Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 258

Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle

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

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

I don't believe you understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy. you cannot cite an image for a claim. The fact that the content has citation needed tag means it has been challenged and requires a citation, one that does not require interpretation of other material to verify it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If you believe the image of the waka is irrelevant to the paragraph about waka, then you can delete it with an explanation. Forward facing direction of Māori rowers is an WP:acceptable example of common knowledge, that is easily verified, so why is the forward-facing direction of Māori rowers WP:Likely to be challenged, and why do you not simply supply citations you deem necessary? Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Pākehā discussion

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

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

As we appear to have hit an impasse, what happens next? Request for protection while this dispute is in progress was declined. My closing argument is under the above heading Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle. Summary of my argument below:

1. Māori impression that the European rowers were supernatural beings was based on their pale skin colour and the fact they rowed facing backwards. Citations I added from the NZ government's Te Ara encyclopedia verify both of these claims, an extract of which I copied into block quotes (some of this may have been reverted so it may be necessary to browse the Edit History).
2. The claim in the text that Māori rowed forwards is justified on the basis of:
   • WP:acceptable example of common knowledge that is easily verified. Canoes are paddled facing forwards.
   • If Māori rowed facing backwards like the Europeans, why would they be astonished at the European rowers' backward facing direction? Traumnovelle has not adduced any examples of waka being rowed facing backwards.
3. {{citation needed}} tag should be added only if there is a greater than 50% likelihood of being challenged. To this point, the only challenge has been that of Traumnovelle, and no other editors have contributed to this discussion.

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Pākehā)

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

Do the editors have any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Zeroth statements by editors (Pākehā)

First statement by volunteer (Pākehā)

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

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

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

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

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

First statements by editors (Pākehā)

Second statement by moderator (Pākehā)

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

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

Second statements by editors (Pākehā)

I will make a thread at RSN about maorinews.com. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Chrisdevelop I've opened the RSN thread. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Pākehā)

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. 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. It is not necessary to list any changes that are dependent on a question about the reliability of a source.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no further questions and am ready to present my case. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Pākehā)

Fourth statement by moderator (Pākehā)

Will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Pākehā)

Fifth statement by moderator (Pākehā)

Is there still a content dispute? If so, will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Pākehā)

The other editor has stated there are other editors involved who hold the same views they do. Do we know who they are and whether they've been contacted? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Pākehā)

Are the two of you trying to game the system of dispute resolution? Neither dispute resolution nor the editing of Wikipedia is a game in which there is a concept of winning, and so trying to game the system is counterproductive and silly.

I am trying to determine what the content dispute is. That is why I am asking each editor to state what you want to change in the article. That question can be answered without knowing whether there are any other editors involved. Either answer the question by telling me what you want to change in the article, or don't answer the question, but if you don't answer the question, I will assume that you either do not have a content dispute, or are not ready to settle the content dispute by moderated discussion. If I don't get two answers, I will conclude that there isn't a content dispute, and will close this dispute. I may close it as a general close, or as a failure, depending on what happens. Either answer the question to take part in moderated discussion, or don't answer the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there still a content dispute? If so, will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Pākehā)

There is no intention to 'game the system', I have been waiting for the other editor to say something, since I laid out my argument already in detail above.

Below are the claims made in the section 'Etymology and history', to which I added citations disputed by the other editor(s):

1. The most likely sources are the Māori words pākehakeha or pakepakehā, which refer to an oral tale of a "mythical, human like being, with fair skin and hair who possessed canoes made of reeds which changed magically into sailing vessels". Citation provided: cite journal |last=Ranford |first=Jodie |date=2000 |title='Pakeha', its origin and meaning |url= https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/items/0b66e93e-34bb-434f-88ad-dd916fd642f5 |journal=ACE Papers |volume=6: Graduate Student Work – Issues in Contemporary Education. |article-number=Paper 8 |publisher=Auckland College of Education |pages=64–70 |access-date=11 May 2025 |via=University of Auckland
2. When Europeans first arrived they rowed to shore in longboats, facing backwards. Citation provided: cite encyclopedia |first=Te Ahukaramū Charles |last=Royal |date=2005 |title=Māori – The arrival of Europeans |url= https://teara.govt.nz/en/maori/page-3 |encyclopedia=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |access-date=30 April 2025
3. blockquote|We stayed at Whitianga and their ship arrived. Our elders saw their ship and said that it was a god and that the crew were goblins. The ship anchored and a boat started to row to shore. Our elders then said, "Indeed they are goblins as they have eyes in the backs of their heads. That is why they row with their backs to the shore." Citation provided: White, John. Ancient History of the Maori. Vol. 5. Wellington: Government Printer, 1888, p. 105.
4. In traditional Māori canoes or waka, paddlers face the direction of travel. This is supposed to have led to the belief by some, that the sailors were patupaiarehe (supernatural beings). blockquote|Pakepakehā is another word for patupaiarehe. It may have given rise to the term Pākehā (a New Zealander of European descent). To Māori, Europeans resembled the pakepakehā or patupaiarehe, with their fair skin and light-coloured hair. Citation provided: cite encyclopedia |first=Martin |last=Wikaira |date=2007 |title=Patupaiarehe – Encounters with patupaiarehe |url= https://teara.govt.nz/en/patupaiarehe/page-2 |encyclopedia=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |access-date=30 April 2025

Read as a whole, either the citations added corroborate the claims in the section, or the claim in the text that Māori rowed facing forwards is justified on the basis of:

• WP:acceptable example of common knowledge that is easily verified. Canoes are paddled facing forwards. Māori seafaring transportation was and is the Canoe. While there are thousands of images of Māori rowing canoes facing forwards, there are none of them facing backwards.
• If Māori rowed facing backwards like the Europeans, why would they be astonished at the European rowers' backward facing direction? Traumnovelle has not adduced any examples of waka being rowed facing backwards.
• {{citation needed}} tag should be added only if there is a greater than 50% likelihood of being challenged.

Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Pākehā)

When I ask what you want to change in the article, maybe you didn't notice what I wasn't asking. I was not asking why you want to change it (or leave it the same). This is an article content dispute. At least, this noticeboard is for article content disputes. So please tell me exactly what you want to change in the article, without going into why. Also, if this appears to be a tagging dispute, I will either close the dispute, because tagging disputes are essentially useless, or will refocus the dispute on what the tag is trying to call attention to.

So: What do each of you want to change in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Pākehā)

I want the {{citation needed}} tags removed from the 'Etymology and history' section of the article, on the grounds already supplied above. If it turns out this is the wrong Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to have raised this on, then please can you point me to the correct Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to raise this on. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Pākehā)

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a noticeboard for tagging disputes, which are a distraction from trying to build a high-quality encyclopedia. A maintenance tag is a way of indicating that an editor thinks that content in an article should be changed. DRN is a forum for discussing the improvement of an article, not for discussing whether we think that the article needs improvement, which would "kick the can" of improving the article down the road. Rather than discuss whether an article should be tagged, we should discuss whether the article needs to be changed.

If the editor who applied the tag thinks that the statement to which they applied it is not verifiable, then I am willing to change this to a dispute over whether to remove the sentence that the tag was applied to.

What in the article text or infobox does each editor want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what does each editor want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Pākehā)

That would mean deleting the contribution copied below, which surely cannot improve either the section or the article. Is there no way to challenge gratuitous {{cn}} tagging? This is a real discouragement to research for sources, only to have unsightly tags left there, with no collegial interaction from the tagging editor as to how to improve the section such as by supplying citations themselves:

The etymology of Pākehā is uncertain. The most likely sources are the Māori words pākehakeha or pakepakehā, which refer to an oral tale of a "mythical, human like being, with fair skin and hair who possessed canoes made of reeds which changed magically into sailing vessels".^[1] When Europeans first arrived they rowed to shore in longboats, facing backwards:^{[2][additional citation(s) needed]}

We stayed at Whitianga and their ship arrived. Our elders saw their ship and said that it was a god and that the crew were goblins. The ship anchored and a boat started to row to shore. Our elders then said, "Indeed they are goblins as they have eyes in the backs of their heads. That is why they row with their backs to the shore."^[3]

Drawing of a traditional waka showing Māori rowers facing forwards (1773)

In traditional Māori canoes or waka, paddlers face the direction of travel. This is supposed to have led to the belief by some, that the sailors were patupaiarehe (supernatural beings):^{[citation needed]}

Pakepakehā is another word for patupaiarehe. It may have given rise to the term Pākehā (a New Zealander of European descent). To Māori, Europeans resembled the pakepakehā or patupaiarehe, with their fair skin and light-coloured hair.^[4]

Ninth statement by moderator (Pākehā)

I should clarify about removing a challenged sentence. I was saying that leaving the {{cn}} tag is not a permissible result of a DRN discussion. DRN is not here to decide that an article should be tagged, meaning that it needs improvement, but to find a way to improve the article. The possible outcomes include adding a citation, concluding that the citation is not required, rewriting the sentence, with or without a new citation, or removing the sentence. When I ask what changes you want to make to the article, leaving a tag on is not one of the options. Removing the sentence is one of the options. If you think that removing the sentence will worsen the encyclopedia, that is also a valid argument.

Is that clear?

Now, will each editor please specify what they want changed in the article, or what they want left unchanged that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Pākehā)

"The possible outcomes include adding a citation, concluding that the citation is not required, rewriting the sentence, with or without a new citation, or removing the sentence." The bolded option, is the outcome I am seeking for the {{citation needed}} tag. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Pākehā)

Since there has been no proposal to change the tagged sentence, and since I do not consider leaving the tag on the sentence to be a satisfactory resolution, I have removed the tag from the sentence. Unless there is a request to make a change to the text of the article, I will be closing this case in about 24 hours.

Are there any other questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Pākehā)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for all the time you have spent on this. This is an acceptable outcome. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Gawaon

After asking Gawaon to write up their arguments for a RfC, Gawaon replied: You know my reasoning, as I have explained it about a 1000 times already. Frankly, we're done here.

I (FropFrop) will therefore attempt to summarise Gawaon's position here:

• For the first proposed edit, Gawaon believes that we should not include Bates's later claim that she posted an article to The Times (when it was actually a letter). Gawaon believes that we should find a primary source where she claimed this, rather than utilise the secondary source.
  • Here is the quote from De Vries: "A month later The Times published Daisy’s spirited reply, a long letter from her (not an article, as Daisy would later claim) regarding the treatment of Aborigines."
• For the second edit, Gawaon believes that Reece, a historian, has made a chronological error. His reasoning is that "Right now the article say, in Wikipedia's voice: 'The claims she said to have investigated were made by Walter Malcolmson.' However, as far as we know that just can't be true, since no such claims by Malcolmson were published before 1904."

Daisy Bates (author) discussion

In response to Gawaon's argument for not making the first edit:

• We should not rely on primary sources when secondary sources exist (WP:Primary).
• Bates was a prolific writer and to go through all of her primary material (which we are still discovering more of) is quite unreasonable.
• When I provided Gawaon a primary source (given by one of the secondary sources but not read by myself), he replied: I will, of course, not visit some archive in Australia to maybe find a primary source there which you obviously haven't read yourself.

In response to Gawaon's argument for not making the second edit:

• Imo, Gawaon is making a mistake in his reading of Reece. Reece says:

  "She claimed later to have been commissioned by The Times to investigate claims of ill-treatment of Aborigines in the North-West which had been made by Walter Malcolmson, an Englishman who had worked there and in other parts of Australia for some years. In a letter to The Times, he had described the situation in terms that caused the colonial government acute embarrassment."

  Emphasis has been added by me to highlight that Reece said Bates claimed later (as in our 1936 primary source) to have investigated claims that had been made by Walter Malcolmson. This is quite different from Reece saying "in 1900, she investigated claims of Walter Malcolmson". This stacks up when you compare the claims made by Walter Malcolmson in 1904 (which Bates quotes in her 1904 letter in response to his 1904 article) and what she later (in 1936 ) claimed to have investigated in 1900. To summarise; it is not a chronological error but Reece presenting what Bates claimed to have done. When I pointed this out, Gawaon seems to have ignored or missed this in their future replies.
• When I provided Gawaon a link to Bates's 1904 letter so that they could verify the above, Gawaon replied: And don't ask me to read primary sources. That's not how we work here at Wikipedia, and you know it perfectly well. I am perplexed by Gawaon's later insistence for a primary source.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by FriendlyDataNerdV2

We simply disagree man, it happens. Not every disagreement is going to be resolved in your favour, no matter how many words you write. I think your infobox design looks messy and does not inform the reader in an effective manner, and that's my opinion. Unilaterally changing the infobox style that is used for every British election simply isn't going to gather consensus support, certainly not from me. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by CipherRephic

I'm really way too busy to deal with this sort of thing right now, as I have much more pressing concerns in my life at this time which I don't care to get into detail on. Do whatever to the infobox, I really don't care at this point. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 17:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 United Kingdom local elections discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (2025 UK local elections)

It appears that the filing party started a Request for Comments, and that after one week, two editors disagreed. The filing editor then stopped the RFC and filed his DRN This change of venue has aspects of forum shopping, and it also appears to be futile. If you don't like the interim results of an RFC with three editors, why would a DRN with the same three editors be more effective? An RFC is open to everyone in the community, and might swing in support of the filer, especially if publicized neutrally at appropriate WikiProjects. A DRN with the same three editors will still have the same three editors. Maybe the filer expects the moderator first to be persuaded and then to persuade the other editors. DRN doesn't work like that, at least not if I am the moderator. I will probably close this DRN within 36 hours, but I don't understand what the filing editor expects to accomplish.

Any editor is welcome to make a statement as to what they expect will be accomplished by DRN. No such statement is required. DRN Rule X should be followed. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (2025 UK local elections)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Wikaviani

I'm not interested in discussing with Lusiuseir anymore as this editor seems unable to collaborate with other Wikipedians in a WP:CIVIL manner. First they accused me of "promoting misinformation in conjunction with other editors (along with the complicity of said admin)" (said admin is Drmies and the editor who supposedly promotes misinformation in conjunction with me is Kansas Bear) and next to that, I got that :"by displaying an impressive show of ignorance with each response, I really think this needs further review without any of your input.". So, since "any of my input" is irrelevant, I'm stepping out of this DRN case . The discussion is still going on at Talk:Carus' Sasanian Campaign with other editors who, unlike Luciuseir, are able to discuss the matter without personal attacks. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Carus' Sasanian Campaign discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by TarnishedPath

1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight discussion

• Volunteer Notes - Two other editors were involved in the discussion on the talk page and in edits to the article page. Only one editor has been listed and notified. The other editor must also be listed and notified.
• Is this a tagging dispute, or an article content dispute? If the issue is whether to apply a maintenance tag to the article, DRN will not consider it, because the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, not to specify that the article should be improved. If the filing editr thinks that the article is non-neutral, we can discuss changes to the article to restore neutral point of view if all editors are invited to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog

I'm going to do a Maggie, and state that this doggy is not for turning. Roxy the dog 08:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hemiauchenia

Summary of dispute by Bon courage

Not going to support a WP:LEDEBOMB, even if it were based on good sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tryptofish

I do, in fact, see this as something where the filing editor is the only editor arguing for those kinds of changes to the page, and all of the other editors listed here have been agreeing that those changes would go against WP:MEDRS. It's worth noting that I already said this: , on the article talk page. I find it improbable that the filing editor will persuade anyone to change their minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I thank Robert for offering to moderate. It is my opinion that a moderated discussion is not needed, and would be a waste of time, because consensus is already clear. But I'll just say that if other editors disagree with that, I am willing to participate in a moderated discussion, and I have read and will comply with all of the rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by tgeorgescu

Smacks of WP:LLM rather than reading WP:PAGs for themselves. gptzero.me says 94% mixed, 6% human. https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/ says 79% AI, 21% human. I won't waste my time arguing with LLMs.

Frontiers is a predatory publisher, therefore not usable.

NCCIH is the pro-quackery wing of the US government, therefore not usable.

As for the papers which are usable, those are so full of caveats that I don't think they support the POV of the OP. At best, each usable paper is a mixed bag about TCM; at worst they are FRIN. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine discussion

• Volunteer Note - There is a procedural problem and a substantive problem. The procedural problem is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors. (They have listed them.) The substantive problem is that this appears to be a one-against-many dispute, in which the other editors disagree with the filing editor. If so, we can proceed with preliminary discussion once the other editors are notified, but that is likely to be futile. I will begin by asking the editors what they want to change in the article that other editors do not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that other editors want to change. If I conclude that this is a one-against-many dispute, I will not waste further time with discussion, but will advise the filing editor that there is a local consensus against them. So please notify the other editors if you think that at least one of them will agree with the filing editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will notify the other editors now to ensure procedural compliance. I understand that this may proceed to further dispute resolution depending on participation. YellowFlag (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Traditional Chinese medicine)

I am ready to act as a moderator if there is a dispute requiring moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on complementary and alternative medicine. If you either wish to take part in moderated discussion or are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please state your agreement to the rules, and specify what the content issues are. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so please indicate what changes you want to make to the article, or what changes another editor wants to make that you want to leave the same. You are not required to make a statement because you are not required to take part in DRN. If there is little or no interest in moderated discussion, I will close this case with advice to the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer to moderate. I’m willing to participate in a moderated discussion and have read and will follow the rules. While I understand there is strong opposition to the proposed changes, I believe moderation is appropriate because the dispute concerns how to apply core policies like WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:RS.

I proposed adding one sentence to the lead that acknowledges ongoing peer-reviewed research into Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). The aim is not to present it as equal to modern biomedicine or promote any particular claims — but simply to reflect that research into TCM exists, which is a fact supported by reliable academic sources.

I’m happy to discuss which sources are appropriate under policy and open to revising the proposal. My goal is to ensure the article reflects ongoing academic interest in the subject without giving it undue weight. YellowFlag (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

gptzero.me: 90% Mixed 10% Human

https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/ : 100% of text is likely AI

Should be closed according to WP:TIMESINK. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Traditional Chinese medicine)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Preferwiki

Summary of dispute by 119.94.167.39

Summary of dispute by Aveeno Aveeda

When Life Gives You Tangerines discussion

• Volunteer Note - There have been no responses from the other editors in four days. Participation in DRN is optional. If there is no response within 24 hours, this case will be closed as declined by the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

This is a WP:1AM-type situation which has arisen because the filing user doesn't accept that WP:MEDRS needs to be followed for medical claims, in particular that primary sources do not override systematic reviews and position statements from major medical organizations. I don't see how a moderated discussion can assist with this unless and until everyone accepts that sourcing guidelines and Wikipedia policies do need to be followed. - MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bon courage

Note the filer is now attempting to start an RfC on this. Suggest this is abandoned. Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Uniquesuprise

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

As I understand the conflict, it is that it is based on a misuse of sources to draw conclusions they do not in fact draw. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

And with this [] I think you can see the issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

And this [] which shows they did not launch the RFC in good faith, but rather as a tactic. And this tells me this DR is no different, just another attempt to get their way. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Circumcision discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Gotitbro

It is telling that among the sources put forward to advance this insertion none specialize in or are historians of Kashmir. All of the sources are either opinion pieces of fears of "settler colonialism" or single-line mentions of the term in news reports. E.g. (from sources which do delve into the topic) (about fears of settlerism), (more about India–Israel relations than settlerism), (which argues that military occupation maybe viewed as settler colonialism itself).

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

2025 Pahalgam attack discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I will ask each editor to make a concise statement as to what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Please Be Specific at DRN, and indicate what paragraphs in the article you want to change and what wording you want to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (2025 Pahalgam attack)

Kautilya3

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

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

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

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

Wikipedious1

The background section as it exists now is:

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

As Kautilya3 states, this is the disputed change:

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

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

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

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

The claim that "Some analysts describe the situation as settler colonialism" is attested by the 11 sources I add in my most recent edit (diff).

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

Question one-half by moderator (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

One-half th statements by editors (2025 Pahalgam attack)

Wikipedious1

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

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

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

Feel free to examine the sources I want to use as part of the disputed edit which go deeper into this question. Wikipedious1 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Kautilya3

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

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

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

In case that sounds preposterous, an article in Deutsche Welle claimed that migrant workers in Jammu and Kashmir constitute 11 percent of its population, and all of them now qualify for domicile status. On double-checking the data I found that they inflated the figure by a factor of 20. So there seems to be a powerful propaganda machinery that is pumping up the irrational fears and is even able to hoodwink respectable international media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

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

First statements by editors (2025 Pahalgam attack)

Kautilya3

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

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

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

Wikipedious1

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

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

Second statement by moderator (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Second statements by editors (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

Third statement by moderator (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

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

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

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

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

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

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

  I do not want to open a dialogue with you here because I don't believe that's the point of the DRN, but I wanted to share that since an RfC has been opened at the talk page now, if you have reliable sources that discuss why the situation in Kashmir is not settler colonialism, or rebuke the settler colonial argument, please feel free to share them at the RfC. Otherwise, I'm confused why you believe your citation-needed arguments have more weight here than what the Associated Press, among others, have printed. Wikipedious1 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

Are there any comments or questions about the draft RFC? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

Fifth statement by moderator (2025 Pahalgam attack)

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

Are there any questions about the RFC? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (2025 Pahalgam attack)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Huldra

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

Summary of dispute by Quaerens-veritatem

(1) Thedarkknightli has related that 10 reliable sources have called Hadid “Palestinian”; however, there would not be reliable sources for this if he was not notable solely for being a rich U.S. real estate developer known for building luxury hotels and mansions, mainly in the Bel Air neighborhood of Los Angeles and the city of Beverly Hills. If he was not such a U.S. developer, his self-declared opinion as to his ethnicity would neither be covered, nor would he have a Wikiarticle at all. (I question whether his article meets notability in the first place.) None of the 10 sources claim he was notable solely because he said he was Palestinian. The sources just use the ethnonational group of which he declared himself a member, not derived from outside sources. There is no source that independently found him to be a member of the Palestinian ethnonational group. MOS:FIRSTBIO "Context (location, nationality, etc.) ...for the activities that made the person notable. ...The main reason the person is notable..." MOS:ETHNICITY: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." He was not notable because he was a self-declared Palestinian real estate developer, he was notable for being a real estate developer mostly in Beverly Hills, with or without being self-declared Palestinian.
(2) Hadid was born in Nazareth, in the Northern District of Israel, and is a citizen of the U.S. and Jordan. He is neither now, nor was in the past, a citizen of the State of Palestine. He apparently has made no effort to be a citizen of the State of Palestine. MOS:ETHNICITY: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. "...this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national (i.e. a citizen) or permanent resident;..".
(3) As far as placing Palestinian in his Infobox, we cannot use "nationality" per WP:INFONAT: "In biographies, a nationality= field should not be used.' citizenship = field can be used,..." As aforesaid, Hadid was born in Nazareth and is a citizen of the U.S. and Jordan. He is neither now, nor was in the past, a citizen of the State of Palestine. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nswix

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

Mohamed Hadid discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Mohamed Hadid)

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

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

Zeroth statements by editors (Mohamed Hadid)

First statement by moderator (Mohamed Hadid)

Only one editor has responded to my question in four days. This noticeboard is for moderated discussion, not statements of disagreement. If there are no statements by other editors, I will close this dispute and recommend that the editors take it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Mohamed Hadid)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Yoshi24517

Summary of dispute by Augmented Seventh

wikipedia.com/sssniperwolf discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malleshwaram discussion

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Rich Farmbrough

Summary of dispute by cagliost

As per MOS:RETAIN, users should not add {{EngvarB}} to articles which already have a valid language tag, and should not remove valid language tags without a good reason. Ohconfucius has not responded to requests to stop doing this, and has recently stated they refuse to stop doing this: .

Summary of dispute by Ohconfucius

Summary of dispute by GiantSnowman

User talk:Ohconfucius#Erroneous_addition_of_EngvarB_by_your_script discussion

Preliminary Note by Volunteer (ENGVAR)

There are, at this time, at least two problems with this request. I am not closing it because I have looked at the problem and I think it is important that the problem be resolved as soon as possible. The first problem is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Pinging the users is not sufficient because some users have disabled notification of pings. The second problem is that this is not an article content dispute, so DRN is not the right forum. It is my opinion that WP:ANI is the right forum, because the user has been notified about the problem several times, both with warning templates and with text, and has not responded to the notifications. Since they have not responded to the notifications, I doubt that a voluntary procedure like DRN will be useful. What they are doing is contrary to the documentation for {{EngvarB}}, which says not to replace a variant-specific template, such as {{Use Ugandan English}} or {{Use British English}}, with EngvarB unless there is a consensus, which there was not. It seems to me that this is comparable to edit-warring, good-faith but improper conduct that degrades the encyclopedia. If there is a specific reason not to use ANI, I can inquire as to what is the proper forum, but my opinion is that, after multiple unsuccessful notifications, ANI is the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Update to Note by Volunteer (ENGVAR)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Molikog

Summary of dispute by Bearcat

Talk:Scott Russell_Surasky discussion

• Comment: the page Scott Russell Surasky has been at AfD since June 13th. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by ...

Because the Users involved are not fully listed, please copy the above content and fill it out yourself.

Taiwan discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.