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)	27 days, 3 hours	WhiteTailedEagle (t)	2 days, 3 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	1 days, 3 hours
Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee	Closed	Grapesurgeon (t)	14 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours
Byzantines	Failed	BreadAndHumus (t)	9 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Bengali dialects	On hold	Msasag (t)	6 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 21 hours	Msasag (t)	2 days, 13 hours
A*Pop	New	Zirthes (t)	2 days, 5 hours	None	n/a	Livelikemusic (t)	2 days, 4 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)

Third statement by moderator (Imran Khan)

The filing editor has asked to make four additions.

A is an addition to the Economy section.

B is an addition to the Military appointments section.

C is an addition to the Post-retirement from cricket section,

D is an addition to the Relationship with the military section.

One editor agrees to the addition of A. Another editor says that their agreement depends on finding a mainstream source. Can a mainstream source be found?

One editor agrees to the addition of B. The other editor disagrees, saying that it was not a consequential appointment and so would be undue weight. Will the disagreeing editor withdraw their disagreement, or do we need an RFC?

One editor agrees to the addition of C, and the other agrees, but only if the text is what was agreed to in the previous DRN discussion. We have had three recent RFCs on Imran Khan. Exactly which DRN, and what wording was agreed to?

One editor neither agrees nor disagrees with D, and the other editor disagrees with D. Do we need an RFC?

There have already been three DRNs on Imran Khan, one month ago, eight months ago, and one-and-one-half years ago. If there are any more content issues, please identify them now so that we don't have yet another DRN this Christmas.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Imran Khan)

SheriffIsInTown

For A, I was unable to find a mainstream source stating that Khan annulled these investment agreements.

For B, would you be willing to provide your opinion on whether you consider it due or not, or if there is a noticeboard that can help us decide the dueness of the content, you are welcome to engage such a noticeboard.

For C, the text was agreed upon at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 272#Imran Khan and was: In 1996, a jury, by a 10–2 majority, accepted Khan's statement that he had been misquoted in allegations that he had called Ian Botham and Allan Lamb"racist, ill-educated and lacking in class," in a case the judge described as a "complete exercise in futility."

For D, I have no further comment beyond what I have already said in opposition to its inclusion, and I stand by it.

You mentioned recurring content disputes. It is unfortunate, but I do not see an end to them unless people are willing to amend their ways and stop POV pushing, stop misinterpreting sources, and stop wikivoicing attributable content. If POV pushing continues, I will continue pushing for NPOV, and the resulting disputes, if not resolved on the talk page, will continue ending up here.

Since you asked about any other content issue, one that I foresee landing at DRN in the near future is the matter of Khan's video under the section Imran Khan#Legal matters (2022–Present). I would like to have it removed. This 4-minute 30-second video is a slap in the face of WP:NPOV. If we create a transcript of this video, the content comes out to be equivalent in length to a large section. For content on Wikipedia, we prefer secondary reliable sources. This video is a primary statement by Khan published by his political party. It was extracted and added by the OP a while back, but we do not know the merit of its inclusion. YouTube is filled with Khan's videos, so why this particular one? We do not know. If anyone can add any video to an article, then what is stopping another editor from adding a different one? We do not know.

For the May 9 riots, there are video statements available from the authorities. Should we add one of those next to Khan's to provide balance? There is also the issue of mistranslation and misinterpretation. For example, he uses a word in Urdu with one meaning, but the translator renders it as a completely different word. At times, the translator also tries to put words into Khan's mouth by inserting words in brackets that Khan did not actually say, on the basis that the translator believes Khan meant them. The video ends with the official Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf logo. The question is: is Wikipedia a mouthpiece for political parties and their leaders? Why should we include a video produced by a political party featuring its leader? Following is my translation of that video. You can see how different it is from the translation used in the video.

What was the investigation? That a major conspiracy took place on May 9th. They were asking me if I was a part of that conspiracy. There is a Supreme Court verdict that Imran Khan was picked up illegally and unconstitutionally, was kidnapped from within the High Court. This was my plot to get picked up like this? Before I got out in the morning when I had a hunch that they will arrest me, even though there was no case against me. I was on bail in all of them. When I found out, i initially told them to show me the warrant and arrest me. If someone has a warrant, bring the warrant straight to me, my lawyers, my legal will be there, I am willing myself to go to jail. Nobody should do this type of drama. So, what was the need to beat up with sticks, break up things, breaking windows, they beat up that poor staff of the registry office, beat up the lawyers, beat up my poor guards, was I a terrorist? Just to show the visuals to the World, the way they went, the way they arrested me. They say to me, why your people went there, why they went to the cantonment, why they went to the certain place? You had it prepared beforehand, I asked them when I am being picked up by commando action there, where will people go to protest? I figured from what he was saying that we have no permission to peaceful protest in front of GHQ or cantonment. Tell me, where is this written in the constitution? It is written in the constitution that it is your right, every Pakistani's right that when injustice is done, you can peacefully protest against injustice. And injustice was done, Supreme Court said in its verdict that Imran Khan was picked up illegally and unconstitutionally. These Tehreek-e-Insaf people were they sheeps and goats that they should have sit quietly? What wrong they did that they went out for peaceful protest? Then after that, they were prepared beforehand that whatever the reaction would be, they were sitting prepared beforehand that they will burn this building. And the IG Punjab who is running uncontrolled, is nobody going to ask him that it is taking people two hours to reach there to protest, is no one going to ask him where was your police? They were teargasing everywhere, they were standing everywhere, why they did not go there? Where is that CCTV camera? Why its footage is not in front of everyone? Why there was no independent inquiry? It was a conspiracy and In Sha Allah, this conspiracy will come in front of everyone. Why they don’t ask this question? That those people, the 25 people who were shot with bullets, those people, youngsters whose legs got lost, legs of three people were cut, bedridden, got shot in waist, got paralyzed, were they not Pakistanis? Don’t they have any rights? No one is talking about them, they burned the Corp Commander House, we all, we condemn it. The Chief Justice has written in his judgement that when Imran Khan was first time, first time I found out what happened, I condemned right at that time. And I said, in 27 years, I have always told my party to stay within our law. How many people were where houses were burnt, building were burnt, how many might be, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 1,000 might be? Then, how 10,000 people were thrown in? And then, give them an opportunity so they can tell what was their side, yes, whoever reached there in geo-fencing was thrown in jail. Said, judge listens to both sides before giving verdicts, does not give one-sided verdicts. One judge, jury, executioner, sir you decide, this they have done, apprehend and start beating them, apprehend and create military courts, so nothing comes out, punish whoever. Instead, they were talking like, now protesting is for you like committing treason with the state. Then end the democracy, say Martial Law is imposed, say whatever they will decide, they will do, but in democracy, it is our right that when injustice is done with us and Supreme Court has confirmed, after that peaceful protest is our right. And then again i say that, whoever burned the Corp Commander House or whatever buildings they burned, action should be taken on all of them. I say it before anything else, and whatever information we have, we will help you as well to take action on them because we did not do it. Whatever these people are doing, I want to give them only one message, think about this country, do not destroy it, what you are going to do, this largest party, with whom majority public is standing, and majority public meaning with whom 70, 80 percent public is standing, attempting to finish this, finishing Imran Khan, country's democracy, country’s independence, country's institutions, country’s constitution, you keep finishing everything. With that nations do not survive, especially morality that they are finishing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

I think that this is a comparison of what the editors have said about the four proposed additions. On the one hand, verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and we should not be adding information that is not solidly verifiable. On the other hand, there are issues of weight and balance, which are judgment calls, and the community can decide them if necessary in ah RFC.

On Addition A, one editor states that we need a reliable source. Can the editor who wants to add the statement find a reliable source that doesn't appear to be a biased source? We don't want to have an RFC on whether to add unreliably sourced information.

Addition B is a question of due weight. If the editors do not agree, I will prepare an RFC.

A change in the wording of Addition C was already discussed and approved, and the wording to be added should be: In 1996, a jury, by a 10–2 majority, accepted Khan's statement that he had been misquoted in allegations that he had called Ian Botham and Allan Lamb"racist, ill-educated and lacking in class," in a case the judge described as a "complete exercise in futility". Unless there is an objection to this wording, I will add the statement to the article.

Addition D is a question of due weight. If the editors do not agree, I will prepare an RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

I don't see how Perez-Rocha is biased, but in any case, I found this and this.

For Addition B, CJCSC was a significant office. As noted in an article published yesterday, it functioned as an "nuclear manager role... a post which was abolished."

Do you think it would be worth mentioning in Addition C that this was described by Jojo Moyes in The Independent as "cricket's most expensive libel case"? It conveys the significance of the case.

I stand by what I said for Addition D. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Burrobert

• Addition A: I believe the source we have for this is fine. it is 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". We have used many other organisations and think tanks as sources in Imran's bio without an issue.
• Additions B and D: I support including these additions in Imran's bio.
• Addition C: It is a terrible meandering and obscure sentence. What case is it referring to? However, I did agree to it in the previous dispute so won't oppose it now. Burrobert (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown

For A, WikiEnthusiast1001 brought new sources. The Express Tribune does not mention Khan at all, The Dawn source mentions Khan. I might be able to accept wording based only on that source, but they will have to propose the wording, and we can evaluate its encyclopedic value after that.

For B, if the moderator cannot give their opinion on it, and we have no forum we can use to decide its due weight and an RFC is the only option, then I might be willing to concede to including a very short sentence, as RFCs are very time-consuming, and I do not think this matter is worth taking to an RFC.

C is already decided and no to wording of "most expensive libel case", it is undue for Khan's biography.

I will not concede on D. They can launch an RFC if they want to, although I would prefer a forum that can provide an opinion and help us decide. Otherwise, I can foresee an RFC after an RFC.

@Robert McClenon Do you have anything to say about the video matter, or do you think I should start a discussion on the talk page? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

There seems to be a dispute about sources here. I recommend reading WP:RS and WP:RS/PS for guidance about reliable sources. There also seems to be disputes about WP:NPOV here. I can help if I have time to. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 13:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@WhiteTailedEagle Yes, please, help us sort this out if you can. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

I am in the process of acting as the moderator of this dispute, and I thank any other editors for any comments and advice either to me or to the participants, but I will continue moderation.

If there are any questions about the reliability of sources, please state what the sources are, and I will ask about them at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

One editor asks whether I can give my opinion, and whether there is a forum that will advise on matters of due weight. The closest that we have to a forum to advise on due weight is the neutral point of view noticeboard. Sometimes there are answers at NPOVN, and sometimes there aren't. I will only offer my opinion if the editors agree that they will accept it as a binding opinion. I will not offer my opinion under other circumstances because an editor may disagree with it, and then discussion resumes, but I am no longer neutral.

I have tried to summarize the proposed additions and the comments on them in this table. Is there agreement that this summary of viewpoints is correct?

	Name of addition	Text of addition	WikiEnthusiast1001	Burrobert	SheriffIsInTown
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.	Proposer	Apparently accepted	Wants to change wording to reflect Dawn source
B	To Imran Khan#Military appointments:	Khan appointed Lt. Gen. Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in November 2019.	Proposer	Agreed to.	See below.
C	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.Jojo Moyes (31 July 1996). "Botham and Lamb bowled over by defeat in pounds 500,000 High Court test". The Independent. 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.	Proposer	Highly critical comment, but may be willing to agree
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	Proposer	Agreed to.	Does not agree

We will have to use an RFC unless we can reach agreement or compromise. If there are two, three, or four items of disagreement, we will use one RFC

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary Rob. Can you change the summary of my comment alongside item C. I was highly critical of the wording proposed by Sheriff but said I would agree to that version since I had agreed in an earlier dispute. I actually think the wording you have given at item C, which I think was proposed by WikiE, is a good version and I would prefer it. In short, I agree to the inferior version proposed by Sheriff, but would prefer WikiE's version. Let me know if this is unclear. Otherwise I think your table is an accurate summary of the dispute. Burrobert (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

Burrobert

Your table is fine with me, other than the change I requested in my reply above. I don't think you should give an opinion about questions in this dispute. The forums you suggested would provide a wider range of viewpoints and allow for more flexible discussions than this venue. Your suggestion of bundling any outstanding issues into one RfC sounds good if it is feasible. Burrobert (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

WikiEnthusiast1001

Sweet table! I have no other questions. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown

I would have loved to agree to the moderator's opinion being binding, but it would not achieve much if the other parties did not agree. There is no question about WP:RSN; these might all be WP:RS, but we do not include everything covered in reliable sources. My concern is more about whether the mention of an inconsequential appointment (on which I was willing to concede), and the opinions of a non-notable author and a politician, are due in a lengthy article, as well as the long-term consequences of agreeing to such an inclusion. If I do that now, I am bound by my agreement for future such inclusions as well. Think about the opinions of other Pakistani politicians, and the same applies to the opinions of a non-notable authors. If I have myself removed such opinions previously to reduce the article's size, I cannot simply agree to the inclusion of these opinions in principle. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

If we cannot make a binding agreement here, I will draft an RFC. I see that there are also concerns about the article's length, which I am willing to help with. Since there is no question about RSN, I don't see a reason to discuss reliable sources unless there is a question about any sources. I still see a concern abut WP:NPOV, which I am also willing to help with. I also see a question about the notability of the author of a source, which I don't see as particularly important. Are there any more questions? 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 21:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Imran Khan)

SheriffIsInTown

@WhiteTailedEagle I would appreciate any help you can offer regarding WP:NPOV on the items being discussed here, especially the video under Imran Khan#Legal matters (2022–Present). In my opinion, it is a gross violation of that policy and should be removed without discussion. WP:NPOV states This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Considering this, I do not think we need editor approval or need to meet any demand for consensus before removing a gross violation of WP:NPOV. This video is produced by the subject's party, is erroneously subtitled, contains contentious statements by the subject, and fails the core principle of WP:NPOV, namely, "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This video was neither produced nor published by a reliable source and should be removed without meeting any demand for consensus.

I also see a question about the notability of the author of a source, which I don't see as particularly important. Do you mean that concern about notability is invalid when judging whose opinion to include and whose not? I believe WP:RSEDITORIAL applies here, as it clearly states that notability is a factor in determining which opinions to include, as in Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) … What do you think about this? This is one factor. The other factor is that we do not have any other source stating that Khan terminated any treaties. Rocha himself states, "Khan had begun a process…". Beginning a process does not mean that Khan actually terminated the treaties, and there is no confirmation of that anywhere. Rocha then links The Express Tribune as his source, but that report does not even mention Khan by name.

The other factor is the article length and the determination, in view of that, of whether we should include the opinion of an author who fails the notability factor mentioned in WP:RSEDITORIAL and who is himself relying on a source that does not mention the subject, in an article that is already lengthy enough. If we dismiss the notability and length concerns, these are just a few of the numerous negative opinions by non-notable individuals (Hugh Southey and Aqil Shah) about the subject that were removed by me citing these concerns. We will have to apply the same standard to those, and they might get restored under the criteria we establish here or elsewhere. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Assassination of Park Chung Hee

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk: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) Third Statements by Editors (Park Chung Hee) Fourth Statement by Volunteer (Park Chung Hee) User:WhatamIdoing - Are you saying that the three specific questions should be included above my signature? If not, what is your concern? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC) I'm saying that there should be something about the content of the question above your signature. "This RFC has three questions about the article on Assassination of Park Chung Hee. Please answer each question in the sections below" gives editors no idea what kind of questions are being asked. Something like "This RFC has three questions about the tone, amount of detail, and number of quotations in article on Assassination of Park Chung Hee. Please answer each question in the sections below" would be better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Fourth Statements by Editors (Park Chung Hee) Robert McClenon thank you for drafting the RFC. Obviously I don't think further changes to the page are necessary, but will assist in making any changes agreed in the RFC. My only question is if the engagement in the RFC is minimal, should the tags remain or will they be removed? Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Fifth Statement by Moderator(Park Chung Hee) I have revised the RFC to reflect the concerns of WhatamIdoing. The revised draft RFC 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) 14:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Statement 5.1 by Moderator (Assassination_of_Park_Chung_Hee) The RFC is available for viewing at Talk:Assassination_of_Park_Chung_Hee/RFC_on_Tone. This RFC is probably the best option for either improving the article so that the tags can be removed or concluding that the tags can be removed as unnecessary. Are the editors ready for the revised open-ended RFC to be launched? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors (Park Chung Hee) Yes I think that looks good, thanks. grapesurgeon (talk) 02:12, 29 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.

Byzantines

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

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

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 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. Zeroth statement by volunteer (Byzantines) I am ready to try to act as moderator if moderated discussion is desired. Please read DRN Rule D and the statement that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If there are questions about the conduct of other editors, you have two choices: Ignore or overlook the conduct issues and try to work on the content issues in order to alleviate the conduct. Read the boomerang essay before filing a report at WP:ANI. If you want to engage in moderated discussion about content, please answer the usual question. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So please state exactly what changes to the article you want to make that another editor disagrees with. Alternatively, please state what parts of the article you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. We will try to address the content issues so that any conduct issues can be either alleviated or ignored. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC) I don't have any questions. The subject of moderation will be strictly about content not the behaviors of editors. BreadAndHumus (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC) My suggested changes pertain the Identity Self-Perception section which has the template "The neutrality of this section is disputed." The section should have as first paragraph the following: Throughout their history, the majority of Byzantines, with a handful of exceptions, self-identified as Romans (Romaioi). They called their state Romania (i.e. Romanland) or Romais, which was the direct continuation of the ancient Roman empire. Their rulers were the emperors of the Romans, their capital was New Rome (Constantinople), and their language was Romaika (i.e. language of the Romans). In a classicizing vein usually applied to other peoples, Byzantine authors regularly referred to their people as "Ausones", an ancient name for the original inhabitants of Italy. They believed their political history began with Aeneas the King of Troy. The Byzantines never considered uniting their church with other Orthodox peoples, such as the Russians or the Serbs. The question of union was always a matter concerning Western and Eastern Romans. Please find the related sources in the talk page. Posting the sources breaks the page. BreadAndHumus (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC) A.Cython response to articulate the objections (Byzantines) As I explained in the talk page, the inserted content violates a number of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:OR. I provided detailed analysis, though not exhaustive, below: a handful of exceptions, self-identified as Romans this is problematic statement and oversimplification. Cultural identity and citizenship are distinct. It would be ok is it read as "self-identified as Roman citizens". The citizens were multi-cultural, note that the original article title was Byzantine Greeks and we already had a long discussion over how not to erase cultural identities of its citizens, a position well established in literature. which was the direct continuation of the ancient Roman empire this is disputed in literature. There are three schools of thought on this issue, the Continuous, Discontinuous, and Evolution Schools of thought (see here for details). The editor clearly is picking a side here. The Discontinuous and Evolution Schools argue that there was a point where a new empire came out of the old, thus there is no direct link. The criticism of Continuous School is well articulated in Continuity and Discontinuity in Byzantine History (1982) by Alexander Kazhdan, which concludes Approached from such point of view, Byzantium appears to be not so conservative, so traditional or so "continuous" as Weiss believed. Continuity was rather the exterior shape of its éxistence, a form of its self-consciousness, capable of masking its real discontinuity. Their rulers were the emperors of the Romans misleading statement. The emperors viewed themselves as rulers of different people, who may or not view themselves as Roman. For example, Justinian boasted to be the emperor of the Franks (as vassals), at a time when the Franks were practically for all intended purposes an independent kingdom (see details here). Language: while it is true that Romaika is used to describe the Medieval Greek language (and preferred term per WP:COMMONNAME), it is again misleading because the situation was more nuanced. The editor is picking up circumstantial evidence based on Kaldellis book to present a homogeneous pre-industrial state where all citizens were the same culturally. It reads as: There was France, its people identified as French, and they spoke French. This is simple description does not work for Byzantium for the following reasons: The native-Romaika speakers were a minority, the rest were bilingual. While common people describe their language as Romaika, the Byzantine scholars described it as Hellinika/Greek. Tertiary source do not use the term Romaika, instead use "Greek". Constantinople acted more like a city-state rather than the capital of a nation, where the various other cities may or not hear the will of the emperor. This is discussed in [9] where Ioannis Stouraitis refutes Kaldellis claims of a homogeneous nation state. So emphasis on this viewpoint violated WP:NPOV. In a classicizing vein usually applied to other peoples, Byzantine authors regularly referred to their people as "Ausones", an ancient name for the original inhabitants of Italy. Again taken out of context, it reads as if the Byzantines were originally from Italy and replaced the local people. Note that this already exist in the current version (before the edits of the editor) and I am ok within the current narrative, not in the proposed narrative by BreadAndHumus. They believed their political history began with Aeneas the King of Troy. Another generalization. Most Byzantine scholars did not write histories starting with Aeneas, only a handful. Even these handful, they were writing a universal history mixing The Trojan war with the Biblical narratives starting with Genesis. None of them explicitly stated Aeneas established Rome and its political institutions, this belongs to Romulus a descendant of Aeneas. The statement essentially relies on a statement made by Justinian. In fact, here are some Procopius, Michael Psellos, and George Pachymeres ignored the Trojan War altogether. While others (John Zonaras and Nikephoros Gregoras) emphasized Christian themes at the expense of the Trojan War, which was viewed as a pagan narrative. Later Byzantine scholars were more critical of these myths, such as Theodore Metochites and George Gemistos Plethon. I suggest a focus on facts, i.e., Byzantines believed that the history of their political institutions originate from ancient Rome. This way we avoid the generalization that all Byzantine scholars believed these mythological stories. Byzantine authors regularly referred to their people as "Ausones", an ancient name for the original inhabitants of Italy This is also misleading, especially in the context of homogeneity. It reads as if they believed that the Byzantines came from Italy and replaced the local populations. The Byzantines never considered uniting their church with other Orthodox peoples, such as the Russians or the Serbs. Multiple issues here. This statement about religion comes out of nowhere breaking reading flow. The issue of religion is rather complex. What does never considered uniting their church with other Orthodox peoples mean? Bulgarians and Serbs are orthodox and this was done where their religious leader accepted the supremacy of the patriarch in Constantinople. Both Justinian and Heraclius were attempting to resolve religious diversions, e.g., Arianism, which was not confined in the west. WP:OR the source does not specify "Russians or the Serbs" instead he provides: barbarian orthodox peoples (emphasis is in the original) The statement is taken out of its context. Kaldellis focus on 1204 moment, (see Sack of Constantinople), where the empire was broke into different parts. He attempts to elaborate what re-union meant at that critical period and concludes that there was no political will for this union between east and west, and that this union between orthodox people is not needed because as Kaldellis puts it Orthodoxy, after all, is a matter of shared religious belief and practice; the orthodox are united (in communion) so long as they mutually regard each other as orthodox. The question of union was always a matter concerning Western and Eastern Romans. This is a very weird statement. Who are the "Western Romans"? The source is talking about the 13th century events and by that time "Western Romans" did not exist since the fall of Rome in the fifth century and the Gothic War (535–554) in the sixth century, which devastated the Italian population and Western Roman identity. So what are we talking about? It is even more confusing given that it follows a statement regarding union over faith/religion. Did we switched to the question of political union. The source focus on viewpoints at the late stage of the empire, i.e., when it was broken up, and attempts to explain how the Byzantines re-united. Kaldellis explains Each of the two successor states was monarchical to begin with; the imperative to merge was generated by the desire for national unity, for otherwise we cannot explain why they were interested in merging only with other Romans. Let's ignore that the fact that there were three successor states, one of which did not sought to merge after the recapture of Constantinople (one of the many Kaldellis's willingness to sideline facts to advance his position). I think the editor is mixing up various quotes made by Kaldellis about a particular period (50–60 years) of Byzantine Empire, and generalizes them to apply 1000+ years period. The current version is sufficient. Regarding the POV tag, this was if memory serves, by the early problematic editor who demoted the article from its GA status last year. It should had been removed after the recent moves. Irrespective of this the recent edits greatly amplify the WP:POV issues not reduce them. A.Cython(talk) 14:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC) PS: Kaldellis quotes are from the same source provided by the editor, meaning that there are issues in the source-text integrity, beyond WP:POV issues mentioned above. A.Cython(talk) 15:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Important: Our subject is "Identity Self Perception" of the Byzantine majority. We are not talking about minorities which exist everywhere. Your #2 proves my point. They considered their polity direct continuation of the ancient Roman empire. It's not our subject if they truly were. 3 Please provide sources to establish your argument 4 We are talking about the Byzantine majority 5, 6, 7 Please provide sources to establish your argument against my statement. BreadAndHumus (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC) It would be better to allow others to make judgement calls here. 0. These minorities is the question whether are treated as Byzantines or not. The original article was about Byzantine Greeks, after a long dispute, the "Greeks" was dropped, in order to encompass these minorities (which formed the majority of the population of the empire) because they were citizens of the empire. Kaldellis sees no distinction between say citizens in Egypt, Italy or Thrace, simply because they paid taxes to the Roman/Byzantine state. Yet, they spoke different native languages and had different cultural behaviors, and religious viewpoints, etc. Kaldellis position is heavily criticized (evidence already provided) and it is not adopted as a mainstream position (acknowledged and debated but not universally acceepted). If we exclude all these minorities then the article should be renamed as "Byzantine Greeks" in order to better reflect the Greek-speaking population in the empire. If not then these minorities have to stay in definition of Byzantines and their differences properly mentioned. 2. Your phrasing that it started with Aeneas is the source of the problem. It does not prove your point. You are giving WP:UNDUE weight on the mythological origins which substantially skews the diverse viewpoints of Byzantine scholars over a 1000+ period. Were there some who believed it, yes, but not all. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies does not even mention Aeneas! Generalizing is a well-know fallacy and it should be avoided especially in contentions topics. Even later sources when discussed they place it within a certain context. There is no such context with your additions. Even in the Routledge Handbook where Kaldellis was involved, takes a more nuance stance Some Eastern Romans perceived the fall of Troy as the starting point of their history. (added emphasis) How exactly does this compare with your statement? Very differently! This is problematic if localized within the particular statement, but instead the problem is amplified by it neighboring statements marking it a serious WP:POV issue. 3. Look into any WP:TERTIARY source including already provided. The source of the problem your statement are not even supported by the sources you provide, not with mine. Here I provide some The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (2008) The Routledge handbook on identity in Byzantium (2022) Better still from Kaldellis himself Romanland p. 208-209 there were two ways of talking about the territory that was under Roman control: one referred to all the territory subject to the emperor, whereas the other distinguished within that territory between lands inhabited mostly by Romans (what we might call a Roman homeland) and lands inhabited mostly by foreigners (but still under imperial governance). ... In other words, not everyone under the authority of the emperor was a Roman. Ioannis Stouraitis (source given above) In a similar manner, Anna Komnene stated around the mid-twelfth century that the Roman power was by nature the ruler of the ethne (peoples)... 4. Byzantine majority of what? the native-Greek speakers who were the minority or those whose Greek was a second language? The combination of one nation, one language, one culture, etc is not current consensus in academic literature, thus it is a WP:POV. For example, The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies having a whole chapter on language does not even mention Romaika, instead it calls it "Greek". From the same source pp. 779-780 Thus Greek was a native language for only a minority of the Empire's inhabitants in its early years, with speakers concentrated in 'old' Greece and the major Hellenistic foundations. Nevertheless, those who wished to advance their careers within the political, military, and religious framework of the state were obliged to learn it to an appropriate level, whatever their native tongue. But in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt the native languages already enjoyed, or soon acquired, a status that enabled them to be seen as plausible rivals. Clearly not black and white. Unless of course you advocate that Byzantines = Byzantine Greeks, which will simply open pandora's box since we already had three moves already. 5 & 7. Already explained see #4 6. Already explained in #2 A.Cython(talk) 17:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC) In number 4 you said: "While common people describe their language as Romaika, the Byzantine scholars described it as Hellinika/Greek." and I responded with "We are talking about the Byzantine majority". Then you respond with "The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies having a whole chapter on language does not even mention Romaika, instead it calls it "Greek". Here iit doesn't talk about self perception hence is outside our scope. BreadAndHumus (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC) What is this Byzantine majority, I ask again? The native speakers or the bilinguals? Were the bilinguals Byzantines? Oversimplifications does not improve the current version of the article. Oh and suddenly the Byzantine scholars self-perception does not count, but the Byzantine scholars' opinion counts when you are talking about Aeneas? A.Cython(talk) 19:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Since you brought up language, while Romaika was indeed a common name, like I said in my other comment, it was not the exclusive one. I will add, for example, that in "The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature" Chapter 1, page: 3, we read that: the overwelming majority of texts that survive from the Byzantine world [...] are indeed in Greek -ελληνιστι, (hellenisti) ελλάδι φωνη (helladi phone "in hellenic speech"), or ελλαδι γλωττη (helladi glotte "in hellenic tongue") as a Greek-speaking Byzantine might have said1. Then below, in note 1, we read: Depending on context and circumstance, especially in the middle and late Byzantine period, the term ρωμαιστί (rhomaisti) and related adjectives and nouns [...] were also used in order to denote Greek, whenever ρωμαιστί did not retain its original meaning as "Latin". Piccco (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Romaika was the most common name. I never argued that other names were not used. The paragraph highlights the Roman identity of the Byzantines. Even their language which had Greek origin was transformed to the language of the Romans. Again and again their Roman identity emerges unequivocally. BreadAndHumus (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Byzantines) First statement by volunteer (Byzantines) Please read DRN Rule D again. Please read DRN Rule D.8 again. Maybe you didn't notice Rule D.8. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It did not work before you asked for mediation, and it is likely not to work now. Comment on content, not contributors. If there are questions about the conduct of other editors, you have two choices: Ignore or overlook the conduct issues and try to work on the content issues in order to alleviate the conduct. Read the boomerang essay before filing a report at WP:ANI. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but they often do not explain effectively. The previous statements were too long, and I am not wading through them, and so will start over with the usual question. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So please state exactly what changes to the article you want to make that another editor disagrees with. Alternatively, please state what parts of the article you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. We will try to address the content issues so that any conduct issues can be either alleviated or ignored. Be concise in your answers. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Do I have to state again the changes I want to make? BreadAndHumus (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Statement 1.5 by moderator (Byzantines) Restate the changes that you want to make, but concisely. The above statements were too long. If your changes do not fit on half a screen in mobile view, they may lose the attention of editors reading this discussion. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC) My suggested changes pertain the Identity Self-Perception section which has the template "The neutrality of this section is disputed." The section should have as first paragraph the following: Throughout their history, the majority of Byzantines self-identified as Romans (Romaioi). They called their state Romania (i.e. Romanland) or Romais, which was the direct continuation of the ancient Roman empire. Their rulers were the emperors of the Romans, their capital was New Rome (Constantinople), and often called their language Romaika (i.e. language of the Romans). BreadAndHumus (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC) First statements by editors (Byzantines) First statement by A.Cython Here is the version that I can live with. Most of the alterations are based on the comments made above, i.e., following the consensus in literature and use of WP:COMMONNAME. Throughout their history, the majority of Byzantines self-identified as Romans (Romaioi) citizens. They called their state Romania, i.e., Romanland, with Constantinople as its capital. Their rulers believed that their political institutions were a continuation of the Roman Empire. Their language was a Greek dialect called Romaika, while its native-speakers were initially a minority, it acted as lingua franca for much of territories of the Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Cython (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC) First statement by BreadAndHumus I remind that our subject is self identity. I will brake my and A.Cython proposals to parts to be easily manageable. I will rearrange A.Cython proposal to feat mine without removing any information. Also I will tweak a little mine. Me:Throughout their history, the majority of Byzantines self-identified as Romans (Romaioi). A.Cython: Throughout their history, the majority of Byzantines self-identified as Romans (Romaioi) citizens. My comment: A.Cython's proposal "identified as Romans (Romaioi) citizens" the citizens part need referencing. Me:They called their state Romania (i.e. Romanland) or Romais, which was the direct continuation of the ancient Roman empire. A.Cython: They called their state Romania, i.e., Romanland, which their rulers believed that their political institutions were a continuation of the Roman Empire. My comment: A.Cython's proposal "which their rulers believed that their political institutions were a continuation of the Roman Empire." needs sourcing and applies to their rulers which is outside our scope. Me:They called their emperors emperors of the Romans and their capital New Rome, Constantinople and Byzantium. A.Cython: Constantinople was their capital. My Comment: No comment. Me: Often they called their language Romaika (i.e. language of the Romans). A.Cython [edited]: Their language was a Greek dialect Medieval Greek called Romaika, while its native-speakers were initially a minority, the dominant language in every field (law, military, etc), and acting as lingua franca for much of territories of the Empire, and later as part of ethnic identity in later stages of the Empire. My comment: A.Cython's proposal "Their language was a Greek dialect called Romaika, while its native-speakers were initially a minority, it acted as lingua franca for much of territories of the Empire" is again outside our scope. We only need how they were calling it. The rest is irrelevant. BreadAndHumus (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) I'm afraid that this sentense constitutes original research. 1) A dialect is a local variety that somewhat differs from the mainstream spoken language. 'Medieval Greek' cannot be a Greek dialect, it is just Greek. 1) Its native speakers initially a minority; as we've seen in the sources so far, even in the early period, Greek was always the dominant language of the east. There was no other "majority" to counter it. 3) acted as a lingua franca; a lingua franca is a language that peoples of different cultural backgrounds use for easy communication, such as in trade etc. Greek is not a lingua franca in the Byzantine empire. It is its dominant language, present in every facet of Byzantine life, from daily speech, to literature, and law. Overall, this approach also gives a little too much weight in the early period, the first few centuries of the empire, while the empire lasted for almost a millenium more. Piccco (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Correct. BreadAndHumus (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Piccco is right, so strike the "dialect" from my version, that was my bad. Note that lingua franca has been used by academics to describe the use of the Greek language at least in the early period (see Stouraitis quote below). From seventh century onward there was societal transition and homogenization in term of ethnic identity, partly because the empire was losing regions of different ethnic/linguistic identities. The response illustrates the complexities of Byzantine identity that a simplified narrative as provided by BreadAndHumus is inadequate, i.e., simply calling the language Romaika.A.Cython(talk) 20:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Response by A.Cython Please read Kaldellis carefully. Romanland p. 200 In 212, all free people of the imperium were made into Roman citizens; provincials from formerly conquered peoples increasingly began to fill the highest offices in the state, including the imperial office. (emphasis added) This is the basis of Kaldellis for the Roman political identity. Kaldellis claims (simplifying here) that if you pay taxes then you lose your cultural identity, which is widely refuted, see Stouraitis. Per admission of Kaldellis himself, Two Romes, Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity (2008) p. 389 According to the dominant view, Byzantium was a multiethnic and multi-lingual empire whose various territories were united only in being subject to the capital, Constantinople. It was the opposite of a nation-state as its ideology promoted Christian ecumenism; it was an empire with “universal” ambitions (or pretensions), whether territorial or religious. The Byzantines may have claimed that they were Romans, but in fact this meant only that they were Orthodox Christians. They were the True Israel and their history as a community was symbolic and based in the Old Testament. (Constantinople is even called New Jerusalem in a few texts. In the political sphere, being Roman meant only (i.e., was defined and constituted by the fact) that one was subject to the emperor, who retained the title “emperor of the Romans” for reasons of propaganda. There were no “real” Romans here, as no one spoke Latin. Modern Greek (and Greek-American) nationalist historians have additionally claimed that Byzantium was “really” the medieval phase of the history of the Greek people.4 So whereas the Byzantines called themselves Romans, “in reality” many or most of them were actually Greeks who were only prevented from using their proper name by the (contingent) fact that the church had labeled pagans as Greeks, making that label (temporarily) undesirable. (emphasis added) This means that this is the only position we should write in WP, because per admission of Kaldellis this is the dominant view and so per WP:DUE which states Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Kaldellis narrative of a pure Roman identity should be excluded per admission of the author. Kaldellis repeats this admission in Romanland a 2019 book, meaning the academic views have not changed. Recent WP:TERTIARY sources reinforce this, For example: Stewart, M.E., Parnell, D.A. and Whately, C., 2022. The Routledge handbook on identity in Byzantium. New York: Routledge p. 199-200: Byzantine identity was then somewhat more than "Greek" and at the same time something else than simply "Roman" (in its classical context). Please do not contradict yourself: the majority of Byzantines self-identified as Romans ok so we are talking for most ethnic groups, but regarding the language is again outside our scope. We only need how they were calling it. This is classic case of cherry picking to promote a WP:POV. The only way that this would be acceptable is if we move "Byzantines" → "Byzantine Greeks" and properly explained at the first sentence. However, this runs against current consensus by multiple of editors at the Byzantines article (after three renames) as the definition is to encompass all ethnic groups. How these non-native-Greek speakers self-identified along with native-Greek speakers is a central aspect of the complex Byzantine identity. Unless you make a case for the article to return to "Byzantine Greeks" as its title. Another contradiction "which their rulers believed that their political institutions were a continuation of the Roman Empire." need sourcing and applies to their rulers which is outside our scope. It is their rulers who believed this for the state's propaganda and much of the identity of Byzantium had its source at the very royal court at Constantinople. Did we not go through this with your own source about Justinian propaganda? This is basic staff, even Kaldellis admits it. This is very puzzling from you who insist on Kaldellis narrative but does not know Kaldellis writings. Asking for sources when you do not even try to read the presented evidence is not helping anyone. Do not avoid addressing evidence presented above. You have not provided any evidence to contribute to this discussion and avoid evidence provided above. Read how Ioannis Stouraitis describes identity in his paper provided above at page 185: These refer to the continuance of Roman imperial structures in the East, the gradual linguistic Hellenization of the imperial administration, and the apparently increased cultural homogeneity. The latter refers to the conclusion of the process of Christianization in the sixth century as well as to the survival of only one lingua franca (Greek) within the contracted Eastern Empire after the seventh century. These developments seem to represent a better starting point for the formation of a state-framed national identity, or alternatively of a (Graiko‐)Roman ethnic identity among a core population, ... Most of the paper talks about self-identity and refutes the Kaldellis's premise/narrative of self-identity based on one nation, one language, one culture. There is no point discussing anything more as the editor in question needs to demonstrate a genuine and constructive attitude. Otherwise this exercise is pointless. A.Cython(talk) 03:14, 30 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.

Bengali dialects

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by Msasag on 07:24, 25 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

• Bengali dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Msasag (talk · contribs)
• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs)
• Jacklincoln47 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over the classification of certain language varieties (Rangpuri/Kamtapuri, Sylheti, Chittagonian, Surjapuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese (Goalparia dialects), Assamese (Kamrupi dialects), Odia (Northern dialects)) on a map file (File:Bengali dialects2.png) and its versions (like File:Bengali dialects.png) across multiple articles. The map currently classifies these as dialects of Bengali.
1. 3/4 users agreed that these language varieties should be excluded from the maps on Bengali dialects. The 4th user and creator of the maps agreed only to remove the Kamrupi and Goalpariya dialects and the Hojai district of Assam.
2. It should be noted that these varieties have recognition as distinct from Bengali by modern linguists, ethnologue etc. Surjapuri and several others lack Bengali linguistic identity among any speakers. Several also have formal recognition from government (Kamtapuri/Rangpuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese, Odia).

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

File talk:Bengali dialects2.png#Issues with maps

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm hoping an uninvolved editor can help evaluate whether the sourcing provided is sufficient grounds to exclude these varieties from maps specifically about Bengali dialects.

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

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

Summary of dispute by Fylindfotberserk

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

Summary of dispute by Jacklincoln47

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

This DRN request is premature, but I will leave it open rather than closing it because the problem can be remedied. The discussion has been in the wrong place. The discussion has been on the file talk page of a map rather than the article talk page. I am marking the file talk page to show that the discussion is being moved to the article talk page, and am asking the editors to resume discussion on the article talk page for between 24 and 48 hours. One reason is to see whether any other editors offer opinions, and another is for the editors to restate, on the article talk page, what the issues are. I will check on the discussion in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted the summary on the article talk page as requested, pinging the involved editors. [10] Msasag (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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

A*Pop

– New discussion.

Filed by Zirthes on 20:39, 29 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

• A*Pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zirthes (talk · contribs)
• Livelikemusic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am in a disagreement with the user Livelikemusic over where an image should be positioned in the A*Pop article. The image in question is of Tyla performing at the Montreux Jazz Festival in July 2026, and is currently positioned directly under the A*Pop#Release and promotion section of the article. When I first added the image in this edit I positioned it directly next to the "Live performances" paragraph (under the Release and promotion section) which I believe is the correct thing to do as the image directly relates to that paragraph. At the time because the paragraph was quite short, the image caused "section bleeding" (as referred to by the other editor) whereby it pushed into the "Singles and videos" paragraph directly below. Livelikemusic then removed the image in this edit, giving this as a reason for doing so. Subsequently, I expanded the "Live performances" paragraph to where positioning the image alongside it would not "bleed" into the "Singles and videos" paragraph below, and re-added the image in this edit. Livelikemusic proceeded to once again remove the image citing "section bleeding" as the reason, despite the image now now longer pushing into the "Singles and videos" paragraph, something which they seem to have ignored. I then re-added the image again in this edit, after which they moved the image to a generic position at the top of the Release and promotion section. I am highly confused as to why they chose to position the image here, and their reasoning for not having it alongside the "Live performances" paragraph currently.

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

I started a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:A*Pop#Montreux Jazz Festival image in "Release and promotion" at the other editor's request and to also prevent an edit war, however they have shown reluctance to participate in an ongoing discussion with more than one response. I tried to request a third opinion, but was unsuccessful due to the discussion on the talk page not being thorough enough.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate additional opinions on where the image should be placed under the Release and promotion section of the article, such as next to the Live performances paragraph, in its current position, or somewhere else.

Summary of dispute by Livelikemusic

My response, which I left via this edit, pretty much sums up my stance, including reference to Manual of Style (e.g., MOS:SECTIONLOC) and other editing guidelines (e.g., how-to guide) while exampling why I took the stance I did within my edit. I never responded to the other response as I was awaiting to see if any other users participated in the discussion to provide other points of view, especially after being accused of "nit-picking", which I was not. I felt it safe to await to see if others brought their own opinions and views, and was doing my due diligence to participate in a talk page discussion. Not sure why a noticeboard discussion needed to be opened after only two days, though. Seems a bit hasty, especially after it appears a 3O was declined by Doniago, due to what they cited as "insufficient conversation". livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

A*Pop discussion

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