Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 226

Imam Shamil
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

the facts are
 * there are sources claiming imam Shamil's ancestors were of Kumyk descent
 * Sources are valid, I gave them here in the edit with pages and translations and links. they are also valid in Russian wiki, it seems even protected against vandalism.
 * The disputer claimed at the time that he "have proposed adding a new section about theories of his ancestry, including the Kumyk one" (edit).
 * In the article the consensus text was: "there are also sources who say that he has a paternal Kumyk lineage". Note that not that he was a Kumyk, but his ancestry is. The line was added by a Turkish Adigha, not a Kumyk, who was a part of that discussion long ago.
 * The consensus existed for more than a year and reflected the opinion of those who somehow reached it.
 * In addition to the 3 sources I gave in the edit above, in the article there were 4 more sources (with excessive citation template btw), Russian and Turkish.
 * None of the sources come from "Kumyk nationalists". Yet the disputer claims in every edit now they are. Look at the quotes of the editor: "Widely accepted by Kumyk nationalists" (previos edit), "removed weak.. and nationalist narrative" (edit) (edit). Which narrative are Kumyk? What are the weaknesses of those sources? Is Russian wiki controlled by "Kumyk nationalists"? Why disputer went from "it should be present in the article" to "wipe it all"? The questions ended in accusations and "threats" by the disputer, without answers (edit.

Resolution is required.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Neutral view and attention required, preventing aggression and stimulating true discussion required. Independent analysis of sources and unbiased view are strongly required. WP:Consensus should be followed in dispute.

Summary of dispute by Reiner_Gavriel
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Imam Shamil discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * echidnaLives I asked him a few questions. Analysed all the sources. He didn't answer to a single one of them, broke WP:Consensus and started throwing nonsense accusations (which is breaking WP:Ethics, I think). Are you joking now or do I have to really indulge aggressive abusing behavior? Everything is layed out in terms of dispute nature. The disputer just doesn't want to engage and loops the conversation into "nationalists, nationalists, all lies".--HamzatCan (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be moving this to the talk page, then replying. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Kara (South Korean group)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The IP claims that Kara was never disbanded using certain sources to support their view when the consensus is that Kara was disbanded and was not on hiatus as claimed.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightoil

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please mediate this dispute I am tired of arguing with them.

Summary of dispute by 121.133.40.84
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User:Lightoil reverted my edits that my edit was vandalism. My edit was just correcting the article Kara (South Korean group) was not disbanded in 2016 with reliable sources, but keeps reverting the article.--121.133.40.84 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Kara (South Korean group) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

shakshouka
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

https://books.google.tn/books?id=tyrvBQAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s https://books.google.tn/books?id=-fIqCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT42&redir_esc=y These books are cited in the etymology part. They are cookbooks, listing mediterranean inspired recipes, centered around healthy lifestyle to fight diabetes and organic waste, written by a british and american bloggers living in France and the US. These books should not be considered as a source. Taking a sentence written by a blogger in a ebook cookbook and presenting it as a source for the etymology of the word does not make any sense. If citing a blog is enough then, the word's origin according to another cookbook is moroccan. In moroccan dialect, shakshouka does not exist, they do have a similar dish that resembles shakshouka that is called differently. Sourcing in Wikipedia is very important and should be taken more seriously than that; Wrong sources create a vicious circle in which blogs source information from wikipedia and vice versa.

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

M.Bitton Reverted my edit twice whereas I believe I answered his question: How is an embassy more reliable than the sources that you removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakshouka&oldid=prev&diff=1127955704

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I thank the user (M.Bitton) for his critical mind and seriousness. However, his rigor is not shown in the sources he so firmly stands by. If my sources are not "reliable", then the previous ones should not be used either. In that case, the information in the first place should not be written on wikipedia. Citing Diabetes recipes and internet blogs does not constitute grounds for the information to be written in the article. The user has asked question again despite my answer without argumenting.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

shakshouka discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Kessler, Dallas
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I developed content intended for a neighborhood called Kessler Park, the principal neighborhood in the Kessler, Dallas area. Originally submitted as a separate page, I received the feedback from other editors that the content was not strong enough to become its own page so I merged some content to the Kessler, Dallas page with adjustments and addition. The change was reverted without any legit reasons.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to have the content I developed kept on the page since I spent multiple hours of research on this. I'm happy to improve on specific details of the content since I'm fairly new to wiki editing, but I don't think the content should be completely deleted.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by SamX
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Kessler, Dallas discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Kessler, Dallas
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I developed some content for a neighborhood called Kessler Park, Dallas in the Kessler, Dallas area. Originally intended for a separate page, I received feedback that the content was strong enough for a separate page and it should be merged with the existing page. Therefore, I adjusted the content and merged into the existing Kessler page. However, my edits were repeated deleted completely without any legit reasons. The content I developed are pretty common subjects to cover on neighborhood pages like parks, notable residents, healthcare, etc.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kessler,_Dallas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Would like to keep the content I developed instead of being deleted without reason.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Kessler, Dallas discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Acupuncture

 * This is my response to appeal my block from the Acupuncture talk page: The edits are "disruptive" insofar as they are made with the goal of removing misinformation from this page. The editors on this page dismiss credible sources (meta-analyses in reputable journals, endorsements by the NIH and the WHO and major medical institutions, an evidence map published by the VA) and instead use blogs as their only source materials. Sources 4-8 need to be removed from this page because they are either blogs, vaguely mention acupuncture or have a thesis opposite to what is written here (see 7, which provides evidence that acupuncture is not pseudoscientific. The comments made on this talk page regarding judgments about hospitals and the VA as businesses that can't be trusted or well known quackery factors and the bashing of reputable researchers in lieu of only using blogs as evidence are flagrantly disregarding Wikipedia guidelines and intentionally disseminating misinformation via suspect and incredible sources. I have opened a dispute resolution on this page and plan to purse this to the furthest extent, given this page is libelous misinformation that intentionally goes against mainstream medical consensus. 76.171.132.146 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I was blocked on the acupuncture talk page for attempting to have the page updated to reflect mainstream medical consensus, rather than what it is currently (libelous misinformation that classifies acupuncture as quackery and pseudoscience). The editors on the page met me with cyber bullying when I stated I would be opening a dispute for a neutral point of view. The page is overrun by editors who blatantly dismiss Wikipedia guidelines regarding credible source material. I shared several meta-analyses published in reputable scientific journals that demonstrate the scientifically proven benefits of acupuncture, a 50 page evidence piece published by the VA that demonstrates high confidence for the benefit of acupuncture for a number of medical conditions (chronic pain, migraines, headaches), a consensus document published by the NIH and more than a handful of hospital acupuncture landing pages including John Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, NIH, the WHO that all discuss acupuncture’s medical benefits from a tone of neutrality. The editors dismissed sources from hospitals and the VA as credible sources, claiming they are businesses or “well known quackery factories”. What was more concerning is they only had one source to counter the evidence I shared: slam pieces from David Gorski’s website (a self-professed cynic who is anti-alternative medicine) or sites from a blog David Gorski co-founded (Evidence Based Medicine). They reference an article recently published on this blog as the up to date analysis on acupuncture research on the Wikipedia acupuncture page. A blog post from David Gorski is even in one of the citations in the sentence on the acupuncture page that claims it is classified as quackery. A blog from a self-professed biased source is not credible. Please review the first 5 sources being used on this page as evidence that acupuncture is quackery or pseudoscientific. None of them are credible: they are all blogs or unrelated vague content.

The editors were notified of this discussion on the Acupuncture talk page, but @drmies deleted the comment when they blocked me. The appeal to be unblocked was paused in lieu of this discussion. So clearly, closing this dispute while also holding the block appeal process is not allowing for change. I also requested that the sources used that are either blogs, only vaguely mention acupuncture, or have theses that are opposite what they were being cited as sources for be removed as sources from the Acupuncture page. To state that there is consensus on wikipedia that acupuncture is not effective is not the same thing as it being classified as quackery or pseudoscientific. It also does not justify the use of mediocre source material as citations. Further @Robert McClenon, to make the statement that "there is a consensus in Wikipedia that acupuncture is not medically effective" is problematic, given Wikipedia editors have therefore reached a conclusion about acupuncture that is directly opposite the mainstream medical consensus AND only use blogs as their source material to justify this consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.132.146 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This page is libelous defamation to an entire medical profession of acupuncturists who are acknowledged by mainstream medical consensus to be of benefit. I think you can help by protecting this page from biased editors who make it their goal to troll and share misinformation. The sources being used on this page need to be reviewed since they are not credible. The editors also have weak excuses for why they disregard credible sources and it seems they are all proponents of David Gorski.

Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Bon Courage
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Endwise
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Drmies
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by JzG
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Acupuncture discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Induced demand
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I disagree with another Wikipedian about the definition of Induced Demand and how it relates to similar terms. He thinks it is a term from economics and encompasses other terms like "film induced demand". I think it was and remains an informal term in transportation/traffic and some people have assigned economic definitions to it.

I wrote a new introduction, with citations to a journal article. He revert the introduction, even though the old version only cite pop-science sources like Wired. He moved one of my paragraphs in to a new section, but took it completely out of context. He then added a "film induced demand" section to the page.

Given the Wikipedian's previous interactions on the talk page with Cmoneti, I would prefer outside help resolving this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Induced_demand/Archive_1#induced_!=_latent

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help us communicate, be a third party arbitrator, be an outside set of eyes to judge things. explain to me in detail what kinds of changes can I present that he will accept.

Basically, avoid repeating the Cmoneti-style conversation on the archived talk page.

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Induced demand discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Also, try discussing the content issue for another 24 hours.  I am neither closing this case at this time nor opening it for moderated discussion, but waiting for notice to be given, and for some more discussion on the article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Vallas
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Hi, I am trying to add missing details to a Wikipedia page on Paul Vallas. I currently work with Paul and have disclosed this COI. My issue is that there is at least 10 years of content missing from his Wiki page. This material has been sourced and is consistently being pulled down from the page. I don't even care if my wording is not added, but the material and missing information should be if properly sourced. I am at a standstill, because someone is pulling the content down instead of addressing the fact that content is missing. I understand the COI complaint, but what can I do here? Can I give the material to someone else to write? I am more than happy to if it means that the WIKI page will be accurate.

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

I have left messages on his talk page. This is my first time editing. Instead of responding, he just pulls down the content.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Again, I just want the WIKI page to reflect the correct information. If it means that someone else has to write it, I have no problem. However, I do not believe it is fair to both leave the content off the WIKI page and refuse to add the relevant material that has been properly sourced. This is considering over half the material currently on the page is not sourced.

Summary of dispute by Equine-man
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Paul Vallas discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Turkish War of Independence
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This dispute is about adding a content describing the atrocities against Turks and Muslims during the Turkish War of Independence.

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

There has been a discussion to add the Muslim causalities and atrocities committed against Turks during the war but the proposed content failed to reach a consensus.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am very positive that we can find common ground with mutual understanding in a better structured discussion. Special care must be taken by third party editors because the act of atrocities is usually justified or denied by groups with nationalist tendencies.

Summary of dispute by Tofubird
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Abrvagl
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Buidhe
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not participating in this DRN (nor am I really an active participant in the dispute either). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Firefangledfeathers
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Alaexis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Paradise Chronicle
A bit like Buidhe. Actually there is no dispute either, what dispute is there possibly to be with a variable anon IP? To who does one answer?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Turkish War of Independence discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Finnegans Wake
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The introduction is not good quality and I offered an improvement and it was reverted. I discussed this on the talk page and nobody responded. I am trying to get whoever is more active on the page to at least vocalise their viewpoint, maybe, so I can understand their thinking process and we can try to agree on how the article could be better. If that is not possible, I think I should try to request page protection, because the article is not great quality and it so far isn't possible to significantly edit it because at least one person, perhaps more, seem to be sort of guarding their preferred version, at least it seems like it so far.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finnegans_Wake#The_default_intro_for_a_long_time_has_major_impediments

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I need to be able to edit the page and also improve my edits without someone reverting the entire thing back to a poor quality form. I feel like as long as a community of open minded, collaborative people were managing the page, we wouldn't have the issue with edit "sniping". I do not know if there is just one person who insists on reverting edits, maybe out of personal taste or attachment to the previous version, I don't know.

Summary of dispute by Manticore
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Lemonaka
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Finnegans Wake discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Knives Out
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This dispute is regarding the genre of the film in the opening sentence. The film has been received as a comedy mystery (specific sub-genre used in FA cinema articles such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit).

The WP:FILMGENRE guidelines suggest using at minimum the primary genre or sub-genre of the film in the opening sentence. I suggest aligning the opening sentence's genre classification with that of Who Framed Roger Rabbit to reflect the weight of the film's regard by Lionsgate and professional associations (see accolades) as a comedy and a mystery. Who Framed Roger Rabbit uses "comedy mystery" in its opening sentence.

The discussion has reached an impasse as we are both providing GA and FA-class articles that support our respective opinions (please see talk page for these references).

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

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think we need an independent editor to review both our points, as well as the articles and references cited in the discussion, to help make a decision regarding style.

Summary of dispute by InfiniteNexus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Nemov
This should be withdrawn. Doobledoop responded to a three year old discussion. InfiniteNexus and myself explained the reasoning behind the status quo. They are free to disagree, but this doesn't require dispute resolution since several editors have chimed in on this topic. Doobledoop is free to open a RfC if they don't like our feedback. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Knives Out discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Marxism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the proper or improper use of political adjectives to describe a method of socio-economic analysis. The dispute has resulted in edit warring and required third-party guidance to reach resolution.

A number of users have noticed the use of political adjectives in the first line of article to describe the use of historical materialism to explain class conflict. Such political adjectives are inappropriate and instead belong to descriptions of Marxist Schools of Thought (emergent economic and political philosophies built from a Marxian analytical viewpoint).

I noticed this myself in September 2022, & made the correction. This edit was reverted by user: 'Beyond my ken' with a request to first take this to the talk page having previously been discussed. I see no problem with this, and followed through as such. The proposal received no objection after 2 mths; I followed this by open reminder on the talk page to engage on this topic, leaving this for another month to allow for responses. After 3 months and no replies I considered the matter closed with no objections to the contrary. I made the edit a couple a days ago which was immediately reversed by a user. I acted by reverting the revision and directed the user to the talk page to open a discussion. Another user (Czello) has since reverting this revision (violating the 3RR) with no recognition of the discussion in the talk page (this user has previously violated this rule on other pages and been reminded of discussing thing on the talk page prior to revisions). I have reverted this edit due to its violation of 3RR (see: Edit warring) and I'm now request dispute resolution.

This topic has been discussion historically on the page before becoming stale. This view has been expressed by a number of users: Enigma91, Waltzzz, Magnetizedlion27, and myself. User: Czello has opposed often replying confrontationally to comments on the talk page and has immediately reverted any edits from the community to change. User: Acroterion has previously expressed opposition and likewise believes Marxism (as a form of analysis) should be characterised politically.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marxism#Age-old_confusions_&_The_purpose_of_this_article (please also see edit history). I have opened a discussion on Oct 5th 2022. I received no reply or objection and issued a reminder for comment to the group on 11th Nov 2022. By 1st Jan 2023 no comments or objections had been made. I considered this a closed matter and made the edit. I have also requested other users request dispute resolution should they feel it is warranted.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This is obviously a delicate matter due to the political adjacency of the topic. Ideally, a third part opinion to recognise the inappropriateness of the political adjectives to describe an academic discipline, but failing this serving to prevent edit-warring and inform a balanced and open discussion.

Summary of dispute by Enigma91
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Magnetizedlion27
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Czello
In this edit you said there was a consensus to remove the "left-wing to far-left" label. I've asked you twice to provide the link to this consensus, as I can't see one. Can you be clear about where this consensus is now? I appreciate that you started a thread and no one replied to it, but as you've had push back now can we be clear that you do need consensus for this change. — Czello 15:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Marxism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Papua conflict
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The infobox of the article Papua conflict has gradually built up an increasing array of questionable "Supported by" countries in the belligerents section. These range from well-sourced, well-recorded, material (weapons, training, money etc) support, to rather questionable assertions of support (e.g. a semi-official comment by a sitting president, cited to a wordpress site). This was previously "Supported by", and has been reduced to "Diplomatic support", but both the significance and extent of this is questionable. Prior to earlier reversions, the editor has attempted to add in countries such as the UK and New Zealand based off a number of MPs signing a declaration.

The primary adder of countries is, who initially engaged in talk page discussion (mostly to call people biased, threatening page protection and invoking WP:NPOV), but has refused to engage after a reading of sources by mostly indicated statements contrary or tangential to assertions. As a potentially biased observer, his edit summaries indicate a lack of basic WP:AGF. The primary revert dispute in question has been back and forth maybe 9-10 times over the last couple weeks.

, and  are somewhat engaged in the talk page or in edit reversions.

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

Talk:Papua conflict

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

More editors weighing in to measure the importance of adding countries' nominal verbal support on the UNGA/over a conference would be appreciated, weighed against keeping the infobox at a reasonable size and preventing future bloat.

Additionally, a RfC at WP:MILHIST may be necessary to prevent these issues in the future. The article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has had several lively debates over this.

Summary of dispute by Davidelit
is repeatedly adding claims of support for one side in the Papua dispute based on citations do not explicitly back up his/her claims, and sometimes he/she does not appear to have even read these sources. This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH and WP:POV pushing. He/she has only made limited attempts to discuss this issue, preferring to make threats of vandalism reporting and the like, rather than addressing points raised by a number of editors.. Davidelit (Talk)

Summary of dispute by Eustatius Strijder
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have not been edit warring based on the Papua Conflict article itself. Before the time I edited it, the Free Papua Movement have already gained support from the Pacific states alone, then another user User:Juxlos decided that even the Pacific States that support the West Papuan Independence should be removed irrespective of that country have supported the West Papuan rights to self-determination in their United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) statement. Almost all of the ones removing support sides for West Papua were Indonesians. Whereas User:Areat have sympathized support for my edits and West Papua. I have reiterated that my goal are not to support West Papuan independence but rather sympathize to them because they have experienced genocide and an attempt to further marginalize them were to be done in Indonesia's new criminal code if the laws are not further repealed then. User:Robert McClenon needs to mediate in the page, along with some administrators to be neutral in the article, along with upholding WP:NPOV because a lot of users aren't giving a neutral point of view in the article.

Summary of dispute by Merbabu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I haven't been as involved as some of the others here - but I seem to largely share the concerns of Davidelit and Juxlos. The issues also apply to other articles in the "Indonesian project".

I break it down as follows:
 * The actual content dispute which seems to be mostly about sourcing (I've been less involved in this)
 * Behavioural - ‎User:Eustatius Strijder does not engage with other editors in a way we'd like. Their limited talk page discussion (and on other articles) is based on other editors being biased vs his attempt to bring in a "NPOV" position. Ie, no assumption of good faith in other editors, and a self-righteous belief in their own editing.
 * "Infobox spam" - this may be more an issue for me than for others - so many inboxes just seemed to be over-laden with trivial info that's not even mentioned in the article. There seems to be a view that more is better, and if we can we should. I'd like to see a more discerning consideration about what goes into these. Again, not sure how strongly the other editors feel about this - perhaps I'm Robinson Crusoe on this point.
 * UPDATE: even as I type the above, ‎User:Eustatius Strijder is engaging in edit warring and not engaging in discussion.

Summary of dispute by Envapid
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Aréat
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Papua conflict discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator (Papua)
I will possibly be starting moderated discussion. Please read the usual rules for moderated discussion. In particular, stop edit-warring. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress.

I have two questions for the editors. First, are the editors willing to engage in moderated discussion, subject to the ground rules? Second, I see that there has been a controversy about the listing of supporting parties in the infobox. Are there any other issues besides the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by editors (Papua)
First off, yes, I'd be willing to. It is worth noting however that Davidelit and me has had similar positions on the dispute, while the other party has not made their statements yet.

For the second point, I am not aware of any disputes ongoing regarding the body of the article. There may be some bloat in the lead, but not something that has been subject to dispute. Juxlos (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Papua)

 * I have a serious problem as an observer, of the lack of clarity in understanding what reverting entails, and specially WP:3RR - it seems that unless something is established very clearly about the process, then there are no grounds for a basic discussion. JarrahTree 02:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The total ignoring of the moderators clear request:

In particular, stop edit-warring. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. makes this whole topic close to unworkable in terms of generally accepted wikipedia standards. JarrahTree 08:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement 0.5 by moderator (Papua)
User:Eustatius Strijder has been notified of the filing of this dispute resolution request, and has had time to read the instruction to stop edit-warring, and appears to be gaming the three-revert rule by making three reverts in 24 hours and a fourth revert in less than 30 hours. It appears that their conduct indicates an unwillingness to engage in moderated discussion. I will wait a few hours before closing this discussion as failed, but I am advising the editors who have filed this request, first, that I do not think moderated discussion will happen, and, second, they should report the edit-warring either at the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have filed a 3RR report about Eusatatius around the same time they responded here on this page. Their most recent edit summary when reverting confirms their apparent revert-first, then discuss approach.  Unless there is clear undertaking from Eustatius that they will stop edit warring and perhaps even compromise on content, then I am likely not interested in dispute resolution.  --Merbabu (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * might need to un-hold this. Juxlos (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement 0.5 by editors (Papua)
Per Eustatius' response, as far he has been ignoring consensus and forcefully padding the Infobox with only a single argument: you are Indonesians and therefore you are biased. Every single content-related discussion has shown definitively that the user does not even read the sources, let alone abide by WP:RS, WP:V, WP:3RR or any other policy (and from his comment, WP:NPOV is not something that he should be invoking). Regarding neutrality, I think me and Davidelit has had a hand in expanding and editing in the specific article for the past few years and I will let the moderators judge whether NPOV has been violated.

Tangential to the argument, but the user clearly demonstrates a very poor understanding of policy. It is within their right to say whatever in whoever’s talk page, but I personally do not appreciate assertions of vandalism from an user who cites websites such as freewestpapua.org or westpapuamedia.info. If this had been their first edit, I would have went straight to WP:COIPOLITICAL. Juxlos (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring consensus, I am asking that there must be a third mediator to the conflict from someone who is not an Indonesian to get a neutral point of view as of WP:NPOV. The last references of support from the Lowly Institute have already been a reliable and valid sources as of WP:RS. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "from someone who is not an Indonesian to get a neutral point of view as of WP:NPOV"
 * You are directly implying that every Indonesian is not eligible to edit the article from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia has no such restrictions. And also, if you believe that my edits are vandalism and want to make good on your repeated threats to "report me to moderators", go to WP:AIV, not someone else's talk page. Juxlos (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Eustatius Strijder I'm not Indonesian. But you ignore my input. I know at least one other person in your "conflict" that are also not Indonesian.
 * Where are you from? What's your bias?
 * But that's irrelevant - we don't get to chose who you get to deal with. --Merbabu (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant was we need a 3rd mediator from someone not engaged in the conflict to solve it by reliable sources, not someone who usually edits the article itself. My inputs on the article of support for West Papuan self determination have already been reliable by Lowly institute references, which is a valid political one like Jakarta Post. Last time, User:Juxlos said that the references from freewestpapua.org and westpapuamedia.info are not reliable enough? Then I got the more reliable sources from a Lowly Institute reference that 7 states support West Papua's right to self determination. Last time, User:Juxlos also removed content without an edit summary such as  . We respect if there is another opinion, like the Indonesian government classifying the West Papua Organization as a terrorist organization, but you cannot just scrap a whole group of commanders or a whole list of nations that support West Papua's right to self-determine for no reason at all, except for political gains. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "a whole group of commanders"
 * of what? The Indonesian ones lead the entire military region, and I would argue they really don't belong there. The West Papuan side excepting some like Benny Wenda leads maybe what, a single armed band each? TPNPB is extremely decentralized and it certainly does not fight as a single unit. Do we need to list every Indonesian military captain and lieutenant too? Or maybe just list every single OPM fighter while at it?
 * We all know about the Melanesian Spearhead Group nominally supporting West Papua. But read your own sources for once, instead of just reading a single line and drawing conclusions and then some:
 * "Indonesia’s increased connectivity with Pacific Islands countries has complicated regional efforts to address the West Papua issue"
 * "A parliamentary motion of no-confidence removed Sogavare as Solomons’ prime minister in late 2017, citing concerns about his trenchant policy towards West Papua"
 * The only country that, I concede, could be included after a thorough reading is Vanuatu. The source makes it very explicit. Others are mostly mentioned in passing from the UNGA statement. Juxlos (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement 0.6 by Moderator (Papua)
User:Juxlos I am leaving this topic on hold because a report has been made at the edit-warring noticeboard. Whether I fail this thread or whether I open it will depend on what administrative action is taken concerning conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Juxlos (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been no update on the edit warring noticeboard, but I can advise that myself (4 reverts over 3 days), Davidelit (similar number) and Eustatius (19 reverts) have been blocked by User:Primefac from that page for 1 week. (my first block in 17 years on Wikipedia). --Merbabu (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Papua)
Please read the ground rules for this discussion again. I will repeat that no one should edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. That means not to edit the article at all, even to revert vandalism; if the article is vandalized, someone who does not have a content dispute can revert the vandalism. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to discuss the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Each editor is requested to make a brief statement below saying that they agree to the rules. Each editor is also asked to state briefly whether there are any issues other than the infobox, and to state briefly what they want changed, or what they want left the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Papua)
Apologies for the editing during discussion, but I believed it was during the "On hold" timing anyway. Otherwise, reiterate agreement with ground rules. Juxlos (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah agree, my main issue is the article should be part of Terrorism in Indonesia, other matters include PKI and Muhammad Hatta supposed support. Envapid (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Papua)
Is User:Eustatius Strijder ready to take part in moderated discussion? They have said that they want a mediator, and I am ready to begin mediation when they agree to the usual rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I am asking each editor to state, concisely, what they want either changed or left the same in the infobox.

Second statements by editors (Papua)
I prefer to see the infobox as it is kept simple instead of being padded by questionably related events. As it was, the Infobox contained dozens of present-day West Papua (and Indonesian) commanders who are often local unit commanders (think a colonel/mayor), and support from countries which amounted to a single signed declaration. Precedent in discussion from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine sets a much higher bar for Infobox inclusion. Juxlos (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Minions: The_Rise_of_Gru
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Two or more editors set up a task force (with only four members) and are reverting edits on multiple pages including this movie, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, and Skydance Media.

One or some of them are autistic.

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

Tried to talk to another editor who showed the "task force" that they are operating outside of the rules. Wikipedia says a task force must have more members when it starts.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Explain the rules.

Summary of dispute by BMA-Nation2020
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by LancedSoul
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Minions: The_Rise_of_Gru discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The term "Vlachs" is included in the article in the context of a 1913 estimate by the British Foreign Office about the ethnic composition of the geographical region of Macedonia. It originally linked to a non-Macedonian group, and Vlach is also an umbrella term referring to several ethnic groups, so I replaced the term with "Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians", as these are the peoples in the region of Macedonia known as Vlachs.

Upon discussion Vlachs now links to Aromanians in North Macedonia but still excludes the Megleno-Romanians. I intend to add a note mentioning that Vlachs refers to both Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians but user Aeengath will only accept this change if there is a specific source specifically stating that the term "Vlachs" referred to these two peoples in the estimates of British Foreign Office. I've provided reliable sources showing that "Vlachs" is a historical and umbrella term referring to several peoples, but Aeengath absolutely rejects this unless such a specific source is provided. As for my desired outcome, I want both ethnicities mentioned in the article, because there is no reason to exclude one.

I recommend reading Talk:Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I). It's a short discussion and it will help in understanding the context of the dispute of this niche topic.

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

Talk:Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I) (started by Aeengath).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I personally believe Aeengath is worried on this information being WP:OR, and as they wrote most of this article, they want it to be in a good state. Even if this is not the case, I believe this user is interpretating Wikipedia policies too strictly. The advice and interpretation of other users may help.

Summary of dispute by Aeengath
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The term "Vlachs" is listed in a 1912 survey of the population by the British Foreign Office, which is the source of the citation. Editor Super Dromaeosaurus wants to modify the citation by adding that the term "Vlachs" was “referring to Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians”. SD added three scholarship references in to support this claim, after review I concluded that none of them demonstrated that the term Vlachs, as used by the British Foreign Office in 1912, was referring to these two ethnic groups in particular. I also did my own research but could not find any sources supporting that claim, only that the Vlachs are also called the Aromanians which is already linked in the article by Vlachs. I therefore declined the addition as it failed verifiability and I do not see the need to modify the quote and compromised Text–source integrity. I updated the Aromanians in North Macedonia article with my findings, a list of my sources can be found here.

I would also like to add that this article concerns the occupation of Serbia by Bulgaria during the First World War with a section specifically about the occupied region of Macedonia. As the identity of the various ethnic groups is a sensitive topic, it took collaboration between editors from various backgrounds to achieve a stable version. It is therefore important to be precise when adding new content especially related to the various ethnic groups. Aeengath (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator (Bulgaria and Serbia)
I will possibly be starting moderated discussion. Please read the usual rules for moderated discussion. If you have any questions about the rules, ask them now.

I have two questions for the editors. First, are the editors willing to engage in moderated discussion, subject to the ground rules? Second, I would like each editor to state briefly what part of the article they want changed, or what part of the article they want to leave the same that another editor wants changed. Discuss content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Bulgaria and Serbia)
Yes, I understand the rules and am willing to engage in moderated discussion... Fellow editor wanted the term “Vlachs” to be followed by: "(referring to Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians)” I wanted it to be left untouched as no sources seemed to support that claim, I have changed my mind since (prior the start of this moderated discussion) and added a note after "Vlachs" that says: “probably Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians”. I hope this can end the dispute. Thank you Aeengath (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the rules and I am willing to engage in moderated discussion. Aeengath has described the conflict accurately. This is very close to resolution. Still, I would simply prefer that the "probably" be removed from the note, as I believe there is simply no potential for mistake. With articles having an encyclopedic aim, I don't think we ought to have information presented in an uncertain manner with words such as "probably". Super  Ψ   Dro  12:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I just don't see how we can assume certainty without that information being supported by reliable sources, isn't that WP:WHYCITE? Aeengath (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no other possibility, sources are clear on what Vlachs means in this region. Evidence has been presented to prove this change, and evidence would be required to prove there is room for mistake. Such as that for example, Vlachs can mean other non-Aromanian/non-Megleno-Romanian ethnic groups in Macedonia. But this is not the case. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry to insist but you seem to ignore the historical context and the quote in question. How do you know that the British Foreign Office was only counting Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians when they were listing Vlachs as an ethnic group in their 1913 census? Surveys in the region have been known to be biased and unreliable:
 * The credibility of the available statistics pertaining to the proportion of the different linguistic or ethnic groups of the region at the beginning of the twentieth century has continually perturbed historians because all interested Balkan states frequently used quantitative information to support their claims to Macedonian lands."
 * The British Foreign Office could have included another sub-ethnic groups to inflate numbers like they did in 1925:
 * In another survey, in 1925 this time, the British Foreign Office gave a number of about 300,000 Greek- and 200,000 Vlach-speakers in the three vilayets, compared to 1,150,000 Slavs around 1912. The number of the Vlachs is exaggerated, probably reflecting a pro-Greek bias, or Greek sources.
 * I think that without a direct quote commenting specifically on that citation there is no reason to add this unsourced information. Aeengath (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the historical context. I am aware of the extreme complexity of the Macedonian Struggle. There for sure are contentious topics, such as Macedonian Slavs being Bulgarians or not, or every people bordering ethnic Greeks actually being whatever-speaking Greeks. What "Vlach" stood for is not one of these. all interested Balkan states frequently used quantitative information to support their claims to Macedonian lands. yes, however the United Kingdom held no claim to any part of Macedonia. The British Foreign Office could have included another sub-ethnic groups to inflate numbers like they did in 1925 this would be a very bizarre thing for it to do, truly unprecedented among third-party entities in this context, and such a claim would need sourcing for sure. If we are to doubt the objectivity of a piece of information due to a... possibility, the first step would be to provide evidence that this possibility is factual. If not, we're arguing over nothing. And in 1925, the BFO did not include another ethnic group, nothing about that is said there. Though from what I understood in the quote you gave, the BFO might have given these inflated numbers due to having a pro-Greek bias OR under the influence of sources given by the Greeks. In this case, we cannot blame the BFO of hidden intentions. Though if we are to doubt the information this entity has provided, I wonder why would we even have it on the article.
 * And to answer your first question How do you know that the British Foreign Office was only counting Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians when they were listing Vlachs as an ethnic group in their 1913 census? Because those are the only ethnic groups Vlachs stands for in Macedonia. There is no other ethnic group, and there is no evidence of the BFO including any other under this label. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You want to add to an inline citation “according to a 1912 survey by the British Foreign Office”, the full quote is also present in Notes, therefore this is not a general reference about Vlachs. Why do you think this addition is necessary? Like I said on the TP I noticed that you had been adding the same content to various articles, why don't you turn the disambiguation page Vlachs of North Macedonia into an article instead? It would be a lot easier than defining Vlachs after every mention of them on WP. Aeengath (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What would the article be about? An artificial merge of Aromanians in North Macedonia and Megleno-Romanians? Super   Ψ   Dro  14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A clear inventory of all the various Vlach groups that are part of have historically been part of the Vlachs of North Macedonia? like mentioning the Moscopolitan, Grammoustian and Farsherot Vlachs? There is no evidence that the BFO also counted the Megleno-Romanians for example since they also spoke a different language than the Aromanians, so how can you add that assertion? why not just leave "Vlachs" on its own? This is part of an inline citation with in-text attribution naming the source (according to a 1912 survey by the British Foreign Office), not a general reference about Vlachs. Aeengath (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another interesting quote about surveys from that period:
 * In 1895 German linguist Gustav Weigand published statistics about the Vlachs population in what is now North Macedonia. It is obvious that Weigand completely disregarded the Moglenite Vlachs in Gevgelija and the nearby villages, the Grammoustian hut settlements in the eastern parts of North Macedonia and the Vlachs who lived in the largest centers of the Kosovo vilayet, such as Skopje and Kumanovo. Aeengath (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Bulgaria and Serbia)
If the editors think that they are close to agreement, I suggest that they engage in back-and-forth discussion, in the space provided for the purpose, which may be useful at this time. The editors should discuss to see if they can come to a mutually agreeable wording about the Vlachs. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Bulgaria and Serbia)
Since there does not appear to be an agreement on the wording, will each of the editors please provide a brief statement as to exactly what wording each of them wants. You may also provide a one-paragraph statement in support of your wording, but what is important is to provide the exact wording that you are proposing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Bulgaria and Serbia)
I only want "probably" removed from the note. Vlachs here can only refer to the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. I am 100% certain and I reject that there is any potential error. I have edited this topic area for a long time and I also have sources which back what I've stated. Super  Ψ   Dro  15:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that “probably” before that information is the best option until reliable sources are found to verify that the term Vlachs, as used by the British Foreign Office in 1912, was referring to these two ethnic groups in particular. Aeengath (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Bulgaria and Serbia)
Is the disagreement limited to the single word 'probably' in a footnote? This seems like a tempest in a teapot. Drink the hot stimulating beverage.

Are the editors willing to resolve the matter by means of a Third Opinion? If so, I will put the dispute on hold here and post a Third Opinion request. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Originally it was for adding a note to state that the term Vlachs was referring to the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. Aeengath added the note after this request was started. I am willing to have a third opinion. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was hoping of reaching a consensus (and drink some hot tea) by adding a note saying that the term Vlachs was “probably” referring to Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. I am willing to have a third opinion. Aeengath (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Unites States of America
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

My Wikipedia page has completely false information. My name is Sona Patel, M.D.

My medical license is NOT revoked because of fraudulent activity.

How can I fix this incorrect information?

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

I don't know what else to do about this incorrect information so that is why I am contacting you.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please remove from my Wikipedia page that my medical license is revoked because of fraudulent activity.

Summary of dispute by Sona Patel
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Unites States of America discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Priyamvada Gopal
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This page has been drastically re-written from a stable version at a time it was protected earlier in the year. Several sections have been removed wholesale, sections which were well-sourced, extensively discussed at the time of writing in the talk page, and were the work of multiple editors. Others have been re-written to place a wholely positive spin on the subject. This version is now subject to active gatekeeping, constantly invoking a non-existent consensus to retain it, or referencing a lack of consensus to restore the removed content (despite the fact there was no consensus for removal). Discussion on the talk page for weeks now has not yielded much movement, as no one seems to want to address arguments based on Wikipedia policies on content removal or NPOV. The arguments for removal as I understand it are that the content is "trivial", which I think is something of a non-argument, and that the critical material unbalanced the article, which should be mainly about the subject as a scholar and not a political commentator/social media personality. The second argument is more substantive, but I think the burden of proof is then on those making it to demonstrate that the individual is more notable as a scholar than as a political commentator, and the remedy subsequently would be to add reliably sourced material about her scholarship, not to remove reliably sourced material about her public persona. I don't think that there has been any attempt to demonstrate that Gopal is more notable as a scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelshraga (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarification of what wikipedia policies dictate should be the stable form of the article.

Summary of dispute by LumumbaX
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Alarichall
I don't think there is much of a dispute here. User:Samuelshraga is unhappy with significant cleaning up of the article by user:LumumbaX which numerous other discussants, including some experienced Wikipedia editors and contributors to the article, think is basically fine. Samuelshraga seems unhappy with this consensus.

Summary of dispute by Lajmmoore
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Richard Nevell
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Atchom
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. For several years now, a group of editors has been gatekeeping this article, seeking to make it as sympathetic toward Gopal as possible and removing any negative coverage on the flimsiest of excuses. The last time I was involved in a dispute over this page, an editor (a Gopal admirer whose account edited this article and none other over several years) was banned for persistent disruptive editing. All this is by way of context to show that this dispute is not new.

Now, turning to the present flare-up. Gopal has a very high and visible media profile and she is the subject of persistent coverage across mainstream British media, some of which doesn't show her in a very positive light. A few editors have been arbitraily deleting whole sections of the article concerning very public controversies she has been involved in, on the flimsy ground that there is a "consensus" around the deletion (which simply doesn't exist). They do so in spite of the fact that the material is abundantly supported by high-quality sources, written as neutrally as possible (every word having been fought over over a long period of time), and clearly of encyclopaedia interest. No one has been able to cite a single relevant policy as to why the material was deleted, apart from the phoney "consensus" which was manufactured, as evidence by the existence of this dispute resolution procedure.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the idea that scholars' articles should give due attention to their scholarly work, it is a fact that Gopal is far better known as a controversialist than she is as a scholar (her scholarly output consists of an OUP book, a book at a second-tier press, and a Verso mass market paperback). She does not avoid the limelight and presents herself as a public intellectual, and the article should reflect what high quality sources say about these public activities. And if this means discussing how she caused a week-long national controversy by calling another ethnic minority academic a Nazi, than so be it. Atchom (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, I just saw that the blocked user I mentioned, User:PostcolonialLitNerd, was blocked indefiniely earlier last year for sockpuppetry. Much of the material removed this time was deleted by them last time round as well (after they were blocked the first time the material was incorporated into the article without controversy. Until now). There is clearly a very unhealthy editing environment around this article and this needs to be addressed. Atchom (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Priyamvada Gopal discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing of these cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon, this is the first time I've been on this noticeboard so I'm not sure if I did it wrong or should have done something else - I'd really appreciate any guidance on how it should be done. Yesterday I put a message in all of their talk pages, in addition to a message in the discussion on the subject's page. I thought that was the notification obligation? Samuelshraga (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The tagging doesn't seem to have worked correctly (the link to this page was broken on the notice on my user page and I had to search manually to get here.) Atchom (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified the other editors, but most of them have not responded. This thread may have to be closed due to lack of response, in which case the filing editor will be given advice about what to do next.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Gopal)
It appears that two editors, Alarichall and Atchom, have responded, but Alarichall has said that he does not think that there is much of a dispute. So do User:Samuelshraga and User:Atchom have a disagreement about content for which they want moderated discussion?

Please read the rules, and then reply, indicating whether you want to engage in moderated discussion in accordance with the ground rules. If so, please state briefly what you want changed or left the same in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Gopal)
I agree 100% with Atchom's summary of the dispute. I would say the largest example of the relevant content that has been removed, and that I consider under dispute, is from this edit. Various other parts of the article have been re-written to either put a positive gloss or to remove any hint that the subject is controversial, as compared to the protected version from a few months ago. I don't know whether Atchom has a different conception of what material is covered? I would very much agree to engage in moderated discussion, ideally also including LumumbaX as that is the editor who removed the material and is gatekeeping the page in its current form. Samuelshraga (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Gopal)
It appears that the issue is some large removals of content that were made by User:LumumbaX. There was then an edit-war to restore and to remove the content, but the editors stopped edit-warring before crossing the 3RR line. Does one of the editors who has agreed to mediation want to defend the removals of content? That is, do we have editors who are both in favor or and against the removal? Do any of the editors agree with LummumbaX that the content should have been removed? Having read the talk page, and having no prior involvement with the case, I do not see a consensus either to remove the material or to restore it. So do we have editors who are willing to discuss the removal of content, or do we have editors who want the content restored? Is User:LumumbaX ready to agree to the rules and to discuss the content removals? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Please reply by indicating which side you are on, so that I will know whether this will be a moderated discussion, or only a restatement. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am on the side of restoring the content. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, not sure where to put this, but thought I should notify those here @Robert McClenon, @Atchom, @Alarichall - LumumbaX was another PostcolonialLitNerd sock it turns out, and has been blocked (perhaps we should have seen this coming). I'm still happy to wait on reverting all their edits until we have a moderated discussion about what the content should be if that's what you all want to do. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say I am super surprised, but this does go a long way to explain why this edit war feels so much like the last one. I'm in favour of reverting all the deleted content - does any editor on the other side still want to defend the removal? Happy to have a moderated discussion if there are takers, although I would prefer it if the bad behaviour of PostcolonialLitNerd was not rewarded by the page remaining in its current state. which is what they wanted to achieve through their socketpuppetry. Atchom (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Gopal)
It appears that the issue was some large removals of content that were made by User:LumumbaX, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user who is apparently promoting the subject of the article, Priyamvada Gopal. So my next question is whether the remaining editors think that moderated discussion is necessary. There are at least three possibilities. First, if the editors think that moderated discussion is not necessary, then I can close this thread, and normal discussion and normal editing can resume. Second, the editors can engage in back-and-forth discussion in the space below, and can try to work out any remaining issues. This can continue as long as the editors think that it is useful. Third, if there are any difficult issues, we can continue moderated discussion, in which the editors address their discussion to the moderator. Which approach do the editors want to take at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Gopal)
I still believe that all of the sock's edits should be reversed, but if any editor has another approach, then I'm happy to engage in moderated discussion before we decide what should be done with the page. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Gopal)
We don't need to discuss whether to revert the edits made by the sock account, unless an editor has a specific case for why they should be kept. See the policy on block evasion, which states that edits made by block-evading accounts should normally be reverted. A sockpuppet account is an account created for the purpose of evading a block of the sockpuppeteer account.

So the questions are whether there are any other content issues for which moderated discussion is required, and whether any good-faith editor wants to keep the sock edits. Otherwise we can close moderated discussion as resolved by blocking the sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

2022
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a long debate over the question of including Barbra Walters into the deaths in 2022 article. "Yes" people have argued that she was an important American historical figure (including being the first female anchor for a major American news network) that she deserves to be put onto the 2022 article. "Yes" people have also argued that they have the majority of votes and that no one uses the 2022 deaths in the United States article. "No" people have argued that they are preventing an "American-centered" viewpoint by not including Walters. "No" people have also argued that Walters had no significant presence outside of American media and that her equivalents in different countries would have no chance of being included on there. There are 5 yeses (including 1 borderline yes), 1 neutral, and 3 nos.

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

 I have argued that since the yeses have a democratic majority that they have the right to specially include her onto the 2022 article.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to know the specific requirements of rules regarding an American centric point of view. The three nos have also refused to concede despite "yes" votes being a majority (the Wiki article for Consensus decision-making, for instance, states that a consensus is a "majority or the supermajority" which "differentiates consensus from unanimity"), therefore I think a special case can be made for Barbra Walters' inclusion onto the 2022 list.

Summary of dispute by InvadingInvader
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by MarioJump83
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jim Michael 2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by FireInMe
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Nemov
This escalation is silly and unnecessary. Maybe a RfC could have been suggested, but count me out of this discussion.

Summary of dispute by TheScrubby
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is really a highly unnecessary and heavy-handed action moved by this user, who is vehemently in favour of the subject’s inclusion rather than somebody who is neutral/uninvolved in the discussion. Quite simply, there was a discussion as to whether or not Barbara Walters ought to be included. No consensus emerged out of the discussion, and of course consensus does not equal a simple head count of votes. For my part I agreed with the arguments against inclusion, as Walters was a predominately domestic figure whose achievements were almost exclusively relevant only to the United States, and that her international counterparts would not have been included or considered for inclusion - and the bar for inclusion on the main yearly pages is substantial international notability. The user who moved this dispute resolution also made no attempt to demonstrate her international notability, instead using arguments in favour of inclusion that would only be relevant for 2022 in the United States. There’s always been robust discussion and debate on the main yearly Talk pages, and users don’t always get what they want in the process. But I don’t think the calling of this dispute resolution - a process that, in the years I’ve been involved in these pages, has never been called under such circumstances - is at all necessary or appropriate. TheScrubby (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GoodDay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I hadn't realised Walters' inclusion/exclusion was still being disputed, until being contacted to 'here'. I just don't know whether she should be included or not. Are Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Knowlton Nash, etc, included in the 'death' sections of International Year pages? Perhaps the time has come, to establish an inclusion criteria for the International Year pages, concerning the birth/death sections. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PaulRKil
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

2022 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved Dispute overview

In the Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017) document, a debate arose over how to define the political spectrum.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If you make a little concession according to the mediator's mediation, you can find a good compromise.

Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Lok Sabha
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Disagreement over adding specific political parties under alliance.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope for neutral opinion on this content dispute. It can prevent future edit wars based on this content.

Summary of dispute by Chennai Super Kings Lover
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Lok Sabha discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Lok Sabha
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Disagreement on adding political parties under alliance. Discussion and Rfc in the talk page didn't solve this content dispute. I've informed this dispute in administrators:noticeboard/incidents but no user willing to comment on this issue even after many hours. Persistent edit war happened yesterday with more than 15 reverts from both users. Finally, a third editor removed alliances because of continuous edit war and I accepted it. But another user still persistent on his view, started edit war again by reverting edits of the third editor. The issue remains unsolved.

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





How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I've tried many ways to solve this dispute, but there is no solution yet. I hope neutral opinion from other users can resolve this issue and prevent edit wars in future.

Summary of dispute by Chennai Super Kings Lover
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Lok Sabha discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Republican Party
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There seems to be individuals that are 1.) Are not willing to look at the data 2.) Keep saying it's "NPOV" 3.)Will not compromise.

The page is lacking in properly describing the GOP vote, and does a poor job in relaying the voting blocs. I simply want add a few groups of voters that vote GOP by double digits for the last 60 years. I'm even willing to compromise with their concerns being "misrepresentation and NPOV".

I provided proof that the voting blocs of Vietnamese and Cuban voters, married voters and white women have voted Republican since the 1960's.

I included numerous articles, studies and publications from universities, exit polls on white women, Cuban voters, Vietanmese voters, especially the married vote, which has extensive data to support they have been voting GOP by double digits for decades. The research is settled on these voter groups and is widely available to be researched, including an existing Wiki article already published on Wikipedia discussing much of what I'm talking about.

I think the simple, fact based sentence would provide readers with a better set of facts regarding voters who lean Republican and make up the bloc of voters that vote GOP.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Reverted_%22married_couples%22_and_info_on_Cuban%2FVietnamese

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the issue can be resolved with coming together to form a simple sentence that addresses all parties concerns. Maybe the following:

Instead of the poorly written "rural areas, white evangelical Christians, and men, especially white men"

It could be: "Republicans win white voters, notably men but also white women, married couples, white evangelical Christians and while losing the Latino and Asian vote at large, have seen success in Cuban and Vietnamese communities"

Summary of dispute by Andre
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Republican Party discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - Statements by User:Andrevan imply that a compromise may be developing. Please check whether there is a compromise, in which case moderation is not necessary.  If the filing party wants moderated discussion, notice to the other editor on their user talk page is required (and has not yet been given).  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is premature. I also wasn't notified of this. I have expressed openness to the compromise so the OP's statement that Are not willing to look at the data 2.) Keep saying it's "NPOV" 3.)Will not compromise. is not accurate. And we've been discussing this for under 24 hours so it's not enough time to say this dispute is intractable. I recommend closing this for now. Andre🚐 18:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Me and another user LucrativeOffer have been edit warring over contentious edits. The said user has inserted content which I believe biases and skews the neutrality of the article. I have attempted to make the article more neutral by adding information that makes the article more balanced, but the user has continuously reverted my edits. I have even attempted to foster a compromise which includes information that the other editor wanted to insert with the same source, but still they have whole-sale reverted me edits. A discussion was ongoing on the talk page, in good faith I decided not to reinsert my content but the other user continuously resintered their contentious content despite it being under discussion. We have arrived at an impasse and an edit war is ongoing.

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

Talk:Sheikh Hasina

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Dispute Resolution can help resolve the dispute by ensuring that the article lead is as balanced and neutral as possible, this could be done by striking compromise in regards to the conflicting edits. Third-party users can give a fresh look in regards to the conflicting edits and determine what work can be done to have a more neutral lead.

Summary of dispute by LucrativeOffer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The problem is AMomen88 has been removing all the well-sourced contents which he feels is unfavorable to the politician while adding poorly sourced content to, what he calls, 'balance the article'. The economic achievements AMomen88 is trying to add cannot be credited to Sheikh Hasina unless he can establish these have been achieved because of specific government policies under her term. Bangladesh's socio-economic progress has been an ongoing phenomenon for few decades. Experts rather credit the economic growth to the private sector. while the governance has consistently been identified as poor, ,. I told him he can add any of Hasina's achievements but he is adding stuff which cannot be credited to her. You cannot add just any other thing to balance. Furthermore, AMomen88 earlier expressed concern that I was using opinion pieces but when I replaced the sources with other sources he has just been saying 'you can't put negative information'. OTOH, he has himself been using opinion pieces as his sources. Additionally, he has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article in the past two weeks and yet, he seems to have no intention to simmer down. LucrativeOffer (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by A.Muskateer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Solomon The Magnifico
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The lede comes off as if Sheikh Hasina is the worst leader in Bangladesh's history or as if she is the worst leader that any country can have. Hence, the article's neutrality has been called into question. Several important aspects of her profile are missing in the lede. These include the following.


 * The assassination of her family is a defining aspect of her life. It is what forced her into politics in the first place. She continues to cite the killing of dozens of her family members (including her father, mother and brothers) as the main motivating factor for her to do politics. Bringing her family's killers back to Bangladesh is a major objective of her government. Half of her family's convicted killers are fugitives evading arrest by living abroad.


 * There is no mention of her first term in government between 1996 and 2001. Two key achievements of this period were the 1996 Ganges Water Sharing Treaty and the 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord.


 * While she suffered several attempts against her life, the most high profile assassination attempt against her was the 2004 Dhaka grenade attack.


 * Her second tenure started in 2009. Her government has solid achievements which are acknowledged by global agencies like the World Bank. Bangladesh achieved 7.9% GDP growth in 2019 under her tenure, which was the highest growth rate since 1974; the economy has consistently grown above 6% since 2009 when she took office. She has introduced megaprojects like the Padma Bridge and Dhaka Metro Rail.


 * Sheikh Hasina has pursued a strong "zero-tolerance" policy against terrorism and Islamic extremism. While Bangladesh experienced a major terrorist attack in 2016, the Hasina government has been largely successful in containing the terror threat. This is almost universally acknowledged and praised.


 * Unfortunately, her government has grown extremely authoritarian since 2011 when the Caretaker government of Bangladesh was abolished. Human rights problems need to be stressed in the lede while balancing her record on other fronts, as this BBC article does.

I hope these points get reflected in the lede.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mehediabedin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Vinegarymass911
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Worldbruce
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As a frequent contributor to Bangladesh-related topics and a watcher of the article, I became aware of the edit warring there long before I was pinged to the talk page discussion. I have not participated in that discussion, and during the six weeks of edit warring have made only one edit to the article. That edit, which challenged four sources on the grounds of WP:RSEDITORIAL, was not intended to weigh in on either side of the dispute, and as far as I can tell has been roundly ignored by both sides in the dispute (two of the four sources are still being misused in the most recent version as I write this). I believe it is erroneous to characterize me as involved in this dispute. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
I am possibly opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules for this moderated discussion. You are expected to have read and understood the rules, and will be expected to follow them. What I have learned from reading the statements and the discussion on the talk page is that some editors think that the article is non-neutral and negative about the subject, and also that some editors are dissatisfied with other editors. In DRN, we discuss article content, not contributors. We discuss edits, not editors.

Editors are expected to reply to my questions at least every 48 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. I am asking each editor to state whether they are willing to discuss article content only. I am also asking each editor what sections of the article they think should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors
Yes, I am willing to solely discuss the articles content. Please can we agree that while Dispute Resolution is ongoing we can revert the article to the status quo ante bellum prior to both of our edits.—AMomen88 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored the status quo revision prior to the first edit during the moderated discussion. A.Musketeer (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was not the first edit. The first edit was made by me on 28 October. The version you have reverted too includes contentious content inserted by LucrativeOffer, the version I have reverted too was the state of the article prior to both of our edits so it has no contentious content.-AMomen88 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was the first edit during the moderated discussion, the rule is that you cannot edit the article during the moderated discussion. The edit war began when you started reverting. A.Musketeer (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The edit war began when LucrativeOffer reverted my edits, on 21 November calling them "promotional" without evidence. As a result, I have reverted the article to its state without contentious content. You have reverted the article to its state with contentious content from LucrativeOffer. We cannot have a discussion while contentious content remains on the article.--AMomen88 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You cannot remove well-sourced contents just because you do not like them. It is quite ironic, you started this dispute resolution and you are edit-warring yourself which is only making this discussion useless. LucrativeOffer (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not removing the content because you perceived it to be "well-sourced", I reverted the article to the status quo ante bellum prior to both of our additions so there is no contentious content on the article.

I am dumbfounded you are so petty to reinsert your content despite the ongoing Dispute Resolution, I have decided not to reinsert my material in light of DR, it's disappointing you have refused to do the same.-

AMomen88 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement 0.5 by moderator (SH)
There has been edit-warring over the article, which continued after I made a preliminary statement in which I said to read the usual rules, which say not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. I do not intend to decide which version of the article should be in place during moderated discussion. I am putting this discussion on hold until there is no edit-warring for 48 hours, when I will open it for moderated discussion, or until an editor is blocked or a report made to another noticeboard, in which case I will fail it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not intend to decide which version of the article should be in place during moderated discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to decide what version of the article should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
Please read the ground rules for this moderated discussion again. You are expected to have read and understood the rules, and will be expected to follow them. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise.

I am asking each editor to state, specifically, what language in the article they either want to change, or want left the same that another editor wants to change. After I see what the editors disagree about, we will have a better idea of how to try to resolve the disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
This statement is almost the same as it was more than two days ago. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise.

Please state, specifically, what language in the article you want changed, or what language in the article you want left the same that another editor wants changed. After the scope of the disagreement is clarified, we will know better how to try to resolve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Sheikh Hasina)
The part the requires amending is the lead. It fails to give an accurate and full picture of Sheikh Hasina's premiership and skews the neutrality of the article. It makes no mention of her first term as prime minister and the major events mentioned by Solomon The Magnifico. It makes no mention of major events during her second stint such as the inauguration of Padma Bridge and Dhaka Metro Rail, nor does it make any mention of Bangladesh's improved social and economic indicators which her premiership has contributed. The cited content I inserted helps address these problems, I also added the content which LucrativeOffer wanted to insert and used the same source. I would be happy to compose a draft lead which could be open to discussion here.—AMomen88 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
It appears that there is disagreement as to the lede paragraph. I am asking each editor to draft a draft version of the lede paragraph that we can compare against the other draft versions. If there are any other areas of dispute, please identify them. If there are any questions, please ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed lead section
Sheikh Hasina Wazed (née Sheikh Hasina ; ; শেখ হাসিনা ওয়াজেদ,, born 28 September 1947) is a Bangladeshi politician and stateswoman who has served as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh since January 2009. Hasina is the daughter of the founding father and first President of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. She previously served as prime minister from June 1996 to July 2001. She is the longest serving prime minister in the history of Bangladesh, having served for a combined total of over 19 years. As of, she is the world's longest-serving female Head of Government in history.

Hasina's first premiership is noted for the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty and the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord. Since returning to office in 2009, Bangladesh has experienced rapid social and economic development. The country's GDP grew by over 6% for a decade until the pandemic while overall GDP and GDP per capita has more than trebled, now higher than that of India and Pakistan. Exports grew by over 80% largely fuelled by the ready made garment industry. Women have been empowered with an increased share in the workforce while the debt-GDP ratio has remained below 40%. Poverty and infant mortality has reduced while literacy, life expectancy and food production has increased. Girls enrolment in primary education and electricity coverage has attained 100%, while more than 1.1 million Rohingya refugees have been provided sanctuary since 2017. Hasina's administration self-financed the construction of the Padma Bridge mega project which was inaugurated in June 2022. In December 2022, Hasina opened the first phase of Dhaka Metro Rail, Bangladesh's first mass rapid transit service. In 2021, the UNGA approved Bangladesh's graduation from a LDC to a lower-middle income developing country.

However, under her tenure as Prime Minister Bangladesh has experienced democratic backsliding. Human Rights Watch documented widespread enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings under her government. Many politicians and journalists have been systematically and judicially punished for challenging her views. Her premiership has overseen the Bangladesh Rifles revolt, a mutiny by paramilitary officers over pay and the July 2016 Dhaka attack which was the deadliest single Islamist terror attack in Bangladesh's history. Reporters Without Borders in 2021 characterized Sheikh Hasina as a predator for curbing press freedom in Bangladesh since 2014. Her government was criticised for lax safety regulations following the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse. Systemic corruption remains prevalent, with Bangladesh being ranked amongst the most corrupt countries in the world.

In 2014, she was re-elected for a third term in an election that was boycotted by the BNP and criticised by international observers. She won her fourth term in 2018, following an election marred with violence and criticised by the opposition as being rigged.

Sheikh Hasina has been ranked as one of the most powerful women in the world in several rankings, including Forbes Magazine.

–AMomen88 (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
Three days ago I asked the editors to submit proposed rewrites of the lede section. There has been one. I am asking each editor to state whether they agree with the rewrite, or disagree with it, and, if they disagree, state whether they would prefer the existing version of the lede section, or whether they want to discuss the details.

If there is agreement, we will accept the rewording and close the dispute. If there are no further comments, we will close the dispute. So please specify whether you agree or disagree, and how. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Sheikh Hasina)
I am pinging editors who have not commented on this discussion to try and stimulate a discussion regarding the proposed lead I have composed. -AMomen88 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
Since User:AMomen88 has provided a revised lede section, and no one else has, there is a rough consensus for it. They may replace the current lede section with the one that they have offered. Then I will ask each editor if there are any other changes that they want made to the article. If there is no further discussion, I will close this dispute as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Sheikh Hasina)
I was not notified when the dispute resolution restarted which is I way I could not participate. I object to the proposed lead by AMomen88. The reasons have been stated before "The economic achievements AMomen88 is trying to add cannot be credited to Sheikh Hasina unless he can establish these have been achieved because of specific government policies under her term. Bangladesh's socio-economic progress has been an ongoing phenomenon for few decades. Experts rather credit the economic growth to the private sector. while the governance has consistently been identified as poor, , ." Besides, the proposed lead clearly misses out some valid and notable features of the prime-ministership like banking irregularity, increasing external debts, etc.

My proposed lead section is given below:

Sheikh Hasina Wazed (née Sheikh Hasina ; ; শেখ হাসিনা ওয়াজেদ,, born 28 September 1947) is a Bangladeshi politician who has served as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh since January 2009. Hasina is the daughter of the founding father and first President of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. She previously served as prime minister from June 1996 to July 2001. She is the longest serving prime minister in the history of Bangladesh, having served for a combined total of over 19 years. As of, she is the world's longest-serving female Head of Government in history.

Hasina's term as the Prime Minister witnessed worsening security situation that includes the Bangladesh Rifles revolt in 2009 which killed 56 officers of Bangladesh Army for which she was blamed by the army officers due to her refusal to intervene against the revolt. The period also saw increasing attacks by Islamic extremists in the country, including the July 2016 Dhaka attack which has been described as "deadliest Islamist attack in Bangladeshi history" by BBC. On the economic front, Bangladesh's external debt has more than tripled under Hasina's term, reaching $95.86 billion by the end of fiscal year 2021-22, leading the government to seek IMF loan twice in this period, first in 2012 and again in 2022. The period is also marked by massive irregularities in the banking sector of the country where the amount of default loans went from less than to more than  in 2019 according to IMF and includes the notable Bangladesh Bank robbery in 2016.

Under her tenure as Prime Minister, Bangladesh has experienced democratic backsliding. Human Rights Watch documented widespread enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings under her government. Many politicians and journalists have been systematically and judicially punished for challenging her views. Reporters Without Borders in 2021 characterized Sheikh Hasina as a predator for curbing press freedom in Bangladesh since 2014. According to experts, the Hasina-led government's repression of political opposition as well as shrinking democratic and civic space has created "the space for extremist groups to flourish" and "has generated a violent backlash from Islamist groups."

In 2014, she was re-elected for a third term in an election that was boycotted by the BNP and criticised by international observers. She won her fourth term in 2018, following an election marred with violence and criticised by the opposition as being rigged.

Sheikh Hasina has been ranked as the 42nd most powerful women in the world by Forbes Magazine.

LucrativeOffer (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree to the lede proposed by LucrativeOffer but I think we should also add notable corruption cases like Rooppur pillow scandal, Hallmark-Sonali Bank Loan Scam], [[2011 Bangladesh share market scam and others. Also a corruption case was filed against Sheikh Hasina in 2007 which deserves a mention in the lede. A.Musketeer (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
User:LucrativeOffer should not have expected to be notified when discussion restarted. I had said that discussion would restart when the edit-warring ended. The rules that are in effect include Rule 11, which says to check the status of the case at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

However, we will resume moderated discussion. We have two proposed versions of the lede section. I am asking each editor to review each proposed version, and state, in one paragraph about each version, whether they agree, or what they disagree with. That means that each editor is likely to agree with one version and to write one paragraph disagreeing with the other version.

Do not edit the article. Be civil and concise. Comment within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Sheikh Hasina)
I object to LucrativeOffer's lede. LucrativeOffer contends that the growth has been entirely as a result of the private sector, this is a falsehood which their own sources state. This source from them states the government's 2041 vision and the Smart Nation Plan are also powering growth and numerous sources I have attached from reputable independent organisations state that the government played a key role in the socio-economic development. The lede that LucrativeOffer proposed is the exact same as the previous lede, they make no attempts to try and compromise and make no attempts to try and address the concerns of other users, the lede is inaccurate and reads more like an invective, omitting major events of Hasina's second premiership with no mention of her first stint.

The lede I created fosters a compromise, there are "positives" and "negatives" of Hasina's premiership. I have incorporated content LucrativeOffer and other editors wanted to insert and have used a source from them. The lede includes a "positive" and "negative" paragraph which are well-sourced, balanced and neutral.

It's most unusual moderated discussion has been restarted despite a "rough consensus" for my proposed lede. The moderator had given me permission to insert me lede, I attempted to do so but the opposing editors continuously removed it. Please can you state whether that is still the case. Now they have reported me for edit warring merely for trying to execute the will of the moderator.—AMomen88 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I object to AMomen88's proposed lead because of the reasons already stated before. The economic achievements AMomen88 is trying to add cannot be credited to Sheikh Hasina unless he can establish these have been achieved because of specific government policies under her term. Bangladesh's socio-economic progress has been an ongoing phenomenon for few decades. Experts rather credit the economic growth to the private sector. while the governance has consistently been identified as poor, ,. Besides, the proposed lead clearly misses out some valid and notable features of the prime-ministership like banking irregularity, increasing external debts, etc.

I support the lead proposed by me because it is factually accurate and includes all the important elements of Hasina's tenure as the prime minister. The lead is also neutral as it includes both positives like Hasina being one of the longest serving female head of the government and her ranking in the list of the most powerful women and also the criticisms of her government. LucrativeOffer (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Sheikh Hasina)
I gave User:AMomen88 permission to revise the lede section. I did not give them permission to restore it three times, and a moderator does not give permission to edit-war. User:LucrativeOffer was editing against consensus. Editing against consensus is not vandalism. There is an exception to 3RR for the reverting of vandalism, but not for editing against consensus. Both User:AMomen88 and User:LucrativeOffer were wrong, and both have been partially blocked. Both editors have a history of edit-warring. It is true that this situation is unusual; it is also true that the moderator is responsible for neutral point of view. I am inclined to think that both editors are attempting to game the system, but the "will of the moderator" is to get the content dispute resolved, rather than to deal with conduct.

I will be failing dispute resolution, and will be composing an RFC to decide between the two versions of the lede section. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Schloss Fuschl
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Twice, on September 12 and December 27, I attempted to expand the short article on the Schloss Fuschl. The first time, user Justlettersandnumbers reverted my additions for being "ill-sourced." The second time, I found more sources, but Justlettersandnumbers again reverted my changes. This time, Justlettersandnumbers claimed my edits were "Promotion," that a portion failed the "Crystal Ball" rules, and also complained about my additional sources.

It's my opinion the sources I've found are the best available for a relatively obscure historical site. The primary source was a booklet published by the hotel, but it only contains historical data, no opinion about or endorsement of the business. The booklet was written by a legitimate local historian.

As for Promotion, the page here says promotion consists of "advocacy, opinion, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising." I can't find evidence of that in what I wrote.

Finally, the Crystal Ball rule feels like it is being applied incorrectly. I provided sources for statements about the near future. The Crystal Ball page here says it's okay to include things about the future if they are "almost certain to take place."

I would also add that almost everything in my two revisions is contained in the German-language article here, which has virtually no sources listed.

I asked two other members here to chime in with their thoughts. You'll see their comments on the Talk page. One is a friend of mine, the other is a stranger I found on a page I frequently edit, the St. Regis New York hotel.

I am requesting a dispute resolution because the other user has not replied recently, and the page is fairly obscure, so it hasn't attracted any other Talk page comments.

I'm hoping a fair resolution can be arrived at. Perhaps I just need to find a few more sources for my text, but it's all interesting historical information and it seems a shame to delete it all entirely.

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

Talk:Schloss_Fuschl User_talk:Justlettersandnumbers/2022

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like an impartial moderator or moderators to look at my revisions of 9/12 and 12/27, then review the comments on the Talk pages, and decide what the best course of action is. Thanks!

Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Schloss Fuschl discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Knives Out#Comedy_Genre
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Reopening: there is significant discussion with more than 12 messages between Doobledoop and Nemov within the past week on the talk page linked (toward the bottom), although the initial discussion was from 2019. I am unsure why Nemov is replying to this dispute; they wrote only one message in recent discussion, after initial dispute was opened. I do want to note that I am trying to act in good faith; I understand we have different interpretations of the style guidelines and both have FA and GA-class examples to represent our perspectives. I am unclear about the accusation of ignoring other perspectives.

This dispute is regarding the genre of the film in the opening sentence. The film has been received as a comedy mystery (specific sub-genre used in FA cinema articles such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit).

The WP:FILMGENRE guidelines suggest using at minimum the primary genre or sub-genre of the film in the opening sentence. I suggest aligning the opening sentence's genre classification with that of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and other FA-class articles. On these pages, the genre classification of comedy mystery was judged appropriate by consensus. This would appropriately reflect the weight of the film's regard by Lionsgate and professional associations (see accolades) as a comedy mystery.

The discussion has reached an impasse as we are both providing GA and FA-class articles that support our respective opinions (please see talk page for these references).

Regarding the last point, while I understand it may seem to the other editors that I am ignoring anything other than my own perspective, I can find multiple FA-class articles demonstrating both our perspectives.

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

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think we need an independent editor to review both our points, as well as the articles and references cited in the discussion, to help make a decision regarding style.

Summary of dispute by InfiniteNexus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Before we begin, let me just say I don't think starting a DRN thread was a good idea, with all due respect to the hard work done by DRN volunteers. A better course of action would have been to make a post at WT:FILM to ask whether "comedy mystery" is considered a sub-genre, or start an RfC like Nemov suggested if the consensus is divided and the matter remains unresolved. That being said, we're already here, so here goes:

The longstanding consensus of the film project has been to only place one genre in the lead of film articles — the primary, most predominant, and most general genre. This is documented at WP:FILMGENRE, and the majority of articles that I know of have adhered to this guideline pretty closely, i.e. you will only find one genre in the lead. Knives Out (film) is first and foremost a mystery film, but it also contains elements from the comedy, crime, detective, suspense, and thriller genres. Out of all these genres, the most dominant and general one is mystery, so that is what the lead has stated for years. To name a few examples of similar cases off the top of my head, I know the articles Deadpool (film), Guardians of the Galaxy (film), and The Incredibles (all of which have strong comedy elements but are not primarily comedy films) have closely followed WP:FILMGENRE for years by forgoing "comedy" in the lead. Now, Doobledoop here has challenged said consensus, arguing that because the comedy themes in Knives Out are so prevalant (I would argue the crime, detective, suspense, and thriller themes are just as prevalant), "comedy" should be added to the lead. When pointed to WP:FILMGENRE, Doobledoop asserted that "comedy mystery" is a single sub-genre rather than two genres put next to each other (kind of like saying "apple orange" is a fruit, not two). Both Nemov and I begged to differ, and so here we are. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nemov
Bizarre that the editor reopened after the prompt close. This should be withdrawn. If the editor will not listen to feedback, create a RfC. So far the editor is ignoring anyone who doesn't share their POV. Nemov (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Knives Out#Comedy_Genre 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) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've added the template to a topic on the user's talk page. I am not certain I formatted it correctly, but it contains links to the relevant topic and thread. Doobledoop (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not, but that's okay. It was easy enough for me to find this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Knives Out)
Please read the usual ground rules and follow them. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If you have any questions about the rules, ask them now. If not, please state that you agree to the rules. Do not edit the article while mediation is in progress.

It appears that there is disagreement about the film genre to be listed in the lede paragraph of the article. Are there any other issues to be addressed by moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Knives Out)
There are no other issues I can think of. I will let the other editor respond as well. Doobledoop (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess we're doing this. Yes, I agree to the ground rules, and yes, the genre in the lead is the only issue being contested. ? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue had come up in the past and generally it was agreed that the lead had one genre. This came up again due to the interest in the sequel. There was a hidden note in both articles urging editors to find consensus. InfiniteNexus, myself and several editors discussed the reasoning in the past. I have urged Doobledoop to create a RfC if they're unwilling to listen to us, but those suggestions have led us here. I even left a comment on their TALK and they didn't respond. When I commented here the first time the editor deleted my comment. I'm not sure why the editor is unwilling to listen to our suggestions. Nemov (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Knives Out)
The suggestion was made by one editor that we ask at the Film WikiProject talk page whether a two-part genre such as "comedy mystery" is consistent with their guidelines. Do the editors agree to ask that question? Do the editors agree that if the film project says that only one genre can be listed in the lede, this dispute can be resolved, with "mystery" chosen? If a two-part genre is permitted, then do we agree to "comedy mystery", or is the genre still in dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other issues to be discussed?

Second statements by editors (Knives Out)
I agree with this course of action. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the moderator. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the question is whether “comedy mystery” is a genre—not whether one genre can be used—since it is used by most critics to describe film. I understand InfiniteNexus can produce articles which use only one word; however, there are FA-class articles which use “mystery thriller“ (Blue Velvet (film)) and “comedy mystery” (Who Framed Roger Rabbit) with consensus for years as well.

If only one of these words were to be used, however, I think it is worth noting that the production company submitted the film to the “comedy or musical” categories for most major awards associations. There is no other film in this category for the Golden Globes, for example, that does not include the word "comedy" in the lead sentence. While I understand InfiniteNexus has personal opinions about the weight of different elements, I think consideration needs to be given to how the movie is classified by the producers.

Just as a note, I am unsure why Nemov is responding to this dispute thread and made comments on my own talk page when there was an ongoing discussion on DRN. It is my understanding the participants in the DRN must have made more than one recent post on the relevant talk page discussion, and the editor made only one post. Doobledoop (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * My comments are allowed and my participation in the discussion occurred long before you arrived. This isn't just a dispute between you and InfiniteNexus. We simply repeated the same points that had been made in the past by other editors. Nemov (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Question. Is it permissible, in accordance with DRN rules, for me to comment on WT:FILM while this moderated discussion is ongoing? I would like to clarify that the crux of the matter is whether "comedy mystery" is considered a subgenre (1x) or a compound genre (2x), as Doobledoop noted above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Knives Out)
I will permit discussion at the film project talk page. Depending on how the discussion goes, I may either say to stop discussion at the film project page, or allow discussion to continue, or even close the discussion here if the discussion at the film project page is productive. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thank you for adding the clarification on Wikipedia talk:FILM, @InfiniteNexus. Doobledoop (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Knives Out)
The discussion at the film project talk page has been productive, but seems to have moved on to other subtopics. At this point, what do each of the editors think that the lede sentence should say is the genre of the film? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Knives Out)

 * Status quo I agree with GoneIn60 that the majority of sources characterize the film as a murder mystery. Sticking with that seems reasonable. Nemov (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mystery film – I concur with Nemov. Per what was discussed over there, especially GoneIn60's comments, the vast majority of sources describe the film as "mystery" rather than "comedy", solidifying the former's status as the rightful primary genre of Knives Out. Editors there have also rejected the suggestion to use "mystery comedy" or "comedic mystery", because as GoneIn60 summarized, . InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Knives Out)
There is a rough consensus that the lede sentence should describe the film as a murder mystery. We thank the Film WikiProject for providing guidance. This case will be closed as resolved shortly. Any further discussion can be at the article talk page or at the film project talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)