Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Imran Khan	In Progress	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	18 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 19 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days, 2 hours
Battle of Lumë	Closed	Magapetro (t)	9 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours
Superpower	Failed	George Ho (t)	8 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 22 hours
Tetragrammaton	Closed	Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (t)	7 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours
Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee	In Progress	Grapesurgeon (t)	5 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	WhatamIdoing (t)	20 hours
Golfer's elbow	New	Awradloff (t)	21 hours	None	n/a	Awradloff (t)	21 hours
Byzantines	New	BreadAndHumus (t)	9 hours	None	n/a	BreadAndHumus (t)	9 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Current disputes

Imran Khan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by WikiEnthusiast1001 on 22:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk · contribs)
• Burrobert (talk · contribs)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added a factual claim of Pakistan terminating bilateral investment treaties during Khan's government, which can be independently verified. The author, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies with extensive research experience in international trade, investment policy, and Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). While this does not make him automatically correct, it means his work should be assessed on its evidence rather than dismissed outright.

SheriffIsInTown objects to the source because they consider the author "non-notable."

My argument is that the relevant considerations are the author's subject-matter expertise, the publication's editorial standards, and whether the article's factual claims can be independently verified.

If any of Perez-Rocha's claims are inaccurate, they should be challenged with evidence, rather than rejecting the source solely because the author is non-notable.

The broader point is that the credibility of a source depends on its evidence + verifiability, not on the author being a household name.

Sheriff also reverted my edit regarding a military appointment by Khan as "inconsequential" despite the office being a four-star rank appointment and the highest ranking military official.

Another edit where Khan successfully defended himself in a libel case brought forward by Ian Botham and Allan Lamb, which was described as the most expensive libel actions in cricket history at the time, was reverted by Sheriff who said "the lawsuit was filed and in return was inconsequential".

I also made an edit noting that Javed Hashmi now says Khan "might have" compromised, in contrast to his earlier claim that Khan "conspired" with "disgruntled elements in the army," during his political career, but Sheriff reverted it as well, saying "they hold no encyclopedic value".

An edit in which I noted that Khan sold his apartment at Shahr-e-Dastoor was also reverted. Sheriff said: "the Dawn source quotes anonymous sources and aprtment selling, not an independent reporting and not sure if it is same apartment." However, the apartment described as being on Constitution Avenue is literally known as Shahr-e-Dastoor.

Sheriff also has an issue with including a quote attributed to Herald staffer Zaigham Khan, who reported on Khan being a part of a pressure group with Hamid Gul and Muhammad Ali Durrani, which never materialised. The quote stated that Khan "quickly became uncomfortable with the idea of being seen as a puppet in the hands of Gul". He reverted it with the explanation that "we do not need to include his o.."

My question is, why? Since the article identifies Zaigham Khan as the journalist who reported on the formation of the pressure group and the quote appears verbatim in the cited source, what is the rationale for excluding it?

He also suddenly has an issue with this video which had been in the article for over a year.

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

Talk:Imran Khan#Additions
Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 8#WikiEnthusiast1001's edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We seem to be at an impasse. I'm hoping other editors can suggest a way to move the discussion toward a resolution. I don't think it's productive to go back and forth with someone who refuses to budge, so I'd rather seek an uninvolved editors opinion.

Summary of dispute by Burrobert

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

A look at the recent edit history shows there are numerous points of dispute in the article. I will restrict myself to some of those raised by WikiEnthusiast1001.

• The video titled "Imran Khan provides his perspective on the May 9 riots in July 2023" is long-standing content. It has been in the article since 7 March 2025.[1] WP:STATUSQUO says "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion". The video contains no claims related to a BLP other than about Khan himself. No problem was raised regarding the video during the recent GAN review.[2] It should remain in the article.
• Assessment of Manuel Pérez-Rocha: Pérez-Rocha can be considered an expert in the area of trade and investment agreements so his opinion is worthy of inclusion. It is more coherent than the opinion attributed to Declan Walsh, which is contained in the article.
• The apartment on Constitution Avenue: in Imran's bio we call it a Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment event though the source says Constitution Avenue. Since there is disagreement about whether Khan sold this apartment in 2022, we should remove this from his bio. Specifically, remove the statement "He paid Rs11.97 million for a Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment". Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTown

All of these are old disputes except one. I do not think they can bring old disputes to DRN in this manner. The only dispute currently being discussed at Talk:Imran Khan#Additions is the proposed addition of Rocha's opinion. They argue that it is a widely known fact. If that is the case, then there is no need to cite the opinion of a non-notable author published on the website of an advocacy group or think tank. Widely known facts should be supported by mainstream reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Imran Khan discussion

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

• See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 272#Imran_Khan, which involved the same three participants and was closed on 13 June 2026. I think it would be better if these disputes stayed on the article talk page, and if WikiEnthusiast1001 found that every other participant disagreed with him/her, he/she accepted that as consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Cute, but your claim that every other participant disagrees with me isn't accurate, Burrobert has no issues with my edits. If anything, it's the opposite. No one agrees with Sheriff and Sheriff doesn't agree with anyone else either. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor following the talk page, I note that there is no consensus against WikiEnthusiast1001. The primary standstill stems from SheriffIsInTown aggressively gatekeeping the page, using double standards to block verified facts and reliable global outlets. LesIie (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor following the talk page, there is no mention of an opened DRN discussion at Talk:Imran Khan and it is hard to believe that you just stumbled upon this discussion. I note that there is no consensus against WikiEnthusiast1001 There is never a consensus pro or contra an editor; consensus is always about content. The DRN discussion concerns content, not editors, but your statement speaks volumes about how you might have stumbled upon this discussion. As for the accusations against me, this forum is for discussing content disputes, not for making accusations against editors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The filer had 'suggested' to take this to DRN on the talk page, and DRN is a public noticeboard. LesIie (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

I am ready to moderate this dispute if moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule D and the statement that South Asia is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, Imran Khan. I am asking each editor to state what changes they want to make to the article, in what section and paragraph, or what changes another editor wants to make that they disagree with. One editor has said that some of the disputes are old. The moderator will decide what disputes are current, but a dispute should have been discussed on the article talk page extensively and inconclusively within about the past two weeks. If a dispute is stale, it should be made current by resumed discussion on the article talk page. What are the issues?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

WikiEnthusiast1001

I would like to add several edits that I believe are supported by reliable sources:

• To the Imran Khan#Economy section:

      "After his ouster, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that Khan's economic policies were a "mixed bag at best," but credited Khan for taking a "bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments."

• Khan's appointment of Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee to the "Military appointments" section.
• An addition to the "Post-retirement from cricket" section noting that Khan successfully defended himself in a libel case brought by Ian Botham and Allan Lamb, which was described at the time as the most expensive libel case in cricket history.

     "In 1996, Khan won the most expensive libel case in cricket history when he successfully defended himself against a lawsuit brought by former England captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb. Botham and Lamb accused Khan of calling them uneducated racists in an interview with India Today's Shekhar Gupta. The case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", ended with a 10–2 majority decision by the jury in favour of Khan."

• An update to the "Relationship with the military" section to reflect that Javed Hashmi now says Khan "might have" compromised, in contrast to his earlier allegation where he seemed sure that Khan had "conspired" with "disgruntled elements in the army" during his political career.

       "In regards to the "Charter of Democracy" proposed by the incumbent government of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi told The Diplomat in June 2026, that though Khan might have compromised with the military to come into power in 2018, "now he has nothing to gain from any compromise – neither with the PML-N and PPP nor the military establishment".

• Since Burrobert has proposed removing the entire line regarding Khan's apartment at Shahr-e-Dastoor, I have no objection.
• A quote from Herald staffer Zaigham Khan, who reported that Imran Khan was involved in a political pressure group with Hamid Gul and Muhammad Ali Durrani that ultimately never materialised. The quote by Zaigham, who broke the news, said Khan "quickly became uncomfortable with the idea of being seen as a puppet in the hands of Gul." This would belong in the "Political career prior to premiership" section.
• I suggest revisin the lead's statement where "He supported General Musharraf's 1999 Pakistani coup d'état." Adding only the word "initially" to the beginning would clarify the chronology but it would still omit important context so to maintain accuracy, we would need to note that Khan later opposed him. Khan's rationale for his early support was that his party did not want to see Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who he viewed as corrupt, return to politics.

I have no questions. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

References

SheriffIsInTown

As I stated previously, out of all of these disputes, only one has been discussed extensively during the past two weeks. The rest are either old disputes or newer ones that have not been discussed extensively during that period. The OP decided to step back from them because they did not want to invest more time in discussing them, but since they are already at DRN, they now want to bundle them all together. My point is that if the OP does not want to invest the time to discuss a dispute extensively on the relevant talk page, they should not ask other editors and volunteers at DRN to invest their time in resolving it.

The article was 17,000 words long at one point, mainly because this same OP kept bloating it with opinions. It was tagged with Template:Very long, and in order to resolve that tag, we had to remove a lot of opinion, both positive and negative. We only kept opinions attributed to notable individuals, reducing the article to 10,000 words, which is the recommended length mentioned in WP:CANYOUREADTHIS. Now, after resolving that tag, the OP wants to embark on the same path by adding more opinions, mainly positive ones attributed only to non-notable individuals. If we do that, why did we remove the previous material? If we add back everything that was removed, the article will again exceed 17,000 words.

That is one issue. The second issue is why we should add more opinions at all when the article is already at its maximum recommended length. Why can’t we stick to independently verifiable facts? They say these are widely known facts, so why not add them as facts and source them to mainstream sources? Why do we need to present them as opinions expressed on an advocacy website? I am fine with including the claims regarding the investment strategy as long as they are supported by a mainstream source stating that Khan did that.

The dispute regarding the libel case was already resolved in another DRN discussion, and I am fine with including the text as agreed there.

Regarding Hashmi’s statement, the OP is misinterpreting it by claiming that Hashmi is saying something different now from what he said in 2014. He is actually saying the same thing: portraying Khan as an opportunist who benefited from establishment support in 2014, but who has nothing to gain from it now and therefore would not do that now. Hashmi is just one of hundreds of politicians in Pakistan. If we include his opinion, there will be no stopping someone from seeking to include the opinions of other politicians about Khan, and the article’s length will again become an issue.

The Zaigham Khan and Musharraf parts have not been discussed at all during the past two weeks, but I oppose their inclusion. Zaigham is a non-notable individual, and if we include his opinion, then on what basis did we remove the other non-notable opinions to address the length concern? As for the Musharraf part, the proposed wording is editorializing and goes beyond what the sources themselves support.

The Nadeem Raza and Constitution Avenue apartment matters have also not been discussed extensively on the talk page during the past two weeks. The mention of Raza was removed during the trimming exercise because the CJCSC post is largely symbolic and inconsequential. I do not think it needs to be mentioned in an article that is already at the maximum recommended length. If one looks at Raza’s article, it only mentions his appointment and nothing after it. They may do a great deal during their tenure, but typically nothing is considered significant enough to include in their Wikipedia articles. That is what I mean by the appointment being inconsequential and therefore not worth mentioning in an already lengthy article.

I am not in favor of removing the existing content about the apartment. It already has consensus for inclusion, and there is no policy violation. However, I am against the addition of the new content added by the OP. The new content is sourced to a source that quotes anonymous sources. We cannot wikivoice content that is attributed to anonymous sources. In addition, there is no clarity that the new source is referring to the same apartment already mentioned in the article.

Sorry for the lengthy response, but this is also a consequence of the OP bundling many largely undiscussed disputes into one discussion. It is difficult to address each one without a lengthy response, which is why disputes should first be discussed extensively on the talk page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Burrobert

• As already mentioned, the video titled "Imran Khan provides his perspective on the May 9 riots in July 2023" is long-standing content. There has been no discussion about removing the video on the talk page so it does not need to be discussed here. If an editor wants to remove the video, they should start a discussion on the talk page.
• Assessment of Manuel Pérez-Rocha: Pérez-Rocha can be considered an expert in the area of trade and investment agreements so his opinion is worthy of inclusion. It is published by a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, which is described as "one of the five major independent think tanks in Washington during its first decades". I don't see that the source is disqualified because it is a think tank. Other organisations and think tanks which we use as sources in Imran's bio are the International Crisis Group, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Pakistan Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, International Press Institute, Noria Research and International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
• The apartment on Constitution Avenue: we may need a discussion about this on the talk page before discussing here. I will note however that there are sources which state in their own words (i.e. not attributed to anonymous sources), that Imran sold the apartment in 2022.[3][4]. It is therefore inappropriate to list it amongst his wealth as at 2024. We should either remove it entirely or mention the purchase and sale of the apartment somewhere else in the "Wealth and assets" section. Burrobert (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

Maybe I wasn't clear about what I am and am not trying to do at DRN. I am not an editorial board, and am not offering a binding opinion (unless I have agreed to provide a binding Third Opinion). It is not necessary or useful to persuade me that your view is correct, because I am making a deliberate effort to maintain neutrality. When I ask what changes you want to make to the article, or what changes you oppose to the article, I just want to know what you want, not why you think that your edits will be the best to improve the encyclopedia. The decisions on proposed changes will normally made either by compromise or by RFC. It is more important to identify what you want, so that the disputes can be identified, than why.

So, once again, please identify the issues concisely. Overly long statements do not clarify what the issues are, even if they may later clarify how to resolve the issues. If there are multiple changes that you want to make to the article, you may list them in very short paragraphs or in bullet-point format. I will decide whether an issue is ready for discussion, ir too new, or is old or stale, so please identify as many issues as you think need identifying. What are the issues?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Imran Khan)

SheriffIsInTown

The OP wants to add Perez-Rocha's opinion. I oppose its inclusion as an opinion, but if there is a mainstream source that independently confirms the underlying fact, I am fine with including that fact, sourced to the mainstream source. The OP also wants to include content about the libel case. I oppose its inclusion as written by the OP, but I am fine with including it in the form agreed during the prior DRN discussion. I oppose all the other changes the OP wants to make. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Burrobert

• I think that Perez-Rocha's opinion should be added to the article and believe the source to be equivalent or better than others that are already being used in Imran's bio.
• I think it is inappropriate to list the apartment at Constitution Ave among Imran's wealth as at 2024, given that there are sources which state that he sold it in 2022. We should either remove mention of it entirely, or mention the purchase and sale of the apartment somewhere else in the "Wealth and assets" section. Since this does not appear to have been discussed on talk as yet, we may need to move the discussion of this point to the talk page, unless of course some agreement can be reached here. Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

WikiEnthusiast1001

I want to add the following:

• To Imran Khan#Economy: "After his ouster, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that Khan's economic policies were a "mixed bag at best," but credited Khan for taking a "bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments."
• To Imran Khan#Military appointments: "Khan appointed Lt. Gen. Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in November 2019."
• To Imran Khan#Post-retirement from cricket: "In 1996, Khan won the most expensive libel case in cricket history when he successfully defended himself against a lawsuit brought by former England captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb. Botham and Lamb accused Khan of calling them uneducated racists in an interview with India Today's Shekhar Gupta. The case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", ended with a 10–2 majority decision by the jury in favour of Khan."
• To Imran Khan#Relationship with the military: "In regards to the "Charter of Democracy" proposed by the incumbent government of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi told The Diplomat in June 2026, that though Khan might have compromised with the military to come into power in 2018, "now he has nothing to gain from any compromise – neither with the PML-N and PPP nor the military establishment".

Second statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

The filing editor wants to make four additions to the article: Addition A: To Imran Khan#Economy: "After his ouster, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that Khan's economic policies were a "mixed bag at best," but credited Khan for taking a "bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments."

Addition B. * To Imran Khan#Military appointments: "Khan appointed Lt. Gen. Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in November 2019."

Addition C: * To Imran Khan#Post-retirement from cricket: "In 1996, Khan won the most expensive libel case in cricket history when he successfully defended himself against a lawsuit brought by former England captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb. Botham and Lamb accused Khan of calling them uneducated racists in an interview with India Today's Shekhar Gupta. The case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", ended with a 10–2 majority decision by the jury in favour of Khan."

Addition D: * To Imran Khan#Relationship with the military: "In regards to the "Charter of Democracy" proposed by the incumbent government of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi told The Diplomat in June 2026, that though Khan might have compromised with the military to come into power in 2018, "now he has nothing to gain from any compromise – neither with the PML-N and PPP nor the military establishment".

The other editors are asked to state whether they agree, partly agree, or disagree. If you disagree, or partly agree, please explain why you disagree, or what the disagreement is.

One editor objects to the listing of the apartment on Constitution Avenue. I don't see where that apartment is mentioned in the text of the article. Please explain.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

In Imran's bio, we have used the term "Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment" to refer to the Constitution Avenue apartment. Burrobert (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Imran Khan)

Burrobert

I am in favour of A and C.

I am not against B and D. The sourcing for B and D is fine and the content of both is consistent with other content in Imran's bio. Hence, both are suitable additions to the article.

Regarding the Constitution Avenue apartment, we should change the text to either remove mention of it entirely, or mention the purchase and sale of the apartment somewhere else in the "Wealth and assets" section.

Note that a previous dispute was lodged regarding C, but the outcome of that dispute has not been implemented. Burrobert (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown

I am in favor of A only if we have a mainstream source confirming the underlying fact. I am not in favor of including it as an opinion sourced to an advocacy website. The author is non-notable, and we previously removed opinions by non-notables. If we include this as an opinion, it will open the floodgates to the inclusion of opinions by non-notables, including those that were removed previously, we cannot just have double standards, this will be detrimental for the article in the long run. I am only finding mainstream sources saying that he aspired to annul these agreements, but no source says that he actually annulled them. I do not think his aspiration alone merits inclusion in an already lengthy article.

I am not in favor of including B because it was an inconsequential appointment, and I do not think it has sufficient encyclopedic value for inclusion in an already lengthy article.

I am in favor of including C, but only the text agreed upon in the previous DRN discussion.

I am not in favor of including D, as I do not think Hashmi is saying anything different from what he said previously, and he is just one of hundreds of politicians in Pakistan. If we include his opinion, it will open the floodgates to including the opinions of other politicians about Khan.

As for the apartment matter, we have sources from 2024 saying that he disclosed it as his property in his nomination papers for the 2024 elections, which was his own voluntary action. We cannot just mention everything else he disclosed but not mention the apartment. The sources also state that he paid Rs11.97 million for the apartment. These new sources mention that he sold an apartment in 2022. My question is whether this was the same apartment that he declared in his nomination papers for the 2024 elections. The follow-up question is that if he sold the same apartment in 2022, then why did he declare it as his property in the 2024 election papers? Since this confusion exists, my suggestion would be to include the sale of the apartment as a separate sentence without linking it to the one declared in the 2024 election papers. We can attribute it by saying something like, "In 2026, X reported that he sold an apartment for X million…" We must not state that it was the same apartment he declared in his 2024 papers unless a source explicitly states so. This must also be sourced to a source that does not attribute the reported sale to anonymous sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Lumë

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Magapetro on 21:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Battle of Lumë (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Magapetro (talk · contribs) FranéRogoz (talk · contribs) Lostsandwich (talk · contribs) Yung Doohickey (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Theres an ongoing dispute regarding the result in the infobox for the Battle of Lumë. The peer-reviewed secondary sources cited on the page (Onuzi, pg185 and Csaplar-Degovics, pg 2) date the battle to 15–18 November 1912 & characterize the outcome as an Albanian victory/successful resistance. The opposing editors are trying to artificially expand the battle's timeline to include subsequent, month long December pacifications operations by the Serbian Third Army, to force a "Serbian military victory" label into the infobox which violates MOS:MILRESULT & WP:SYNTH. on 3 July 2026 I proposed moving this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, following the guidance of admin Rosguill in a recent false AE case which is another story in itself. FranéRogoz just didn't respond & Lostsandwich rejected this on 13 July 2026, claiming "there is no deadlock here" & brickwalling consensus. I'm filing this case so neutral editors can review the source texts & layout standards. Thanks. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Battle of Lumë#Inappropriate result in infobox Talk:Battle of Lumë#Moving to Dispute Resolution per Administrative Guidance How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A neutral volunteer can evaluate the source texts under MOS:MILRESULT & WP:SYNTH. Reliable secondary sources (Onuzi, pg 185 & Csaplar-Degovics, p. 2) call the 15–18 November engagement as a successful resistance/Albanian victory. Opposing editors are merging separate December punitive operations/retaliations to force a "Serbian victory" label. A volunteer can help enforce standard layout formatting or guide us to structure a neutral RFC. Thanks. Summary of dispute by FranéRogoz Dear volunteers and administrators, I highly recommend reading the talk page of this article to see my detailed arguments. Regarding the sources pushed by the filing editor, Sali Onuzi is not a reliable academic source. He holds no credentials in history, is a retired military officer from the Luma region with an undeniable conflict of interest. He writes using highly emotional and nationalistic language. Ironically, Onuzi himself refutes the editor, explicitly defining the conflict as lasting through November and December, which destroys the attempt by the editor to truncate the timeline on 18 Nov to manufacture a victory. As for Krisztian Csaplar-Degovics, the editor is fabricating claims that do not exist in the text . Csaplar never mentions the 15 to 18 November timeframe, nor does he label the event an Albanian victory, yet the editor insists on misrepresenting his work. I have repeatedly warned him against inventing quotes and pushing non academic opinion pieces, but he ignores policy. Mainstream historiography, including the Military History Institute, documents that Serbian forces suppressed the rebellion by early December. The editor bypasses doctors of historical sciences like Milos Jagodic and Mile Bjelajac to force his preferred narrative. I was forced to report this conduct to the Arbitration enforcement board because constructive discussion is impossible. I think the matter is crystal clear and once you examine the sources, you will see exactly who is right in this dispute.FranéRogoz (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Lostsandwich Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Yung Doohickey Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Battle of Lumë discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Lumë) I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. I see that this dispute has already been to Arbitration Enforcement, where User:Rosguill said that this is a content dispute, and should be discussed at DRN to develop an RFC. So the purpose of this moderated discussion is to identify exactly what our differences of opinion are. Please read DRN Rule D. Please read about Eastern Europe as a contentious topic Be civil and concise. Discuss edits, not editors. Concentrate on content, not contributors. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not agree with, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Please be specific. Tell me what paragraphs you want to change and what you want the article to say. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address the answers to my questions to the moderator (me) on behalf of the community and to the community. We have already been to Arbitration Enforcement once. The editors are cautioned to assist with the dispute resolution process so that the RFC can be formulated. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I propose changing the result parameter in the infobox from "Serbian military victory" to a "Albanian victory" or "Succesful Albanian resistance", in compliance with MOS:MILRESULT & WP:NPOV. The primary peer reviewed secondary sources cited on the talkpage (Onuzi, pg 185 & Csaplar Degovics, pg 2) define the specific the Battle of Lume as a discrete military engagement spanning 15–18 November 1912, concluding with the defeat of the initial Serbian Luma group & a succesful Albanian resistance. The disagreement is that opposing editors are trying to artificially expand the chronological scope of this specific battle to include subsequent, separate December counter offensive operations & punitive sweeps by the Serbian Third Army, using those later events to retroactively label the November battle as an overall "Serbian victory". As of MOS:MILRESULT an infobox should clearly reflect the outcome of the specific engagement named in the article title instead of a synthesized combination of distinct historical phases, pushing an overall victory by merging subsequent regional pacifications into a single infobox violates WP:SYNTH. The infobox should neutrally reflect the 15–18 November engagement, all subsequent December punitive sweeps & expansive operations can remain thoroughly (and accurately) detailed in the Aftermath section. Magapetro (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Robert McClenon I ask to please check my detailed arguments and evidence on the article talk page because I do not want to unnecessarily clutter this noticeboard. The opposing editor is basing his entire proposal on two sources that do not support his claims. First, it has already been proven on the talk page that Sali Onuzi is absolutely not a reliable or relevant source for Wikipedia. Onuzi is not an academic historian, he has no degree in history, and he is just a retired military officer from the exact same Luma region writing a highly biased personal essay. Furthermore, the journal he published in, Revista Ushtarake, explicitly disowns his work. On page 2, the publisher states that the views are entirely those of the author and that the author bears responsibility for factual distortions, proving there is zero peer review. Even worse, the table of contents shows his text is published in a section literally titled Integration of reserve and retired military personnel into society. It is a social bulletin for military pensioners, not an academic historical journal. In that very essay, Onuzi actually complains that the official 2002 edition of the History of the Albanian People published by the Albanian Academy of Sciences states that this event was a suppression and a defeat, not a victory. Onuzi rejects his own countrys academic consensus by quoting folk proverbs, which makes his work a textbook example of a fringe theory. Opposing this unreviewed essay are genuine academic experts like Professor Dr Milos Jagodic and Professor Dr Mile Bjelajac and Military History Institute, who document this as one continuous military operation that ended in the suppression of the rebellion. Second, the opposing editor is completely fabricating text from Krisztian Csaplar Degovics because that specific source never mentions any battles in Luma from 15 to 18 November and it certainly never mentions an albanian victory. Since one source is a proven fringe essay by a retired officer published in a pensioner bulletin, and the text of the other is being invented, discussing his proposal further is pointless. The infobox must keep the full timeline and show the actual outcome based on real academic consensus. FranéRogoz (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Lumë) First statement by moderator (Battle of Lumë) Perhaps I need to explain that I am not acting as an editorial board or providing a binding Third Opinion. When I ask for a concise statement of what an editor wants to change or leave the same in the article, I am not asking why they want that. I may or may not ask for reasons in another round of statements. I was not asking for detailed statements and evidence. I wanted to know whether a compromise is possible or whether I should be preparing a Request for Comments. So I will ask two questions now. First, what does each editor want the infobox to say? It is not necessary to explain why. Second, do the editors have any content issues with the text of the article? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC) To be short and clear. First, I want the infobox to keep its current stable parameters exactly as they are right now, specifically the dates 15 November to 5 December 1912 and the result stating Serbian military victory. Second, I do not have any content issues with the main text of the article. FranéRogoz (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC) I want the infobox date parameter to state 15–18 November 1912 & the result parameter to state Successful Albanian resistance, as of MOS:MILRESULT. No, I don't have any content issues with the main text of the article, the subsequent December counter offensive operations & regional pacifications are already detailed pretty thoroughly & accurately in the Aftermath section, exactly where it belongs. Magapetro (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC) First statements by editors (Battle of Lumë) Second statement by moderator (Battle of Lumë) It appears that an RFC will be needed to resolve the matter of what is shown as the outcome of the battle. I have drafted an RFC, which is at Talk:Battle of Lumë/RFC on Infobox. Please review the draft and comment on it here, in this DRN. I have provided an option for editors to say that the result was indecisive. If there are any other possible options for the outcome, please say what they are. When we agree that the RFC states the issue properly, I will move the RFC to the article talk page and launch it, at which point it will become a live RFC, and you may then vote in it and comment in it. Do not vote in it or comment in it at this time, because it is only a draft. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC) The options A, B, and C for the result parameter are perfectly clear and fair. However, looking at the previous statements from both of us, there is also a direct dispute over the date parameter, and the result is strictly tied to that timeline. I requested keeping the stable dates 15 November to 5 December, while the opposing editor explicitly requested changing them to 15 to 18 November. Because the historical outcome depends entirely on which timeline is being used, I strongly suggest including the disputed dates directly in the RFC options so the voters have the full context. For example, Option A could state Serbian military victory with dates 15 November to 5 December, and Option B could state Successful Albanian resistance with dates 15 to 18 November. If you add this, the RFC will resolve both disputed parameters at once and prevent future conflicts. FranéRogoz (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Battle of Lumë) Third statement by moderator (Battle of Lumë) I have revised the draft RFC at Talk:Battle of Lumë/RFC on Infobox to ask about the period of time as well as the result. Please review the draft and comment on it here, in this DRN. If there are any other possible options for the outcome, please say what they are. When we agree that the RFC states the issue properly, I will move the RFC to the article talk page and launch it, at which point it will become a live RFC, and you may then vote in it and comment in it. Do not vote in it or comment in it at this time, because it is only a draft. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Robert the draft RFC looks good to me. I don't have any objections or additional options to add. As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and launch the RFC right away. FranéRogoz (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC) The revised draft at Talk:Battle of Lumë/RFC on Infobox looks well balanced, thorough & accurately captures the core dispute, linking the date parameters alongside the result options ensures the community can provide a definitive, comprehensive consensus for the entire infobox. I have no objections or additional options to add, I'm completely satisfied with your phrasing so please feel free to launch the live RfC whenever you're ready. Thanks for your structured guidance & expertise Rob. Magapetro (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Battle of Lumë) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Superpower

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by George Ho on 04:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Superpower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• PaulRKil (talk · contribs)
• Aaron Liu (talk · contribs)
• GeogSage (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-39643-24 (talk · contribs)
• 16dvnk (talk · contribs)
• Sam Wood Rp (talk · contribs)
• Gryfia (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs) (added, 05:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC))
• ~2026-30838-14 (talk · contribs) (added, 01:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC))

Dispute overview

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Actually, the dispute started when another editor PaulRKil initiated a suggestion at Talk:Second Cold War that the China–US be given more prominence. I told Paul to read the whole US–China section carefully. Then I found out that Paul has been working on primarily the superpower article. Furthermore, I discovered the RFC discussion (Talk:Superpower#RFC on China superpower status) that had been previously still either ongoing or not yet closed officially. Thus, I requested a closure at WP:CR, so Aaron Liu stepped in to close the RFC discussion. To enforce the RFC discussion, I had to remove info that would give readers an impression that China is actually a "superpower". However, PaulRKil reverted my efforts and rejected (or "disagreed") with Aaron Liu's conclusion but rather went for another editor's conclusion. I pinged Paul about the attempts to undo most of my edits. Then the whole discussion exploded into stuff about the term superpower itself being variously defined or something like that but also (mis)used potentially by nationalists or whoever else. I was brainstorming another RFC to initiate: about either China or the term itself. Then I was talked out of this into taking the matter here instead. Honestly, I was hoping that either Paul or someone else can challenge the closure at WP:AN, but then I've yet to see anyone do so. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Superpower#RFC on China superpower status Talk:Superpower#Post-RFC... or a pre-RFC? Attempts to revert Talk:Second Cold War#Concerns about article weight and structure. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I was hoping for another RFC, but then I was also hoping that the official RFC closure by Aaron Liu is proper enforced. Currently, as-is, the definition of superpower may be either blurrier, more jumbled, or more complex than I have hoped for. Well, personally, I don't want China to be labelled fully a superpower, but others have still pushed for that viewpoint. Summary of dispute by PaulRKil I do not agree that “no consensus” was the proper outcome for the RfC. I acknowledge that consensus is not determined by headcounts, I do not believe the closing rationale adequately explains why arguments supporting Option B or A for that matter were insufficient to establish consensus. The discussion contained substantial support for Option B, and the closer’s explanation does not set it aside. But WP:NOCON describes No Consensus as the following: No consensus can arise when many ideas are discussed but none gain traction, or when responses to a proposal are evenly divided. There was no even divide as there was clearly one proposal that gained traction. I also disagree with the assessment that the sourcing for Option B was weaker than A. While both relied more on news, option A (and any opinion that asserted China is not a superpower) relied on scholarly articles from decades ago. Recent scholarly literature treats China as a present superpower. For example, David A. Lake, writing in the Chinese Journal of International Politics, repeatedly refers to the United States and China as “the superpowers” and describes China as “a global superpower.” I also disagree with the assertion that @Sam Wood Rp:’s blocks are unrelated to the consensus built on the talk page. The blocks were not based solely on the number of reverts. They arose from them repeatedly restoring disputed content instead of resolving the dispute through discussion. Under WP:EDITWAR, editors are expected to stop reverting and seek consensus and this editor repeatedly references restoring material contrary to the consensus reached on this page. The edit warring and consensus issues were related rather than independent of eachother. If an admin had disagreed with the idea that consensus was met, it is unlikely they’d go for a month long topic ban for that editor. This is why I find @Aaron Liu:'s closure problematic. While the RfC may have been improperly closed due to @Gryfia:'s involvement in the discussion, it was abundantly clear that the outcome of the RfC was noticed and enforced by admins on the noticeboard. For those reasons, I disagree with the conclusion that there was no consensus. The discussion as a whole appeared to develop toward Option B as the preferable baseline over A. While improvements to sourcing may still be warranted, I do not believe the discussion supports a finding that no consensus emerged at all. As an addendum, I do take issue with who has been pinged and who hasn't. There appears to be an outsized number of individuals pinged who disagree with the aforementioned consensus that I believe was met on the talkpage. While I agree that we should avoid canvassing, I can't help but notice what has happened here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRKil (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Aaron Liu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Two months ago, editors held a discussion on whether China should be called a superpower. B had a numerical majority whose reasoning was solely personal opinion, which a close has to discount. This week, I saw an old discussion added to WP:CR with the usual plea that discussion had languished too long, and due to the discounting I mentioned, it seemed like an easy no-consensus close in a contentious topic area—dime-a-dozen. It was only a day after that RKil's thread informed me that many participants had already implemented Option B as the outcome to the RfC for two months. In summary, this is a hot mess. I am disappointed that the request at WP:CR did not mention that one options' supporters went ahead with it. While closing, I ignored the discussions after the RfC as I thought they wouldn't reflect anything I'd need to address in the close. This mistake created so much confusion for the RfC's participants (though so far just RKil), to which it looks like history was overwritten. It also seems to me that geHo used the RfC's close to make one unrelated removal: I don't see how no consensus regarding whether China is a superpower or emerging superpower means you can split a paper into two sections. The rest of his edits seems to only remove the parts the RfC discussed, so the close I guess supports it if that was the status quo. I'm not sure if that was the status quo, though. I'll add further comments on what I think the close should mean below, as I think arguing it goes beyond summarizing the dispute. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GeogSage The term "superpower" in geopolitics is part of a relative system for describing the influence an entity can wield on the international stage. Other related terms are Great power, middle power, and Small power. These terms are not formally defined in a universally agreed-upon way, and there are different opinions in the literature on which countries are in which specific category. Recently, other terms have been introduced into the literature, such as "military superpower," "economic superpower," and "cultural superpower." Some sources list the United States as the sole extant superpower, while others include China, the European Union, or even NATO. This seems to be the primary dispute. Rather than reflecting this ambiguity, editors seem to have very specific conflicting visions for the article, some wanting to put definitive statements in Wikivoice that something IS a superpower (mostly revolving around China). It seems that there is a bit of Wikipedia:Original research in the talk page, with people arguing at length about whether something meets a specific criterion for being a superpower, rather than just pointing to sources that say something is/isn't and saying it is disputed. I fear this has devolved into a nationalistic contest to define a superpower based on individual editors' worldviews and personal opinions, rather than reflecting the complexity of the literature. This has been going on for a very long time. This was one of the first articles I edited on Wikipedia in April of 2022, and one of my first edits was listing specific examples that are noted at World Population Review. People have been arguing about it off and on since, and I suspect were arguing about it before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeogSage (talk • contribs) 04:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ~2026-39643-24 If numerous reliable sources (IR journals and newspapers of record) refer to China as a full-fledged "second superpower" then this should be clearly mentioned. This has been extensively shared on the discussion page by myself and other users. It is not universal but even the US is not universally agreed to as a superpower - only by a strong majority. You will find many many IR scholars supporting this consensus. Also the lede should be concise and not mention every single weakness of China while not mentioning any of the US. The current state if the intro is unbalanced with undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39643-24 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 16dvnk I was only strolling by, and did not expect to get involved. However, I have tried my best to make a summary: In the RFC, there was no consensus. At the time, there were 3 options presented. Option A was calling China an "emerging superpower", and Option B was about calling China a definitive superpower. There was also an Option C, which was supposed to be proposed by participants, but that led to nothing. Option B had more votes, but were largely just personal opinions, according to the closer. Option A was more founded, but had its issues. Therefore, it was listed as "no consensus". However, (according to my understanding) the main dispute now is that the current article reads too much like Option A, with little mention of debate where China may already be a superpower and only states it is an "emerging superpower", while the opposite camp is trying to endorse the current article. Others may also cite sources claiming that even NATO, EU etc. are superpowers. In the RFC, people were comparing China (or NATO) with the superpower criteria and then concluding that China is/is not a superpower, and I am afraid that constitutes original research. The article seems to have emerged to be a contest between editors' opinions and worldviews, and not what the sources say (China is a disputed superpower), but yet the current article has little mention that it may already be a superpower. (one paragraph) Once again, I am a passerby that somehow got involved, so I may have misunderstood. 16dvnk (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC) P.S. I am aware that the article used to claim that China is already a superpower, without mention that it is disputed (basically Option B), until the RFC got closed and it got reverted to something which looks like Option A. 16dvnk (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC) P.S. 2. I am aware that there might be a misunderstanding "To enforce the RFC discussion, I had to remove info that would give readers an impression that China is actually a "superpower". However, PaulRKil reverted my efforts and rejected (or "disagreed") with Aaron Liu's conclusion but rather went for another editor's conclusion." Nowhere did the RFC say that he should remove info that would give the readers "an impression that China is actually a superpower". Perhaps @George Ho is trying to follow policy, where articles should be reverted to status quo. However, the closer stated that both options were weak, and the article has cleanup tags stating that it is unbalanced and under dispute (added by @George Ho himself themself). This implies that the current status quo is unstable and biased. As such, I believe this venue is a good place to fix that status quo (by methods we will discuss after the discussion is opened). I have also contacted RFC closer @Aaron Liu for clarification. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sam Wood Rp Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Gryfia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Moxy My position is that we should present the real world academic debate over China as a superpower. We should do what is best for our readers by providing academic publications over news articles ....removing academic analysis sources like Demczuk, Andrzej (2025-11-18). "Illusion of Multipolarity: Why the U.S. Remains the Global Superpower". Historia i Polityka (54 (61)). Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika/Nicolaus Copernicus University: 35–53. doi:10.12775/hip.2025.029. ISSN 2391-7652......and replacing them with sources that just uses the word in passing by politicians does zero to help our readers for further research. China, U.S. Mission (2025-01-21). "Opening Remarks by Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee". U.S. Embassy & Consulates in China. The removal of academic publications replaced by news in this article is one of the oddest thing I have seen here on Wikipedia in my 20+ years here (normally behavior like this is recognized). Just as we do with articles like Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples#Scholarly debate we should give our readers the best sources to research with. I have disengage from the article due to meet puppetry and the discussions dissolving down to personal opinions and editor behavior over the sources. It's also concerning how some people misread some sources as with David A. Lake.. whose arguments centers around their belief that the academic community as a whole should be calling China superpower acknowledging that there is clearly a debate that some of our editors just seem to overlook. We currently state that China has been a superpowers since the 2010s without a source that states this and resulted in the removal of this source to perpetuate the preferred narrative over presenting the current academic debate that David A. Lake clearly acknowledges exist. Wikipedia doesn't always get it right... But to go out of someone's way to suppress academic sources is simply odd. Both Frank Dikotter ...opinion as discussed here by a third party and David A. Lake pov currently in the article should be presented to our readers. We should not be removing Frank Dikotter sources and replace it with a speech by Donald Trump that uses the term superpower in passing.Moxy🍁 02:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ~2026-30838-14 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by <USERNAME> Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Superpower discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Preliminary Back-and-Forth Discussion It seems that there is a bit of Wikipedia:Original research in the talk page, with people arguing at length about whether something meets a specific criterion for being a superpower, rather than just pointing to sources that say something is/isn't and saying it is disputed. — User:GeogSage As everyone should be reminded, the WP:OR policy doesn't apply to talk pages. Indeed, people can express original thoughts or whatsoever only in talk pages... and elsewhere outside the main namespace. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC); expanded, 04:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC) My point is they are using this in arguments on what the content of the article should be. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Comment, I'll keep the discussion at a low since it is not opened yet. Despite OR theoretically not enforced at talk pages, editors are arguing endlessly about their worldview and naval tonnage, geography, GDP instead of discussing how to summarize reliable secondary sources. We should reflect the literature. If we get a result at the talk page, but it is derived from OR, it is not possible to implement it on the article without committing OR. 16dvnk (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC) That's a little misleading. RS still supersedes OR on talk pages. That is the entire basis of my close. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Oh, and BTW, shall I notify others who aren't named in this discussion but are involved in the matter especially about China as a "superpower"? I'm thinking editors from other past discussions, like Moxy. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Great idea. Don't notify everyone as per WP:CANVASS though. Perhaps you can find other editors from the RFC who were already actively involved. 16dvnk (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I'm thinking about notifying the following editors: Arnoutf, Chessrat, Simonm223, Rwat128, Shankargb, ZDRX, The Account 2, Plumber, 42Grunt, ObjectivityCat9942 and Moxy, the initiator of the RFC. They previously edited the article and/or participated in the RFC within the past year. I'm using the "no ping" template because I'm thinking I'm mentioning one too many more and I don't wanna ping them yet. I'll notify first just Moxy soon before the rest. George Ho (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC) " Summary of dispute by <USERNAME> Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker." Is this supposed to be intended? I am pretty sure there is no one called "<USERNAME>". Perhaps it is an error on my end, but this is abnormal. 16dvnk (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC) P.S. I think it is actually a template artifact. I think it was supposed to be deleted. May someone do that? 16dvnk (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Well... I had trouble deciding whether to hide or show the above. It's more of a template (not exactly an "artifact"), especially if I wanna notify the others or others involved would step in without me notifying them. If I wanna hide the section template, then I have to figure out how else to hide the template without interfering other sections. Well... I chose to show it instead, but alas, you call it an "artifact". George Ho (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC) P.S. 2. Oops, I accidentally deleted it. I will revert the delete. Now, let us cease the discussion (after until it is open), and move our discussion to the article talk page instead. SIncerely, 16dvnk (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC) P.S. Discussion resumed at Talk:Superpower#Post-RFC... or a pre-RFC? Attempts to revert. Please proceed there. 16dvnk (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC) As an addendum, I do take issue with who has been pinged and who hasn't. There appears to be an outsized number of individuals pinged who disagree with the aforementioned consensus that I believe was met on the talkpage. While I agree that we should avoid canvassing, I can't help but notice what has happened here. — User:PaulRKil Since when have I canvassed? I pinged just participants of the one very recent thread that was the heart of the dispute plus one partially-blocked user Paul mentioned and another user who initiated the RFC. —George Ho (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC) @16dvnk: messaged me to ask what the close should mean. By itself, it means that Option A is more well-supported than B but neither were well-supported enough to overcome those who opposed both. Again, by itself, this means the article should be reverted to the status quo before the dispute, which would be Option B. The article had been stable with Moxy's version for about month and assuming that China is a superpower for far longer. However, regardless of which option the status quo favored/what it looked like, to minimize reverts (I wrote these words before actually looking at what the status quo looked like) and as there is no rush, we should have a discussion (which could develop into an RfC) to resolve the concerns against both options, and then make whatever change comes out of that. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC) While closing, I ignored the discussions after the RfC as I thought they wouldn't reflect anything I'd need to address in the close. This mistake created so much confusion for the RfC's participants (though so far just RKil), to which it looks like history was overwritten. I don't know which discussion you were referring to. There are a few possibilities: Talk:Superpower#Later followup on above, part of RFC discussion Talk:Superpower#Discussion, another part of RFC discussion Talk:Superpower#RFC on revisions, separate thread Talk:Superpower#Merge Military superpower contents, a thread about "military superpower" term itself, not about China primarily Either way, really tough to decide at this time, IMO. George Ho (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC) "RFC on revisions" I ignored. It turned out to demonstrate just how long the discussion was thought to be over. (In the comment you're quoting, though, every time I say "RfC" I'm referring to the entire section I closed.) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Well... The "RFC on revisions" thread wasn't tagged with an RFC banner, and the OP wasn't neutral, IMO (revision #1, revision #2). George Ho (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC) I didn't mean that the other discussions would've affected the consensus of the RfC, but that they showed that the participants regarded the RfC as decided and over, which I would've addressed in the close statement to avoid the chaos that we now see. For one thing, I would've put this comment there, and whatever you do you would not have removed the superpower statements from the lede. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Does this mean we should revert to B (which is the version in March 6th) and then discuss, or discuss then build a better version? 16dvnk (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC) By the way, we should move the discussion to here, as we want to keep discussion at a minimum (the DRN is not open yet) and we do not want this to get closed. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC) We're trying to sort out what happened as part of the summaries to open a DRN. DRN rules don't say we need to use the article talk page as much as possible, but that there should be discussion attempted that DRN attempts to sort out. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC) I meant that is says that we should keep discussion at a minimum on the DRN discussion page. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is what it says. "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary." Thank you. 16dvnk (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Either is fine. I have argued why I would prefer the latter, but minimizing reverts means I wouldn't revert the former either. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Superpower) When it says: Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer., it means to keep discussion at DRN to a minimum until a volunteer opens the discussion. Very often, when discussion is opened by a volunteer, their instructions will say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, because the moderator will ask questions and the editors will answer the questions. In fact, if back-and-forth discussion is resulting in progress toward resolving a dispute, DRN may be premature. DRN is in order when the discussion between editors is lengthy and inconclusive, often because the disputing editors are repeating the same statements. What I am now asking the editors is whether they think that the discussion here at DRN has been useful, or whether it is merely a restatement of positions that have already been stated. If the back-and-forth discussion here is resulting in progress, I will leave this case open for more discussion. Otherwise I will give instructions that will say not to address comments to the other editors. Is the discussion resulting in progress? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors back-and-forth (Superpower) Hi Robert, thank you very much for your swift response. Yes, the back-and-forth so far seems to be working. Despite stalling and OR-related arguments in the talk page/RFC, it seems like the summaries here are working. We can see the conflict between editors through the summaries and one of the issues (edit warring) seems to have resolved, after RFC closer @Aaron Liu's clarification about what the close was supposed to mean. It is not a mere restatement of positions, and we are making slow progress. This is my answer though, and we should wait for other editors' responses. Leaving this case open would be great, as only here we could have started to resolve the problem (in fact the closer asked us to "discuss here first" in order to improve the status quo of the article). We might only request guiding questions after these talks fail. Once again, thank you very much for your swift response. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Robert, you and I have interacted with each other in other venues, especially at DRV and ArbCom, e.g. the Michael Jackson case. What has made you qualified as an uninvolved volunteer to resolve this dispute, especially considering how I have recognized you around other venues? Oh, and I can recognize that you've often volunteered in other DRN cases, but I'm on the fence here. Maybe I'm too paranoid or whatever else I can't describe well. And for the record, despite my making comments at the Discussion section, I'm pleased to see statements by involved editors. Nonetheless, I dunno whether you have bias toward me, especially whenever we interacted elsewhere within this project. If so, would you be able to put that aside? George Ho (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Comment: Only my opinion, but to answer your question it looks to me like the discussion has mostly been just rehashing the same points being made on the talk page, and talking in circles. I don't think back and forth is very productive at this point. Even if one or two editors come to a temporary agreement, I don't think it will satisfy all involved editors, while abiding by NPOV and WP:CONFLICTING. I really think discussion on this between editors should be kept on the talk page while the process plays out. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 08:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Well, I just wanted to change how China is presented throughout the whole article. Nonetheless, other editors wanted to change just how to introduce China as a "superpower"... well, without changing how to present China as a "superpower" throughout the article. Sure, we agree to disagree, but to say the following would IMO undermine how effective DRN should be: I really think discussion on this between editors should be kept on the talk page while the process plays out. As proven, the article content has been disputed over and over. Furthermore, I recently added the {{contentious topics/talk notice}} banner in the talk page. Indeed, as I realize, the article still have info about Russia, more recent American politics, and India. Thankfully, anything related to China is not yet subject to general sanctions or labeled a contentious topic... for now. George Ho (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC) @GeogSage Now that I check back, I actually agree with you. The back-and-forth did create a little progress, but asking guiding questions is faster and probably better (in the near future), and the discussion can be done here (link to talk page). Good proposal. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Superpower) Since some editors think that the back-and-forth is useful, I will allow it to continue until at least two editors state that they would prefer DRN Rule A, which is a question-and-answer format. When at least two editors state that they want question-and-answer format, I will advise other editors who wish to continue back-and-forth discussion to go back to the article talk page. When moderated discussion begins, I will remind the editors that the purpose of moderated discussion, like the purpose of ordinary discussion, is to improve the article, and so I will ask each editor what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. I will also ask the editors whether they are asking for a revised RFC to be prepared. I am not asking those questions now, because I am allowing back-and-forth discussion to continue. User:George Ho writes: What has made you qualified as an uninvolved volunteer to resolve this dispute? My answer is that, first, sometimes an uninvolved editor can provide assistance to editors who otherwise are divided because of their involvement. Second, a request was filed at DRN, and I assist at DRN and am willing to try to assist in this case. However, third, participation at DRN is voluntary, and you are not required to participate. Fourth, do you have a different idea for how to resolve this dispute? One alternative, which is back-and-forth discussion, is already in progress. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC) First statements by editors (Superpower) back-and-forth Comment: I believe that one other editor (16dvnk) agreed with me that back-and-forth discussion should be kept on the talk page. That would make two. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC) @George Ho Robert is simply prolific. If you check the archives, he has been unofficially the face of DRN for a while. Since he is not involved in this situation, I completely trust Robert to be impartial. In fact, he has been criticized for being "robotic". I accept dispute resolution. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC) For this to be meaningful, though, I think @PaulRKil also has to accept. (To clarify, no back-and-forth means you cannot reply to other editors comments when the subsection title does not include "back-and-forth".) I would recommend accepting as DRN provides structure. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Noted about Robert, thank you. Paul's stance is tricky to change, OTOH. Paul's still willing to contest your closure in one way or another. I see one group aggressively, IMO, pushing forward a viewpoint that China is fully a "superpower" in any or some way that makes it no longer just a possibility but an actuality without contest or whatever. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC); edited, 01:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC) I do not think RKil is aggressive. People react flabbergasted when you confuse them. I'm simply asking RKil to agree to participate in DRN mediation; DRN only changes minds as often as it doesn't, in which case it helps organize very productive RfCs. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Okay, not aggressive then. Still, the article is at its standstill, and... well, there... for now. George Ho (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC) @Aaron Liu I also do accept. PaulRKil (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC) To clarify, Paul really believes still that the "consensus" already decided on one option, which definitely isn't the case, IMO. Of course, I can acknowledge that the RFC conclusion hasn't meant relegating China into a "possible superpower". George Ho (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC) No offense, but I feel like you may be overly entrenching yourself into a battleground mindset. #Summary of dispute by PaulRKil, for one, shows to me that he has realized what the case is. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC) a battleground mindset, huh? I'll try to get out of that... mindset, but... how is my mindset some sort of a battleground besides... trying to edit the article into presenting China as a mere potential candidate... but not qualified as a full "superpower"? George Ho (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC) I agree with @GeogSage. It seems like this current back-and-forth has evolved to re-affirming statements and "whether a user has a battleground mindset". This does not seem very constructive, and hence, I support DRN Rule A. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC) With that, it seems like there are 2 people preferring DRN Rule A, and as such, it seems like the Q&A will start soon. Ceasing back-and-forth (on the DRN) would be a great idea, otherwise it would evolve into chaos like in the DRN about SCUM Manifesto, which led to nowhere. Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC) I'm trying to get geHo to see RKil's view since his impression seems to either regard too little or color too much RKil's more recent statements. "Battleground" is not something random but WP:BATTLEGROUND, something I know geHo doesn't intend to do but is very easy to fall into. (For lack of a better word not even the Discord could find, what I mean is dehumanization. Horrible and overemotional word, I know.) I think correctly understanding how other participants arrive at zir conclusions is key to constructing the stage for healthy discussion. I don't see how my messages were repeating past statements. (Subsections with "back-and-forth" in their name are for back-and-forth discussion; I agree that we should not and I will not back-and-forth when the rules are applied and this DRN is opened. But in this subsection,) As long as we discuss DRN and not the issue itself—that's what becomes repetitive—we should be fine, and that's what we're doing. I think the moderator should exercize his discretion over which rule is most appropriate, although that is shaping up to be Rule A as so far there seems to be no reason to prefer other rules. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC) @Aaron Liu Right, forgot about that reference (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Thank you very much for trying to build understanding. 16dvnk (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC) I'm just now doing my best to see where Paul has come from. However, how to portray China as either a full "superpower"... or a mere potential candidate has been no longer limited to just the superpower article. It has been and/or will spread elsewhere, like China and Second Cold War articles. In other words, how China is presented in the "superpower" article may have affected other related areas. —George Ho (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Still awaiting the Q&A method.... George Ho (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer (Superpower) I am ready to begin moderated discussion if at least two editors say that they want moderated discussion. If there is agreement to moderated discussion, I will collapse the previous discussion, and will instruct editors who want to continue back-and-forth discussion to go back to the article talk page. (That's what the article talk page is for.) Please reread DRN Rule A. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor does not want to make, or what changes another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Alternatively, you may state that you want another RFC submitted; if so, please define the RFC. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Comment about a lesson learned An editor commented that continued back-and-forth discussion on the SCUM Manifesto was not useful, and that continued back-and-forth discussion here might not be useful. I have learned that back-and-forth discussion often results in compromise or agreement, but that sometimes, depending on the topic and the editors, it does not result in agreement. In such cases, continued back-and-forth discussion will not be productive and will result in restatement of positions. Back-and-forth discussion is strongly discouraged at DRN because the topics that come to DRN are already topics where back-and-forth discussion has not been useful. If something hasn't worked, it is often wiser to try something else than to keep trying the same thing. Second statements by editors (Superpower) I'd like to present China as merely a "potential superpower", not a "superpower" itself, e.g. this revision (link; section). If making bold edits is too soon, then perhaps an RFC. Copying almost fully my proposal from the thread (whose last comment was three days ago): Shall China be considered fully a superpower as defined in this article? Option A: China is and should be a superpower Option B: China is a potential superpower candidate... but not yet a superpower B1: Omit mentioning China anywhere outside the "Potential superpower" section B2: Explain in this article why China is not yet a superpower, especially in the introduction Option C: Omit China from this article completely (unlikely this option will pass; adding this option for the sake of adding it) 16dvnk's version (altered/tweaked styling): China is a superpower. China is only an emerging superpower. China is an emerging superpower, and there is debate about if China is already a superpower. (no need to say yes/no, just cover the debate, in history and similar reliable sources, there is no "right or wrong" unless it is unanimous.) Remove the "emerging superpowers" section. (very unlikely but still for the sake of it) Unsure whether I'd like to combine them both, but that would be nice. George Ho (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Thank you very much @Robert McClenon for your response. I confirm my support for Rule A. In addition to this, @George Ho and @GeogSage have also expressed support. Hence, DRN Rule A should be imposed. Now, let me answer your questions: I want to make the article state both sides of the argument (i.e., state that China is definitely an emerging superpower, and there is debate that China may already be a superpower now in a balanced fashion, rather than leaning towards Option A or Option B in the original RFC, which eventually led to no consensus). Read more in the previous summaries or Option C of my proposed RFC (that @George Ho has quoted). After this DRN, I propose that we should hold another RFC (because this is an informal place to resolve disputes, and after we gain consensus here, we should be able to avoid the No consensus result) to solidify the conclusions we will find here. We can discuss what proposed options we should include in the article talk page if needed. Once again, thank you for your response. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC) I agree to the rules. I don't have an opinion, except that (we should not omit China completely and) whatever conclusion needs to be drawn from analysis of the BestSources. Though I feel like we are likely to still disagree and file an RfC at the end of this DRN, I do not want to file an RfC just to do so, because there is no such thing as formal or informal consensus. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Comment: to answer the question, I'd like to present superpower in a way that most aligns with the literature, without making any definitive statements about what is or is not one in Wikivoice. I believe the Britannica article could serve as a useful example. Specifically: I don't think a RfC is needed, I think we just need to look at what the sources actually say, and reflect that without any consideration for unsourced opinions. If we have two conflicting sources, we don't need to take the stance of any individual one, we can discuss both. If an editor isn't citing any sources, we should ignore them. If editors are trying to use some specific set of criteria to argue a country has superpower status, rather then using sources that have applied their own criteria to declare a country a superpower, we should point them to WP:FORUM, and WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTH). If an editor is relying on sources to make an argument that a country IS or IS NOT a superpower, when there are conflicting reliable sources, we should state it is a debated topic, while stating the stance of the various sources. For example, we could state something like, "The most commonly accepted extant superpower is the United States, however there is still considerable debate on this. Some sources believe that due to a decline in relative power, the U.S. no longer meets the criteria, while other sources have argued that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. is in a greater relative position, even going as far as to coin the term hyperpower to refer to U.S. dominance." In 2022, I added the text "Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, with the leading candidates being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia." I believe a line similar to this, although refined a bit with the benefit of additional sources, could resolve much of the squabbling. I'd like to mention the various definitions, including mention of specific "types" of superpowers such as military, economic, and cultural that are consistently used in the literature. I discussed this and listed 15 academic sources at Talk:Superpower#Merge_Military_superpower_contents, but that went nowhere, and one editor seemed to be more concerned with maintaining their vision for what the article should look like then reflecting sources. Specifically, their concern was that "These proposals are frankly outside of the scope of the article and appear to be ways to try and delegitimize the contemporary claims that the United States is no longer the sole superpower." A proposal based on 15 sources is in my opinion, pointing out a major omission of notable content. Per WP:SCOPE, "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. Accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are usually to be avoided." It is clear that some editors opposed this because they have selected a "particular point of view." I'd like to see examples of countries commonly discussed as superpowers, and mention these in the context of specific categories (military, economic, etc.) as discussed in the literature. I'd like to see emphasis on a sentence like "there is considerable academic debate around what constitutes a superpower and what countries to include." I'd want to see a discussion or mention of colloquial/informal usage of the term in politics and popular culture. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC) I believe the Britannica article could serve as a useful example. Really? Wikipedia ≠ Britannica, and the article itself hasn't been updated much (history log) since its creation in 2013, aside from minor tweaks. Furthermore, WP:BRITANNICA tells users to be cautious before citing Britannica, which is considered a tertiary source (policy about the source type). I don't think a RfC is needed, I think we just need to look at what the sources actually say, and reflect that without any consideration for unsourced opinions. The last RFC discussion was source-based and very specific, IMO. Wasn't it? Well, that last RFC resulted in "no consensus"... but even the current status quo is proven to be, well, problematic at best. I'm hoping for a more open question/discussion with an RFC tag on top, e.g. "Is China fully a 'superpower'? If not, then what type of a 'superpower' do you think would describe China?" If an editor is relying on sources to make an argument that a country IS or IS NOT a superpower, when there are conflicting reliable sources, we should state it is a debated topic, while stating the stance of the various sources. How do we express how heated or debatable the topic is if you think another RFC is out of question? Clearly, the issue about China as a "superpower" (and the US as a "declining" superpower) is no longer limited to just the "superpower" article... but other related areas, like the "China" one. ...Right? George Ho (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Wikipedia:DRN Rule A #6 GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC) That's just an essay right now. Can't help wonder whether Robert, who created it, would like it will become promoted it to a guideline then. George Ho (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC); edited, 23:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Didn't mean to come across as less civil if it appeared that way. If I violated #6, that wasn't my intention. I just felt like responding... or refuting the argument. —George Ho (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Please read Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Second_statement_by_volunteer_(Superpower). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Hi guys, let's de-escalate this back-and-forth about being civil or not. We are trying to make @Robert McClenon enforce Rule A, and this does not seem helpful to that and to resolving the dispute. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC) The instruction is "Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor does not want to make, or what changes another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Alternatively, you may state that you want another RFC submitted; if so, please define the RFC." and not a back-and-forth; there is no label saying we can do that even though the Rule A has not officially begun. I am reminding that we should follow this early and not engage in back-and-forth discussion. (avoiding SCUM Manifesto chaos). Thank you very much. Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tetragrammaton

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco on 20:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Tetragrammaton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk · contribs) Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Recently, I wanted to improve the article, mainly by inserting "sfn templates" to reduce the amount of wikicode in the paragraphs and, while I was at it, to improve the book citation templates by adding authors, specific page numbers, etc. Then, my changes were reverted, so I started a discussion on the article's talk page. The editor who reverted my changes explained their reasons, but I consider them insufficient; the editor cited policies that recommend not changing the style "such as APA, ASA, MLA, Chicago, Vancouver, and Bluebook", but those policies make no mention of SFN templates. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Tetragrammaton#"Absolutely_ridiculous_SFN_bs_to_inline_refs",_"Stupid_bloody_thing"? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? If you understand that the changes I'm proposing are made with the best of intentions, and if you keep an open mind, we can improve the article. Summary of dispute by Stephen Walch These changes were unwarranted and needless; created extra work to revert them and added extra unnecessary data to the page. Pointed to WP:CITEVAR which is to do with changing not just the academic type of references, but the specific type of footnotes used, hence a wholesale change to SFN, done without consent from a consensus, warranted reverting. A second person has also waded in to confirm that contra to Jairon's misunderstanding, WP:CITEVAR is not just to do with the academic reference type, and also pointed to Template:Sfn which also confirms the same. Both WP:CITEVAR and Template:Sfn were provided prior to the second person confirming. Stephen Walch (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC) The second person expressed their view after the notice had already been posted on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Additionally, my understanding is that WP:CITEVAR refers to citation styles such as "APA, ASA, MLA, The Chicago Manual of Style, the Vancouver system, and Bluebook", rather than the use of the sfn template. Based on this interpretation, restricting the use of sfn appears to reflect an editorial preference rather than a prohibition established by Wikipedia policy. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Practically arguing against yourself, when your unfathomable quest to change 66 (and likely the entire lot) well-established refs to SFN *is in itself an editorial preference*, and is not in any way an attempt "to improve the article." I have not seen anyone else ever understand that WP:CITEVAR is to do with just the academic method used in the references; plus with a second person also concurring by pointing to both WP:CITEVAR and Template:Sfn, stating "Stephen here is right about the applicability of WP:CITEVAR", regardless of whether this dispute was open before or after their posting, means you don't have to keep a dispute open when there is in fact nothing to dispute. Stephen Walch (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Tetragrammaton 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. Notification on the user talk page is required in all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Thank you for letting me know that it was mandatory to notify the users involved. I wasn't aware of that, perhaps due to an oversight on my part. I've already notified the other user I was discussing the matter with here User_talk:Stephen_Walch#Improvements_Using_SFN_Templates. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Tetragrammaton) I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is desired. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will address their questions to the community, and to the moderator, who represents the community. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Thank you for your help. I don't have any other questions at this time. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Tetragrammaton) First Statement by Editor (Tetragrammaton) I would first like to state what this dispute is not about: this is not about improvements to the content of the article, improved references, added page numbers etc. At no point was there an exception taken to something added to the article wording, nor any supposed addition of authors and page numbers in the cited references (of which, to the best of my searching ability, there was just the one extra page number inserted, which remained in the manually reverted emendations). The dispute is to whether sixty-six inline references within <ref> tags warranted the need to be systematically replaced with the sfn template. As per WP:CITEVAR and Template:Sfn, any large scale changes to how the article markup is used in regards to the references, whether changing from inline <ref> tags to {{sfn}} or vice-versa, first need to be discussed in the article Talk page in order to gain a consensus from the Wikipedia community as to whether the change is necessary. As this was not done, and in my opinion as someone who has been editing and watching this article for many years now is entirely pointless (plus added needless data to the page for no discernible reason), the systematic change to {{sfn}} were reverted back to their original inline <ref> tags, original ref names for the 23 references cited more than once restored, and any changes to the references were incorporated into the emended article. That is it. The other editor seems to have a misunderstanding of WP:CITEVAR and Template:Sfn, despite the fact that two people now have advised them of the correct understanding. To repeat: this is not about content, but whether there was/is any need to change the <ref> tags to {{sfn}} instead before seeking consensus.Stephen Walch (talk) First statement by volunteer (Tetragrammaton) This appears to be a dispute about busywork and not article content. It appears that one editor has changed the formatting of 66 references without changing their content or that of the article. The other editor refers to this as an unfathomable quest, and I agree that it is if I have understood correctly. However, I do not intend to waste any more of my time on this quest, and will be closing this dispute unless I see a reason to keep it open. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Not from me, Robert. Thank you for taking your time to moderate, even if it was indeed a waste of your time and mine. Stephen Walch (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC) First statements by editors (Tetragrammaton) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Grapesurgeon on 05:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grapesurgeon (talk · contribs)
• Mztourist (talk · contribs)
• meamemg (talk · contribs)
• ChimpanzeesRock (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I placed a {{Multiple issues}} template on the page. User:Mztourist disputes whether the use of that template is appropriate on the page, and wants it removed immediately. Multiple other users have agreed that the template is appropriate.

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

• Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee#Tone and narrative issues
• User talk:Mztourist#January 2026
• ANI thread specifically on behavior, although this issue discussed as well
• Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee#Multiple issues tagged
• 3O request answered, still disagreement

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please weigh in on whether the tags are appropriate and whether the feedback given thus far is actionable. Please also weigh in on whether Mztourist has addressed the feedback provided thus far.

Summary of dispute by Mztourist

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This is not about whether or not the tags should be on the page. I am trying to resolve the tagged issues with the tagger and filer, grapesurgeon on the Talk Page, but after they identified a single specific issue, which I addressed, they are unwilling to engage in any further discussion of page improvement. Instead they spend their time complaining about my behaviour first on the Talk Page and a 3O and now here. This is a waste of everyone's time. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by meamemg

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I came to the page via WP:3O. Was considering offering an opinion before User:ChimpanzeesRock did so, and had the section tagged to follow. As I noted on the talk page, there seems to be both a content question: is the tag needed/does the tone of the article need to change; and a behavior question (which, while related, I don't think is worth being addressed). I do not intend to participate in this DRN, and don't have a strong interest in the outcome. meamemg (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ChimpanzeesRock

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee discussion

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

Zeroth Statement by Volunteer (Park Chung Hee)

I am ready to try to act as the moderator, but only if the parties either want to discuss the improvement of the article or want to discuss an RFC about the content of the article. The purpose of tags is to indicate the need for improvement of the article. Dispute resolution over whether to tag an article is a waste of time because the time should be spent either on improving the article or asking the community by RFC whether to change the article.

Please read DRN Rule A. Please list one or more parts of the article that you want to change, or that you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Dispute resolution is voluntary. If you do not want to take the time to discuss how to improve the article, you are not required to do so. But if we do take time, it will be to improve the article, or to decide that improvements are not needed. The purpose of this dispute resolution is not to decide whether to tag the article, but to make any necessary improvements to the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement 0.1 by Volunteer (Park Chung Hee)

I see that I wasn't clear. DRN is often a forum for the preparation of RFCs. If you think that an RFC is needed on whether to change or improve the article, you may agree to take part in DRN, and state what changes you want to make to the article, and we will develop an RFC to ask the community whether to make those changes. You can prepare and submit an RFC on your own, but if you take part in DRN, I will assist you in wording and formatting it, and we will avoid having multiple conflicting RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth Statements by Editors (Park Chung Hee)

• Dispute resolution over whether to tag an article is a waste of time because the time should be spent either on improving the article or asking the community by RFC whether to change the article. should this be an RFC instead then? grapesurgeon (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ah I see, I misunderstood.

  I'd like to do whatever necessary to establish community consensus that there are issues with the article, and that the tags are justified. That includes preparing an RFC if you think that'd be helpful.

  What happened is that multiple users had already affirmed they thought the tags were justified, but Mztourist waited a few months until things quieted down, then removed the tags without discussion or making significant improvements to the article. I think the same thing is likely to happen again in future, and think community consensus would help with preventing that.

  If you have any other ideas on how to deal with this, please let me know. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

First Statement by Volunteer (Park Chung Hee)

There has been talk about an RFC. Would the RFC have been about article content, or about the tags on the article? I am ready to work with other editors to develop an RFC about article content. An RFC about tags will be a waste of community time that can be better spent discussing whether the article needs improvement or simply improving the article.

If anyone wants to work on an RFC about article content, please provide either a brief description or a draft of the RFC. If anyone wants to discuss article content, please state what you want to change in the article.

I will close this case if no one either describes an RFC on article content or discusses changes to the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors (Park Chung Hee)

I asked for advice on if you thought an RFC would be appropriate given the situation, but you didn't give any.

The RFC can be on whether the content of the article should be changed, not on whether tags should be there.

Draft description of RFC: does the article in question have issues with tone, excessive detail, and overly lengthy quotations? Should those issues be addressed?

grapesurgeon (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Second Statement by Volunteer (Park Chung Hee)

An editor suggests an RFC that asks editors whether they think that there are issues with tone, and with too many questions and excessive detail, and, if so, to give examples. That is consistent with the name of the procedure, which is a Request for Comments, and is sometimes used for open-ended questions. If no one identifies any specific changes or specific issues, I am ready to use an open-ended Request for Comments. I will again ask if there are any specific requests to change the article content. I will also ask whether the editors are ready for an open-ended RFC. If there are no specific requests for changes, I will begin drafting an open-ended RFC, which will be available for review before it is launched.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors (Park Chung Hee)

Yes, that is fine. Please draft the open-ended RFC, thank you. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Third Statement by Volunteer (Park Chung Hee)

I have composed a draft open-ended RFC. It is available for viewing at Talk:Assassination_of_Park_Chung_Hee/RFC_on_Tone. Please comment on it here, at DRN. Please do not vote in it or comment in it at this time, because it is not yet a live RFC. When there is agreement that this is the RFC that we want, I will launch it, and then you may vote in it and comment in it.

Are there any specific requests for changes to the article?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Robert, the format you've chosen is not going to make much sense when it's listed in pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Golfer's elbow

– New discussion.

Filed by Awradloff on 03:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Golfer's elbow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Awradloff (talk · contribs)
• Serio31 (talk · contribs)
• Shriya Swamy (talk · contribs)
• Zefr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The most basic issue is that user "Zefr" consistently reverts any edits made that support an alternative explanation of the development of Golfer's elbow. Others and I have argued that Golfer's elbow may not be an overuse injury, but may instead be caused by mucoid degeneration.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golfer%27s_elbow

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As a newer editor, I need help navigating Wikipedia's usage policies so that we can reach a resolution. I have proposed including both viewpoints on the page, but it appears that this may not be allowed according to Zefr.

Summary of dispute by Serio31

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Shriya Swamy

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zefr

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Golfer's elbow discussion

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

Byzantines

– New discussion.

Filed by BreadAndHumus on 15:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Byzantines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BreadAndHumus (talk · contribs)
• A.Cython (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have tried to add information to the article, especially to the section "Identity and Self-Perception," which has a neutrality template stating "The neutrality of this section is disputed." All my additions were supported by established academic sources. An editor reverted all my edits, and a discussion ensued on the talk page. To simplify the discussion, I focused on one paragraph and repeatedly asked the editor to provide evidence of any scholar who disagrees with its statement. The editor has not responded to the request and has instead deflected the question.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantines#Un-constructive_edits_by_BreadAndHumus

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide feedback if the paragraph should be added to the article

Summary of dispute by A.Cython

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

A bit of context, the article had a year long and extensive discussion and three moves (Byzantine Greeks → Rhomaoi → Romaioi (Byzantine period) → Byzantines). It all started with User:Bogazicili, a Turkish editor, (mis)using books by Kaldellis (a controversial revisionist historian) to drop "Greeks" from the title and in the process the article lost its GA status. After a very long discussion with other editors (I joined the discussion later on when kept a record of Bogazicili's aggressive campaign to alter the article according to his national sensitivities; same behavior was found in Anatolia article), it was concluded that Kaldellis position (purge of anything "Byzantine" from history books and names of institutions in favor of "East Roman" or some other variation) is not yet a mainstream position (and unclear if ever becomes one), which is why we ended up with "Byzantines". After a few months of peace, the editor BreadAndHumus attempts to rewrite parts of the article exclusively based on Kaldellis's narrative effectively breaking previously established consensus and making the article less neutral. What is worse is that the editor misreads Kaldellis by paraphrasing quotes from his books without adding the various caveats Kaldellis has in his books when making revisionist statements. Again Kaldellis is not considered a neutral position as the majority of the academic establishment has refuted him on various points so extra care is needed when used, let alone writing whole paragraphs based exclusively on Kaldellis alone. On top of that the editor is not familiar with WP:MoS introducing numerous issues such as harvid errors, etc. The editor has refused to acknowledge any of this or even fix these errors that I previously mentioned. The editor's edits are also reversed elsewhere by me ([5]) and other editors ([6], [7], [8]). The editor's escalation while exhibiting clear signs of WP:NOTHERE is rather concerning that warrens an investigation.

Byzantines discussion

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