Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 256

Archive 250

←

Archive 254

Archive 255

Archive 256

Archive 257

Archive 258

Archive 259

Arameans

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kivercik on 16:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Arameans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved User623921 (talk · contribs) Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs) Shmayo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute concerns the recognition of the Aramean identity within the Syriac Christian community. The main issue is whether Arameans should have the current Arameans Wikipedia article going about the modern people, as they constitute a distinct self-identifying group with their own historical and cultural heritage apart from Assyrian people Multiple academic sources (e.g., Brock, Joseph, Murre-van den Berg, Palmer) support the existence of an Aramean identity separate from Assyrians. However, some editors (both of Assyrian ancestry themselves) argue and reject the idea of a separate article or section, despite Wikipedia recognizing similar distinctions in other ethnic groups (e.g., Ashkenazi/Sephardic Jews, Zazas/Kurds, Crimean Tatars/Volga Tatars). Discussions have stalled, as opposing editors continue to dismiss scholarly sources and documented traditions and history whom modern Arameans claim. The opposing editors claim linguistic commonality (use of "Suryoye") negates historical self-identification, which contradicts academic research and Wikipedia's neutrality principles. Additionally, one of the most vocal opposing users has been actively working against an Aramean page for years (based of on his user contributions and multiple times removed Aramean related content) and has openly stated they identify as Assyrian. This raises concerns about bias and whether Wikipedia policies are being followed in maintaining a neutral and inclusive approach to representation. Expectations: 1. Approval of the Arameans Wikipedia article, specifically focusing on the modern Aramean people. 2. If not, renaming the "Assyrian people" article to a more neutral and inclusive term, such as "Assyro-Arameans," to reflect the identity debate within the community and include the article about Aramean history, culture and traditions. My request aims to ensure neutrality, verifiability, and fair representation of all significant perspectives on Wiki! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Arameans#Makeover I have engaged in multiple talk page discussions, provided academic sources, and addressed counterarguments. However, opposition editors repeatedly dismiss sources and reject compromise. Mediation attempts have failed, and the dispute remains unresolved despite efforts to find a balanced solution. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A fair review of the sources and arguments is needed. Mediation can help by allowing both sides to be represented properly, either by approving a separate "Arameans" page or by renaming "Assyrian people" to a more neutral term like Assyro-Arameans. Summary of dispute by User623921 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Modern Arameans deserve a standalone Wikipedia page due to their distinct identity, legal recognition, cultural uniqueness, and inadequate representation in the Assyrian people article. WP:DISAMBIGUATION supports separate pages for often-confused topics. Arameans and Assyrians have distinct identities, cultures, and histories, so a dedicated page prevents confusion, and no one wanting to conduct research on modern Arameans will turn to an article dedicated to Assyrians, naturally. WP:NOTABILITY supports this, as Arameans are legally recognized in Israel (since 2014), advocate in the European Parliament and the UN, and have diaspora organizations proving their significance. Their political and cultural presence meets Wikipedia’s notability threshold, independent of Assyrians. WP:NPOV requires fair representation. The Assyrian people page misrepresents Arameans as “Assyrians identifying as Arameans,” contradicting legal and scholarly sources. The section on Arameans consists of just three sentences, reducing them to a footnote rather than fully addressing their distinct identity. A separate page ensures neutrality. WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG confirm Arameans are well-documented in academia, legal records, and media. Studies such as this, this, and this affirm their identity, further justifying a dedicated article. Arameans reject the Assyrian label, especially in the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic communities, reflected in their religious institutions and diaspora organizations. Since Israel’s 2014 recognition, an “umbrella” term for all Syriac Christians is formally inapplicable. Aramean activists also seek recognition as Turkey’s indigenous people. Culturally, Arameans recognize Suryoyo New Year on October 1st, which, although not widely known, could benefit from Wikipedia’s coverage, with sources included. It is separate from the Assyrian/Babylonian Akitu on April 1st, and traditions like Hano Qritho highlight their cultural uniqueness. Their historical narrative differs from that of the Assyrians, emphasizing continuity from the ancient Arameans, as reflected in the literature of Syriac-Aramean scholars, Church Fathers, legends, and myths. The development of the Aramean identity has followed a distinct path, shaped by its historical and religious traditions. The Wikipedia:Content forks argument should not be used against creating a separate page for modern Arameans, especially when it hasn’t been executed by us. A dedicated page for Arameans would avoid overlap by focusing on their modern identity, culture, advocacy, and their distinct historical narrative and identity development, starting from Syriac literature. To prevent future content issues, we can establish clear guidelines and ensure collaborative development to maintain neutrality and avoid redundancy. Modern Arameans meet Wikipedia’s standards for a standalone page, ensuring fair and verifiable representation of their identity. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Sockpuppetry accusations apply to both sides, as Aramean pages have also been denied by sockpuppets from the Assyrian side. The focus should be on resolving the dispute, not past editing histories. This is not about whether Arameans and Assyrians are entirely separate ethnicities, as suggested by Surayeproject3, but about Wikipedia policies: WP:DISAMBIGUATION, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:GNG. The Assyrian article contains only three sentences on Arameans, and the Terms for Syriac Christians article does not adequately cover them. Presenting Arameans in these contexts is misleading and does not reflect their identity properly. Cultural differences exist, as seen with the October 1st Aramean New Year, which is supported by scholarly works, not just the World Council of Arameans. The claim that this is merely a "name debate" overlooks the distinct historical continuity of Arameans, especially in literature and Syriac studies. Arameans have a different historical narrative and cultural identity compared to Assyrians. For example, Arameans do not celebrate Akitu but observe traditions like Hano Qritho. They primarily speak Turoyo rather than Sureth and have different clothing, wedding customs, and cultural expressions, to name a few. These differences, along with a unique historical narrative, clearly distinguish the Aramean identity from the Assyrian identity. This is not about ethnicity, but about distinct identities and traditions, as demonstrated by other groups of people sharing an ethnicity yet having separate articles. Since Israel’s 2014 recognition, an umbrella term for all Syriac Christians no longer applies to Arameans. While a separate article would be the best solution, renaming the Assyrian people article to Assyrian/Aramean could be a compromise. The Swedish Wikipedia follows this approach, while Dutch and German Wikipedias maintain separate articles, demonstrating that both models work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC) References Summary of dispute by Surayeproject3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As I have noted on the talk page [1], many attempts have been made previously to create a separate section or article for Arameans, of which were advocated by IP addresses, sockpuppets, and accounts with only a small history of contributions. It has already been proposed and been a point of contention by some for quite some time, but creating a separate article or section would achieve little to nothing since it would include the same content that is already present on Assyrian pages. Both groups identify as Suraye/Suryoye, and apart from views on historical roots and identity, neither have significant differences to say that they are entirely separate peoples. The term "Syriac" redirects to the Assyrian people article, and what is considered Aramean history and culture is already explained by several articles that talk about Assyrians as they both come from the same geographic area, went through the same historical events, speak the same language, share the same culture (albeit with regional differences), etc. Certain arguments that have been made also don't support the creation of a separate section or article. For example, Kivercik and User623921 cite a celebration called the Aramean New Year [2], which is supposedly celebrated on October 1st, but there is no information to suggest such a holiday before an organization called the World Council of Arameans declared so in 2021. Most of the argument for creating a separate article or identity is based on a name debate, not on separate historical continuities. Aside from Kivercik being under investigation as a potential sock/meatpuppet, User623921 has previously been blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia for editing of a similar nature, although it appears that they have just recently been allowed back. Me and Shmayo seem to be the only users so far who have tried to address their activities, but they have previously been the case of sockpuppetry relating to an account that has edited the article for a Swedish musician named Ricky Rich, and have had a disruption case created regarding their edits to articles that seem to just be changing the ethnic name to Aramean or Syriac (linking to Aramean). My intent is to contribute to the discussion positively, so I feel these things should be noted. Surayeproject3 (talk) Hello Surayeproject3, Before addressing your arguments, I must point out that you, like Shmayo, have a history of removing well-sourced content mentioning "Aramean" and replacing it with "Assyrians." This raises serious concerns about neutrality and good-faith editing. I have left a message on your talk page regarding this pattern of behavior. Your repeated removal of valid academic sources casts doubt on whether your goal is to contribute neutrally to Wikipedia or to push a specific narrative, unfortunately. :Now, regarding your response: Past attempts to create an Arameans article It is misleading to claim that only IPs, sockpuppets, or new accounts have pushed for an Aramean article. Many legitimate users have argued for it, providing scholarly sources, but they have been met with the same dismissive attitude from those who reject any recognition of an Aramean identity. Just because an idea has faced opposition does not mean it is invalid. On shared identity and WP:CFORK The argument that Arameans and Assyrians share language, culture, and history does not negate the existence of a distinct Aramean identity. Other ethnic groups with common linguistic and cultural ties (e.g., Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, Zazas and Kurds) have separate Wikipedia articles. The fact that Wikipedia previously redirected "Syriac people" does not mean that consensus cannot be revisited as scholarly perspectives evolve. Several respected historians and scholars have explicitly equated the historical term "Syrian" with "Aramean": - Sebastian Brock (Oxford University, *The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life*): Brock states that in historical contexts, "Syrian" was a direct equivalent of "Aramean" and that the term was primarily used by Greek writers to describe Arameans. - Jean Maurice Fiey (Chrétiens syriaques sous les Abbassides): Fiey also affirms that "Syrian" historically referred to Arameans and was only later associated with an Assyrian identity due to political and ideological shifts. - J. Joseph (The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East): Joseph discusses how many historical texts, including Greco-Roman sources, use "Syrian" interchangeably with "Aramean," reinforcing the notion that the Aramean identity is historically grounded. - H. J. W. Drijvers (*Cultures and Religions in the Roman Empire*): Drijvers highlights that Arameans in antiquity were commonly referred to as Syrians and that this was a linguistic and ethnic designation rather than an indication of Assyrian descent. Given this well-documented historical background, the assertion that "Syrian/Syriac" historically referred to Arameans must be acknowledged in the discussion. Dismissing this scholarly consensus goes against Wikipedia’s principles of verifiability and neutrality. The Aramean New Year The claim that Aramean New Year was only declared in 2021 is misleading. The World Council of Arameans may have officially designated a date, but the celebration of an Aramean New Year has historical and cultural roots. Even if the specific date was formalized recently, this does not discredit the existence of Aramean identity or traditions. Many national holidays around the world were formalized in modern times but are still historically significant. On accusations of sockpuppetry and bias Instead of addressing the sources and arguments provided, you attempt to discredit users by implying sockpuppetry. However, this does not change the fact that the scholarly sources support the Aramean identity. Your focus on user history rather than content weakens your position. Additionally, it is concerning that only you and Shmayo and mostly other Assyrian Wikipedians have been actively working against Aramean representation, while dismissing legitimate sources as irrelevant. Either approve a separate "Arameans" page that accurately represents this identity, or rename "Assyrian people" to "Assyro-Arameans" to reflect the diversity within the community. Ignoring one group’s self-identification while favoring another contradicts Wikipedia’s core principles. Wikipedia should not be used to gatekeep identities but to document them accurately, I think you should be aware of that already. Best, Kivercik (talk) Summary of dispute by Shmayo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. A Request for Comment at the talk page would perhaps be more appropriate here. The current discussion is hard to grasp for any new user due to WP:BLUDGEONING. First, it should be noted that there have been several similar discussions at Talk:Arameans, with similar approach as above, mostly by IPs and now blocked socks. User:Surayeproject3 made a compilation here (thanks!). What is provided above are links (without further information) to a few Syriac studies books and articles, that, at the most, confirm the existence of an Aramean identity among the modern group, which is not what is suggested here, but rather the existence of a separate ethnic group. User:Mugsalot made a great summary on this here. I also made a comment in the same discussion here to clarify some point, especially for users new to the subject and the discussions on Wikipedia. Among other things, I highlighted that “Syriac people” was redirected and protected, per WP:CFORK, already in 2009. Also note that the article Terms for Syriac Christians exists. I should add that I suspect User:Kivercik to be one of the (or the same) blocked Dutch user(s) that have engaged in multiple discussions earlier. Shmayo (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC) What I would not agree with in the summary, which of course was impossible to grasp based on the talk page or the discussion above, would be the affected pages. While it may hold true in this case, what would it mean for Chaldeans (with similar name debate within the Chaldean Catholic community)? Not much differ with that case. And how do we treat Syriac? While all these term, and combinations of them, may be WP:NOTABLE, it would impossible to avoid this (or these) article(s) to become POV fork(s), and the following edit war because of that. A news article speaking about Assyrians in Mardin (e.g. [3]) or an article speaking about Syriacs in Mardin (e.g. [4]) do not specifically refer to the Assyrian identifying part of the Syriac Orthodox community in Mardin (or vice versa). These are alternative names, as describes in sources in Mugsalots comment (linked above). In my comment linked above, I used the example of Suroyo TV, would that be an modern Assyrian, modern Syriac or modern Aramean news channel? With hundred of articles facing the same dilemma. The Assyrian people article was previously labeled Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, later redirected to Assyrian people per WP:COMMON NAME, not changing the scope of the article. Further, it is highlighted in the lead of the article what other alternative names are. Shmayo (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Hello Shmayo, I want to address a serious concern before responding to your arguments. You have repeatedly removed well-sourced content mentioning "Aramean" and replaced it with "Assyrians." This pattern suggests a bias that undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. I have left a message on your talk page regarding this issue because it raises doubts about your intent in these discussions and whether your edits align with Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability and neutrality. Now, regarding your response: - On WP:BLUDGEONING and past discussions Engaging in discussions with sources and arguments should not be dismissed as bludgeoning. The fact that multiple users, including IPs and previously blocked accounts, have raised similar concerns over time only shows that this is a recurring issue that needs to be addressed. Blocking accounts does not erase the legitimacy of the concerns raised. - On the Aramean identity You acknowledge that academic sources confirm the existence of an Aramean identity, yet you argue that this does not justify a separate article. However, Wikipedia has separate articles for various ethnic subgroups, even when they share linguistic and religious ties (e.g., Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, Zazas and Kurds). The same standard should apply here. - On WP:CFORK and "Terms for Syriac Christians" The existence of alternative terms does not invalidate the need for a dedicated article on the modern Aramean people. The fact that “Syriac people” was redirected in 2009 does not mean it is the final consensus today. The academic landscape evolves, and Wikipedia should reflect that. Either allow a dedicated "Arameans" page that accurately represents this distinct identity, or rename "Assyrian people" to "Assyro-Arameans" to reflect the diversity within the community and include Aramean history, culture and identity into the article . As I have stated before dismissing the Aramean identity contradicts academic research and Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality and verifiability. Best, Kivercik Kivercik (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Arameans discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The editors named in the OP were not notified of the discussion. I posted the notifications on their talk pages. I'd like to volounteer to help resolve this dispute (if all parties agree to participate). TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Thank you, I'd love to participate. User623921 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Volounteer note: I've changed the status to open and will read through the discussion on the article page and the summaries here. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Regarding the latest comment by Shmayo: there are enough differences in historical narratives and modern identities to avoid making them forks. Suroyo TV is a Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (Aramean) news channel, Assyria TV is Assyrian, and Suryoyo Sat is Aramean. While the "Syriac" term is a separate issue, most scholarly studies use it instead of Aramean, often distinguishing it from Assyrian. The merging of Chaldeans with the Chaldean Catholic Church seems like a POV move by Surayeproject3. The Dutch, Swedish, and German Wikipedias handle this well and can serve as references. Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people would be fine too and could include more details about Arameans. Three sentences about Arameans, their modern identity, and historical narrative are simply absurd. Even when it was labeled Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, Arameans were still not adequately represented, and even here, Syriac is substituted for Aramean. Surayeproject3, the other participant in this dispute, has also equated the two terms in numerous writings and in his user profile. User623921 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Volounteer summary and next step I'm not here to make a judgment, I am not going to say one side is right or one side is wrong. I am here to help figure out ways this dispute can be resolved. Affected pages/sections: Aramean_(disambiguation) Arameans#Modern_identity Assyrian_people#Self-designation Terms_for_Syriac_Christians#Aramean_identity (if there are more, please link them) First of all, Wikipedia is not a court of justice or arbiter of what exists, we are not here to decide what those who call themselves Arameans today really are. There being a Wikipedia article on a subject does not mean that that subject exists nor is it an endorsement of it. Many things that don't exist or aren't true have their own Wikipedia article, whether something exists or is real doesn't play a part in deciding whether it gets its own article. Secondly, I recognise that bias exists on both sides, as these issues of ethnicity and recognition are often contentious topics. I don't hold it against anyone, we all have our own opinions, but just because someone edits in an area they care about that doesn't mean that their edits are automatically wrong or done in bad faith. Regarding the sockpuppet case against Kivercik. I won't assume a sockpuppet accusation is true. That is a case for WP:SPI. Regarding accusations of meatpuppetry and bludgeoning, those are behavioural issues that should be taken to WP:ANI. As Surayeproject3 wrote in a comment this is a dispute that gets brought up again and again. Currently, without any evidence to the contrary, I will assume the source of the dispute is genuine efforts of separate editors, per WP:AGF, rather than a WP:1AM/WP:RGW effort by one editor using meat/sock accounts. With that said, onto the dispute: From what I understand, editors cannot agree on how those who today claim to be Arameans, a separate ethnic group from Assyrians, should be included in Wikipedia. User623921 and Kivercik think that the section is neither big enough, nor is it a fair coverage of sources, (WP:BALANCE). Shmayo and Surayeproject3 believe that there is no WP:RS consensus that those who call themselves Arameans today are distinct from those who call themselves Assyrians/Syriacs, that they are mentioned in the Assyrian people article already, and that there is no justification for them to have a separate article, (WP:NPOVFORK). To resolve this dispute, we have to look at both the quality of the sources and the coverage of the subject in those sources, per WP:DUE and WP:GNG. The dispute is further complicated by the existence of ancient Arameans whose existence or notability are not in dispute. This is where WP:DISAMBIGUATION might come into play User623921 correctly identified that the relevant policies in this case are WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV. We're trying to determine whether the people/group who call themselves Arameans today are notable enough to have their own article, and if not, how should they be included/referred to in appropriate Wikipedia articles. I'd like to start by examining the provided and available WP:RS and continue the discussion in the context of WP:NOTABILITY, and any relevant/related policies of course. I'll start doing that now, might take me a couple of hours. If you disagree or are unhappy with my summary, please let me know. In the meantime, if you'd like to add any sources that are NOT already linked here, in the Article or on the Talk page, please add them to the "Sources" section below. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC) New volounteer needed I don't have the trust of the community and I am afraid that my volounteering here, even though done in good faith, might invite more sanctions on me. I am stepping back from this thread. I'm sorry. I don't know if the template needs to be changed/amended, but I am sure someone will come along and do it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Unfortunate. I’m sure Kivercik and I both agreed with your summary. I don’t know about Surayeproject3, but is there a reason you feel you don’t have the community’s trust? User623921 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC) User:623921 - The community trust issue does not have to do with this DRN case, but an unrelated Wikipedia issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Sources Sources for notability, amongst the people/the Arameans themselves: Syrianska Riksförbundet, SAUF, WCA, Aramean Federation NL, Syriac Orthodoxy in Turkey identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodoxy in Sweden identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodox Church in Germany identifying as Arameans, Aramean Music, Aramean Music 2nd. Google trends: Google trends showing more searches for Arameans than Assyrians, in Germany. More searches for the equivalent of Arameans in Sweden than Assyrians, see this. (In their native languages) Football clubs representing Arameans: Tur Abdin Gutersloh, Syrianska FC, Aramäer Gutersloh, Arameiska-Syrianska , Örebro Syrianska, Aramäer Heilbronn, FC Turo d'Izlo Aramäer Gronau, FC Aramäer Pfullendorf, Aramäer Harsewinkel, ASG Aramäer Ahlen, and so many more. Social media: 89,205 Instagram posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., with views in the millions. 23,934 TikTok posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., also with views in the millions. Note: This excludes the search terms "Suryoyo" and "Suryoye," as a small minority of Assyrian-minded Syriac Orthodox individuals also use these terms in their native language. Scholarly studies on modern Arameans: On The Tigris Frontier, Religious Origins of Nations, Persecuted, The Slow Disappearance of the Syriacs from Turkey and of the Grounds of the Mor Gabriel Monastery, Introduction to Aramean and Syriac studies, An introduction to Syriac studies, Hostages in the homeland, orphans in the diaspora, and so many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC) I hope this helps, @TurboSuperA+. User623921 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Relevant WP:RS sources: Same ethnic group with alternative names, see Mugsalots comment with sources here. On this particular subject, with the Swedish diaspora as an example: Atto, 2011 Dispute being on terms in Western languages, seen even within families of the community. It being a "name debate" Neither "side" do actually claim them being people. It is obviously political in many cases, without any direct relation to "views on history". People have "switched sides" during the years. Donabed & Mako, 2010 on political influence and significance on this. And a short reference to the same dilemma among Chaldean Catholics. I will refrain from linking to political or religious organizations, or similar. Each side have their respective organization and advocates, both claiming that the Syriac Orthodox community has Assyrian and/or Aramean roots. I do not have time to list more at the moment, but these should be interesting addition. Shmayo (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC) To provide a well-sourced basis for the discussion on the modern Aramean identity, I have compiled a list of academic and reliable sources (WP:RS) that affirm the existence of a distinct Aramean identity in modern times. These sources highlight the historical continuity, cultural distinctiveness, and self-identification of Arameans today. Sebastian Brock – The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (1987) Explains how "Syrian" (Suryoye) was historically synonymous with "Aramean" in Greek and Roman texts. Notes that many Syriac-speaking Christians traditionally identified as Arameans before nationalistic movements changed the narrative. Jean Maurice Fiey – Chrétiens syriaques sous les Abbassides (1995) Discusses how Arameans were commonly referred to as "Syrians" (Syriacs) in antiquity and how the historical record shows continuity between ancient and modern Arameans. Differentiates between Arameans and Assyrians in historical sources. H.J.W. Drijvers – Cultures and Religions in the Roman Empire (1998) Confirms that the term "Syrians" (Syriacs) in antiquity was synonymous with "Arameans,". Describes the cultural and linguistic ties that modern Arameans have with their historical ancestors. John Joseph – The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East (2000) Analyzes how modern Arameans and Assyrians are separate identities with distinct historical narratives. Argues that the term "Assyrian" became more prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries due to Western missionary influence. Richard E. Payne – A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity (2015) Discusses how many Christian communities in Mesopotamia identified as Arameans well into the early medieval period. Examines how modern Arameans continue to maintain distinct traditions from Assyrians. Aaron Michael Butts – Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in Its Greco-Roman Context (2016) Highlights that Syriac developed from Aramaic, and that historical sources frequently used "Syrian" and "Aramean" interchangeably. Demonstrates how the identity debate emerged due to modern nationalistic influences. Werner Arnold – Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Diaspora (2010) Details the survival of Aramean cultural and linguistic traditions in various parts of the Middle East. Discusses modern Aramean self-identification and the challenges they face in preserving their heritage. Ephrem-Isa Yousif – L’Heritage Araméen dans l’Eglise Syrienne (2002) Examines the deep Aramean roots within the Syriac Christian tradition. Notes that many religious texts and prayers of Syriac Christianity preserve explicit references to Arameans. Martin Tamcke – Christians and Muslims in Dialogue in the Islamic Orient of the Middle Ages (2007) Documents the distinct historical identity of Arameans in Islamic-era sources. Discusses how Arameans were often grouped under "Syrians" (Syriacs) but maintained their separate traditions. The sources above provide strong academic support for the recognition of the modern Aramean identity. The argument that "Syriac Christians" are exclusively Assyrian contradicts historical and modern scholarly research. WP:NOTABILITY requires that notable, self-identifying groups be represented on Wikipedia, and WP:NPOV mandates that all significant perspectives be covered. Kivercik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Interestingly enough, none of the sources you referenced reject an Aramean identity, which comes with a different historical claim and narrative. Even more interestingly, in the source you referenced, where they write about the Syriac (Aramean) community in Sweden, it is stated: "A Syrian is a Suryoyo who first rejects the designation 'Assyrier' and, by doing so, any links to an Assyrian past. Among the Syrianer in Sweden, especially those active in secular organizations and many of the clergymen, it is stated that the ‘amo Suryoyo has Aramean roots." [5] ) User623921 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Where does Payne (2015) "examine how modern Arameans continue to maintain distinct traditions from Assyrians"? Shmayo (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC) First statement by substitute volunteer (Arameans) I am ready to act as the replacement moderator. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that one of the issues is whether separate articles are needed for Arameans and Assyrian people. If there are reasonable arguments both for two articles and for one combined article, then a Merge Discussion may be in order, but we should have discussion before starting a formal merge discussion. I will restate the principle that the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So if there are any changes that an editor wants to make to the article, beyond merging, please state what you want to change. I will also ask each editor whether they want to merge the two articles, or whether they do not want to merge the articles. Also, are there any questions about reliability of sources? Are there any other questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Arameans) Hey, and thanks for taking over this dispute! I would prefer not to merge the articles but to keep them separate. I think this would work better under WP:Disambiguation, WP:Notability, and WP:NPOV. As you can see, I've written multiple comments on notability, scholarly studies, etc. I propose we follow the approach of the Dutch and German Wikipedias, where separate articles exist for Arameans and Assyrians. We also have Aramean (Syriac) football clubs, which are Aramean-related. This could be included under a Modern Arameans article to some extent. User623921 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC) POV already tried deleting the Aramean (Syriac) football clubs article, this is what we mean, even with WP:Notability, there seems to be no room for Arameans whatsoever in all of Wikipedia. There cannot be WP:NPOV without a proper representation of Arameans on Wikipedia. This is an example—the editor likely saw my comment mentioning the article and then deleted it. User623921 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Robert McClenon, I am not sure if your first statement above captured the issue (understandably; the wall of text does not help). The article Arameans today covers the ancient Aramean tribes and polities. The article Assyria covers the ancient Assyrian civilization. There is a modern ethnic group of mainly Syriac Christians, speaking eastern varieties of Neo-Aramaic, identifying as Suraye/Sur(y)oye depending on dialect. This modern group is today covered in the page Assyrian people (other names include Syriacs, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc.). The user that filed this case, he can correct me if I am wrong, believe that there either should be a separate article for the part of the people that identifies as "Aramean", or include this part of the modern group in the article for the ancient people (i.e. "Arameans"), or renaming the "Assyrian people" article. The "Assyrian people" article was labled "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" many years ago, but was redirected to "Assyrian people" per WP:COMMONNAME. I am of the opinion that a new article would be a fork and that the modern group, in my opinion seen as one ethnic group by modern scholarship (and by themselves for that matter), should be covered in the same article (being the "Assyrian people" article today). Another user compiled many of the old discussions on this here. Shmayo (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Isn't this the result of cherry-picking and POV? There are also sources that recognize modern Arameans as an ethnic group, such as this one. Similar to the article on ancient Assyrians, we could create an article on Aram for ancient Arameans. This would not be a content fork, as both the historical narrative and modern identity distinctions set them apart. Historically, many aspects differentiate them, particularly in Syriac literature, where writers within the Syriac Orthodox Church have extensively referred to an Aramean identity or ethnicity since the beginning of Syriac literary tradition. Alternatively, if the information is included in the Assyrian article, the article itself should reflect a balanced approach, referring to the population as Arameans/Assyrians. This would also mean including the Aramean flag alongside the Assyrian one and renaming the article to "Arameans/Assyrians," as seen on the Swedish Wikipedia page. Per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NPOV, and WP:Disambiguation, the Arameans should theoretically have their own page. Furthermore, since Israel’s recognition of Arameans as a distinct ethnicity in 2014, the idea of an "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians is formally inapplicable. This includes the classification of Arameans under an Assyrian "umbrella." Also, please see my comment on the notability of Arameans here. User623921 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Robert McClenon As Shmayo pointed out, there have been previous discussions regarding the same thing that is being advocated for here, but it has never previously went through because the content would not be much different than what is already present on Assyrian pages. The people who identify as Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, or Aramean are all recognized to be one ethnic group, and these labels are used interchangeably when referring to them. They have the exact same history, speak the same language, come from the same geographic area, and are part of the same ethnicity, but they have differing views on identity or historical roots. Also, the accounts that advocated for separation of articles were usually IP addresses, sockpuppets, and accounts with very little to no edit history (Ironically, there were Dutch IP addresses that advocated such an article around the time this discussion was first happening, but they have since disappeared). Creating an entirely new page for modern Aramean identity would lead to a high level of edit warring, and other articles related to the people have had a track record of vandalism of name switching between all the different identities. Given this previous track history of violations against Wikipedia integrity, as well as the continuous back and forth that Arameans as well as several other pages have experienced, creating a new article for the modern identity would achieve little to nothing based on content. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC) The historical narratives claimed by the Arameans are distinct from those of the Assyrians. Are you suggesting that every mention of Arameans in history—whether in medieval times, in the writings of Saint Ephrem the Syrian, or in the works of Saint Jacob of Serugh—shares the same historical narrative as the Assyrians? The argument based on language is not valid, as other groups such as the people of Maaloula, the Maronites, and the Mandaeans also speak Aramaic. Geography is also not a determining factor, as Armenians once lived alongside the Arameans of Tur Abdin. You must have missed Robert McClenon's comment, "Comment on content, not contributors." Anyways, it is common for users to participate in discussions using IP addresses, especially when they are only leaving brief comments. The frequent appearance of Dutch IP addresses is not unusual, given the significant Syriac-Aramean community in the Netherlands. The claim that such an article would not contribute anything meaningful is unfounded. A dedicated article on the modern Aramean identity would provide valuable information on topics such as the origins of their flags, their diaspora efforts, organizations, events, shared traditions, and historical narratives—particularly from the medieval period onward, following the rise of Syriac literature. Their continuity as a distinct group is well-documented and would serve as a useful resource. User623921 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Surayeproject3, The claim that "Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, or Aramean are all recognized to be one ethnic group" is a POV assertion that does not reflect academic consensus or modern self-identification. Numerous scholars, including Murre-van den Berg (2006), Palmer (2011), and Brock (1999), acknowledge the distinct Aramean identity within the Syriac Christian community. Furthermore, as User623921 stated the Israeli government officially recognized Arameans as a separate ethnicity in 2014, demonstrating that these identities are not simply interchangeable. The argument that "this has never previously gone through" is not a valid reason to dismiss it now. Wikipedia’s content evolves based on new sources and scholarly discussions. The fact that past discussions led to no change does not mean the issue is settled indefinitely, especially as more sources continue to highlight the distinction between Assyrians and Arameans. The concerns about edit warring and past sockpuppetry do not justify excluding an entire ethnic group from representation. Wikipedia should be driven by reliable sources, not fears of potential conflicts. If the existence of edit wars were a valid argument against creating or modifying articles, many contentious ethnic and political topics would not exist on Wikipedia at all. Finally, I fully agree with User623921, IF Arameans are to remain within the "Assyrian people" article, neutrality must be maintained. This means accurately reflecting both identities, renaming the article to "Arameans/Assyrians," and including the Aramean flag alongside the Assyrian flag. Otherwise, the current framing is biased and does not adhere to Wikipedia’s neutrality principles (WP:NPOV). Kivercik (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC) @Shmayo, The assumption that "the modern group is today covered in the page Assyrian people" without issue is misleading. The fact that this discussion keeps recurring demonstrates that there is significant disagreement over whether Arameans should be grouped under "Assyrian people." The claim that they are "seen as one ethnic group by modern scholarship" is not entirely accurate, once againscholars such as Murre-van den Berg (2006), Palmer (2011), and Brock (1999) explicitly recognize Arameans as distinct. The previous decision to redirect "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" to "Assyrian people" was based on WP:COMMONNAME at the time, but this does not mean it cannot be revisited. Given that "Aramean" as an identity has gained further recognition—including Israel's official recognition of Arameans in 2014, the name should be reconsidered. WP:COMMONNAME is not static; it evolves with scholarly and social developments. The argument against a separate article based on WP:CFORK is also flawed. Other ethnic groups with shared linguistic and cultural elements, such as Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews or Zazas and Kurds, have separate articles. The presence of different self-identifications among Syriac Christians justifies distinct articles to accurately reflect their perspectives. If the Assyrian people article continues to encompass Arameans, then neutrality must be maintained. This means renaming it to "Assyrians/Arameans," incorporating the Aramean flag alongside the Assyrian flag, and ensuring balanced representation of both identities rather than imposing a singular label. Kivercik (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Second statement by mediator (Arameans) I had asked whether one of the issues was whether to merge two articles. It now appears that maybe the issue is the opposite of what I thought, and is whether to split an article. We appear to have three articles, two on ancient peoples, Assyria and Arameans, and one article on a present-day people, Assyrian people. However, it appears that the modern Aramean people identify as a separate Middle Eastern Christian people from the Assyrian people. Should we create a separate article on the modern Aramean people, either by splitting it from Assyrian people or by splitting it from (ancient) Arameans? Is that one of the issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC) If there are other content issues involving changes to existing articles, please state what sections or paragraphs in an article you want to change that another editor wants to leave unchanged (or vice versa). Are there any other questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Arameans) You're absolutely correct that Arameans identify as a separate identity from Assyrians, as seen in all the sources I provided about their notability. I wouldn't really call it a split from the Assyrian people since it only mentions modern Arameans in three sentences, and very inadequately at that. Instead, I'd suggest splitting it from the Aramean article, where the ancient history could be merged with the Aram article, similar to how Assyria is structured. Then, a new Aramean people article could be built based on the current Aramean article. User623921 (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC) @Robert_McClenon, Yes, this could indeed be a potential solution, meaning 4 articles, of whom 2 about modern and ancient Arameans and 2 about modern and ancient Assyrians. The issue stems from the fact that (note: both opposing users are of Assyrian ancestry themselves), within the framework of Assyrian nationalism, multiple articles that discuss Arameans are instead labeled as Assyrian. A clear example of this is the Assyrians in the Netherlands article, which, on the Dutch Wikipedia, actually refers to the community as "Arameeërs" rather than Assyrians. This indicates an inconsistency in terminology across different language versions of Wikipedia. Additionally, many villages and towns in the Tur Abdin region are frequently categorized as Assyrian, despite the inhabitans of these villages advocating an Aramean identity. This demonstrates a broader pattern where Aramean identity is either merged into or replaced by Assyrian terminology in various articles. To address these discrepancies on such pages, a compromise could involve using "Assyrian/Aramean" in such articles to ensure that both identities are represented fairly. Articles like villages, diaspora countries see: Assyrian diaspora , and so on. Kivercik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Robert_McClenon, "...it appears that the modern Aramean people identify as a separate Middle Eastern Christian people from the Assyrian people." Yes, that is what the filing user claims, separate being the keyword here. The "Assyrian people" article today lists it as one of the alternative names, among many. And yes, the same user is suggesting some sort of split or rename of the current article. "Are there any other questions at this point?" Yes, in my opinion this neglects all the other alternative names. They are probably all more common in English. The case is not much different there. In my opinion, a split (or splits?) would lead to extensive edit warring and would be a fork. A potential renaming process should be handled at the talk page of that article. Shmayo (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC) The concerns about edit warring and past sockpuppetry do not justify excluding an entire ethnic group from representation. Wikipedia should be driven by reliable sources, not fears of potential conflicts. If the existence of edit wars were a valid argument against creating or modifying articles, many contentious ethnic and political topics would not exist on Wikipedia at all. By creating an independent Aramean article, we can provide a clearer, more neutral representation of both identities. This would allow each group to be described with the depth it deserves without conflating their histories and cultural backgrounds. Articles such as Qamishli and Midyat for example could then use the term Aramean/Assyrian properly acknowledging both identities. This approach would also reduce edit wars, as each group would have its own dedicated page, and users would not be forced to choose between these identities when editing. Moreover, as Wikipedia guidelines emphasize neutrality and accuracy, creating separate articles for distinct identities like Arameans would better align with these principles. Im sure that seperate articles and the use of Aramean/Assyrian in other articles regarding these people would solve the decades of ongoing editwars, which will finally come to an end. Kivercik (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC) If you take a look at the Dutch and German Wikipedias, they seem much more stable, with less controversy than the current English Aramean article. Again, it would not be a fork, as there are enough differences between the two identities to justify separate articles, such as historical narratives, etymology, traditions, culture, etc. WP:NOTABILITY also suggests that modern Arameans should have their separate article. Please refer to my post about notability sources. User623921 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 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.

Discrimination against men

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 37.116.138.172 on 04:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Discrimination against men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) Tespiano (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Sangdeboeuf and Grayfell have been edit-warring to remove cited, relevant content that I added to this article. They are adamantly against any form of compromise/rephrasing and insist on keeping it deleted. They have tried to justify this in various ways that I have addressed on the talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Discrimination_against_men#? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By providing balanced outside perspectives on a seemingly deadlocked dispute. Summary of dispute by Sangdeboeuf Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is not the forum for edit-warring or other conduct disputes. For that you want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Grayfell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Discrimination against men discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Arameans 2

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kivercik on 12:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Arameans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kivercik (talk · contribs) Shmayo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute concerns the recognition of the Aramean identity within the Syriac Christian community. The main issue is whether Arameans should have the current Arameans Wikipedia article going about the modern people, as they constitute a distinct self-identifying group with their own historical and cultural heritage apart from Assyrian people Multiple academic sources (e.g., Brock, Joseph, Murre-van den Berg, Palmer) support the existence of an Aramean identity separate from Assyrians. However, some editors (both of Assyrian ancestry themselves) argue and reject the idea of a separate article or section, despite Wikipedia recognizing similar distinctions in other ethnic groups (e.g., Ashkenazi/Sephardic Jews, Zazas/Kurds, Crimean Tatars/Volga Tatars). Discussions have stalled, as opposing editors continue to dismiss scholarly sources and documented traditions and history whom modern Arameans claim. The opposing editors claim linguistic commonality (use of "Suryoye") negates historical self-identification, which contradicts academic research and Wikipedia's neutrality principles. Additionally, one of the most vocal opposing users has been actively working against an Aramean page for years (based of on his user contributions and multiple times removed Aramean related content) and has openly stated they identify as Assyrian. This raises concerns about bias and whether Wikipedia policies are being followed in maintaining a neutral and inclusive approach to representation. Expectations: 1. Approval of the Arameans Wikipedia article, specifically focusing on the modern Aramean people. 2. If not, renaming the "Assyrian people" article to a more neutral and inclusive term, such as "Assyro-Arameans," to reflect the identity debate within the community and include the article about Aramean history, culture and traditions. My request aims to ensure neutrality, verifiability, and fair representation of all significant perspectives on Wiki! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Arameans#Makeover How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A fair review of the sources and arguments is needed. Mediation can help by allowing both sides to be represented properly, either by approving a separate "Arameans" page or by renaming "Assyrian people" to a more neutral term like Assyro-Arameans. Summary of dispute by Shmayo Please keep it brief – less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Is there any point to continue the discussion here, while there is a similar discussion here on ANI? Shmayo (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Arameans discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

African diaspora

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kyogul on 19:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute African diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Xuxo (talk · contribs) Ohio Statein (talk · contribs) Mawer10 (talk · contribs) Torimem (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This user has repeatedly engaged in original research by not linking any sources to substantiate their claims, ignoring sources that specifically contradict what they say, using their own personal interpretations and say that sources are "wrong", invalidate sources by saying they are not valid because of the nationality of the publication as opposed to the content, etc. This user does not engage in the article's talk page, does not respond on their own talk page, and does not settle disputes or cite their claims and they repeatedly edit a particular section of the article to fit their agenda It was already discussed in the article's talk page to add mixed population to the figure of afrodescendants and it was agreed upon for months. This user has a particular issue with the Brazilian figure and ignores reliable sources that agree with each other saying that pardo brazilians are classified as afrodescendant, including by the IBGE. This user simply does not listen, does not want to compromise, do they actually make citations to their claims. Not one reliable source, or really any source as of yet, they've provided How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[6]],[[7]],[[8]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I already proposed in the past that the only compromise would be to add only figures of people who self-identified specifically as black as opposed to including those of mixed African ancestry, but the apparent consensus in of editors was to not do this as they liked to include mixed afrodescendants for the US and UK figures, but intentionally exclude Brazil. I think for consistency you do one or the other across the board: only self-ID black, or include applicable mixed afrodescendants. African diaspora discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. To resolve this debate, I have proposed putting in the infobox the number of people who self-identify as black (which is a lower number) next to the number of people who self-identify as black + the number of all people of African descent (which is a higher number, including all blacks and mixed-race people of African descent). For countries where there is no official data, I suggest using the lower estimates along with the higher estimates. This would be following the example of other articles such as the one on Jews and the one on Arabs. I do not believe it is a reasonable proposal to exclude people of mixed-race heritage from the infobox, as this would result in underestimating the number of blacks in some countries and overestimating the number in others. For example, the number of blacks in the US is overestimated due to the historical one-drop rule and in Brazil it is underestimated due to a higher level of miscegenation. Race is subjective and viewed differently depending on the place, while in the US ancestry counts more, in Brazil appearance counts more. Ancestry is something more objective and therefore important. In addition, placing the number of self-identified black people next to the number of all people with African ancestry shows that there is no absolute answer to the question "how many people of X ethnicity or race are there in such a place?", there is not always a precise answer especially when part or all of the group is in the diaspora. Mawer10 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (African diaspora) I'll be the moderator in this case. The filing editor has not notified nor listed all of the editors, so I have done that. I'd like to ask everyone who wishes to participate to read and state their agreement of Wikipedia:DRN Rule D. Please note that this dispute concerns infoboxes, which are designated as a contentious topic; by agreeing to the rules, you state that you are aware of this. Please keep in mind that DRN discusses content disputes; user conduct is outside of the scope of DRN, and mentions of that are off-topic and will be collapsed. Violating the rules will result in the mediation being failed. I would like to ask the participants to state what they want to modify in the article or what they want to stay the same, and why. In your reasonings, please cite reliable sources for everything. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Also, are there any objections to Mawer10's suggestion? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (African diaspora) Not all Pardos in Brazil have African ancestry. For example, in the 1872 census, 63.9% of the population of Amazonas was classified as Caboclos,[9] which is a term to people of Indigenous and European ancestry, not African. As of 1872, there were only 979 slaves in Amazonas, or 1.70% of the total population.[10] Since the "Caboclo" category was eliminated in the census, nowadays 76.8% of Amazonas population is classified as "Pardo"[11], which, again, means "brown", not necessarily of "African descent". In the Amazon region, their "browness" come mostly from indigenous ancestors, not Africans. Even though many Pardos have African ancestors, some will have 0%, so to conclude that all of them are part of the "African diaspora" is original research. What these 2 users are trying to do is even worse than the one-drop rule, because the one-drop rule at least included as "African-American" people who actually had African ancestry, even if it was 10%, but to include all Pardos as of "African descent", even when some of them are 0% African, is non-sense. According to a genetic study, the average "Pardo" from the northern Brazilian state of Pará has a mean of only 10% of African ancestry (this is a "mean", which means that some people will score 0% African): Genetic ancestry of Pardo Brazilians (2011) State Indigenous African European Bahia 11,9% 28,8% 59,3% Rio Grande do Sul 15,4% 42,4% 42,2% Pará 20,9% 10,6% 68,6% Ceará 12,8% 14,4% 72,8% Rio de Janeiro 8,7% 23,8% 67,5% I have doubts that a population that score a mean of only 10% African and 90% non-African ancestry is eligible to be counted as part of the "African diaspora". How much "African" DNA does a population has to score to be part of the African diaspora? Which connections with Africa do people with African ancestors from 500 years ago have? Who can determinate that? If 10% or 1% of African admixture makes a population part of the "African diaspora", then the number for the United States must include most of the 65 million "Latinos" living there, because they also have African admixture[12], or many White Americans who also have African admixture[13] or populations from Northern Africa and the Middle East, such as Marrocans or Egyptians who also score Subsahaaran African admixture. Brazil is a mixed country. Many White Brazilians have African ancestry, and some Pardos have 0% African ancestry. The number of people with any African ancestry in Brazil is unknown, and any attempt to determine the number will fail. Xuxo (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Brazil has the largest Afro-descendant population of any country outside Africa, a well-documented fact confirmed by numerous reliable sources. Thefore, Brazil also has the largest Black population outside Africa. According to the most recent 2022 census, 20.7 million Brazilians identified as preto (black), while another 92.1 million identified as pardo (a term that translates to "brown" or "mixed race", though some scholars translate it as "mulatto" due the African ancestry present in this group). According to Datafolha, 40% of pardos also consider themselves negros (another term for Black in Portuguese) and nearly half would identify as black if they had to choose between "black" or "white", this would mean that approximately 32% of Brazilians are Blacks by self-identification. see source 3. The Opposition had previously tried to demote Brazil to second place below the US in the ranking of the infobox by arguing that there are only 20 million Black people in Brazil and excluding millions of pardos, despite most of them having African ancestry. However, the article focuses on the African diaspora, not just the Black diaspora. Black identity is subjective and varies across countries, making it an unreliable criterion for demographic analysis. Thus, presenting both the number of self-identified Blacks and the total number of Afro-descendants is better and follows established precedents in other articles. Excluding pardos contradicts numerous reliable sources and applies a double standard, as the mixed-race populations in other countries were not excluded in the infobox. No original research was conducted since the classification of pretos (blacks) and pardos (browns) as part of the Black population was established in Brazilian law under the Statute of Racial Equality of 2010. The fusion of pretos and pardos into negros (Blacks) is validated by the media, official bodies such as the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA), ministries, government departments, and international organizations. see, p 189 Despite some controversy (some self-declared pardos may be of predominately European and Amerindian ancestry), this classification is supported by many scholars and social scientists, which also use the terms Afro-descendent and Afro-Brazilian to refer to them.[source 3 again, p. 6] Furthermore, as shown by genetic studies, pardos generally have some level of African ancestry, even in the North where the indigenous contribution was greater.4, 5, 6, 7. It is worth remembering that the North is not a very populated region anyway, representing only 8.5% of the total Brazilian population, and that migrations from other parts of Brazil have contributed to the genetic makeup in the region reducing the indigenous contribution. Finally, the number 112 million (92 million self-declared pardos + 20 million self-declared pretos according to the census) is within the range of estimates for people of African descent in Brazil (at least 100 million, between 65 million and 120 million, 148 million). In principle, there does not appear to be any opposition to my proposal. Judging by these edits (see, see), the disagreement is about the maximum number of Afro-descendants that should be next to the number of self-declared Blacks. Personally, I am more in favor of maintaining the number of pardos for all the reasons stated above and although I am not necessarily against using an unofficial estimate, they are more complicated (there are more than one, there are no periodic updates like census data). Mawer10 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC) First statement by moderator (African diaspora) I believe Mawer10's suggestion is a reasonable middle ground. As we can't say a number for certain, we have to settle for a range. If I understood correctly, there's no disagreement about the minimum, but there is a disagreement about the maximum. What about using Mawer10's suggestion and adding a footnote explaining the situation? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (African diaspora) I had already agreed with @Mawer10's suggestion. Now first and foremost, what is a "pardo"? The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics itself defines it the following way here, p. 8: 4 - Parda. For people who declare themselves pardo or who identify as a mixture of two or more color or race options, including white, black, brown and indigenous. Two or more. Two. Not three, not four, two or more, which shows the institute itself recognizes not all pardos have african ancestry. As for the maximum range, the source given by user @Kyogul itself states not all pardos are mixed with Black, and thus the inclusion of all 92 million self declared pardo people in the infobox is incorrect. The source, a comment by the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte on the 2022 census results, explicitly says: "In total, 56.7% of Brazilians are non-white, of these, 55.5% are of African descent". Therefore, by doing simple maths you reach a number of approximately ~62 million people (the 20 million already included in the infobox plus 42 million pardos with african ancestry), as explicitly stated by the very source given by Kyogul. Why is it original research to include all 92 million self delcared pardos in the infobox based on genetic studies? It is original research because no source states that all 92 million self declared pardos have black/afro ancestry. You cannot derive the exact number of people from "genetic" studies, because they make no statement in this matter. And this is also ignoring the fact the user is combining different genetic studies to reach a conclusion not stated by any of them aka WP:SYNTH. Torimem (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC) This is, again, another personal interpretation of a source that says something different. The source from the University of Rio Grande do Norte is not saying 55.5% of the 56.7%, it's saying 55.5% of Brazilians in general. To attest to this, the percentages they listed for pretos and pardos adds cleanly to 55.5%, and if that is not enough, there are other sources that explicitly say the same thing by giving the total of pretos and pardos for afrodescendant figure (such as from Minority Rights) as well as the The Guardian, both which explicitly states a number to avoid confusion that explicitly tallies the population of both pretos and pardos. The latter two sources in particular state a specific number of 92 (+) million, so it's not original research, however that is from a census from a decade ago so the figure has increased since then as the Brazilian population has grown. This is a prime example of @Torimem misusing the term original research in bad faith Another thing as well, both @Torimem and @Xuxo have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the African diaspora means and believe that self-identifiying as black and being classified (or identifying as) an afrodescendant are the same thing. It is very comparable to the analogy of all roses are flowers but not all flowers are roses. All self-identified black people are afrodescendants, but not all afrodescendants identify as black. As said before, a substantial amount of white Brazilians have African ancestry, and obviously pardos. And even in the excerpt @Xuxo listed he shows still even in the region with the lowest Amount of African ancestry -- the north of Brazil -- that it is still a lot; over 10% is nothing to scoff at. Also, on the Brazilian census, there is no option for mestiço or caboclo. There are no official sources that can officially corroborate the true amount of these people, but genetic studies as well as census do not affirm this notion there are tens of millions of Brazilians that only have European and indigenous ancestry, even in the North of Brazil, so this instance of trying to bring that up as a talking point as it is not valid. Another point as well, being self identifying as mestiço/caboclo does not preclude one from having African ancestry, it simply means that they have more indigenous ancestry than African and/or visually look more indigenous than African. Kyogul (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Now another thing I'd like to point out: if you check the infobox, each country is being ordered by the total number of blacks/self declared blacks, this is why Colombia is below France, despite supposedly having 12 million as mixed, Ecuador being below Oman, Costa Rica below Russia. Then why apply a different standard for Brazil? There is no reason. This is why it should come below the USA, or else change the order criteria. Torimem (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC) I responses to this suggestion by Mawer10 in the article talk page and while I do not fundamentally disagree with it, I think to a degree it's already done. For the applicable countries where there is both a black and mixed population figure (such as Brazil, Colombia, DR, etc.) there is already a label that says which figure is for which so I don't think it needs an explanation exactly. If any more explanation is needed, there is the note section that can explain it more in detail. Perhaps I am having a hard time visualising it, but it can be done at least to try and we can see how it goes. I also think that there should be a section explaining the difference between afrodescendant versus black/self-identifying as black as it seems to cause confusion, but I haven't come up with a good explanation yet for that to send as a draft in the talk page (or here) Kyogul (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (African diaspora) If I understand correctly, the sources are (somewhat) disagreeing. University of Rio Grande do Norte (if we use Kyogul's interpretation), Minority Rights Group, and The Guardian state that there are 91, 97, and ~112 million Brazilians are of African ancestry, because they seem to assume that all pardos are of African ancestry. However, sources state (and I believe that there's no disagreement about this) that "pardo" includes people who aren't of African ancestry. So the question is: should they be included in the infobox? I think it's an acceptable compromise to include them in the infobox and add a footnote describing this situation; and by reading your comments, I think no one opposes this. Is anyone against this idea? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (African diaspora) The figures are different as Minority Rights Group (MRG) and The Guardian (TG) because they're using older censuses (2010) in addition to MRG using an estimate whereas TG is using absolute figures from the census as stated per source. The main purpose of the article was less about absolute figures and more so showcasing that pardos are considered afrodescendants in Brazil. The TG article is most important as it quotes IBGE talking about this phenomena of afrodescendants being a majority in the country. I read the source you linked and am not reading what you're talking about. If you could quote directly what you want to reference just to make sure I'm not missing anything that would be great. From what I read, it's talking more about disparities between blacks and pardos and even pardos depending on their own self classification, such as some "transitioning" to whiteness. This seems more of like a discussion of colourism which shows disparities within minority groups, but the source is talking about disparities as opposed to classification. There is a similar discussion here about American colourism and the economic, academic, and health outcome disparities between darker skinned and biracial/admixted African-Americans, and it briefly discusses the same thing amongst the Latino-American population too in which the excerpt you are quoting is talking about that rather than only about Brazilian identity (and what constitutes that) Kyogul (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC) I was referring to this part: Some researchers note that it is problematic to collapse browns into a collective black category because many Brazilians who self-identify as brown are of mixed European and indigenous ancestry, not African. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC) But as the genetic studies shown above, they are mixed with African ancestry, just less in proportion. There are no genetic studies that show widespread Brazilian populations that are only European and indigenous. More importantly though, in the TG article, the IBGE also commented how pardos are classified as afrodescendant in context of the topic, and I would think that their opinion has more authority than average considering they are carrying out the censuses Kyogul (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC) I also wanted to reiterate that my only thing against the footnotes in the infobox is that I envision it to be messy. Is there some sort of prototype that could be posted here to see what it could look like? From the brief proposal that @Mawer10 made about it I'm not opposed but it just seems more of like a side grade if anything. The figures for both mixed and self-identified black populations are already distinguished in the infobox and there is also a note section for any lengthier detailing that needs to be said as well, which I think it would be more appropriate there Kyogul (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC) By footnotes I meant explanatory footnotes. I'd leave it up to you guys to write the note that goes into further detail about this. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC) @Kovcszaln6: In Brazil's first census, conducted in 1872, pardos were people of mixed African and European ancestry. In the second census, in 1890, the term mestiço replaced pardo, but it referred to individuals of mixed Black and white ancestry. Meanwhile, Indigenous people and those of mixed Indigenous and European descent were categorized separately as caboclos. Between 1900 and 1930, Brazilian censuses did not record racial or color classifications. In 1940, the census reintroduced racial categories, establishing white, preto (black), pardo (brown), and yellow (the Indigenous category was added later in 1991). source 1A, pag. 41 In this census, the pardo category became a residual category because everyone who did not identify with the black, white or yellow categories was automatically classified as pardo. Pardo is still a residual category ("the rest"), but now you need to self-identify with it and has been understood as a category for mixed-race people in general. source 2A. "Generally, pardos are treated as part of the African-origin population along with the preto or black category of the Brazilian Census. However, there is some debate about whether all pardos have African origins. For example, assimilated indigenous people consider themselves pardo, although that may be a small part of the pardo population. Moreover, mixtures involving other groups, but not African, may also be considered pardo but that is also likely to be small considering the very large size of the African-origin population."source "The category “parda” has long been retained in official Brazilian and regional documents as 100% made up of Afro-descendants, together with the population identified as “preta”."p205 "The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and the Brazilian Census use two categories, preta and parda — roughly translating to "dark-skinned black" and "brown" — both of which identify African descendants. Researchers, technicians, and social actors, however, have found these categories to be so arbitrary and subjective that they are almost meaningless. For this reason, a consensus has developed around the technique of adding together the preta (dark-skinned black) and parda (brown) categories, the sum of which constitutes the category of negros (blacks). This group is also referred to as Afro-Brazilians or African descendants. Economist Roberto Borges Martins, a senior scholar in this field, observes that usage of this composite category in demographic and economic studies "has been consecrated by scholars and specialists in race relations... the homogeneity observed, in several different thematic areas, in the indicators for these two groups reinforces the presumption of the adequacy of this aggregation..."" source, p44 "The census category pardo includes African descendants and other racially mixed people including people of indigenous and European ancestry. Theoretically any Brazilian could choose this category, including those of Middle Eastern descent. However, researchers commonly understand the census category pardo to denote racially mixed people of African descent."source Mawer10 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (African diaspora) Thank you for your answers. If I understood correctly, no one is against Mawer10's suggestion, so we've got consensus for that, right? Are there any other issues? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Third statements by editors (African diaspora) References 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.

The Left (Germany)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ModernManifestDestiny on 20:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute The Left (Germany) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ModernManifestDestiny (talk · contribs) Robby.is.on (talk · contribs) Johnbod (talk · contribs) Simonm223 (talk · contribs) GlowstoneUnknown (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) Manuductive (talk · contribs) JacktheBrown (talk · contribs) Dispute overview (Edited summary, should be final copy) I started off by adding that Die Linke is far left in the lead paragraph, because on the talk page there was discussion but 4 sources were provided to back up that statement. Dispute started after I made bold edit, reverted by Johnbod (talk · contribs) who started right off with violating WP:NPA, asking if I "even spoke any German" (suggesting that because I don't I should not be allowed to edit the article), and claimed that I get my news from Fox News. I am also, of course, aware that Macron and Trudeau are not members of Die Linke, assuming that I was suggesting they were is insanity. I then provided an academic source to add to the four newspaper articles, which GlowstoneUnknown (talk · contribs) and IP user immediately called bias, they did not provide evidence even when prompted and I have found none with my own research. Finally what seems to be Simon's main point is I have not been following WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY (spelled as it should be, 'lede' is improper English), however LFB is a guideline, not a policy. I am not required to follow it, and it certainly is not grounds for a revert. What seems to be happening here (and on most socialism-related articles) is this specific group of editors (Simon, Robby, John, Glowstone, TFD) 'protect' these articles from negative edits, as I (and JacktheBrown (talk · contribs)) have seen this exact type of aggressive reverting and hostile tone used by these exact same users on Right wing populism and Brothers of Italy. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [14] [15] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Mediate. Summary of dispute by Robby.is.on Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Johnbod Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The formula for the lead description that Modern Manifest Destiny has several times reverted to leaves the text as "is a left-wing extremist democratic socialist political party in Germany." Contrary to what he claims, I have said in the discussion, that I might be happy with "far-left", but not as part of the contradictory and confusing jumbo sandwich description "left-wing extremist democratic socialist political party". What are readers to make of that? It is easy to reference that they are "left-wing", but "extremist" is a different matter. In last month's German general election they won just over 10% of the parliamentary seats, which makes it much harder to say they are "extremist". None of these terms have generally agreed definitions. Does the "John" in his "What seems to be happening here (and on most socialism-related articles) is this specific group of editors (Simon, Robby, John, Glowstone, TFD) ..." refer to me (and if not me, then who)? I have never edited the other articles, and my over-280,000 edits must include only a couple of dozen of articles on political parties. This untruth is pretty typical of his way of carrying on - see the edit summaries on his edits to the article, like ""Clarified that Die Linke is a far left party, any reverts will be marked as vandalism as this has already been discussed many many times in the talk page, and it is clear that this designation is correct." - untrue in various respects. If you want to see "aggressive reverting and hostile tone" his various edits provide plenty of that, and I agree with several other points by Simonm223 just below. Unfortunately at present the article talk seems to have few if any editors (including me) who speak German well and actually follow German politics closely; it would be worth asking for some attention from the German wikiproject. Like most large political parties, and perhaps more than most, "The Left" is in practice a coalition of various factions between them covering a wide range of views. The sections lower down seem to me to do a reasonable job explaining this, and the lead description should imo be expanded to introduce this, but not just by introducing an adjectival pile-up that will just leave readers confused. What does his "I am also, of course, aware that Macron and Trudeau are not members of Die Linke, assuming that I was suggesting they were is insanity" relate to? Did anyone suggest that? Some of his comments, such as: "they are 1: a far left party, in that their views differ significantly from mainstream leftism (they are socialists)..." suggest a pretty complete lack of knowledge of European politics", which (together with his very combative approach) greatly reduces his usefulness in discussing this subject. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC) I have commented saying that I would be fine leaving it as 'Far-Left', which you ignored. I simply piped it to left wing extremism because the article Far left quotes "Far-left politics, also known as extreme left politics or left-wing extremism" and it is used interchangeably. Regarding if you have an issue with the grammar of the sentence, you are still free to fix it, but "reverting the lot" is not fixing it, it is removing it, there is a clear difference. Regarding their seats won in the election, AfD is often called an extremist/far right (which are also used interchangeably) party by users (including users like TheFourDeuces), and AfD has won over 20% of the seats in the Bundestag, and they are still coined as extremists, so Die Linke is subject to being regarded as such; the "normalcy" of the party does not make it moderate. Of course "John" refers to you. I was specifically mentioning you due to your involvement in the Right-wing populism talk page, but I may be mistaken I have not double checked. You comment that the article at present does not have many German speakers, but your first comment criticized me for not speaking German, inciting that I should be fluent in order to edit (despite not being fluent yourself), this is contradictory. Regardless, you cannot "gatekeep" an entire article from non-German speaking editors. Die Linke is not a coalition, even in practice, it is a political party. Are you confusing Die Linke with the Traffic light coalition? Yes, Simon assumed for some reason when I brought Macron and Trudeau up that I thought they were German, which is not what I meant, I don't see the connection there. How is my comment about them being socialists "reduce my usefulness"? first off, essentially calling me useless is grounds for WP:NPA, secondly my comment is a fact, they openly admit they are socialists. I was simply stringing out why I thought the label far left is appropriate. I can explain it again if needed. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC) a) You are of course mistaken, as I told you. I've never edited, or even looked at, that article. b) The point about the "socialists" is that you are clearly unaware that very many large centre-left parties in Europe are happy to call or refer to themselves as "socialist", which, unlike in the US, is not a scare-word. That you don't know this is further evidence of your unfamiliarity with European politics, and insistence of using the terminology and conceptual framework of the American right to describe it. c) All large and long-established political parties are frequently described by commentators as coalitions between internal factions - the US Democrats and Republicans are certainly no exception to this. d) AfD did not quite win over 20% of the seats in the Bundestag - 19.5% in the end. Those are all the points I can be bothered to reply to - please don't over-interpret my comments and those of others. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC) There is 0 reason to say I am "of course" mistaken, that gives an odd implication that you just assume whatever I say is false, which is of course unproductive. What does the fact that many leftist parties in Europe identify as socialist have to do with anything? Just because it is normal does not mean that it is any less radical. Also, if they call themselves socialist, they are socialist, they are not "calling themselves socialist but not actually, they mean something else unrelated", this is obscene speculation, at the very least provide some sources so I could begin to consider this insanity. Are you aware of what rounding is? 19.5% was rounded to 20%, this is basic math. Regardless, how is that related? It would just seem to me you are trying to pull the conversation off topic. If you can only "bother" to reply to some of my responses I think it would just be better if you simply stopped responding and brought your odd ideas upon some other poor soul, you clearly lack the dedication to produce meaningful replies, but seem happy to comment childish responses. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Simonm223 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am a bit confused about some items related to the formulation of this DRN case. There are actually several other parties that are equivalently involved to myself. These include @GlowstoneUnknown:, @The Four Deuces:, @Manuductive:, @JacktheBrown: and at least one IP user. I am uncertain about the appropriate etiquette around notifications here but I have pinged these additional parties as they were also participants in the article talk in question. The argument against inclusion in the lede largely stems from WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY - previously I raised that the body of the article is quite nuanced regarding the political position of this party and that reducing this to far-left in the lede or in associated infoboxes would be an over-simplification of a relatively nuanced academic discussion. ModernManifestDestiny incorrectly referred to this as WP:CIRCULAR. In the same post they also engaged in a personal attack against me, calling me a Tankie[16]. They have also referred to other editors as low IQ [17]. There are also source quality issues as ModernManifestDestiny wants to give greater relative weight to newspapers rather than academic sources. As they seem not to fully grasp WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY they regularly under-state the number of RSes at play, disregarding those already in the article and focusing only on novel sources presented at article talk. This has led to them arguing that their four newspapers should outdo "a few lines" of a source that was discussed for talk as reinforcement of existing sources. They eventually presented a single academic source which they claim supports their position although I was on vacation when they presented it and have not had the chance to read it yet. Frankly their lack of politeness toward myself and others at the article talk page has not motivated me to make reading the paper they presented a high priority compared to other activities on Wikipedia. The conversation at article talk has also been made more difficult by some misunderstandings of Wikipedia article talk spaces by Modern Manifest Destiny. They have repeatedly accused an IP user with a rotating IP address of being a sock [18] have complained that multiple editors have reverted their WP:BOLD edit when they reached the WP:3RR brightline for edit-warring to reinsert it over multiple opposing editors [19], they have engaged in WP:NOTFORUM replies suggesting that Macron and Trudeau (neither of whom are members of Die Linke nor even from Germany) are secret communists [20] and generally seem to be approaching this argument from a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC) On small addendum. It should be noted that neither Right wing populism nor Brothers of Italy are pages that have anything to do with socialism. They both deal with far-right groups. This makes MMD's claim that we are protecting most socialism-related articles something of a non-sequitur. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Most right wing populism groups oppose socialism, as well as Brothers of Italy, I am not surprised to see openly pro-socialist users like GlowstoneUnknown pushing negative edits upon these pages. This is more so what I meant. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "I am not surprised to see openly pro-socialist users like GlowstoneUnknown pushing negative edits upon these pages." See these two threads: User talk:GlowstoneUnknown#Politics and User talk:GlowstoneUnknown#Edit war. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC) You are aware that editors are ALLOWED to have opinions, right? By those same standards you thrust upon me in that thread, almost the entirety of MMD's edit history shouldn't be allowed. What matters as an editor is a NPOV in the contributions, which isn't a problem when following reliable sources and reaching consensus before making radical changes. Which is all immaterial to the dispute resolution, the fact is that the article as it stands has the perfect amount of nuance in describing the party's political position and that MMD's bold edits were all reverted rightfully and shouldn't be reinstated, as they're against both RS and consensus. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC) They are not against RS, me and other users in favor of changes have produced a total of 2 academic sources and 4 media sources, in opposition to 1 academic source. This should 110% be enough to refute the claim that Die Linke is moderate. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC) In opposition to 4 academic sources, perhaps it wasn't obvious, but I provided 3 new ones in the discussion thread. There are plenty more I assure you, but those 3 were the ones I found within 15 minutes. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC) You provided three sources that verified that Die Linke is on the left-wing spectrum, however a far-left political party will always be on the left-wing spectrum, but not all left-wing parties are far-left (obviously). Therefore you have inadvertently proved nothing as having the label left-wing does not in any way mean it then cannot also be far-left in nature. "There are plenty more I assure you" Don't 'assure' me, you need to provide actual sources, not just tell me there are sources somewhere on the internet. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC) And as the article says, different journalists writing for the same news publications use different labels to describe the party. And per WP:NEWSORG Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, so the 4 journalistic sources don't outweigh the scholarly sources on the same topic and should be treated with far greater scrutiny. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC) That is exactly what my two academic sources are for: to counter the opposing academia. You treat these media sources as useless, this is not the case, they still give value as sources. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Please, out of curiosity, provide some diffs that constitute "negative edits" that aren't supported by sources. Accusing other editors of bias without receipts is poor form. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC) The Left (Germany) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Apologies, should be fixed. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Comment Could everybody please move their replies out of my summary of dispute section and into their own? I'm pretty sure this is breaking the expected format for DR/N and will likely just give whatever volunteer has to come and work on this a headache. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Die Linke) This is a preliminary inquiry to determine whether DRN is a workable forum for any dispute, and a preliminary statement about the rules. I don't know if DRN is a workable forum because of the large number of editors. With a large number of editors, sometimes RFC is the only workable means for dispute resolution. However, if an RFC is in order, I will try to assist in formulating the RFC question to be concise and neutral. Since Die Linke has its historical roots in East Germany, this dispute has to do with Eastern Europe, so that this is a contentious topic based on the ArbCom ruling on Eastern Europe. If moderated discussion is in order, we will use DRN Rule D. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Overly long statements may help the poster to feel better, but may not communicate what the dispute is about. Do each of the editors want to engage in moderated discussion about a contentious topic? If so, please state, concisely, what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. It isn't necessary to move any statements, because we will start over. That is, I won't pay much attention to the above statements. State concisely, again if you already did make a concise statement, what the issue is about article content. Are there any other questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Statement 0.1 by possible moderator (Die Linke) I will add or restate a few points. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Those two instructions are the same because they need repeating. Do not cast aspersions. All of you have been given the required notice about a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Statement 0.3 by possible moderator (Die Linke) It appears that one of the issues, or maybe the only issue, has to do with the characterization of Die Linke and its ideology and policies, in particular whether to describe the party as far left. If that is either the only content issue or the principal content issue, an RFC should be used. So please also state whether the main issue, or one of the main issues, is how to characterize the ideology of the party. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Die Linke) Zeroth statement by Simonm223 Honestly I'm quite receptive to your suggestion that an RfC would be a more appropriate dispute resolution mechanism in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Yes the only content dispute is whether to describe the party as far-left in the lede and / or the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC) I would be willing to formulate an RfC for this but I don't know the appropriate procedure for whether to do so while it is open on DR/N. Advice would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by GlowstoneUnknown I fully agree with the sentiment that this is the wrong forum for this discussion, an RfC would be a much more suitable solution. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by Johnbod I agree an Rfc would be best (I suggested this in the edit summary of my first intervention here). Several draft phrasings for the whole sentence(s) in the lead should be put forward - the lead is pretty short here and some expansion would be better. I don't actually agree that "the only content dispute is whether to describe the party as far-left in the lede and / or the infobox" is true. The overall description is the issue here, as should be clear from the to-and-fro above. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Simon's draft Rfc below is far too short and simplistic, & won't resolve matters, I fear. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Fwiw, I don't agree that the Arbcom rulings on "Eastern Europe" are relevant here. The Arbcom page is 127k bytes long, and the only references to Germany are two diffs from Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Die Linke) It appears that we agree that RFC is the way to resolve this dispute. It is my understanding that at least one editor,User:Simonm323 has a draft RFC. If that is correct, or if any editor has a draft RFC, please provide a link to it so that we can review it before it is launched. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Looking at this edit and this edit, we may need to cite reliable sources and seek consensus. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 12:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Die Linke) First statement by Simonm223 I'm putting this in with incomplete formatting but here's the draft: Header level 2: RfC - Should the party be described as far-left in the lede or in the infobox? (RFC politics tag goes here) Should Die Linke be described as far-left in the lede or in the infobox? A) In both lede and infobox B) In the lede only C) In the infobox only D) In neither the lede nor the infobox Header level 3: Poll Header level 3: Discussion I think this is appropriately neutral and includes all the preferred options for this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC) I welcome proposals for improving this draft in light of @Johnbod's concern. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Die Linke) I have edited the proposed RFC by Simonm323 and have saved it in a temporary file, Talk:The Left (Germany)/Draft RFC 1. Comments are welcome. Please do not vote in it, because it is not a live RFC. Other editors are invited to propose alternate RFCs. Johnbod says that it is far too short and simplistic. Does that mean that there is a content issue beyond the labeling of the party? If so, what is the additional content issue? Otherwise, what else should be included in the RFC? Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC) Sigh! I think you said somewhere you weren't going to read the preliminary statements above. Might I suggest you do so? You won't be much use as mediator otherwise. The draft Rfc just seeks yes/no opinions as to whether "far left" should be used in the lead and the infobox. I think in fact all parties, including me, have said they do not object as such to the term being used. But how it is used, what the surrounding sentence is, where it is linked, what adjectives are used with it ("extreme" etc), opens up a whole row of cans of worms, which an Rfc should attempt to set out for people to decide upon. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Oh, well, I see a new face on the article talk, so not a party named here, has just posted saying they do object to "far left". Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC) I think the comment from BobFromBrockley is a good summary of previous consensus based on the reading of reliable sources. I think in fact all parties, including me, have said they do not object as such to the term being used. That does not match my perception. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC) I agree, it seems unhelpful for Johnbod to just state that the draft is too short but decline to help improve it, I think it is fine as is. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Statement 2.1 by Moderator (Die Linke) An editor disagrees with my statement that the former East Germany is covered by the contentious topic designation for Eastern Europe. On the one hand, we can reasonably disagree. On the other hand, it makes very little difference if the discussion of this topic and the editing of the article are collaborative. What a contentious topic designation does is to make it easier for administrators to sanction an editor who is disruptive. If the editors are collaborative rather than disruptive, it doesn't matter whether contentious topic sanctions are available. An editor who wishes to ask whether eastern Germany is a conteintious topic may ask the Arbitration Clarifications and Amendments. If the ArbCom disagrees with my interpretation that Eastern Europe includes East Germany, then the effect is that punishing or restricting disruptive editors is more difficult. The assumption of good faith is that all of the editors in a dispute are at least trying to edit properly. I will assume that East Germany is in Eastern Europe and is a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC) I don't know if I can comment as an uninvolved editor, but even the East Germany article says it is a country in Central Europe. Considering discussion about contemporary Die Linke to be part of eastern europe topic area is a big stretch. The contentious topic designation is "Eastern Europe/Balkans (broadly construed)". I don't think the broadest definition of "Balkans" includes East Germany. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Indeed! But East Germany was whatever and wherever it was - it ceased to exist 35 years ago! I'm very tempted to ask the Arbitration Clarifications and Amendments to rule on what seems to me to be an absurd claim. Die Linke is a German political party that post-dates the demise of the DDR, and stands all over Germany. While most of its votes come from the old DDR, by no means all do, & it did rather well eg in Hamburg & Bremen in last month's elections. It's rather as if the American Civil War had been deemed a contentious topic by ARBCOM (perhaps it has been), and it was claim that this embraced disputes about the contemporary Republic Party. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Okay? So it can be put into the central European category? You are making a big fuss about something that will barely change anything. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Die Linke) Second statement by Simonm223 Just for the record I do also object to inclusion of the term "far left" in the lede or in the infobox because I feel like the lede is inappropriate for the level of nuance necessary to parse whether the term is correct based on the reliable sources currently in the body for the question. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC) I also agree with the position put forward by BobFromBrockley at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC) Third statement by possible moderator (Die Linke) One editor developed a draft RFC, and I worked it into a form where I think it is ready to be moved to Talk: The Left (Germany). Another editor has said that the draft RFC is too short and simplistic, and will not resolve the issues. I asked for alternate RFCs and for comments about the RFC, and I don't see any comments or answers. If there are no useful comments within 24 to 48 hours, I will copy the draft RFC to the article talk page and activate it. Some editors have on the other hand distracted themselves over an issue that should not matter if they plan to be civil and to cooperate with dispute resolution, and I have confidence that the editors here are acting in good faith and plan to comply with guidelines including civility. The significance of a contentious topic designation is that editors who edit disruptively may be subject to special sanctions and special remedies. It shouldn't matter if the German Democratic Republic is a contentious topic if you plan to edit collaboratively. Any editor who wants to submit a Request for Clarification to the Arbitration Committee about the German Democratic Republic, which was a Soviet Union puppet state, is welcome to submit such a request. It should not affect this dispute unless someone plans to engage in civil POV pushing or incivility. We should be trying to solve the content issue rather than arguing about what the sanctions are for disruptive editing. Are there any comments, suggestions, or questions about an RFC? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC) The distraction over ArbCom and East Germany was most unwisely introduced by yourself, so we know who to blame for that! If I do submit a request for clarification to them, it will of course be about the modern Federal Republic, not the German Democratic Republic. I have explained twice above here what we do need in the Rfc for it to be useful, but I don't have any of the time, expertise or interest to produce an alternative draft Rfc this week, setting out some options for the whole lead characterisation. What we actually need here is editors who know something about, and take an interest in, German politics, and speak reasonable German. Unfortunately I don't think any of us here now fit that bill, and we are like a bunch of (say) Koreans arguing about Trump or Vance. Perhaps we should ask the German project? Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC) I live in Germany, German is my primary language and I follow politics here closely. But I don't feel like setting up an RFC. As far as I see it, the editors wanting to change the article status quo have failed to show that, quoting Bobfrombrockley, "the preponderance of reliable sources say [far left] and it’s not seriously contested in the literature". Robby.is.on (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC) No questions. Johnbod and Robby seem to simply be intent on being disruptful. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Die Linke) Third statement by Simonm223 The editor who originally brought this forward to DR/N hasn't edited anything in a week and hasn't responded to this dispute in nine days. I know that there's no deadline for Wikipedia and I hesitate to act too quickly but I guess the question is whether there remains a dispute? I think the lede is fine at status quo. So does Robby.Is.On and BobFromBrockley (who is not a party to the dispute). I'm OK with my RfC going forward if it's needed or with someone else taking a crack at improving the RfC but, if nobody is particularly inclined to mess with the lede in its present form, and if the original person who felt dispute resolution is needed has decided to take a wikibreak I wonder if we're not all kind of wasting time here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC) I have no problem with an RfC if it's decided that we should in fact have one, but I don't really think we need it, there's plenty of consensus for the status quo and scant sources against it. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC) This is just turning into back and forth banter. I say there is enough sources, you say there is not. This is, of course, unproductive. That is why an RfC is needed. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Well "The editor who originally brought this forward to DR/N" has returned to comment here. I can live with the present lead text, though I think it can be improved. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC) I will brush over your nosing, Simon, perhaps patience is not your strong suit. For your information, I was camping. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC) I would encourage you to remain civil and avoid personal attacks, thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC) I would encourage you to exercise patience. Not everyone has as much free time to edit articles as you seem to. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Fourth statement by possible moderator (Die Linke) There seems to be a rough consensus at this point that the article can be left alone, and that there is no need for an RFC. If there is little or no interest in an RFC, and if there are no other content issues, we can close this DRN case. Are the editors willing to close this case? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC) I'm willing to close it. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC) I'm ok with closing it, but is the editor who opened it? Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Concur with Johnbod - I have no problem with closing but I'm worried that the filing editor may disagree. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Unless I'm mistaken, regular consensus rules still apply and unanimity is not required, please correct me if I'm wrong however. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC) I still disagree. There is considerable sources for calling Die Linke far-left, these sources include academic backing, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, so it should be irrelevant if the majority of users on this DR/N disagree with me. In opposition the only source was provided by Simonm223 was a single academic source, and in this academia the author only briefly touches on Die Linke. I do not see how this is insufficient for an unopposed change and/or an RfC, because mass media agreement and academia backing should always trump 1 academic source, no? ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Four of those are still only news sources and one of those is still an academic source written by a biased author. I reiterate my support for closing this thread. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC) News sources are reliable? What is wrong with them? They are less reliable than academic sources yes, but that is no grounds for simply discarding them, these are all reliable and trusted news outlets (France24, Euractiv, WP:RSPVOA, WP:GUARDIAN). Relating to this "bias author" I have asked you to back up your claim that the author is bias with sourcing here[21], which you ignored, so you are essentially just making rudderless claims. Naturally of course, I am going to ignore your claim until it becomes an actually founded and sourced statement. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC) I've said my piece already, I won't repeat myself, I hope this gets closed soon so more time isn't wasted. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC) That is not how discussion works. You cannot just say "these are unreliable sources" without backing up your claim and expect anyone to take you seriously, you are just contributing unhelpful comments. At this point your comments are conforming to WP:IDL. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC) I was referring to the points I made in the other discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC) I addressed most of this in my original summary of dispute on this page. I am afraid we're just going around in circles here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC) WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is a suggestion not a policy, deleting my edits in an attempt to enforce this nonexistent rule that LFB must be followed is counter-productive. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC) I'm afraid we are, @Robert McClenon, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd close this discussion sooner rather than later. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC) All I ask is that you back up your claims with evidence is that too much to ask? You seem incapable regardless of doing this but rushing to close the DR/N makes no sense, there is still discussion ongoing. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC) There is no meaningful discussion ongoing, only repetition. It's going nowhere and there's consensus established for the status quo (or at the very least no consensus established to change the status quo, particularly to reinstate your previous edits). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC) How is that relevant? You claim my sources are unreliable, but refuse to provide evidence, this is unrelated to your other points. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC) I did not do that. Please review what I actually said in my summary of dispute regarding sources. I don't feel like repeating myself ad-nauseam. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC) this is indented for Glowstone not you ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Does it matter? If your reasoning has been shown to be faulty, does it matter by whom? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Of course it matters because you claimed that my sources are faulty but did not provide evidence, and Simon did not. Simon saying he did not is true, because he in fact did not say anything of it but I am not talking about him so it is a moot point. I do, however, still await evidence from you that my sources are faulty. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Die Linke) Fifth statement by possible moderator (Die Linke) It appears that, because some editors disagreed with whether Die Linke is a contentious topic, some editors have decided to ignore the other provisions of DRN Rule D and are engaging in back-and-forth discussion, some of which borders on being uncivil. Then read DRN Rule A and abide by it. Back-and-forth discussion is not permitted. It appears that most editors think that the article can be left alone and the discussion closed, but a few editors would like to designate the party as far-left. There is a draft RFC on that question. We do not need a local rough consensus to launch the RFC. Any editor has the right to launch an RFC. RFC guidelines call for discussion before the RFC, and we have had discussion. Any editor who wants to launch the RFC can do so. As a service to the editors, I am willing to launch the RFC on request. (I have more experience with RFCs than most of you do, because disputes at DRN often go down the RFC road.) If anyone wants a different RFC drafted, we can do that. If we are divided between editors who don't think that an RFC is needed and editors who want an RFC, I will launch the RFC after we finish any tweaking. Do any editors want an RFC? If so, do you want the current draft RFC? We don't need a majority of the participants here to use an RFC. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC) I'm not in favour of an RfC, I'd participate in one should consensus be formed in favour of it, but I don't consider it to be necessary. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Die Linke) Fifth statement by Simonm223 I am entirely OK with us bringing the RfC live. I have not because I was expecting revisions to its language. If there are none... Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Sixth statement by possible moderator (Die Linke) It appears that one editor has said that they are willing to have an RFC, but no editor has said that they want an RFC. If no editor specifically wants an RFC, we will not have an RFC, and this dispute will be closed. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Die Linke) Sixth statement by Simonm223 I will not be participating in this dispute resolution process any further. Please feel free to use my RfC draft or to modify it as you see fit should consensus arise that an RfC is an appropriate way forward. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Sixth statement by GlowstoneUnknown Ditto to Simon's 6th statement, any meaningful discussion to be had here has petered out and an RfC isn't necessary as consensus is established. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:32, 31 March 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.

Markov chain

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by EricoLivingstone on 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Markov chain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved EricoLivingstone (talk · contribs) Malparti (talk · contribs) XOR’easter (talk · contribs) JBL (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am requesting assistance in resolving a long-standing dispute regarding the removal of a peer-reviewed academic source from the Markov chain article. The source in question is: Gagniuc, P.A. (2017). Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-38755-8. This book: Is published by Wiley, a major academic publisher Has over 1,000 scholarly citations Contains formal definitions, historical context, and reproducible code implementations of Markov chains Despite fulfilling WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria, the book has been repeatedly removed by users such as Malparti, XOR’easter, and JBL, citing vague issues such as: “poor writing” “no real theory” “badly-worded boring code” “author does not understand the basics” These are subjective assessments, not grounded in policy. No secondary academic sources have been provided to dispute the book’s reliability or correctness. Additionally, there is documented evidence of editorial coordination and long-standing bias: In this edit request from June 2024, XOR’easter states: “As Malparti said...”, echoing his language and judgment ➤ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Markov_chain#c-XOR'easter-20240630181800-XOR'easter-20240613205100 I have raised the issue on the Talk page and proposed reinsertion with a neutral citation, but these editors have opposed inclusion regardless of phrasing or context. I would appreciate: A clear ruling on whether the Wiley book meets WP:RS / WP:SCHOLARSHIP Input on whether the pattern of subjective dismissal constitutes POV-pushing or coordinated editorial bias Guidance on whether this dispute should be escalated to ANI or Arbitration Thank you. ~~ EricoLivingstone (talk) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Markov_chain#c-EricoLivingstone-20250331121600-Proposal_to_reintroduce_peer-reviewed_source_(Wiley,_2017) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe this dispute can be resolved by confirming whether the Wiley source (Gagniuc, 2017) meets Wikipedia’s reliable source standards (WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP). I have proposed neutral phrasing for its inclusion, but some editors have opposed it based on subjective opinions and unsourced claims. I’m requesting a neutral evaluation and help in reaching consensus. Summary of dispute by Malparti Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by XOR’easter Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JBL The correct resolution of this dispute is that the forum-shopping disruptive filer should be blocked. (I understand that is not an action that will be taken here, I am just suggesting that DRN volunteers not waste their valuable time with this inanity.) --JBL (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC) I’m surprised by the hostility in JBL’s comment above. DRN is a collaborative venue for resolving content disputes, not a place for accusations or name-calling. I submitted this request in good faith to clarify the applicability of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If any editor believes the source fails those policies, they’re welcome to provide specific, cited objections — not personal attacks. I trust DRN volunteers to see through such rhetoric and focus on the content and policies. EricoLivingstone (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Markov chain discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Amiga

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dlucks on 17:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Amiga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've been trying to correct misinformation on this page. Since I worked there, indeed I'm already mentioned in the wikipedia Amiga webpage, I should be able to contribute to this page and correct the facts. MrOllie keeps reverting changes with some sort of reasoning. I've tried to conform to the request the MrOllie states, and in the last undo he states that even though I've now corrected the previously untrue information, my accurate information, backed up by a published account of the 1984 CES is trivial. A single editor should not decide what is trivia unless they have detailed knowledge of the subject. Indeed most of wikipedia info could be considered trivia to many people. I suggest that other editors be allowed to participate in this discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? At least one other editor has stated their support of my position. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe additional editors need to participate in this discussion. MrOllie is not an expert on the Amiga subject and I believe he should not be allowed to make changes unless his changes are discussed in the talk section. I've always thought that wikipedia is the place to go for accurate information, indeed google seems to reference it with its AI bot. However the wikipedia Amiga page has much inaccurate information. I was the second software engineer to join Amiga. I joined in August of 1983. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Amiga discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 30 March 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.

Political marriages in India

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by RevolutionaryPatriot on 05:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Political marriages in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RevolutionaryPatriot (talk · contribs) HistorianAlferedo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:HistorianAlferedo seeks to feature invented cheap website AI generated stories in an extended protected historic article that is meant to feature well reputed publications or even some modern scholarship, which the article already does with the exception of this edit. The User is insisting on this inclusion, usually such edits would be dealt with the IP being banned, or page protection raised. But this User has an account and is able to edit on extended-protected article, including repeatedly disrupting it. Hence i'm having to start a dispute resolution request on a matter of article disruption. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Political marriages in India#Inclusion of Mythical history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Stop him for adding it again. Summary of dispute by HistorianAlferedo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Political marriages in India discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by AnExtraEditor on 03:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Canadian Indian residential school gravesites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved AnExtraEditor (talk · contribs) TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'm trying to make improvements to the article, but a specific editor (@TarnishedPath) keeps blank slate reverting and refusing to engage in edit explanations or requests by citing any policy possible. Recently it's been consensus, but motivated reasoning has shown it can be anything. I don't want to report the user, I just want some impartial outside opinion on how to improve the article, and where my edits need fixing or improving or have issues. I'm not getting that from the editor in question, although others have been helpful, they are just less active and the # of editors is so small. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites#Euro-Canadian_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites#Separating_edits_w_no_contentions_for_quicker_implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites#Edits_to_lead;_status_quo;_clarity/accuracy_regarding_RSs How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? just need someone willing to engage with my edits, and perhaps encouraging the other editor to do so instead of blank slate reverting. Summary of dispute by TarnishedPath Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Canadian Indian residential school gravesites discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC) apologies, I didn't know about this. I can do that now. AnExtraEditor (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC) I wonder if a more-or-less-voluntary interaction ban may help; the interactions between AnExtraEditor and TarnishedPath, especially at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites § Euro-Canadian culture, seem to have been rather unproductive. I didn't read through it all, but it seems that Moxy managed to mediate there, something he shouldn't have had to, after escalatory requests for administrative intervention from both sides. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC) I'm open to suggestions on how best to deal with TarnishedPath. I figure they've violated behavior policy, but I'd rather not be punitive (despite them trying to get me blocked, personal attacks, etc.). I'd just like an impartial set of eyes to engage with edits. it's exhausting being repeatedly reverted without any engagement. Per disruptive editing page: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. AnExtraEditor (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC) Being "open to suggestions on how best to deal with TarnishedPath" says more about you than them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC) How so? Could you understand how that could read that as passive aggressive? I'd prefer if an uninvolved editor help us out here, as you were the admin who blocked me previously at this same user's request (alongside another), and given I appealed that block arguing against its' legitimacy, I think it's reasonable to assume any admin would not appreciate the claim they broke policy. I realize it's unreasonable to read all the interactions, but the totality of them should show exactly what I've listed above about the user. They've engaged with other editors they disagree with the same way, using personal attacks and refusal to engage substantively. Moxy has been good giving specifics. So has @5225C I appreciate your idea just not to engage with them. I recently have had some progress by thanking them for their making their opinion very clear, but requesting other editors to respond. So maybe that will work. AnExtraEditor (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC) Pinging @Moxy, @Pbritti and @Simonm223 as involved editors. TarnishedPathtalk 00:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Something that should be able to be worked out on the talk page..... the problem is when there's big changes involving multiple paragraphs.... we have to deal with sentence after sentence not just the paragraph as a whole. Implementation of lead changes for contentious topics should be made step by step if there's is disputes or pushback over the changes. In general editors are not to incline to explain why each sentence in multiple paragraphs is a problem. Moxy🍁 00:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC) In response to a report at WP:ANEW, I blocked TarnishedPath for 24 hours and AnExtraEditor indefinitely. I hadn't seen the new edit warring yet when I made the suggestion above or I'd have blocked earlier. This is also leading to nowhere if both editors constantly see the other one as a problem and now even resort to forum shopping or whatever that ANEW report was. I wouldn't support an unblock of AnExtraEditor without an interaction ban towards TarnishedPath, and it's unclear how likely they'd comply with unblock conditions at all. There is no way to hold a dispute resolution here at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC) I gather that this is largely resolved now with the block of AnExtraEditor. For my part, I do not think that TarnishedPath is blameless here. At least when I joined the discussion many of their comments were dismissive and pointy, and they repeatedly failed to engage with the substance of the suggestions put forward by AnExtraEditor. Supporting the status quo of the article is fine, but stonewalling discussion by saying "no" without further elaboration is not helpful or productive. To TarnishedPath's credit, their contributions to the discussion became much more extensive, but I've largely dropped out of it as I didn't think it was going anywhere. As for the block of AnExtraEditor, while the constant back and forth edits aren't helpful I don't believe an indefinite block is a great resolution. I think they're clearly trying to contribute constructively and are frustrated by having to litigate every single edit (but that's how it is in contentious topics). I would support an interaction ban between the two, and perhaps a direction for AnExtraEditor to spend some time editing in uncontentious areas before returning to this subject. A 6 month topic ban might be generally agreeable? 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Quoting Simon here: It's very clear there is not consensus for "and society" without qualifying whose society is in question. That occured in the discussion at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites#Smaller Edits. Given that 4 editors had expressed opposition to AnExtraEditor's edits, to varying degrees and that they wrote the following in talk (given the loadedness of the term and previous objections on political grounds to an otherwise acceptable straightforward edit) seemingly motivated to push a certain POV, it's entirely no surprise that I would have not addressed their continued assumptions of bad faith. Even now on their talk page they are making reference to discussions they are having with other editors by email and accusing me of POV pushing. If there was to be an interaction ban, as a condition of an unblock, then it should only be a one way IBAN, and as you suggest a TBAN from North American indigenous peoples. TarnishedPathtalk 05:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC) To be clear, the comments I referred to as dismissive and pointy were also directed at me when I joined the discussion, not just later on and not just towards AnExtraEditor. I'm not discussing the merits of any of the proposed changes here, only noting that I believe you must accept some responsibility for the unproductive direction of the discussion. Because of this, a two-way interaction ban would be most appropriate, but I'm not an administrator so I'll leave that to their discretion. AnExtraEditor has emailed me indicating they are open to that suggestion as a remedy, although they have disagreed a topic ban is necessary. I haven't suggested a topic ban because of any concern about the substance of their edits (after all, I generally supported them), but because it is clear that the subject area is leading to the conflict, and they ought to have the opportunity to prove they are here to build an encyclopaedia by building a history of productive and uncontroversial contributions. That's just my two cents. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:49, 6 April 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.

Talk:The Poem_of_the_Man-God#Geneviève Esquier

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Yesterday, all my dreams... on 16:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:The Poem of the Man-God#Geneviève Esquier (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute about artice content How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Please see WP:Help desk#Inclusion/exclusion of an item in an article which suggested I should request help here. Thank you. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please see WP:Help desk#Inclusion/exclusion of an item in an article which suggested I should request help here. Thank you. Talk:The Poem_of_the_Man-God#Geneviève Esquier Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. The filing editor must list the other editors and notify them on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 4 April 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.

One Direction

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Filed by Jolielover on 13:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC). I did my 3O as the other guy did not mark it off on the list. Valorrr (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute One Direction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jolielover (talk · contribs) SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute on whether an image should be included in the article; full discussion is on the article talk page and my talk page. Image in question. Caption: One Direction greet Swedish fans in Stockholm, May 2012 First originated in the peer review by @David Fuchs: who suggested the image was of poor quality and should be removed; I agreed and removed it. Serge (uploader of the image, who had added it back in 2012) disagrees with the removal. I find no EV in the image and it is of poor quality; Serge believes the image is essential and adds to the article. Requested a third opinion, received 2, one for and one against. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:One_Direction#Stockholm_image User_talk:Jolielover#What_comment_... How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope to find some consensus on whether the image should be included or not, I want to take the article to FA so hope something as silly as an image would not obscure its chances. Thanks. Summary of dispute by SergeWoodzing Requested statement: The photo was stable in the article for many years but was removed recently without discussion due to 1 brief comment in a peer review calling it "decorative" (seems to be a trendy term to use to under-illustrate quite a few articles on English Wikipedia?). I reinstated the photo believing it was removed in error during massive changes being made to the article. That was promptly reverted with an edit summary comment but still no discussion for consensus. The photo is not of masterfully high quality, but good enough. It's clear enough and illustrates the group's popularity, at a specilly created & secure photo op for fans, in a country which does not have (the group's) English as their main language. It illustrated the artcle's section Image well, but that section has also been removed, unclear why. The image is rare, as donated to Commons for free use, and relevant to the article. It should be appreciated as such rather than being made a big spectacle of in a manner like this, which frankly seems ridiculous to me. Why is it so important to remove it when there is no other free image to use in it's qualifying context? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC) As I said before, the Image section wasn't removed, just merged onto various subsections of the "Legacy" section since a lot of content overlapped. The first paragraph for instance was merged onto the significance section, as it mainly talks about One Direction's significance in the 2010s and in boy band history (which, as seen in the significance section below, was repetitive and redundant). I don't understand why an image of them in a non-English speaking country is necessary. There already is one (Chile) and quite frankly, the context and quality of the picture is far more important than the geographical location it was taken in (unless significant). I suppose it's a pity a majority of freely licensed images of them are from the UK/US but we can't do much about it. I just don't think the image holds any kind of significance. For instance, the picture of the Beatles arriving at JFK airport is quite significant as it signifies the start of the British Invasion in the US and it's their first visit. 1D in Sweden bears none of that significance. jolielover♥talk 07:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC) I did not realise this section was for arguing, thought it was just for me to state my case as opposed to the Dispute-resolution originator's case as stated above. Are we supposed to keep arguing in this section? Why, if so? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC) I'm not arguing? I'm just explaining my reasoning. Obviously, a section randomly vanishing sounds pretty bad without context. jolielover♥talk 13:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC) I'm really sorry, I didn't realize this was the section for you to explain things. Striked out. jolielover♥talk 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC) PS There are now only 2 comments in the consensus discussion on the article's talk page supporting removal; 3 supporting inclusion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC) One Direction discussion Once all editors have contributed here in a brief statement, we will get started. Thank you, all, for your collaborative participation. Awaiting response by SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs). I edit almost daily, usually in US morning. Thank you for your patience throughout this process. Penguino35 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC) We will refrain from discussion until all engaged parties have made their initial statements. Penguino35 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Two editors offered Third Opinions on the inclusion of the image. The editors who offered Third Opinions should be listed, and should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Note: We have been notified but not mentioned in the article. Valorrr (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Neither am I. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC) The guidelines say a mention in the article isn't enough and users must be notified via talk pages, sorry if I got something wrong this is my first time doing it jolielover♥talk 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Volunteer Note: We need the Third Opinion editors notified and brought here to state their opinions before we can proceed. I'll keep this open for another few days until we hear from all editors. But please remember, before getting all opinions, we are not embarking on a discussion within this forum. If editors involved reach a consensus on the Talk Page of 1D before everyone engages here, all the better. Thanks to all involved for their civility on this page. Penguino35 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Questions Re illustration of the article: Who added two photos from the same Glasgow concert in Februari 2013 and why? Why are there so many performance photos? Who cares about wax museums? Hasn't the article started to look more like a promo (for their music and the museum's wax) than an encyclopedic article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC) It's not the same concert, it's two different concerts (albeit a few days from one another). I wouldn't particularly mind replacing one of them, but there aren't any other photos of a high enough quality around that time period featuring all of them to include instead. There are barely any photos of them we can use outside of performance. Anyway, each sub section and "era" comes with a tour, and the performances are from those tours, illustrating and supplementing the text. The whole point of the legacy & significance section is to demonstrate that they were incredibly popular. Their wax models being at Madame Tussauds, a major tourist attraction, demonstrates some kind of notability and demand. The museum is not some one off, independent stunt put on by some fangirl, it's Madame Tussauds - again, a major tourist attraction. It is mentioned once in the entire article, in that image (thinking about it, I should include a mention in the main text). I don't see how the article is a promo for Madame Tussauds. I also don't see how it's a promo for their music either - to my knowledge I've tried to make the article as neutral as possible (there is a fair bit of criticism for their music sprinkled in), but if you feel like some parts fail at this please let me know and I will adjust accordingly. jolielover♥talk 13:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Volunteer Note With lack of engagement from all involved editors, including 3O editors, I'm closing this request. I would encourage discussion to continue on the 1D Talk Pages and commend and encourage continued civility of editors. Penguino35 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 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.

Wuxing (Chinese philosophy)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by UU on 06:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wuxing (Chinese philosophy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved UU (talk · contribs) Foristslow (talk · contribs) Dispute overview "Fire, Water, Wood, Metal, and Earth" is the order of the Qizheng 七政 (see "Days of the Week"), which is widely used in East Asia. Other language versions of this Wikipedia article also use this order to list the five elements. But some user neglected the "efn" stated afterwards, and just changed the order to "Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water" or "Fire, Earth, Metal, Water, Wood", which contradicts the "efn" stated. In addition, "Metal, Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth" is the order of the "Guoyu 國語", "Bai Hu Tong 白虎通" or "Shiming 釋名", which is common in feng shui. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Wuxing (Chinese philosophy)#add How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I wanted Arbitration ​Committee to judge which order should be first listed in the "Wuxing (Chinese philosophy)" article? I prefer the "Days of the Week" sequence, and don`t want to change other language versions of this Wikipedia article again. Feng shui practitioners prefer the "Guoyu", "Bai Hu Tong" or "Shiming" sequence. Summary of dispute by Foristslow Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wuxing (Chinese philosophy) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jameel Gleason on 11:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jameel Gleason (talk · contribs) SnowFire (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Title: Dispute concerning biased editing and improper conduct on the “Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)” article Involved Parties: Neutral Third-Party Editor: Jameel Gleason (attempted neutral revisions) Challenging Editor: User “SnowFire” (responded with personal attacks, dismissals, and policy misrepresentations) Summary of Dispute: This filing documents a clear case of editorial bias, misconduct, and improper gatekeeping on the Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) article. A neutral third-party editor submitted fact-based, source-supported edits to bring the page up to standard. These contributions were immediately attacked by user “SnowFire,” who exhibited behavior in direct violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPOV. Specific Violations by SnowFire: 1. Violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith): "You can't just lie, or ask ChatGPT to make stuff up." This falsely accuses the contributor of dishonesty and violates Wikipedia’s foundational behavioral guidelines. 2. Disqualification of Contributor Based on Edit History – Not Policy: "You aren't a 'neutral third party editor'. All of your edits are to this one page." This violates WP:AGF. A contributor’s neutrality is not determined by the number of articles they edit, but by adherence to content policies. 3. Dismissal of Notability Without Review of Valid Sources: Documented achievements—such as being the Guinness World Records Puzzle Master, national TV credits, and widespread media coverage—were summarily dismissed without citing WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. This constitutes content dismissal without due process. 4. Use of Derisive and Mocking Language: Phrases like “random, forgotten books” and sarcastic dismissal of “popular Left Behind series?” violate WP:CIVIL and exhibit editorial bias and hostility. Evidence Provided: Talk page comments from April 8–9, 2025, by SnowFire Quotes cited above are visible in the “Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)” article’s Talk page history Requested Actions: Administra How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timothy_Parker_(puzzle_designer) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Request admin review to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s BLP and sourcing policies. Seeking neutral correction of outdated, disproven, or biased content based on Talk page discussion. Prefer neutral admin edits or dispute resolution process to restore balance and factual accuracy. Editor Jameel Gleason is available to support with verifiable sources. Summary of dispute by SnowFire Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Timothy Parker (Puzzle Desisner) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Lan Samantha Chang

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LityNerdyNerd on 12:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Lan Samantha Chang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LityNerdyNerd (talk · contribs) GuardianH (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page Lan Samantha Chang is about a Chinese American writer. In interviews and news features dating back to 1998, Chang has described, and continues to describe, herself as specifically "Chinese American." Book reviews cite this. Promotional materials from her publishers state this clearly. But recently, the user GuardianH changed Chang's ethnicity to "Taiwanese American." GuardianH's argument capitalizes on the complicated nature of Chinese-Taiwanese relations and -- ignoring decades-old evidence of Chang's own description of herself -- GuardianH tampers with edits on the page, tweaking details to present a false perspective. In one instance, GuardianH attributes to Chang a false comment that she actually does not make in an interview. It is fabrication. It is my belief that GuardianH's insistence on describing Chang as Taiwanese American, while trying to remove her self-designation as Chinese American, is politically motivated. I now suspect that GuardianH may have a pattern of such edits based on misrepresentation of comments. On the article Talk page, I have made an extensive case for the correctness of the designation of Chinese American; but GuardianH ignored that and reverted the edit for the third time. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[22]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please could you go through both sides' arguments, and some research of your own perhaps, and uphold that Chang's designation of herself as "Chinese American" -- and not the imposition of "Taiwanese American" on her -- is the correct and consensus designation? Summary of dispute by GuardianH Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Lan Samantha Chang discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 12 April 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.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and Zsa Zsa Gabor

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PromQueenCarrie on 07:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion