note should be left in the field, as this would violate WP:NOR. I also do not think leaving the field blank would be acceptable. I also am not certain if the nationality can be discussed in the body of the article, as it is not discussed in depth in any sources, to my knowledge- all we have are the reliable database sources listing the US, or the US and Japan, as production countries, and as stated before, they do not clarify how and why they came to that conclusion. (Saying {{tq|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is an American...}} or {{tq|American-Japanese...}} film in the lede would be acceptable, although there has been edit-warring over whether or not to list the nationality in the lede in the past and I'm not sure if that would place an undue emphasis on the film's nationality, but again, I will leave that up to BarntToust and others.)

If we cannot come to an agreement on whether or not to list Japan with the available sources, then I believe the only reasonable policy-based resolution is simply to omit Japan from the country field of the infobox until and unless additional sources become available and a consensus to use those to list Japan is attained. In the interest of allowing the article to become stable so that BarntToust can continue their work to help the article attain GA status, I would agree to this outcome.

{{ping|Andrzejbanas}} Do you have anything to add or clarify? silviaASH (inquire within) 05:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If we are otherwise unable to resolve the infobox content dispute, I see two more ways to resolve it. The first is an inquiry at WikiProject Film to ask how they interpret the documentation for the infobox template. I plan to post an inquiry at the film project within 72 hours unless a compromise is reached here (and I don't expect that it will be, so I expect that I will ask at the film project). The second is a Request for Comments. That takes 30 days, and so should only be done if the project inquiry is inconclusive. However, that can be done while the work is underway to bring the article up to standards for a Good Article nomination. In any case, resolving this issue should be done prior to or concurrent with the Good Article nomination as further verification that the article is stable.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:So yeah I think Robert's suggestion to the folks in dispute makes sense. I think it's worth saying that this dispute really ought not take place at the centre of the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) article. The nature of the dispute is what to do when some RS says the country of origin of a film is one, and when others give one and another. It's not really about the article itself; the article happens to be one of—I'm sure many—that have this dilemma of sourcing. If the axis of the dispute could revolve around the principles of what is being warred over, and take place at Project Film based on policy, that would be most amazing.

:Thank you to Robert and SilviaASH for keeping the article's prospective GA in mind when discussing this dispute. BarntToust 17:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:At this juncture, I think asking at the film WikiProject would be the most productive way to resolve the issue, given how slow progress has been towards a resolution here with essentially only myself and Andrzejbanas repeatedly reiterating our positions with not much movement on either side. I have no objections to taking the matter there. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I have exhausted everything I have to say about the issue for the time being. If Andrzejbanas does not make any further comments that require a response, then I support moving discussion on this issue to the film WikiProject and/or to an RfC as appropriate. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Popping back just to say that I don't really have anything to add here. SilviaASH has summarised the situation in enough detail already and I support their position. Requesting input at WikiProject Film might be useful, as I'm sure the issue has been discussed in the past (I seem to recall the Marvel movies being an example). Barry Wom (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I apologize for not responding, I have been busy for a week. While I don't have the sourcing handy, I can state that those rules on the WikiProject film and the infobox were from a direct discussion I was involved with at the time. When we say "sources disagree", it mean they presented conflicting information. I.e: "United States" vs. "united States / Japan" or similar items, and I'm not sure how the other editors would interpret "conflicting information" in other ways to be honest. While I thinking asking the WikiProject is good start (and before I saw the rest of the conversation, I had responded there) with similar information I had seen here. As per the wikiproject standards, I still kind of stand by the standards of the community unless new specific soulution can arise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think we're just gonna have to take this to a larger discussion, because I really still don't understand what you mean when you say that it's a conflict. I feel you haven't really adequately addressed the issues and counterpoints that I've brought up in my own arguments and I don't really feel any closer to understanding your side of the dispute. If Robert intends to go forward with starting an RfC on the issue, I will be happy to contribute however is deemed appropriate for me to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

After consultation with WikiProject Film, it seems that the next step is a Request for Comments. Maybe that is the larger discussion to which SilviaAsh refers. I will compose a draft RFC shortly. I have at least three questions. First, are there any other options concerning the infobox besides (1) United States, and (2) United States and Japan? Second, are there any other content issues? Third, are there any other questions about what we will do next?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, the only other policy-compliant option besides either listing the United States or United States and Japan is to leave the country field blank. I said earlier that I felt this would not be acceptable, but did not articulate why. The reason I believe this is because I don't think leaving the field blank would satisfy anyone, and another editor would restore the country down the line, and then we'd more or less be back here again anyway. The best solution for ensuring article stability seems to be to decide, one way or the other, what we consider the film's country of production to be given the currently available sources on the matter. If consensus of the RfC aligns with only listing the United States, then the matter can possibly be revisited when the BFI publishes their listing of the film, if they credit Japan as a production country as they did with the previous two films.

As far as I know, there are no other content issues with the article. My only question about the RfC is to what extent we (that is to say, the already involved editors- Myself, Barry, Andrzejbanas and BarntToust) shall participate in the RfC. Do we vote like anyone else, or do we contribute our own sides of the dispute to the RfC statement, or do we just let the crowd decide? I have rarely engaged in an RfC prior to this so I am not generally familiar. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

First, the editors who were originally parties to the dispute take part in the RFC just like the rest of the community. The closer, who will have been previously uninvolved, should be able to assess the outcome of the RFC by reading the responses to and discussion of the RFC without the need to go back through the history (unless she wants to read the history). Second, I will provide two options. Any participant in the RFC can add other options. That occasionally happens. Third, I think that what I will do at the beginning is to provide space at the beginning of the Discussion section for each of you to present concise statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like a solid, reasonable plan for the dispute-ees. Even though I have no dog in this fight and a general indifference, I'll stipulate I will not serve as a closer of the discussion when a consensus is achieved, a matter of good practice. Hopefully a consensus does form. BarntToust 14:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, this all sounds good. Then, as long as there are no issues or objections from either Barry or Andrzejbanas, I would say we are likely good to close this DRN case and proceed with the RfC whenever we are all appropriately prepared. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I have composed a draft RFC for your review. It is at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)/RFC on Country. Please review it and comment on it. Do not vote in it at this time. You will vote in it when it goes live and the community discusses and votes in it. You are invited at this time each to write a brief statement in the Discussion explaining your choice on the Country. After those statements are written and any other tweaks are made, I will move the RFC to the talk page and activate it, which will cause it to run for thirty days.

Are there any other questions at this time?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|The closer, who will have been previously uninvolved, should be able to assess the outcome of the RFC by reading the responses to and discussion of the RFC without the need to go back through the history}}

:As I don't really have anything further to add beyond my comments above, does this mean I should simply copy and paste them into the RfC? Barry Wom (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Robert McClenon, Barry questions above this comment. BarntToust 21:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Not got any questions. Look forward to seeing this discussion play out. BarntToust 21:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no questions. I have added a statement of my position to the drafted RfC. I have tried to keep it concise and focused; if it is necessary to edit it before the RfC goes live, I will do so. @{{Ping group| list=yes|Barry Wom|Andrzejbanas}} Once you two have added your statements (if you wish to do so) and everything is all set, presumably the DRN case can be closed and we will leave the issue to the community to decide. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor asked whether they should copy and paste their previous statements into the RFC. Only if the statement is concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues.

I will be copying the draft RFC to the talk page within about 12 hours, so that it will become a live RFC.

Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Barry Wom, that'll be your answer. BarntToust 18:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No further questions or comments from me. I will place my vote in the RfC when it is live. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

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

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The dispute should have been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page. Continue discussion there, and if it is insufficient, you may re-file this here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• {{User|Extorc}}

Dispute overview

Dispute summary:

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

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

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

Differences in position:

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

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

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

Request:

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

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

{{DRN archive top|Closed as also pending in another forum. The filing editor has also started a poorly formulated RFC. DRN does not handle a dispute that is also pending in another forum. The RFC is likely to be closed,but as long as it is open, it is the only forum for this issue. Either take part in the RFC, or wait for it to be closed, and resume discussion, and then open a new DRN thread if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|List of_wars_involving_the_Czech_lands}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|58.99.101.165|16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. There were three problems with this filing. The first was that the subject was misspelled by the filer. I corrected that in order to see whether there was any real dispute. The second is that the unregistered filer did not list any other editors. I would have closed this dispute for that reason. Then, third, the unregistered filer was blocked for disruptive editing. Good-faith editors may report any further pop-up disruption at WP:ANI or SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Christ myth theory}}

Users involved

• {{User|.}}

Dispute overview

There is a blog post that is used to make claim about scholarship mainstream opinion. Although it is written by an academic blog psosts should be avoided and an academic references include. Another source byIn the book Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 1-6 I cannot find the claims that are made in this wiki article. Can anyone?This is from the wiki article:"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus,"Can someone find it in the referenced pages?Either it should be fixed and clarified to reflect what is written on the referenced pages or it should be removed.Whenever I question it, my comments keep getting deleted.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Mistake_in_referencing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Prophet_and_Teacher_by_William_R._Herzog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Larry_Hurtado_wordpress_site

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify usage of blogs and claims of blogs to be academic. And fix and clarify about the incorrect referencing. The reference doesn't claim what is said at all.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Titan2456|20:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as no longer having two editors participating. There were two editors involved, because a third editor never participated activity. The second editor has recommended closure, and that can be viewed as withdrawing from participation in the dispute, and DRN is voluntary. If the filing editor still wants to delete the section on Relationship with the military, they may discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Imran Khan, and then submit a neutrally worded RFC. Discuss any other content issues at the article talk page, Talk:Imran Khan. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Imran Khan}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

Talk:Imran Khan#Unnecessary section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute for those editors who agree to moderated discussion. The third editor was not notified on their user talk page, only pinged. Pinging is not a substitute for notification on the user talk page, because some editors have not enabled notification of pings or have disabled notification of pings, so I am notifying the third editor. The remainder of this statement applies to all participating editors. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on disputes about Pakistan, and state whether you agree to abide by the rules, and acknowledge that you are aware that Pakistan is a contentious topic. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

There have been previous disputes concerning this article about this politician, so I will remind the parties to comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree to moderated discussion, agree to abide by the rules in the ArbCom decision on disputes about Pakistan, and acknowledge that Pakistan is a contentious topic.

Concisely, I want to remove the newly-added #Relationship with the military section due to concerns of relevancy and related reasons which is currently in the article.

My only question is: per WP:BRD, should the section be temporarily removed until the discussion supports keeping it, or should it remain in place until the discussion supports its removal? Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with all the processes outlined by the moderator. I want to keep the entire section that the OP is objecting to. I am willing to remove the opinion by Ashok Swain because it is the only opinion in that section; everything else is either sourced to news reports or an Oxford University Press book. I would like to address the initial statement by WikiEnthusiast1001. I have only objected to opinion pieces written by non-notable figures due to the article length. However, they are mischaracterising the book by Christopher Clary, published by Oxford University Press, as an opinion piece. Lastly, the OP has a misunderstanding of WP:BRD, which is an essay and whose application is optional. They cannot simply come and object to content days later after multiple editors have contributed, without citing any significant policy violation. I want that content to stay within the article until a policy violation is proven and there is consensus for its removal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears that there are two interrelated questions. The first is whether to remove the section, Relationship with the military. The second, raised by one editor, is whether to remove it temporarily until the discussion supports keeping it. The purpose of this moderated discussion is to answer the first question. I can answer the second question, No, at least not if I am the moderator. Disputes over the temporary state of an article are a distraction from the business of determining the content of the article. However, I see another problem. Please reread DRN Rule D. Rule D5 says: {{tq|Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.}}. That is not limited to the part of the article in dispute, at least not until the moderator is able to limit the scope of the discussion. So stop editing the article.

I am asking each editor to state concisely why the section on Relationship with the military should be kept or should be removed.

Are there any other content disagreements? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for having missed that rule. I have now stopped editing the article. The section on "Relationship with the military" should be retained because it addresses a well-documented and widely discussed aspect of Khan's political career. The role of the military in Khan's political rise has been a subject of attention in Pakistani politics for years. The content holds encyclopedic value and is supported by highly reliable sources, including a book published by Oxford University Press and reports by The New York Times and Arab News. As for the last paragraph, I am undecided. I am inclined to request its removal, as it appears to be purely an opinion piece, but I will leave that to the moderator to determine whether it should be removed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Only the first sentence is synthesis, not the entire first paragraph. Based on the content of the section, I believe that is a fair assessment. Several news reports and a scholarly work are cited within the section which describe the perception of closeness to the establishment. However, if the moderator is of the opinion that the sentence should be removed, I am willing to concede. The remainder of the first paragraph is not synthesis and is sourced to a scholarly work published by Oxford University Press.

They are mischaracterising the second paragraph, which they claim is entirely sourced to a YouTube video by the minister. In reality, the second paragraph is supported by two sources: The New York Times and Arab News. While the Arab News article does quote the minister in the headline and in a couple of paragraphs, the article as a whole is not based solely on the minister's statements. The second paragraph reflects the wording of the sources, not the minister.

They keep accusing me of adding the "very long" tag—claiming {{tq|the article already carries a 'very long' tag from SheriffIsInTown}}—despite my repeated explanations here and on the article talk page that I did not add the tag. Their continued accusations are deeply upsetting. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The situation has further changed. Canned Knight, another long-term contributor, has considerably expanded the section, which makes clear that there is much more content available on this topic than was previously included. This further proves that these are not merely a few isolated sources, but that many other sources have covered his relationship with the military. I would like to draw @Robert McClenon's attention to the fact that, while I have been abiding by the restriction not to edit the article, another participant, @WikiEnthusiast1001 continues to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imran_Khan&diff=1290603949&oldid=1290598597 make edits]. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification moderator. The "Relationship with the military" section is not notable or relevant enough for several reasons. It consists of 3 short paragraphs. The first paragraph describes a non-notables' writings and comprises of WP:SYNTH: "Several news reports and a scholarly work by Christopher Clary have characterised Khan's political career as being marked by a perception of closeness to Pakistan's military establishment." The second paragraph is based on a statement made in a YouTube video by Ataullah Tarar, a minister from the party opposing Imran Khan. The third is entirely based upon an opinion piece from Ashok Swain, a professor.

In total: one paragraph describes a non-notables' writings and has synthesis, one on a politically aligned statement in a press conference, and one on a single opinion piece. This does not meet the threshold for WP:DUE to justify an entire section, especially when the article already carries a 'very long' tag from SheriffIsInTown warning it needs condensing. Finally, no other Pakistani politician has a comparable "Relationship with the military" section. Creating sections like “Relationship with X” or “Views on Y” without broad coverage, precedent, or notability leads to unnecessary content and bloated articles. Titan2456 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that this dispute may not be suitable for DRN if we have editors who are not taking part in DRN, which is voluntary. Since there are editors who are editing the article, I will waive the rule against editing the article. Are there any issues other than whether to keep the section Relationship with the military? If that is the only issue, and since not all editors are participating in discussion, any editor who wants to remove the section may ask me to prepare and submit a neutrally worded Request for Comments to remove the section.

Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Some of the comments are personalizing the dispute too much. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other content disagreements? Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I recommend closing this discussion, as I plan to further improve that section following the recent additions. If, after that, the OP still believes it should be removed, they may pursue the appropriate avenues at that time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|JacobTheRox|19:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as pending in another forum. See my detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Closure of Leo XIV DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Pope Leo XIV}}

Users involved

• {{User|JacobTheRox}}
• {{User|AlbusWulfricDumbledore}}
• {{User|Jc3s5h}}
• {{User|Kahastok}}
• {{User|Ymerazu}}
• {{User|Celjski Grad}}
• {{User|TarnishedPath}}
• {{User|Horse.staple}}
• {{User|Chessrat}}
• {{User|Gawaon}}
• {{User|Epicgenius}}
• {{User|Edl-irishboy}}

Dispute overview

Oh boy, this is going to be a long one.

When Robert Prevost became Pope Leo XIV on 8 May, an argument popped up on the article talk page about whether DMY or MDY dates were more appropriate in the circumstances; for context, the article had historically used MDY. I started an RfC here to discuss this, and the RfC at my last count has received a mind-boggling 287 comments in 8 days. After a while, it became clear that the RfC was not working. Most people arguing for DMY are arguing on the grounds of WP:DATETIES, which does not apply to the Vatican as it is not an 'english-speaking country'. Most people arguing for MDY are doing so on the grounds of WP:DATERET, which does not make any sense as it is circular thinking; yes, the existing format should be borne in mind by the person closing the RfC but it is not a reason why the article should be in DMY or MDY.

On 10 May 2025, I formally suggested that the RfC be discarded in response to Jc3s5h's comment suggesting the same thing. I reached out to editors who had expressed lots of different opinions in the RfC, with the hopes that I could find consensus from lots of different viewpoints to discard the RfC and bring the issue here. However, this has not materialised; I have had some pretty stern comments telling me not to close the RfC, so even though it's probably bending the rules a little bit I have left the RfC open and opened DRN anyway.

So to sum this all up, this is a triple dispute (and sorry for dragging you all into this):

Should the article use DMY or MDY?

Should arguments such as WP:DATETIES for DMY and WP:DATERET for MDY be considered invalid, and if so what is the best way of discarding arguments without disrespecting editors' views or expressing bias?

Should the RfC be closed? (see below)

It has also become clear from this that lots of editors are dissatisfied with the MoS; once the DR process has started I will launch a separate RfC for that.

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Leo_XIV/Archive_3#Should_this_article_use_DMY_or_MDY_date_format?]

Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Firstly, please may you read my long post about discarding the RfC (first reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Leo_XIV/RFC:_Date_format#Discarding_this_RfC here]) and confirm that it need be disbanded and moved from an RfC to dispute resolution as it is getting out of hand. Secondly, please can you help editors form a consensus in a constructive way while only referring to the manual of style accurately; this has been a big issue and cause of conflict during the course of the RfC.

My concern is that many of the comments in favor of the DMY format presume that the DMY format should be used on all non-US related articles, while MOS:DATETIES actually indicates that both formats are on an equal footing for articles that don't have ties to a particular English-speaking country. Thus the RFC has taken on an anti-US tone and sustaining the RFC would be an anti-US move.

If the RFC had acknowledged the correct interpretation of MOS:DATETIES and suggested that nevertheless the Pope Leo XIV article should use the DMY format, that would be fine, but that isn't how the RFC progressed. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

My summary of the dispute is that it simply consists of whether the article should follow MDY or DMY date standards. One group is committed to following what they feel is a correct reading of MOS (i.e. retain the current MDY format), while the others feel the subject is now of global importance and as such should use a date format used by most of the world (DMY). Celjski Grad (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

At the top of this page, under the heading Do you need assistance is the following:

{{tq|We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.}}

As there is an active RFC this request should be closed accordingly. It is not the role of WP:DRN to circumvent whatever consensus may be found to have emerged from the RFC once an independent closer closes it. If parties are dissatisfied with whatever the result is, when we reach that point in time, they may seek review at WP:AN. TarnishedPath^talk 00:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

As @User:JacobTheRox mentioned, the core of this issue is over DMY vs. MDY and the applicability of WP:DATERET and WP:DATETIES. The original RfC remains active, but there is very little consensus-building.

:I'm not sure what I can add here, but for background, Pope Leo XIV is an American who was elected as pope on May 8, 2025. Prior to his election, his article used MDY (month-day-year) format common in the US. The disagreement concerns whether to continue using the MDY format or to switch to the DMY (date-month-year) format used in the Vatican and many other countries around the world. Supporters of DMY date formats argue that the DMY format is used by the Vatican and many other countries around the world, and that it would be consistent with articles about other popes such as Francis (which use the DMY format). Supporters of MDY formats argue that WP:DATERET should prevail because that was the format used before, and that WP:DATETIES should prevail because the US is the only English-speaking country that Pope Leo has a strong connection to. There is some contention about whether DATERET is applicable here, whether Leo's citizenship is particularly relevant, and whether popes' articles should use consistent date formats. Some users have raised questions over whether this is a valid RFC, as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

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

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The parties have agreed that a Merge Discussion will resolve the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Twi}}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

Talk:Twi#Protected

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any questions?

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

:First issue:

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

:That needs to changed

:Second issue:

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

:First Infobox issue:

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

:Second infobox issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{collapse top|title=extraneous comments}}

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

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

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

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

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

{{collapse bottom}}

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

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

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

Are there any questions?

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

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

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

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

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

Twi should continue to be a separate article.

Per the sources;

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

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

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

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

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

The areas of dispute appear to be:

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

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

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

Are there any other areas of disagreement?

Are there any other questions?

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

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

:1.Yes, agreement on region field.

:2.The ethnicity should be deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the source,

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

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

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

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

To restate, the areas of disagreement are:

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

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

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

Are there any other areas of disagreement?

Are there any other questions?

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

yes, agrement on 1 and 2

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

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

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

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

Per source, there is agreement on 1 and 2

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

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

5. 3rd line suggestions

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

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

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

To restate again, the areas of disagreement are:

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

Is it correct that we have agreement on point 1? Is it correct that there is agreement to delete the Ethnicity?

The two proposals for the Standard Forms appear to be:

• 3a. Akuapem, Akyem, Asante, Asen, Bono, Dankyira, Kwawu and Wasa
• 3b. Akuapem and Asante

The two proposals for the first line in the body of the article appear to be:

• 4a. Twi is a common name/autonym of the Akan language. It is used by the speakers apart from Fante
• 4b. 'twi is a common autonym of the akan language. it is used by most speakers apart from the fante, and for the literary dialects of asante and akuapem

The three proposals for the third line appear to be:

• 5a. It is not a linguistic grouping, as Akuapem Twi is more closely related to Fante dialect than it is to Asante Twi'
• 5b. It is not a linguistic grouping as it was rejected by Fante
• 5c. It is not a linguistic grouping as Bono is more closely related to Wasa and Asante than Akuapem, so as Akuapem is more closely related to Fante than Asante

Are there any other areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other questions?

If those sections properly summarize the disagreement, please explain concisely why there should be two standard forms or eight standard forms.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

we should list 2 standard forms because that's what rs's say. [akan has 3 standard forms, but one of those is fante.] not every dialect has been standardized; this is apparently a misunderstanding of what the term 'standard form' means. bono isn't even written, according to dolphyne, so it certainly hasn't been standardized.

both proposals for 4 are more-or-less acceptable, but the misunderstanding of the term 'standard form' is interfering. when picking up a book on learning twi, it's going to be specifically asante or akuapem, so in my opinion that is worth mentioning. 'twi' in that context means akuapem/asante, as listed at glottolog, not everything. also, we don't know that speakers of all dialects other than fante call their language 'twi', so we shouldn't be so absolute in our statement. unless bosomba can produce a rs to that effect, of course; i don't know the statement is false, i just don't know that it's correct.

for 5, [b] makes no sense. whether something is a valid linguistic grouping has nothing to do with what people call it. [c] is factually incorrect, contradicted by dolphyne. the repeated insistence that she says the opposite of what the other thinks she says may be due to an inability to read her diagrams, so a 3rd party should be easily able to verify which is correct

Yes, agreement on 1&2 per source

3. Per Dolphyne and Source quoted, there are forms/dialects of Twi. Twi includes the aforementioned dialects except Fante who rejected it. So the standard forms should be changed to include all the dialects. There is no such thing as standard forms of Twi. And there is no such thing as Akan has 3 standard forms. The source only list the literary/written dialects and unwritten dialects which all form Twi. It says literary or written dialects and unwritten dialects which Dolphyne clearly states. If only Kwami can produce RS for the standard forms claims

4. The definition of Twi is common name/autonym of Akan without Fante. This is because it was Fante who only rejected their dialect to be called Twi, the rest didn’t reject it. This is per source and Dolphyne too. There is no such thing as “and for the literary dialects of Akuapem and Asante”. This deviates from the definition and limits the definition.

5a. Limits what Dolphyne said wholly about the dialects being closed to each other

5b. Makes sense because, the committee initially wanted to make Twi a linguistic grouping, however it was rejected by Fante. So they adopted the name Akan instead which was acceptable to all.

5c. Makes sense, this is what Dolphyne said wholly about the dialects being closed to each other.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

To restate again, the areas of disagreement are:

• 3. The Standard Forms in the infobox.
• 4. The first line in the body of the article.
• 5. The third line in the body of the article.

The two proposals for the Standard Forms appear to be:

• 3a. Akuapem, Akyem, Asante, Asen, Bono, Dankyira, Kwawu and Wasa
• 3b. Akuapem and Asante

The two proposals for the first line in the body of the article appear to be:

• 4a. Twi is a common name/autonym of the Akan language. It is used by the speakers apart from Fante
• 4b. 'twi is a common autonym of the akan language. it is used by most speakers apart from the fante, and for the literary dialects of asante and akuapem

The three proposals for the third line appear to be:

• 5a. It is not a linguistic grouping, as Akuapem Twi is more closely related to Fante dialect than it is to Asante Twi'
• 5b. It is not a linguistic grouping as it was rejected by Fante
• 5c. It is not a linguistic grouping as Bono is more closely related to Wasa and Asante than Akuapem, so as Akuapem is more closely related to Fante than Asante

The language infobox can list both Dialects and Standard Forms. Are there eight standardized registers of Twi, or are there eight dialects of Twi? Would it be possible to list the eight dialects as dialects, and two standard forms?

Knowing only what is in the article, I don't see any significant difference between 4a and 4b. Can you either agree on one version, or explain to me what the non-obvious difference is?

If Twi is not a linguistic grouping within Akan, then what is it? Is there a historical reason for the exclusion of Fante? If so, can it be explained as a historical grouping?

Are there any other areas of disagreement?

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

they're dialects, not standardized registers. there are more than 8 dialects, those are just a representative list. the objection i have to listing dialects is that it makes twi look like a language with dialects, which it is not. another reason to merge the articles

the difference between 4a and 4b is that [1] we don't know 4a is correct in its exclusivity, whereas 4b is more cautious, and [2] 4b covers the exposure ppl may have to twi as a standardized language, which 4a doesn't do. if we're going to cover standardized forms in the info box, then per WP guidelines they should also be mentioned in the text.

as to what twi is, it's just an alt name for akan. it's not a historical grouping. the reason we exclude fante is because they reject the label 'twi'. that's why i think the article should be merged to akan language, where we can explain the names.

as for why we have these names, 'twi' and 'fante' were originally two of the most popular autonyms for the language. in the english literature, the language originally went by the names ashanti = asante, akuapem and fante, depending on which standard was being spoken of. these were the 3 dialects that we developed as literary standards by missionaries and the british colonial govt. sometime after independence [don't know exactly when] there was an governmental attempt to name the language as a whole 'twi', but the fante objected because that's not what they called it. personally, i think 'twi-fante' would've been a good choice, but ghanaian linguists settled on 'akan'. that's unfortunate in a way, because the akan people speak more than just twi-fante - the bia languages, for example, which means that those languages are both akan and not akan, which can be confusing [see the recent edits to the akan article, which are confused on just this point]. the old use of the word 'akan', for the languages spoken by the akan people, is now Central Tano.

Per Dolphyne and sources, the Akan people speaks Central Tano languages. Central Tano is grouped into two, thus Bia language and Akan language. Read Dolphyne https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20p.8,12,15. The contention or subject matter here is the Twi, as Bia is out of context and needless here. This is clear

The Akan language which Dolphyne explains is made up of Twi-Fante. See Dolphyne p.8,10,11,12. Meaning, all the dialects listed in Akan language(p.12) in the source, it is only Fante which isn’t Twi, the rest are Twi. Because it was only Fante who rejected Twi, the rest didn’t. See also https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/lctlresources/chapter/about-akan-twi/

Now, to the main issue on Twi. There is no such thing as standardised registered or standard forms of Twi. It is just dialects of Twi which I have been saying it several times.

There was no formal name for the dialects until 1950s when Akan orthography committee wanted to introduce a common name for the dialects. Twi as a name was initially proposed, however it was rejected by Fante people. So, another name which is Akan was proposed. And this was acceptable to all since everyone believed it was a neutral common name. In a nutshell, Akan language(Twi-Fante) per source.

3. So all the dialects should be listed without any limitation because there is no such thing as standardised registered or standard form. This is per source

4a. explains exactly what Twi is without any limitation, per source.

4b. limits the definition of Twi because of the phrase “and for the literary dialects of asante and akuapem”. This isn’t how Twi is explained per sources. Twi is explained as common name/autonym of Akan language without Fante.

5. Twi is a variety or dialect of Akan language per most sources. Actually, Dolphyne didn’t directly state whether Twi is a linguistic grouping or not. We just formed that inference based on her diagram. I believe it is just sociolinguistic group. I also have no problem if it is being termed as historical grouping or not. Lastly, it would be more appropriate if the whole third line is struck out or deleted, or we just state it as sociolinguistic group.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

To restate again, the areas of disagreement were said to be:

• 3. The Standard Forms in the infobox.
• 4. The first line in the body of the article.
• 5. The third line in the body of the article.

I think that the infobox as set up for Twi is using the wrong field, because it is using the Standard Forms field, and it should be using the Dialects field. I see agreement that the different forms of Twi are dialects, not standard forms, because there is no standard register.

An editor has said that Twi should be merged into Akan language. The procedure for considering a merge is a Merge Discussion, which is a consensus process. Is there a reason why we should not close this discussion and start a merge discussion? If the consensus is to merge, then the remaining issues will either be taken care of or can be discussed at Talk:Akan language. If the consensus is not to merge, then discussion can resume, but the input of other editors may inform the discussion. Is there a reason why we should not have a Merge Discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other areas of disagreement?

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

no, we don't have agreement on 3, and no, 'dialects' is not appropriate, as i've said multiple times before - names don't have dialects

akan has three standardized registers - asante, akuapem and fante - again as said before

no reason not to merge - names of a language are normally discussed in the article on the language per notadictionary

Indeed Twi is made up dialects, this is what I have said several times per source. There is no such thing as standardised registers or standard forms. Indeed the infobox is using the wrong field. And Akan language has no standardised registers but literary and non-literary dialects.

I have no problem if Twi is to be merged into Akan language, however we should know Twi includes all the dialects except Fante. Whereas Akan language is made up of all the dialects.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

looks like we're in agreement on merging

we'll want some wording about the names 'akan' and 'twi', and why the former rather than the latter was chosen as the name for the language

i'd ask bosomba what the difference is between a standardized register and a literary dialect - we treat them as equivalent with other languages

Akan language(Twi-Fante) per source.

The source says written or literary dialects. Nowhere did it state standardised registers, they are all dialects.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I have initiated a Merge Discussion at Talk:Akan language. I will be publicizing neutrally worded notices of this proposal to some talk pages in the near future. You may continue discussion at Talk:Akan language.

Are there any other areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other questions?

If there are no other issues, I will close this discussion after posting the neutrally worded notices of the Merge Discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

i agree

Akan language itself have an issue which I would like to forward it here. It is different from merge discussion. Now that there is a merge discussion, I do not know whether I should still forward it or not. Or it should be looked altogether at merge discussion. Or I should wait if no correction is made to that, then I bring it here

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

If there are any issues about Akan language, they should be discussed at Talk:Akan language. If the discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a dispute resolution request can be filed here.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Well noted, thank you on that.

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Doc0976|14:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for various reasons. The most important is that the article on Donna Charles has been nominated for deletion. If the article is deleted, and the AFD is running toward Delete, then any issue about either her article or the article on the gubernatorial race will become moot. Second, the filing editor has been blocked for three days for edit-warring. If the user had notified the other users properly and they were to reply, we would have to wait for the user to come off block before there could be a discussion here. There are other minor issues, such as that the other users were not notified, and one of them has been misspelled. Wait for the outcome of the AFD. If the article is kept, discuss on its talk page and that of the election article Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC).}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|2025 Virginia gubernatorial election}}
• {{pagelinks| Donna Charles}}

Users involved

• {{User|Doc0976}}
• {{User|thisuseristaken}}
• {{User|Sutapurachina}}

Dispute overview

2025 Virginia Gubernatorial Election and Donna Charles page: as a user, I have edited the 2025 Virginia Gubernatorial Election page to reflect details about one of the independent candidates who recently launch her campaign and associated website, social media, etc. I added her photo and information to the infobox as well as other relevant information throughout the article about her candidacy and independent candidates as they relate to Virginia gubernatorial politics in general. Within an hour or less of making the contributions, several users engaged in removing the content that is specifically about the candidate on the page, claiming that she is "irrelevant", that the contributions amount to vandalism, and so forth. One user alleged the addition was in violation of the 5% rule (polling) despite a lack of the same assertion for another person who was given due consideration for entry to the infobox with only a declaration of candidacy (see talk page, Riggleman). In all of my reverts and entries to the talk page, I used reasoned analysis to highlight the fact that polling cited later on in the page shows that at least 5% or more of respondents to various polls where that data is included indicated that they would consider an "Other" candidate, ostensibly a third-party or independent candidate. In addition, the candidate added to the infobox is a public figure. I noticed that users have stopped responding to my entreaties on the talk page after I shared how the 5% rule has been misapplied in this case. I am growing concerned that this collective effort aims to suppress information that could be useful to voters and other users who are seeking complete and unbiased information about this race and the candidates running in it. I request a dispute resolution because the number of revisions has become unsustainable. It does not appear that users involved are using objective measures to make their revert edits and deletion requests to the pages in question.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donna_Charles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Virginia_gubernatorial_election

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A third-party, objective review of all information related to the dispute about the new entries to the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election page, including talk page discussions, is appreciated. A separate but related review of the deletion request for the candidates page is also appropriate.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|ZimZalaBim|18:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed, at least for now. There are two problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. Second, the discussion at the article talk page has been inadequate. There should be at least two statements over 48 hours by each of at least two editors. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page, and then at this noticeboard or another noticeboard, is the right alternative to edit-warring. The editors are reminded that they have been close to 3RR, so do not edit-war. I have looked at the article and its history, and it appears that the filing editor is correct that the article largely consists of large unsourced tables, which are unverifiable, so I encourage the filing editor to continue discussion, and then list and notify the other editors if discussion is inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Drag pageantry}}

Users involved

• {{User|ZimZalaBim}}

Dispute overview

Dispute over the apporpriateness of including lists of winners and runners up at various pageants on this page. Some pageants have their own article, while most do not. The majority of the content does not have sources.

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

Talk:Drag_pageantry#Unsourced_collection_of_random_results

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Need outside perspective from experienced editors; I want to avoid edit war and 3RR.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Bosomba Amosah|20:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as not an active content dispute. There was inadequate discussion on the article talk page, but DRN was opened anyway, and there has been no discussion here, only a statement by the filing editor about what they want to do. Since there is no disagreement with what they have proposed, they should edit the article boldly. The most likely result of bold editing is that the article will have changed without object. If the edit is reverted, discuss on the article talk page again. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Bono dialect }}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

Talk:Bono dialect#Protected

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Bosomba Amosah

Change the first line in the body of the article to: Bono is one of the major dialects of the Akan language and mutually intelligible with Akuapem, Asante, Akyem, Fante etc. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Bosomba Amosah|21:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as not an active content dispute. There was inadequate discussion on the article talk page, but DRN was opened anyway, and there has been no discussion here, only a statement by the filing editor about what they want to do. Since there is no disagreement with what they have proposed, they should edit the article boldly. The most likely result of bold editing is that the article will have changed without object. If the edit is reverted, discuss on the article talk page again. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Akan language }}

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

Talk:Akan language#Protected

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Bosomba Amosah

Change the clade/tree to: Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. Change the first line to: Bono is the oldest dialect in that respective order to Fante the newest, all the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other, as a result a common neutral name Akan was chosen. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Farhadibra|18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for at least three reasons. First, the filing editor is partially blocked from the subject page, for edit-warring. One of the other editors is the admin who has partially blocked them. So this filing looks like a block appeal, but DRN is not the proper forum for block appeals Either appeal the block in the prescribed way, or leave the page alone. Second, the filing editor has failed to notify the other editors. Third, the filing editor has been asked, at least in passing, about a conflict of interest and has not answered the question. The filing editor should make a proper unblock request, including stating whether they have a conflict of interest. Other editors should discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) }}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Azercell}}

Users involved

• {{User|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four}}
• {{User|Bbb23}}
• {{User|Iiii I I I}}

Dispute overview

Hi everyone,

I'm Farhadibra. I'm having a disagreement with other editors about a part of the Azercell article. I tried to remove one paragraph related to an OCCRP investigation that claims there was a corrupt ownership scheme involving Azercell and Azerbaijani officials, and it is stated as a fact, that is not been proved.

I didn’t just randomly remove it — I explained in the talk page why I think it doesn’t meet Wikipedia's standards. Mainly because:

1. The OCCRP article is the only source cited — there's no second or third reliable source confirming this.

2. The Swedish government closed the related case due to lack of evidence (and this is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article).

I can provide all necessary links.

I believe this makes the claim sound too much like a fact, even though it's just an accusation made by journalists. It may also mislead readers or hurt neutrality.

One of editors said the OCCRP is reliable, so the content is OK to include, but I think it's more complicated. I don’t question the general reliability of OCCRP, but in this case, I believe the context is missing and makes it look like the accusation is a proven fact — which it’s not.

Also, I got blocked from editing the article (not fully blocked, just topic-banned), and my talk page comments were ignored. I'm not trying to edit war, disrespect anyone or anything similar to that — I just want a fair discussion about my actions. Probably in some cases I was littl bit rude, apologies if my behaviour was against Wikipedia standarts, I'm new (I know it should not be brought up as a justification for my actions, but still), I asked admins to be engaged in to a polemic with me, but responses were like - It sounds like a "you" problem. I value time of other people, and respect people who are commiting to Wikipedia (some who were involved are members for numbers of years, and I understand that). Now I ask for others to review my arguments and provide an honest opinion.

Thanks.

– Farhadibra

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azercell#c-Farhadibra-20250516223100-Concerns_regarding_source_neutrality_and_recent_edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#h-Editing_on_Azercell-20250522084800

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Farhadibra#c-Farhadibra-20250526065300-Unjustified_blocking

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As number of characters here is limited, I can not provide all the links I have researched. Please review the materials, and state your honest opinion.

• It appears that as an editor who has not reached XC status, Farhadibra does not have standing to edit or discuss articles relating to Azerbaijani politics, which appears to be the crux of this dispute. There's no evidence of foul play on Farhadibra's part, as they had not been notified of WP:GS/AA prior, but it does make the discussion moot (and I've EC protected the page due to both its nature and a history of disruption from new accounts and IPs going back several months). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}