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
Category:PlayStation 5-only games	In Progress	Jursha (t)	22 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Jursha (t)	3 days,
Michael Jackson	Closed	Hammelsmith (t)	22 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
Muslim Gujjars	New	Anpanman11 (t)	16 days, 6 hours	Rosguill (t)	15 days,	Sybercracker (t)	14 days, 7 hours
Talk: The Importance of Being Earnest	Closed	Becsh (t)	11 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East	Closed	ElijahPepe (t)	9 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
Poland	Closed	PJK 1993 (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Rosguill (t)	2 days, 6 hours	PJK 1993 (t)	2 days, 6 hours
Pastirma	New	Agent Albatros (t)	2 days, 5 hours	None	n/a	Agent Albatros (t)	2 days, 5 hours
Western Sahara	New	Nice4What (t)	1 hours	None	n/a	Nice4What (t)	1 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

Category:PlayStation 5-only games

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jursha on 20:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Category:PlayStation 5-only games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jursha (talk · contribs)
• WikiAnsweredNow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added lesser-known indie video games to the List of PlayStation 5 games page. At the time I did this, I was following WP:NOTEWORTHY. Particularly the part that says "The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria." Many of the entries I added to the stand-alone list have only a PlayStation Store URL as their citation.

I then proceeded to create hard redirect pages for all the entries I added to this list and included categories (allowed by WP:RCAT to my understanding) on the redirects, such as the PlayStation 5-only category. The user WikiAnsweredNow thought my additions and edits were in bad faith, and they removed only the PlayStation 5-only category from each of those redirect pages. I reverted all their edits, thinking they were vandalism. He started a discussion on the talk page of the article/category, and I think we don't see each other as acting in bad faith now, but we've seemingly come to a standstill on who's right.

WikiAnsweredNow seems to want the redirects to be deleted (or at least have the PS5-only category removed), citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. My opinion is that WP:NOTDIR doesn't directly apply to the List of PlayStation 5 games page since notability, by default, isn't considered for entries on stand-alone lists (and thus wouldn't apply to their redirect pages, or the categories on those pages). My thinking is that a consensus should be established on the List of PlayStation 5 games talk page about only including notable entries (i.e., entries with a link to a credible article and not just a digital store URL). I don't see redirect pages + their categories as needing to adhere to notability guidelines since they are just navigational guides for content on the aforementioned list; they should only be modified if the linked list entry is removed.

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

Category talk:PlayStation 5-only games#Bunch of worthless games

We've talked back and forth on this page, and another user chimed in and seemed to agree (I think with me) that things shouldn't be deleted based on "the personal, arbitrary quality threshold set by some editor." But I don't think WikiAnsweredNow understood that completely since they responded to that user asking me to delete (either the redirect pages themselves, or the categories from each page, I'm not sure).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think if we could have a more experienced editor or two chime in and interpret the finer points of Wikipedia's policy to us both, then we'll have a better understanding of what to do/not do. I'm willing to delete my list entries (and redirects) if need be.

Summary of dispute by WikiAnsweredNow

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

This dispute began as the user Jursha explained. I noticed a huge volume of redirects page of low-effort / Shovelware titles being created and assigned categories. Due to the huge volume, I removed the said category from the redirect pages under bad faith. Jursha later reverted them, assuming vandalism. I initiated a discussion under an existing discussion talking about this same issue. After discussing our viewpoints, I no longer hold the belief that Jursha acted in bad faith. However, we have come to a standstill.

This dispute concerns the categorization of certain redirect pages under PlayStation 5-only games category. Many of these redirects point to list entries for low-effort or unverifiable titles (games by studios like Oiven Games, Colosseum Studio, Nextgo24 UG, etc. or games series like Cazzarion where its developer releases a new game each week) that lack independent coverage or reliable sourcing. While they technically meet the definition of “PS5-only” due to their platform exclusivity, they do not meet a reasonable threshold of verifiability or relevance per WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTDIR.

My position is that inclusion in this category should require some degree of verifiable significance, notability is not the issue, but verifiability and usefulness to readers is. This aligns with the intent of categories as navigational tools reflecting meaningful groupings of content, not indiscriminate collections of redirect links to entries in a list in List of PlayStation 5 games page.

Furthermore, per WP:CAT, "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category, except for talk pages, redirects, and user pages, which may optionally be placed in categories where appropriate." Many of these redirects offer no substantial information beyond what exists on the main list article and often mirror unsourced entries. Including them in a major category like "PS5-only games" creates an inflated and less usable category for readers seeking a practical overview of the exclusive titles.

My proposed solution is to remove the category from such redirect pages unless and until independent sources verify the game's relevance. Alternatively, consensus may be sought on Talk:List of PlayStation 5 games to remove the unverified entries from the list entirely, thereby rendering the redirects unnecessary.

This approach aims to keep the category informative and policy-consistent, rather than bloated with unsourced or just raw dump of content with no practical usefulness.

The category should have 10-15 titles by my calculations, but instead it has over 100 titles, most of which are low-effort titles. I'm not against inclusion of lesser-known indie titles like Climate Station or The Winds Rising. I'm only against inclusion of Shovelware titles. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:PlayStation 5-only games discussion

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

I will try to act as moderator if this dispute is one that can be worked at DRN. DRN usually handles article content disputes, and this appears to be a category dispute, so I am not sure at this time whether DRN is the right forum for this dispute, or what the rules should be, or exactly what this dispute is about. Please read DRN Rule X, which is the interim set of rules in uncertain preliminary cases.

I usually begin moderated discussion by asking each editor what they want to change, or leave the same, in a Wikipedia article. Since this does not appear to be an article dispute, I will ask each editor for a one-paragraph description of exactly what they want to change, and, if different from the above, a one-paragraph description of what they think the issue is.

Also, I see a long discussion of creating redirects from or to a list, but was not able to understand exactly what the purpose of the redirects was. Please identify a few examples of the issue so that I can review them and see if I can determine what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Playstation Category)

This dispute does concern the PlayStation 5-only games category specifically, but it also involves the List of PlayStation 5 games page. I'll do my best to sum it up and include examples of the redirects, as requested.

I created redirect pages which point to list entries I added to the List of PlayStation 5 games page. Each of these redirect pages include categories, one of which being PlayStation 5-only games. These redirect pages correspond to video games that are exclusive to the PlayStation 5 system, but many of them are considered shovelware. Here are a few examples of the redirect pages:

Timothy's Night; Toy's Brawl; Steam Train Simulator; Labyrinth Run; Cazzarion: Cute Town; 1917: The Alien Invasion DX Remastered

There are a lot more, but these serve as valid examples. Some of these, like Timothy's Night, do have a citation (usually an article I found) that isn't just a link to the game's PlayStation Store listing, but the majority only have a PlayStation Store link as their sole citation.

-I believe the user WikiAnsweredNow considers these entries with only a PS Store citation as not conforming to verifiability guidelines. Therefore, the category (or all categories) should be removed from the redirect page(s) and/or the redirect page should be deleted outright. (WikiAnsweredNow, please correct me if I've misconstrued anything.)

-I think the redirect pages should not be deleted or have their categories removed as long as they link to an existing list entry. I think the redirect pages should only be deleted/altered if consensus regarding notability is reached on the talk page for List of PlayStation 5 games, like what happened with List of Nintendo Switch games. Basically, I think that a redirect page and its potential categories all abide by Wikipedia guidelines as long as they link to an article or list entry on a standalone list. –Jursha (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

What I want changed - I propose that every redirect on the category page that only leads to a list entry in List of PlayStation 5 games and whose only citation is a PlayStation Store listing should either have [[Category:PlayStation 5-only games]] (among other categories, if applicable) removed until the corresponding list entry is supported by reliable, independent source. Redirects whose list entries already contain such sourcing (e.g. The Winds Rising, Climate Station, etc.) may keep the category. This would trim the category from 110+ redirects to roughly 10-15 genuine PS5-only releases.

What the issue is - Categories are meant as navigational tools, not indiscriminate directories. A bare redirect that (1) offers no article-level content and (2) points to a list entry whose only citation is the store link itself fails WP:V and runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. Per WP:CAT, redirects "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category, except for talk pages, redirects, and user pages, which may optionally be placed in categories where appropriate." Until there is some independent verification, placing a high-level category tag on shovelware redirects, such as Cazzarion series, or games by shovelware studios, makes the category practically useless to the readers seeking a practical overview of PS5 exclusives. Requiring a minimal verifiability threshold (independent source or higher-quality coverage) before categorization will keep this category actually informative, policy-compliant, and most importantly useful to the reader. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

Okay. As I understand the issue, the issue has to do with article categories and what I will call stub redirects, redirects from titles that do not have an article but are mentioned in a more general article. I am familiar with redirects from a song title to either the album or the artist, and these appear to be similar. The issue appears to be that these redirects have been assigned article categories, which should only be used on articles. Redirects should have redirect categories, such as {{R from list topic}}, which I think would be appropriate. We can either close this dispute based on advice to the filing editor to change the redirects to redirect categories, and removing them from an article category, or I can put this case on hold while I consult with other experienced editors as to whether I am interpreting the guidelines on categorizing redirects correctly.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Playstation Category)

If you wouldn't mind, I would like to hear if the interpretation is indeed correct based on your consulting with other editors, though I have the feeling you're likely correct. Perhaps I have greatly misunderstood WP:RCAT. If you are correct, does this also mean that redirects such as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe should also have no article categories? I did read on WP:INCOMPATIBLE that article categories can be used on a redirect as long as the category doesn't wholly apply to the article itself. The Wile E. Coyote example in particular seems appropriate. Would PlayStation 5-only games not be exactly that, when compared to a general list of mostly multiplatform PlayStation 5 games? Or does the rule not apply when the redirect is to a list instead of an article subsection? (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I looked at WP:INCOMPATIBLE, it appears to be primarily concerned with alternative names. Both Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Wile E. Coyote are redirected to articles that are very specific to these topics and are highly relevant and include substantial information with high quality coverage and sourcing to these topics on hand.

I think this policy is not very relevant to our discussion. Most, if not all, of the redirects pages that we are discussing don't have any articles that are very specific to them and the general PS5-games list doesn't contain reliable independent high quality coverage or sourcing for these shovelware titles to be considered for this Wikipedia policy. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The Wile E. Coyote example is mostly what I wanted to show since it gives us an example of a redirect page with categories. I'd also like to bring up WP:LISTRCAT, which is definitely relevant since it also shows that redirect pages can have article categories. Its Eastenders example in particular. Eamonn Flaherty redirects to an Eastenders-related list, and its redirect page does have an article category: Beale family (Eastenders). The list entry actually doesn't have a citation to boot, just an invite to add to the section along with a summary; maybe all the list entries I added need something similar rather than outright deletion (be it their categories or altogether). Respectfully, I'd like to hear what Robert finds out before any big moves are made. Jursha (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Playstation Category )

I asked for advice. I was given the suggestion that, instead of putting the redirects in an existing article category, you could create a redirect category to put the redirects in, such as Category:Playstation 5 redirects to lists, and then add that category to parent categories, either Playstation-oriented or categories of redirects. See [1]. I will inquire further as to where is the best forum to ask for more detailed advice about categories.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Playstation Category)

(Moving my responses to Robert in the second statement field since I think that's proper DRN etiquette. Apologies for any additional pings.) I like that idea and I like that we have precedence for it on top of that with that Simpsons example. I've never created a category myself, so I'll have to do a little reading on how that works when I have time. I do have some questions, first: should I also do this for other similar categories as well, in cases where redirects dwarf actual article pages? For example, the Switch-only games category. That way, it stays consistent from platform to platform. Or does consensus need to be established first via the talk page for other categories?

Another question comes to mind. The redirect to list category for Simpons characters works well in that it's listed as a subcategory on the main category. Basically, the redirect to list category is only one step removed from the main category. However, would a hypothetical Category:PlayStation 5-only games redirects to list be potentially seen as a type of overcategorization? Category:PlayStation 5-only games is already a subcategory of Category:PlayStation 5 games, so the hypothetical equivalent for PS5-only games would be a subcategory of an existing subcategory. I still like the idea and I think it's an excellent compromise as well as what we should do going forward, but I just want to be sure I'm covering my bases before I commit to anything. Jursha (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

Thank you for the suggestions, Robert.

I think that's a fairly good compromise of creating a separate category for the redirects. I think I'm good with it.

Jursha - However, even with a separate category, I feel like the huge volume of shovelwares will drown out the legitimate indie titles, but I don't have any strong opinions on that. I'd like to leave this decision entirely upto your discretion whether you'd want to include them or not.

Thank you! WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Third statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

Shall I create the category and assign it to categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Playstation Category)

I'm all for it. I do have my questions above, but they aren't necessarily important to this specific task. Jursha (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

Yeah, sounds good to me. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

I have created the category, Category: Playstation 5 redirects to lists. Please put the redirects in the category. We must remember that the population of categories is done in a way that seems to be in reverse. A category is populated by adding the category to the articles. Adding a category to a category puts the category into a parent category. Please let me know whether this seems to be working.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Playstation Category)

Thank you for doing this. I guess I had misread earlier, but shouldn't the category name reflect the naming scheme of the PlayStation 5-only games category? I feel like information is lost in just calling it "Playstation 5 redirects to list"—the name no longer informs that these video games are exclusive to the PlayStation 5. Also, I think "Playstation" should be changed to "PlayStation" regardless. —Jursha (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

Good catch Jursha. I was in middle of updating the category. I can update the category for remaining ones and then we can retroactively update the category to new name, if possible.

Robert, we would appreciate if the category could be renamed to "Category:PlayStation 5-only games redirects to list" or simply "Category:PlayStation 5-only games redirects". Or do we have to apply for Speedy renaming independently. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

The category is now pending renaming. Are there any other issues while we wait for the renaming? Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Playstation Category)

None from me. Thanks for all your help with this!Jursha (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hammelsmith on 21:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hammelsmith (talk · contribs) TruthGuardians (talk · contribs) SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) ianmacm (talk · contribs) Wallby (talk · contribs) Israell (talk · contribs) castorbailey (talk · contribs) Slackergeneration (talk · contribs) Never17 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview My edit w/ summary: "needs rewrite, sources don't fairly imply "possibly had altered his genitals", opinions not WikiVoice "sources required for material that is challenged or likely to be" "NPOV, fairly representing all majority & significant-minority viewpoints by reliable sources, in rough proportion to prominence of each view" "Prosecutors sought Jackson's doctors & family inquiring about possibility the singer had altered his physical appearance so as not to match the description. In Jan 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that the photos of Jackson "do not match descriptions given by the boy." In Feb 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."" Please help. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Michael_Jackson#I_think_this_edit_is_more_than_fair._Thoughts? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think I have made a fair edit that accurately reflects the sources, & I want it neutral. Other editors seem more concerned about disrespecting Michael Jackson in some way. I have said that I don't mean for my edits to POV-push regarding anything he did or didn't do. I don't mind a lot of scrubbing & re-wording. My interest is what we can fairly report on Wiki. Please please help us. References Summary of dispute by TruthGuardians Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I do not support including Bill Dworin’s retrospective statement in the article because it fails Wikipedia’s WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE standards. The article already reflects a balanced summary of the events, based on contemporaneous reporting from major reliable sources like Reuters, USA Today, and the LA Times, which stated that the photos taken during the strip search did not match the description provided by the accuser. These reports were published in 1994, just months after the events, while Dworin’s remarks came over a decade later and do not outweigh the earlier reporting, especially without corroboration. Are we to include comments by every single person that was involved with the case whoever made a statement about it over the course of the last few decades? No. Dworin’s view is a singular, retrospective opinion, not supported by multiple independent reliable sources, and contradicts the broader factual narrative. Per WP:UNDUE, we do not give disproportionate prominence to a fringe or minority viewpoint, especially in sensitive biographies of living persons subject to WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPGOSSIP. This isn't about editorial disagreement or Jackson’s reputation, it's about upholding verifiability and due weight in line with Wikipedia policy. The article currently includes mention of the strip search, the mismatched description, and follow-up actions by prosecutors and the grand jury. It is already comprehensive and neutral. Adding Dworin's remark would give an isolated, unsupported claim equal status with more widely reported facts, violating core encyclopedic principles. I attempted to resolve this by engaging at length on the article’s talk page: Talk:Michael_Jackson. I have consistently proposed solutions rooted in policy, not emotion. Consensus has already formed against inclusion of the quote. I ask that DRN help reaffirm that editorial decisions must reflect policy—not persistence. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SNUGGUMS Editors can't seem to fully agree on what wording to use. As long as it's accurate, concise, neutral, and appropriately attributed to credible sources, I personally don't have much of a preference on specifics, and have not contested any phrasing that isn't speculative. This might be all I say on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ianmacm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jackson was never found guilty of sexually abusing a minor by a court. Some of the arguments seem designed to imply that even though he was not found guilty, he may not have been innocent. This runs into problems with WP:RGW.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Wallby Not sure how useful my contribution is here, but perhaps at least some of this is useful. Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I have used AI (Copilot) to assist in processing the huge amount of information of all the different talk page topics currently present, as well as going through the edit history of the main page, and it even looked (without prompting it to) at archived talk page topics. I exchanged about 20 messages about the actual content, asking about 16 questions using about 1250 words. This does not include some additionally exchanged messages to create summary tables, lists and statistics. As everything that follows is a mixture of information I provided and checks/some rewording done by Copilot, take with a grain of salt/verify for yourself. The case this dispute resolution is about Section Details Description and Strip Search Chandler alleged molestation and gave a detailed description of Jackson’s genitalia, including distinctive markings. Police conducted a strip search and took photos for comparison, but results were never officially released. No criminal charges were filed, and Jackson was not indicted. Reliability Concerns The description reportedly contained inaccuracies—such as stating Jackson was circumcised, which his autopsy later contradicted. Chandler refused to testify. His father, Evan Chandler, allegedly used a sedative (sodium amytal) during questioning, raising concerns about suggestibility and coaching. Accounts varied across interviews, and inconsistencies were noted. Expert Opinions Prosecutor Tom Sneddon later claimed the description "matched" the photos, but no expert-confirmed documentation was released. Jackson’s defense insisted that no match occurred and cited the absence of an indictment as evidence that the claim lacked legal weight. Independent analysts also questioned the reliability of the investigative methods used. Some additional information for context of what I explored The key topics of my discussion identified were.. Wikipedia editorial neutrality and dispute triggers 1993 and 2005 investigations into Jackson Credibility and reliability of accusers and evidence Emotional framing and narrative sequencing Racial bias in media and historical patterns Emotional framing The emotional framing is not directly related to this dispute perhaps, but it is the main point I have been trying to make in my other talk page topics which seem to all be related of some overarching discussing about bias. The forms of bias Copilot said to notice where.. Potential Bias by Omission: The article may omit or gloss over key facts that complicate the narrative—e.g., lack of indictment in 1993, conflicting genitalia description reports, and unresolved credibility issues. Undue Weight: Some sections emphasize Jackson’s musical legacy directly after serious allegations, which could emotionally frame the reader to “walk away on a positive note.” Tone and Sequencing: Critics argue the article sequences controversy and exoneration in ways that may subtly imply innocence or guilt. Editors have debated neutrality, weight, and proportionality on the talk page. Overview of accusers I also asked for a list of all accusers before Michael Jackson's death in 2009, including ethnicity for the sake of racial bias (i.e. the "predatory black male" trope). Name Year(s) Ethnicity Manipulation Alleged? Outcome Other Red Flags Terry George 1979 (reported 1993) British ❌ No parental involvement No legal action Alleged inappropriate phone calls; no corroboration Jordan Chandler 1993 Jewish-American ✅ Yes (father’s influence; sedative used during questioning) ~$23M civil settlement; no indictment Refused to testify; inconsistencies in description Jason Francia 1993–2005 White American ❌ No clear evidence of manipulation ~$2M civil settlement Testimony varied; no physical evidence Gavin Arvizo 2003–2005 Latino (Mexican-American) ✅ Yes (mother coached children; welfare fraud history) Criminal trial; acquitted on all charges Timeline inconsistencies; credibility concerns cited by jurors Unnamed Mexican & Filipino boys 1990s Mixed (Mexican, Filipino) ❌ No evidence of manipulation No charges filed Mentioned in FBI files; deemed not credible Wade Robson 1993–2005 (accused 2013) Australian ❌ No parental manipulation alleged Lawsuit dismissed (procedural grounds) Reversed stance years later; no physical evidence James Safechuck 1988–1992 (accused 2014) American ❌ No parental manipulation alleged Lawsuit dismissed (procedural grounds) Alleged hundreds of incidents; timeline inconsistencies Edit history statistics About the edits to the Michael Jackson page, and the talk page, it identifies these main patterns.. Aspect Observation Edit frequency Very high, especially around anniversaries and media events Most contested sections Lead, Controversies, Legal outcomes Common disputes Neutrality, undue weight, emotional framing Talk page tone Often polarized, with detailed arguments and policy citations Resolution attempts Dispute resolution filings, RFCs (Requests for Comment), and admin interventions About the main article.. Frequent Revisions Lead section is often edited to adjust the balance between Jackson’s legacy and allegations. Controversies section sees recurring edits, especially after media events (e.g. Leaving Neverland, anniversaries, legal updates). Contentious Topics Sexual abuse allegations: Editors frequently debate how much detail to include, what sources are reliable, and how to phrase legal outcomes. Genitalia description (1993): Edits have alternated between stating the description was inaccurate, matched, or inconclusive. Posthumous reputation: Some edits emphasize Jackson’s musical legacy; others push for more weight on allegations. Cleanup and Neutrality Edits often involve removing emotionally charged language, rephrasing for neutrality, and adding citations. Edit wars have occurred, especially around wording that implies guilt or innocence. About the talk page archives.. Source Reliability J. Randy Taraborrelli’s biography is frequently debated. Some editors argue it’s gossip-heavy; others defend its use due to lack of alternatives. Media sources like tabloids are often challenged for bias or sensationalism. Editorial Framing Editors have flagged emotional sequencing — e.g., placing Jackson’s humanitarian efforts immediately after discussing allegations. Concerns about “nudging” the reader toward a positive impression have been raised. Legal and Forensic Details Disputes over how to present the 1993 genitalia description and its reliability. Debates on whether to clarify that acquittal ≠ innocence in the 2005 trial. Legacy vs. Controversy Some editors push for more prominence of Jackson’s artistic achievements. Others argue that high-profile controversies are underrepresented or downplayed. Summary of dispute by Israell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Since I was summoned here, here is a link to another dispute involving Hammelsmith: [2]. Israell (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Which dispute should be resolved first? Israell (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by castorbailey Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I support the Last consensus on this matter which Hammelsmith posted below. The NBC source Hammelsmith cited for the Dworin comment states that Dworin said Chandler description was accurate as he described discolorations on Jackson's genitalia. This raises WP:NPOV problems as merely including that an LAPD detective said the photos corroborated what the boy said implies that his accusations were true. However, prior to the allegations but when the Chandlers already met him, Jackson talked publicly about discolorations caused by a skin disease in a widely seen interview with Oprah Winfrey, thus anyone aware of that would very likely describe the same as Chandler did, that his genitals also had discolorations. This would not corroborate his accusations. Dworin's comments made 10 years later without any information on what exactly was corroborated and how Chandler could easily be aware of Jackson's skin issues without ever seeing his genitals is for the sole purpose to imply guilt, it is not, to make the article more neutral. Summary of dispute by Slackergeneration Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think the article should include ALL reliable sources, not just the reliable sources that discredit the first accuser. Maureen Orth of Vanity Fair, Diane Dimond's book BE CAREFUL WHO YOU LOVE, J RANDY TARABORRELLI's biography and Christopher Anderson's biography as well as this Associated Press article [3] all imply Jordy's depiction of MJ's genitalia was either largely or entirely correct. Perhaps have a chart showing the conflicting reports from different sources. Slackergeneration (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Never17 If Michael Jackson were guilty, there wouldn’t be any need for speculation—there would be actual evidence. Considering the massive resources and manpower dedicated to investigating him, the absence of solid proof speaks volumes. Yet people constantly twist things like the civil settlement or the Martin Bashir interview to suggest guilt. But those aren’t evidence—they’re parts of a larger investigation that have been reinterpreted through speculation and bias. The whole argument for his guilt relies on projecting personal assumptions onto his actions, rather than facts. The reality is that no evidence was ever found to support the allegations. That’s why speculation dominates the conversation. It’s also why it matters that this article presents a balanced view—something that’s become increasingly rare in post-2019 media, which often ignores the defense’s side entirely largely because if they actually covered it fairly and showed this the narrative would collapse completely. Regarding the quote in question, it has various issues that don't hold up under cross examination, so it is not necessary for the article. Michael Jackson discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Lengthy initial discussion before focusing on specifics. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC) Hello, so there seems to be a soft consensus now. This process has been really exhausting & all the editors I involved probably don't like me very much, to say the least. I sense that the other editors are angry because they absolutely accept that the Reuters & USA Today sources are extremely reliable & completely true. I accept that they may be reliable & true, yet a big problem is that there is no direct link to those sources & no names are given. The editors & I had some conflicts about SYNTH because, EVEN IF the content the of Reuters & USA Today sources are true, we can't expand that into how the jury or detectives or whoever compared the Jackson pictures to the accuser's description. It was written in the LA Times source that there was *speculation* of physical alternations - we cannot know what any of that involved, how it originated, nor can we speculate with SYNTH. Also, we only have Ian Halperin's book to verify the content of the Reuters & USA Today sources. Now, Bill Dworin's statement, whether right or wrong, contradicts the content of those sources - and Wiki is supposed to include contradictory sources as long as they are reliable & have due weight. To make this DRN worthwhile for all of us, could we please just have an opinion on the appropriateness or lack thereof of possibly including Dworin's comment? Hammelsmith (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Bill Dworin was a part of the prosecution —the very same prosecution that was calling in Jackson’s mother four months after the strip search to see if Jackson could have done anything to alter the appearance of his genitals to make it “not match the description.” So he was lying, as his actions directly contradict the statements. [4] [5] ("Ray Chandler: Lauren Weiss stated that Jackson has vitiligo, so anything Jordan says will be irrelevant", "Evan Chandler: This is good for us, because if the drawing is right it's right and if it's wrong we've got a explanation for why it didn't match") - More clear evidence of extortion Larry Feldman (the lawyer representing the Chandler’s in their civil lawsuit) filed a motion where he gave Jackson a multiple choice request : [6] A). Jackson could provide copies of the police photographs taken of his body during the strip search B). He could submit to a second strip search C). The photos would be barred from being able to be used in the civil proceedings However Jackson and his lawyers hadn’t even seen the photos their document was heavily redacted, to access the photos it has to be approved by the Judge overseeing the case. So it couldn't have been A. Civil Attorneys which Feldman was, can't submit strip searches as they do not have the legal authority to do so, and they had already conducted one on Jackson a week prior so Option B doesn't work either. This means the only possible motion for the prosecution was barring the photographs (their only piece of evidence against Jackson from the civil trial). It's worth mentioning again "Michael Jackson had never seen the photographs up to this point so this fundamentally can't be twisted to imply any guilt on his part, and neither can the settlement as he would have had to KNOW by seeing the photos that it matched for the logic to work" Now i'll repeat: Why would the prosecution file a motion to bar their only possible evidence against Michael Jackson from their own trial if it actually matched? The answer is quite clear: It did not. So why did Sneddon and others in the prosecution claim it did later on? Because they failed to prosecute him and needed to cast doubt within the eyes of the public. By implying the drawing matched the prosecution could still fundamentally push the narrative that Jackson was guilty and used his money to evade "Justice". Therefore i think it's unnecessary to include Dworin's claim, the article in question already discusses in detail how the prosecution made retroactive claims about how it allegedly matched. Never17 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Last consensus: "Prosecutors raided Neverland Ranch and other places of residency while Jackson was on tour in August, but no leads were found as the investigators ruled that there was no medical evidence or physical evidence. Additionally hundreds of children were investigated but all of them stated no abuse or improper behavior had taken place. Attention was later brought to two legal art books depicting featuring young boys playing, running, and swimming in various states of undress, however Jackson denied knowing of the books' content and claimed if they were there, someone had to have sent them to him and he did not open them. No child pornography or other incriminating evidence was found. In December 1993, Prosecutor Thomas W. Sneddon Jr. filed a court order to conduct a strip search of Jackson, based on a drawing provided by the accuser and submitted to authorities. According to Reuters and USA Today, the description of Jackson's genitalia did not match the photographs taken during the police investigation. Prosecutors sought testimony from Jackson’s doctors and family members. The grand jury subsequently subpoenaed Jackson’s mother, reportedly to assess whether there were any physical alterations compared to the description." Hammelsmith (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC) I see No issues with this Never17 (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion if I can determine what the issues are. For now, I will ask the editors whether they agree to moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule X, since I am not sure what the issues are. I am also asking each editor to state concisely (one paragraph is better than three paragraphs) what they want to change in an article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Just tell me what the article content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC) I think the article is largely fine, and just needs to not include the quote from Dworin. Never17 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC) I've tried to do an AI assisted pattern analysis (see my dispute summary for more info), and identified these core issues.. Potential Bias by Omission: The article may omit or gloss over key facts that complicate the narrative—e.g., lack of indictment in 1993, conflicting genitalia description reports, and unresolved credibility issues. Undue Weight: Some sections emphasize Jackson’s musical legacy directly after serious allegations, which could emotionally frame the reader to “walk away on a positive note.” Tone and Sequencing: Critics argue the article sequences controversy and exoneration in ways that may subtly imply innocence or guilt. Editors have debated neutrality, weight, and proportionality on the talk page. Wallby (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Michael Jackson) I agree with DRN Rule A As explained before, Dworin's statement came 10 years after the investigation had already concluded the drawing was not a match as the drawing claims Jackson was circumcised, when he was not according to his Autopsy Files. The Blotches were also claimed on the wrong side of his body, there was no evidence of a match. [7][8] The prosecution later initiating a motion to have their own possible piece of evidence from the civil trial, clearly indicating it did not match. Therefore i oppose the motion to have the quote included. The Article is fine just the way it is, and does not need changes, the drawing did not match as originally cited in the article. Sources: Claim (Jordan) - The Blotches were on the left side of Michael Jackson's Genitalia Court Motion 1993 Fact - The blotches were on the right side of Michael Jackson's genitalia - Court Motion 2005 Claim (Jordan) - Michael Jackson was circumcised - [9] Fact - Michael Jackson was not Circumcised - The prosecution also contradicted themselves numerous times by retroactively trying to attribute it to a match, lets go over it Sergeant Gary Spiel - "Dark Blemish on the left side" - Court Motion 1993 Tom Sneddon - “a mark on the right side of defendant’s (Jackson) at "about the same relative" location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of defendant’s (Jackson) erect penis.” - Court Motion 2005 Sergeant Deborah Linden - "Chandler claimed Jackson was circumcised, the blotch of vitiligo was actually a light blemish that was almost as light as Jackson’s face" - Linden Affidavit Prosecutor Larry Feldman - Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence. Los Angeles Times The Associated Press - "Michael Jackson does not have the photographs following the strip search", "“If Sneddon has the evidence, let him file it, he doesn't have a case' [10] By January 1994 when Feldman filed this motion, The Strip search had taken place in December, Jackson still didn't have the photographs and the prosecution was instead pitching to remove them from the trial. There is extensive evidence that contradicts claims about a match, none of them can withstand thorough cross-examination. Therefore i support the original revision which stated "Michael Jackson was strip searched, the drawing did not match" Never17 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Michael Jackson) I think this statement, or something like it: "In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."" should be incorporated into some Michael Jackson pages in some way, per WP:NOTEWORTHY & the principles of of due weight & balance. I hope the WikiVoice stays in WP:NPOV. I don't even mind if the Reuters & USA Today sources are treated as the majority viewpoint. I think the Bill Dworin statement should at least be treated as the minority view's perspective per WP:DUE: "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. The majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Other editors have said that they think Dworin's statement involves controversies regarding aspects of the minority view. In my view, it is just a noteworthy statement that could be wrong or right or just an opinion, yet I think it is noteworthy per WP:NRV: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Hammelsmith (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC) 2003 was 10 years after the investigation where they had drawings and the prosecution filed a motion to bar the strip search photos from the civil trial. Why are you ignoring that fact? Never17 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC) References First statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) Okay. Is anyone willing to take part in moderated discussion under DRN Rule A? That will mean not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so Be Specific at DRN. Please specify exactly what changes you want to make to the article. If you want to insert a sentence, tell where you want to insert it. If you want to remove or change a sentence, tell what the existing sentence is. If you do not respond, and you are not required to respond, I will assume that you are either satisfied with the article or will work to change it by discussion on the article talk page. Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC) I'd like to address these concerns.. In the lede "Jackson is often deemed the greatest entertainer of all time based on his acclaim and records" seems like lie of omission. My impression is that his reputation isn't that simple/clear cut anymore, even if there isn't a majority against him it seems significant enough to mention that "often" doesn't cut it anymore. Especially following the two HBO documentaries and the objective hypocrisy of the Jackson estate's given reason for removal that it was "one sided for including both sides" whereas their own Neverland Firsthand didn't include the other side. This is also not a valid critique of journalism, which may limit their scope without posing "that it is the entire picture" merely to add to a federation of perspectives. But only one of these two institutions successfully took the other side down (i.e. Jackson estate banned HBO's documentary, but HBO not Jackson estate's documentary). Under the legacy section there is no mention of the sexual assault cases at all, which I don't see how that is justifiable. The section includes "Due to his unprecedented influence, Jackson is recognized today as one of the most globally renowned figures in history". Why are posthumous abuse allegations under death not legacy? Only two cases are documented in the article, out of a total of 8 accusers, for two of these (Jordan Chandler in 1993 and Gavin Arvizo in 2005) there seems to be solid evidence that their parents "coached" them or had a history of attempted fraud/framing. But this leaves 6 accusers still. As for sections that end on a positive note that in my perspective therefore violate neutrality.. First child sexual abuse accusations and first marriage (1993–1995) Documentary, Number Ones, second child abuse allegations and acquittal (2002–2005) Wallby (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC) One more concern. The lede contains this example of "ending on a positive note".. From the late 1980s, Jackson became a figure of controversy and speculation due to his changing appearance, relationships, behavior, and lifestyle. He was accused of sexually abusing the child of a family friend in 1993. In 2005, Jackson was tried and acquitted of further child sexual abuse allegations and all other charges. While preparing for This Is It (a series of comeback concerts), he died in 2009 from an overdose of propofol administered by his personal physician Conrad Murray, who was convicted in 2011 of involuntary manslaughter. Jackson's death triggered reactions around the world, creating unprecedented surges of internet traffic and a spike in sales of his music. His televised memorial service, held at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, was estimated to have been viewed by more than 2.5 billion people Wallby (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC) There’s no evidence the allegations which remain nothing but hearsay had any impact on Michael Jackson’s global fame or commercial standing. We have a musical right now with it’s tour & broadway that’s made 500M in the United States since the Pandemic. People clearly still overwhelmingly support Michael Jackson, despite significant media adversity Never17 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Could you back that up beyond the unverifiable "clearly"? Aaron Carter Carter has previously described Jackson as “a really good guy, as far as I know”. He reportedly alluded to the bedroom incident in 2019 during the taping of “Marriage Boot Camp: Reality Stars Family Edition”. “He never did anything that was inappropriate — except for one time,” Carter reportedly said. “There was one thing that he did that was a little bit inappropriate.” At the time he did not go into further detail. — https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/aaron-carter-death-memoir-michael-jackson-b2225237.html Corey Feldman Feldman added that “absolutely nothing inappropriate” happened between himself and Jackson. “I don’t want to be perceived as I’m here to defend Michael because I can no longer do that," he said. — https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/leaving-neverland-corey-feldman-michael-jackson-abuse-documentary-a8813381.html The only poll I could find is from YouGov, which 57% doubt or support among black demographics and 85% doubt or among white demographics. https://today.yougov.com/entertainment/articles/23947-michael-jackson-anniversary-ten-years Wallby (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC) In the US he sells up to 1.5M album equivalent units per year according to Billboard, his musical made 500M dollars, his streams outpace any legacy act on a annual basis and nobody has stopped celebrating him & outside the US he’s even more popular, internet has made him more famous. Fifa World Cup used a MJ tribute artist for their fan festival, China has statues every other year, Africa has a 20 ft statue and a tomb being built last year where they flew a impersonator in and people went nuts thinking MJ was alive. His title is completely warranted without question Never17 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC) None of those arguments say anything about his reputation wholistically. Slavors and dictators are still celebrated in many communities, and you could probably present similar statistics about those. I find the phrasing "without question" inappropriate on an encyclopedic discussion. [Wikipedia's] primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting.WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Wallby (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Logical Fallacy, you haven't provided a counter argument and probably aren’t open for one. You seek out salicious headlines to justify your viewpoint. This is confirmation bias Never17 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC) This isn't about a counterargument. This is about your initial fallacy of saying that your statistics accurately reflect his reputation. Your statistics seem selective, as I had already established with my yougov.com survey link and other arguments since. "probably aren't open for one" is your right to assume, and my right to disagree. Wallby (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Carter never accused Jackson of sexual abuse, he made several statements that Jackson was nothing but kind, loving, he denounced Wade Robson for his accusations [11] [12] He also stated he never slept in Jackson's room. [13] making the supposed bedroom incident impossible. That incident, told to tabloid reported Daphne Barak however mirrors a story Tim Christofore said about Lou Perlman, Backstreet Boys's manager. [14] [15] During sleepovers at Pearlman’s place, Christofore told Gray, “[Lou] would let us watch porn.” Once, Christofore said, he awoke to find Lou standing at the foot of the bed, wearing only a towel, which came off when he dove on the mattress to “wrestle” with the boys. The chance that Jackson and Perlman both were in the same specific situation is very low. That Carter adopted this story and changed the names from Perlman to Jackson in a tabloid interview is far more likely. To have a [[WP:BALANCE]] inclusion of Carter's history regarding Jackson, it would required way more text than it is justified based on the relevance of Carter's comments. Same is true about Corey Feldman who never accused Jackson of sexual abuse and made numerous contradictory statements and actions over the years, depending on what was on his agenda at the moment. For example, he did defend Jackson after the interview you cite above. [16] I don't see the relevance of the yougov poll one way or the other, yougov is not a reliable source and it captures the supposed views in one country at a particular time anyway, even if we would accept it's reliable. castorbailey (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC) @Wallby: Aaron Carter clarified that there was no sexual connotation in his statement: "Aaron Carter Clarifies His Claim That Michael Jackson Was 'Inappropriate,' Says It Wasn't 'Sexual'" [17]. The previous statement, also made to People magazine: "Aaron Carter Claims Michael Jackson Did 'One Thing That Was a Little Bit Inappropriate'" [18] If anything, Carter was a staunch defender of Michael Jackson who denounced Leaving Neverland and Wade Robson, even stating he'd punch Wade Robson in the face: "Aaron Carter Says He Wants to Punch Wade Robson Over Michael Jackson Claims" [19] "Aaron Carter calls out Wade Robson, defends Michael Jackson"[20] As for Corey Feldman, he repeatedly made it very clear that Jackson never ever sexually molested him; that's the crux of the matter and all that matters. Israell (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC) I won't even reply to low effort taken out context information as posted by castorbailey and Never17, such as that because at 16 year old Aaron Carter is quoted as having said "nothing happened" in rebellion to his mother that, a stance he changed as an adult, that is interpretted as "evidence the bedroom incident is impossible". This goes vastly beyond the scope of this discussion, which I think should be about whether the article is too suggestive of a conclusion "that he is innocent" by use of structure (repeatedly ending "on a positive note") and omitting major details such as the amount of reports (only 2 out of at least 8). This conversation is cluttered with low effort, such as the sources of Israell presented from defending Jackson in 2019 to fallaciously try to rebuke my 2022 source where he changed his stance. These editors keep reviving the debate as to whether he is innocent or not. This is not about that. This is about what his public image is. Not about what people "feel it is". Aaron Carter again wasn't a defender of Michael Jackson, he initially was, then changed his stance going as far as saying that he couldn't believe Michael Jackson was innocent after seeing Leaving Neverland. Wallby (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC) The lead is not to state what someone's "reputation", which is way too vague of a term especially in the case of a globally famous person where someone's perception by the majority varies greatly across counties and cultures. Wikipedia:LEAD should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The current lead already does that. Jackson is notable not because he was accused, he is notable because of his achievements as a musician, in fact he achieved that notablity long before anyone accused him. HBO's film did not change that, nor did it argue nor did it present evidence that "Jackson is often deemed the greatest entertainer of all time based on his acclaim and records" . Jackson estate's alleged hypocrisy over the film's removal also does not contradict that. (It was removed due to HBO violating the 1992 agreement they signed with Optimum Productions, not because it was one sided, this was never the estate's argument for removal. [21] While it's not true that there were 8 accusers, as numerous people who never met Jackson accused him too, but the article goes beyond Chandler and Arvizo as there is a whole section for the Robson Safechuck allegations and sufficient links to additional pages which go into those allegations in more details. And while there is evidence of coaching in Chandler /Arvizo cases, there is also plenty of evidence that Robson Safechuck fabricated their allegations for monetary gain, in fact such evidence exist against each and every Jackson accuser which for a reasonable person would question their credibility , if we included all that for the sake of Wikipedia:BALANCE the article would grow into book-length. Therefore including those cases already in the article is in line with WP:DUE. castorbailey (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Furthermore, the mere fact the media has so frequently written articles complaining about Michael Jackson not being cancelled, prompting them to review bomb his productions out of spite for being successful, shows that his legacy has not been affected in any meaningful way beyond a few radio stations removing him temporarily in 2019. The Telegraph - Michael Jackson is Bigger than ever, he's too big to be cancelled [22] The Guardian - Michael Jackson is not cancelled at all, most haven't gotten the memo" [23] Fair Observer - Yet somehow his legacy actually grows in stature. Thirteen years after his death, he continues to fascinate just as he did in life. It seems impossible to harm or damage his — what shall I call it? — revenant. There is probably no other celebrity, living or dead, so insusceptible to cancellation. [24] Billboard - Michael Jackson's brand is worth at least 2 billion, sales according to Luminate have gone up since Leaving Neverland aired in 2019 [25] Time Out (magazine) - 3/5 Stars, "It Sanitizes Michael Jackson by not mentioning the allegations about him despite sold out seasons in the United States, UK and elsewhere" [26] RollingStones - The production and cast are brilliant, the band is tight, the setlist is near perfect and the choreography is inspiring, "But it doesn't mention the allegations" [27] Never17 (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC) I agree w/ the points made by Never17. Besides, the Michael Jackson article is not the place to list absolutely all allegations of sexual abuse against him. There have been even more allegations, allegations by individuals (Terry George, Michael Jacobshagen) who only met Jackson once with other people around; allegations by individuals (the "Canadian boy from Toronto" who was charged w/ mischief for lying to the police + allegations by Joe Batucci, Eddie Reynoza, Daniel Kapon, Orlando Brown and Michelle Flowers) who never even met Jackson but still accused him; allegations by individuals (Leif Garrett, Jane Doe) who may have met Jackson once or more than once but never pressed charges, never sued him, or dismissed their own lawsuit. The "two Mexican boys" claim was found by the FBI to be completely unsourced. As for the claims (by a couple who used to work for Jackson) in regard to one or more Filipino victims, detectives who travelled to the Philippines dismissed those claims as not credible due to a dispute over back pay. Should all of those allegations be included in the article? Of course not! The most known allegations that are already mentioned suffice. Also, the legacy section is about Michael Jackson's legacy as a musical artist, entertainer and philanthropist. It is not a place for a series of allegations of sexual abuse, none of which have been adequately proven in a court of law, and Jackson was consequently never found to be guilty or liable—not even once! How are those allegations part of his legacy? And why is it a problem for the lede to end "on a positive note"? This doesn't go against Wikipedia policy's stance on neutrality. Positivity is, by default, preferable over negativity. Negativity is presented if absolutely pertinent and necessary. Israell (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC) First statements by editors (Michael Jackson) Yes, I agree to DRN Rule A. I just think this sentence, or something similar: "In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."" should be placed on some Michael Jackson pages. Perhaps they should be under a place where a 2003 timeline is established. I just think the sentence should be there per WP:BLPBALANCE: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." I thought the Bill Dworin interview made it clear that there existed some evidence that did not meet a criminal standard at the time. The NBC article also says "prosecutors wanted more evidence if they were going to charge Michael Jackson with sex crimes." And the article ends with, "Bill Dworin would never have a chance to talk to a jury about Michael Jackson. District attorneys in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara declined to move forward, saying they couldn’t prosecute without a cooperating witness." The 2004 LA Times article is in-line with Bill Dworin's opinion and also his impartiality: "In 1993, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara law officers searched Neverland, Jackson’s Century City condominium and his parents’ home in Encino. They also photographed Jackson in an attempt to verify the alleged victim’s description of the singer’s genitalia. Dworin said the searches turned up 'no smoking gun,' but he added that the pictures of Jackson matched the description." I give these excerpts to show examples of non-malicious impartiality that also contain one opinion from one named person. The information is presented fairly ("responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone") in both articles, meeting journalistic standards. Hammelsmith (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Then should we also include that Dworin only mentioned Chandler describing discoloration and that was something the Chandlers could know from public sources since Jackson talked about it publicly? For the same of non-malicious impartiality. If we only include "corroborated the description that the boy gave us" that hardly reveals what is it that Dworin found so corroborating. Rather it leaves the reader to believe that Chandler accurately described every featured of Jackson's genitalia and what he actually described was not something he could easily know without ever seeing Jackson's privates. castorbailey (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Some sources have been brought to my attention now and I will transcribe them as accurately as I can. The Reading Eagle source, attributed to Reuters, specifically says "The source, who asked not to be identified, said the photographs did not tally with a description given to police by a 14-year-old boy who accused Jackson". Therefore, the source is anonymous, verified only as "a source close to the pop star's camp". This contradicts Ian Halperin's claim that "in January 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that 'photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy'. Reuters does not cite "law enforcement sources." There is also the Steve Knopper book which identifies Richard Strick as "a dermatologist working for the Santa Barbara DA's office." The book further states "Strick can't say firsthand whether the photos he took of Michael Jackson's genitalia fit Chandler's description, but through conversations he had later with investigators, he concluded, 'It sure would appear that some young boy had pretty close views of his genitalia.'" All these sources are noteworthy and should be attributed accurately, as written. Hammelsmith (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC) The sources as i showed literally couldn’t agree on the colour of the blotch, what side it was on his body and stated he was circumcised. That last detail alone is enough to factually make it not a match. Never17 (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC) "enough to factually make it not a match". What definition of "factually" are you using here? One used in forensic science? Could you elaborate? Can you rephrase this in terms of WP:VERIFYOR or WP:ORMEDIA? Wallby (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC) The circumcision status is a specific, objective detail explicitly stated in the sources, which directly contradicts the identification being discussed. For example, the claims made by Chandler and maintained by the prosecution states the individual was circumcised, while Jackson's Autopsy files describes the individual as uncircumcised. This contradiction in a clear, binary characteristic is sufficient to conclude the individuals cannot be the same, without requiring synthesis or interpretation beyond what the sources state, in line with WP:VERIFIABILITY. Regarding the blotch, the sources are inconsistent on its color and location. For instance, one source describes it as "on the left side," while another prosecutor calls it "dark on the right side", other sources vary based on if it was dark or light blotch these discrepancies suggest the sources are unreliable or refer to different subjects, further supporting that no definitive match can be verified as Jackson had vitiligo and they simply had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly what side of the body the blotch is on. Never17 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC) I apologise. I misread your comment as claiming that the colour of the blotch and side was your argument for "factually not making it a match". The circumcision thing I have indeed found come up as the basis for the dismissal in court, so that one I agree is relevant. The others not so much. In the specific case of Chandler I find it more relevant that there were observations of echoing details his father spoke, which led to questioning his independent recall. Wallby (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Strick was hired by the prosecutor and did not see the photos and the description themselves as he admitted it in a Fox News interview. He was merely told later that the photos matched what Chandler described. He did not identify who told him this though. His opinion that Chandler had "pretty close view of his genitalia" is contradicted by Chandler inaccurately describing Jackson's penis as circumcised. A pretty close view certainly would inform the observer of that. Should we include those facts too? [28] castorbailey (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC) References I, for one, am satisfied with the current articles (Michael Jackson and 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations), and I express strong disapproval and opposition to addition of quotes by Bill Dworin for all the reasons already put forth by TruthGuardians, castorbailey, and Never17. I also express strong disapproval and opposition to addition of quotes by Richard Strick. Anybody can attempt to describe a part of someone's genitalia, esp. if they are aware of the subject's vitiligo. Such description can stem from actual recollection or fabrication. This is all hearsay and not pertinent for inclusion in any of the Wikipedia articles in question. Besides, Wikipedia is not a place to list everything that exists or that has existed, and that includes myriads of opinions pertaining to Michael Jackson. As for that quote by Ian Halperin, it is a reliable quote per Wikipedia policy, and we need to assume good faith on why he chose that particular phrasing: "law enforcement sources." Israell (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Concern About Scope and Appropriateness of DRN I respectfully submit that this dispute does not belong at DRN in its current form. This is not a narrow disagreement about a sentence or paragraph. It has evolved into a wide-ranging attempt by one or two editors—primarily User:Hammelsmith, to **rewrite the article’s structure, tone, and framing from the ground up**, based on a selective reading of sources and a personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy. DRN is meant for focused, specific disputes, not full rewrites or POV reinterpretations of entire articles. The DRN guidelines state: Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, DRN is intended for specific, content-focused disputes, not broad disagreements over article tone, structure, or editorial philosophy. These types of disputes are better suited for talk page consensus. It says, “DRN works best when BOTH/ALL parties genuinely want outside help in solving the issue are willing to compromise. If some of the parties do not want outside help or do not want to compromise, then other dispute resolution methods may be more appropriate.” This process is being stretched beyond its purpose. Instead of suggesting targeted edits and seeking consensus through normal talk page discussions, the editor is proposing an overhaul, including moving or duplicating long-settled content, adding disputed material, and reframing legacy sections to serve a critical narrative. That’s not what DRN is for. This runs into several policy problems: WP:OWN – No editor “owns” the article or gets to remake it in their preferred image. WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTSOAPBOX – Wikipedia does not serve as a platform to promote one side of a controversial issue. WP:CONSENSUS – Content disputes of this scale should go through a Talk Page consensus or structured RFC, not DRN. Unless this DRN is limited to **specific content disputes**, such as *“should sentence X be included or reworded?”*, I recommend the discussion be closed and redirected to a more appropriate venue. I have serious concerns about how this DRN is unfolding, particularly with how user User:Hammelsmith is selectively invoking policy (e.g., WP:BLPBALANCE) to justify inclusion of speculative material that runs counter to core content policies like WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. I am of the belief that this dispute does not Citing a detective’s personal opinion from decades ago, especially in a case that never resulted in charges, does *not* meet BLP standards. Even posthumously, WP:BLP still demands extreme caution with contentious or defamatory claims. WP:BLPBALANCE does not allow editors to insert every critical viewpoint merely because it’s attributed, it must be well-sourced, *neutral*, and proportional to mainstream coverage. The proposed inclusion of content from unreliable or disputed sources (e.g., Halperin, anonymous Reuters insiders, subjective quotes from law enforcement) gives undue weight to minority interpretations. Wikipedia policy is clear: **fringe or speculative viewpoints should not be presented on equal footing with mainstream, well-documented facts**. The acquittal in 2005 and lack of charges in 1993 remain the dominant, neutral, and well-sourced narrative. The DRN is being misused here to bypass consensus and reintroduce previously challenged edits under a new guise. DRN Rule A asks us to be specific and constructive about changes, not re-litigate editorial disputes or insert biased material under the pretense of “balance.” This approach borders on WP:FORUMSHOP and tendentious editing. Placing abuse allegations in the "Legacy" section is not supported by WP:STRUCTURE or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. These events are already covered in their appropriate timeline sections. Legacy refers to *influence, public reception, and enduring impact*, not legal history. Reliable sources consistently show Jackson’s commercial success and cultural status remain intact posthumously (e.g., the $500M-grossing Broadway musical), which further invalidates the argument that allegations define his legacy. Unless edits are backed by **neutral, reliable, secondary sources**, and presented with proper weight and context, they should not be included. Wikipedia is not a battleground or rumor archive, it is an encyclopedia grounded in verifiability and neutrality. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC) I think it is unfair to only mention User:Hammelsmith here. This is definitely not a one person fight. User:Never17. I agree that this borders on WP:TE, but I disagree with the allegation that this borders on WP:FORUMSHOP. I think there is a concrete list of concerns about the Michael Jackson page, which warrant a deeper discussion/dispute resolution. Some of the arguing seems to be tendentious to me, sure, getting lost in irrelevant and seemingly repeated detail. "Reliable sources consistently show Jackson's commercial success" is inconsistent with my sources. A "$500M-grossing Broadway musical" is not a reflection of wholistic public image. The same way that statues of confederates aren't wholistic reflections of public image of them. Wallby (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC) The same way that statues of confederates aren't wholistic reflections of public image of them. This is another logical fallacy. Never17 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC) You seem to be happy to throw around big words without providing any details to actually create a meaningful discussion. So unless you add details I won't reply. Wallby (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC) There is no wiki rule of any kind that any person's biography on wiki should reflect their "wholistic public image". I don't know where you get the idea that they should. castorbailey (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Here is where I found that wholistic matters WP:5P2. The logo of the scale for the second pillar in its use in Lady Justice indicates observing all evidence without selecting. In terms of the second pillar itself, it states that major points of view matter in all cases, and in some cases multiple points of view. The yougov poll I shared, and the amount of responses to the Leaving Neverland documentary seem to me an indication that the amount of people not being certain of the accusations or outright believing the accusations amounts to a significant enough point of view to be included. Wallby (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC) I also cannot find WP:DRN#When_to_request that you referenced, nor any such policy that tone or structure don't fall within the scope of dispute resolution. Wallby (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Fixed: Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, DRN is intended for specific, content-focused disputes, not broad disagreements over article tone, structure, or editorial philosophy. These types of disputes are better suited for talk page consensus. It says, “DRN works best when BOTH/ALL parties genuinely want outside help in solving the issue are willing to compromise. If some of the parties do not want outside help or do not want to compromise, then other dispute resolution methods may be more appropriate.” TruthGuardians (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Where are you getting that quote from? I have looked at this page, and WP:DRN Rule Guide and all of its subpages. I cannot find the text you quote anywhere. Wallby (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC) I agree with the points stated by TruthGuardians, Never17, and castorbailey. The purpose of the DRN is not reshape the entire article, and the purpose of the lede is not to demonstrate a subject's reputation. Facts about the subjects listed in the lede will appear to be positive, neutral or negative, but it's all in the scope of introducing the subject and resuming the body of the article. Israell (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC) I'll add that only one editor (Hammelsmith) called for this DRN without agreement from all editors. Israell (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Second statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) It appears that some of my instructions either have not been understood by some editors, or are being ignored by some editors. I have said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, but there is back-and-forth discussion. I have said to comment on content, not contributors. There are comments about both content and contributors. I have said in more than one place to be concise and to make concise statements, and most of the statements are not concise. One editor has expressed serious concerns about how this DRN is unfolding that I share, but their statement is also not concise. As I said before, Be Specific at DRN. If you want a specific change made to the article, please specify exactly what changes you want to make to the article. If you want to insert a sentence, tell where you want to insert it. If you want to remove or change a sentence, tell what the existing sentence is. If there are specific content changes suggested, we will either discuss them or submit a Request for Comments. If I do not see any concise requests to change the text of the article, I will close this DRN. Just tell me whether there are any specific article content issues. Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC) The issue is some people want conformation bias for their viewpoint which reflects the change they want to see on the page regardless of rules. The best course of action honestly is probably closing the discussion and reverting the edit back to how it was. Never17 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC) How are my first two comments under #First_statement_by_possible_moderator_(Michael_Jackson) not concise? They are bullet points with exactly pointed out what I would want to change. The editing of controversy paragraphs that end on "a positive note" to only mention the controversy in that paragraph. I've even identified which three sections. Arguable the most concise point. The editing of "Due to his unprecedented influence, Jackson is recognized today as one of the most globally renowned figures in history" in the legacy section to include information that seems to question this as that that "recognition" isn't a significant enough majority as per WP:5P2 to justify omission of the seemingly widespread unsure and accusation-believing point of view. The failure to mention other accusations of sexual abuse, specifically Terry George 1979 (reported 1993), Jason Francia 1993–2005, Gavin Arvizo 2003–2005, and (two) unnamed Mexican & Filipino boys in the 1990s Wallby (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Michael Jackson) Sorry for repeating myself, but this is just to keep things focused. I just think this sentence, or something alike: "In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us."" should be placed on some MJ pages. Maybe under a place where a 2003 timeline is established. I think the sentence should be there per WP:BLPBALANCE: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, & in a disinterested tone." I don't even mind if the Reuters & USA Today sources are treated as the majority viewpoint. I think the Dworin statement should at least be treated as the minority view per WP:DUE: "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. Majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, & controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified & explained." In my view, Dworin is just a noteworthy statement that could be wrong or right or just an opinion, yet I think it is noteworthy per WP:NRV: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I am also open to instead having a general sentence on the MJ pages saying: "There have been conflicting reports regarding how accurate the accuser's description matched the police photographs of Jackson." and then listing all the sources after the sentence. If this cannot be resolved on a DRN, maybe the best thing to do is move this discussion to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Hammelsmith (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. You were the only one i saw who wanted this moved to this board, there was no consensus. Pretty sure the majority of editors would have been fine leaving it the way it was structurally with some edits here and there to maintain it. Never17 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC) References Third statement by moderator (Michael Jackson) One editor has written: I just think this sentence, or something alike: "In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us." should be placed on some MJ pages I am ready to compose a Request for Comments about the addition of this sentence, but I need to know exactly where you are asking for the sentence to be added. One editor asks how their initial bullet point statements were not concise. I have changed the wording of my complaint that most of the statements were not concise. I will note that that editor also made multiple short rebuttals of other editors' statements, which is back-and-forth. A suggestion has been made that the discussion of this article should be moved to Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Some of the threads at NPOVN are long and inconclusive. If you want lengthy and inconclusive discussion, you can do that at NPOVN or at the article talk page. If you want to improve the article, I suggest proposing a specific addition or change. We have had one request to add a sentence to the article, and I am asking where that sentence should be added. I will begin collapsing statements that are not specific. Are there any other specific article content issues? Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC) About the back and forth. Sure, the problem with the broken notification links and the long topic is that I process them in order from top to bottom, thus I didn't read the back and forth notice until after posting those comments. Wallby (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Is it going to be a majority vote, or is it going to be mainly based on Wiki policy and arguments put forward? Israell (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Majority vote is the only way to decide this Never17 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Michael Jackson) I would like my proposed sentence to be under the *First child sexual abuse accusations* section on the *Michael Jackson* page. There is also a Wiki page called *1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations* where this sentence had been written since 2019: "According to the LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin, who spoke to NBC News in February 2003, Jordan's description matched the photos of Jackson's genitalia. Dworin did not believe that Jordan's accusations were coached." About a week ago, that sentence was removed from the page with the edit summary: "A 2003 statement doesn't follow the timeline." I think the sentence, or something like it should be restored on that page per WP:CONFLICTING: "Sometimes, the policy that our threshold is verifiability, not truth means that although something can only be one or another, we cannot determine which one it is. This happens, when two (or more) equally reliable sources contradict each other about certain facts. In such situation, editors need to report all significant viewpoints as fairly as possible. Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the sources already in the article. Do not choose which one is "true" & discard the others as incorrect." I would really just like to keep the edits neutral and as non-POV pushing as possible. If this situation would benefit from a RFC, I am open to that. Hammelsmith (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Various editors already discussed this and refuted these claims made Dworin which failed to hold up under any cross examination, they have no place on a fact based biographical article Never17 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC) References Fourth statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) I will repeat myself. One editor has written: I just think this sentence, or something alike: "In February 2003, LAPD detective and pedophilia expert Bill Dworin said the photos "corroborated the description that the boy gave us." should be placed on some MJ pages I am ready to compose a Request for Comments about the addition of this sentence, but I need to know exactly where you are asking for the sentence to be added. I understand that the sentence should be inserted into the section on First Child Sexual Abuse Allegations. That section has five paragraphs. Where do you want it added? There is mention of also adding that sentence back to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. That proposed edit should be discussed on the article talk page of that article. After there has been discussion, either DRN or RFC can be used. A question was asked how it will be decided whether to insert the sentence, strength of arguments or majority vote. The answer is strength of arguments, which does take the vote count into account. It will not be decided at this DRN. If the proposing party will specify exactly what change they are proposing, I will formulate and launch a Request for Comments, and the community will participate. Be Specific at DRN. Don't just say what section to add the sentence to. Say exactly what sentence to put the sentence after. . Are there any other specific article content issues? Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I asked you earlier: "Is it going to be a majority vote, or is it going to be mainly based on Wiki policy and arguments put forward?" Israell (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC) Seconding this question Never17 (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Michael Jackson) I would like my proposed sentence at the end of the second paragraph in the *First Child Sexual Abuse Allegations* section of the *Michael Jackson* page. For the *1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations*, some editors don't want the sentence added back until we resolve the issue of the Dworin statement on this DRN or RFC, or wherever this dispute goes. Preferably, I think the sentence should be restored back to the *1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations* page just as it was. Hammelsmith (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC) This statement violates the rule of neutrality and implies guilt as it was factually proven not to be a match. Never17 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC) In terms of procedure, for how long will this DRN be place on hold? Hammelsmith (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Fifth statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) I have placed this DRN case on hold because Wallby has opened a case at the Neutral point of view noticeboard. A long-standing principle of DRN is that DRN does not consider any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or a conduct forum, and NPOVN is a content forum. This case will remain on hold until the NPOVN case is dismissed or resolved. After the NPOVN case is closed out, discussion here can resume, unless NPOVN has resulted in changes to the Michael Jackson article that address the concerns of the editors here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Michael Jackson) Sixth statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) I am restarting moderation of this dispute, because the NPOVN dispute has been closed. I will be composing a draft RFC asking whether to insert the sentence at the end of the second paragraph i the First Child Sexual Abuse Allegations paragraph. Should we add the article on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations to the scope of this case? Are there any other content issues? Are there any procedural questions, either about this DRN process, or the process of RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Michael Jackson) Yes, please, I would like the article on *1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegation* to be added to the scope of this case. Thank you for composing a draft RFC. I am ready to proceed from there. Hammelsmith (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC) Seventh statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Michael Jackson/RFC on Dworin. Please review it, and make comments about it here. Do not vote in it or comment in it at this time, because it is not a live RFC. When we are ready, I will activate it by moving it to the article talk page and launching it. Do not state your opposition to adding the sentence here if you are opposed to adding the sentence. You will be able to make that statement in the RFC when it is live. Also, do not state your support for adding the sentence. That can be done in the RFC when the RFC goes live. We can discuss the 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations article shortly. For now we are only talking about the main biographical article. Are there any other content issues about the Michael Jackson article? Are there any procedural questions, either about this DRN process, or the process of RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Michael Jackson) The RFC, as written, is acceptable to me. In terms of procedure, do I have permission to publicize this RFC to editors who I think may be interested in voting or commenting about it after it is launched? Hammelsmith (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC) Eighth statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) I have copied the draft RFC from Talk:Michael Jackson/RFC on Dworin to the article talk page, Talk:Michael Jackson. Please review it, and make comments about it here. Do not vote in it or comment in it at this time, because it is not a live RFC. When we are ready, I will activate it by moving it to the article talk page and launching it. Please read Canvassing before notifying other editors of the RFC. Posting to the talk page of a user might be considered canvassing. Within 24 hours, I will post neutrally worded notices about the RFC at WikiProjects. You may also ping all of the users who have taken part in a relevant discussion, but do not select editors for notice based on how you expect them to vote? You are all invited to vote and comment in the RFC. Are there any other content issues about the Michael Jackson article? Are there any procedural questions, either about this DRN process, or the process of RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Michael Jackson) Mr. Robert McClenon, my question now is, may I please write in the launched survey & discussion at this time? Hammelsmith (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC) Ninth statement by possible moderator (Michael Jackson) Maybe my previous statement was not clear as to one important detail. You may vote in the Survey of the RFC on the article talk page, and may discuss in the Discussion section of the RFC. Are there any content issues about 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC) Are there any other content issues about the Michael Jackson article? Are there any procedural questions, either about this DRN process, or the process of RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC) No i think the article itself is very great, the only issue that should be addressed is it potentially getting too big which is a genuine problem that could arise as Jackson has one of the most extensive biographical articles already and more stuff keeps getting added. Never17 (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (Michael Jackson) 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.

Muslim Gujjars

– New discussion.

Filed by Anpanman11 on 18:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Muslim Gujjars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Anpanman11 (talk · contribs)
• Sybercracker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user keeps posting highly unreliable sources that have already been refuted. He ruined the entire page.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_Gujjars

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By comparing our sources and using logic to understand what number is correct

A mediator can solve the dispute between "Anpanman11" & me by reading and comparing the sources I've provided (Here) and the source provided by "Anpanman11" (Here). By giving the conclusion that in all these sources, the actual number of "Muslim Gujjars/Gujjar" specifically mentioned in Pakistan, not in India. And explaining the reliability of all these sources, whether my provided sources are more reliable or the outdated source provided by the filer is more reliable.

Summary of dispute by Sybercracker

This source is outdated and unreliable because it is based on 1931/1933 British Caste census that is not reliable for present estimates also this Journal(Population Geography: A Journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volumes 10-12 this outdated source was added by the filer he even violated WP:3RR on Muslim Gujjars by 3/4 reverts in just 8-12hours) was published in 1988 (. Here are the quotes from the journal on page-7 there is no mention that Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan are 44 lakh it is only mentioned that Indian Muslims Gujjars are 44 lakh and Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan constitute 14% population.

(estimation for India) In India, the population of these communities is 9% (71,480,124 out of 800,000,000) of the total population. The corresponding figure for Pakistan is 21% (22,916,047 out of 110,000,000). Amongst themselves the Rajputs (30,913,520) account for the biggest chunk of 44%, followed by Jats 24% (18,153,513), Ahirs 24% (17,083,813) and Gujars 8%(5,329,278). Rajputs, Jats, Ahirs and [Gujars] respectively form 3.9%. 2.3%, 2.1% and [0.7%] of the total popula-tion of India.

(Estimation for pakistan) In Pakistan, within these communities, "56% (12,912,740) are Jats", 30% (6,882.336) Rajputs, "14% (3,107,879) Gujars", and the remaining 10,072 Ahirs.

Sources for 33 million estimations

1. Even in 1999 British anthropologist Stephen Lyon estimated Muslim Gujjar population as 30 million in Pakistan (see 4th paragraph in [Muslim Gujjars#Pakistan])

Sources that confirm they constitute 20% of Pakistani population or Major tribe in Pakistan.

Muslim Gujjars discussion

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Muslims Gujjars)

I am ready to act as moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on India and Pakistan. This topic appears to be a contentious topic, and you are being notified that expedited procedures apply for sanctions for disruptive editing. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress.

The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. I will start with a two-part question. First, is this dispute at least partly about the reliability of sources? If so, please identify the sources. Second, please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes another editor wants to make to the article that you disagree with. If this is at least partly an issue about sources, I will refer the question or questions or their reliability to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Otherwise, please state what the content disagreements are.

Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Yes please help in this matter also read Muslim Gujjars#Pakistan population estimates already there as 30 million in 1999 now 33 million only filer who filed this report first he violated 3RR, then I myself started talk page discussion here he is not in the mood to understand he removed many sections from the page with misleading edit-summary for what I also left a notice on his talk page. He is still arguing on the base on one source of 1988 that he present in such a source even on page-7 there is only mention that Muslim Gujjars are 44 lakh in India. In Pakistan his source gave 14% estimate that source is unreliable because it is based on 1931/1933 caste census of British India. We need to use recently published scholarly reliable sources not unreliable of British, India.Sybercracker (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Main Issue

Yes there is an opose by "Anpanman11" on the addition of estimate of 33 million Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan in main article's infobox. In his provided source (Population Geography: A Journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volumes 10-12) he believes this source as most reliable but I don't believe this source is reliable because it is outdated published in 1988 and it is based on the 1931/1933 caste census of British India. Also "Anpanman11" claimed in this source on page-7 Muslim Gujjars population is 44 lakh, but he removed 33 million estimate from infobox of Muslim Gujjars and 33-million estimate was about Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan not in India. In India their estimation according to "Anpanman11" source is 44 lakh. But in his provided source number estimate about Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan are not mentioned it is only mentioned they constitute 14% population within four communities (Jat, Rajput,Ahir & Gujar even source has not mentioned that they constitute 14% population of entire pakistan or not it is only mentioned that out of these 4 communities Gujjars constitute 14% in Pakistan) his provided source is also outdated but also has not mentioned any numbers for Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan or percentage of Muslim Gujjars among all Pakistani tribes (not specifically these 4 communities) because they are total 18,20+ ethnic communities in Pakistan. Sybercracker (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by uninvolved editor Rosguill (Muslim Gujjars)

I've been following this discussion and have poked around to look for additional sourcing. Between the sources provided by Sybercracker and those I was able to find online, I'm noticing a bit of a gap around the actual use of the term "Muslim Gujjar" (or other spellings of Gujjar in the same position) in academic literature. Overwhelmingly, "Muslim Gujjars" are only discussed in the context of the demographics of north-west India and Kashmir (e.g. [29], [30], [31]). While there are Gujjar populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a significant chunk of these populations are presumably Muslim based on the demographics of those countries, it is WP:SYNTH to actually include such a presumption in article text in the absence of sources that make that claim. Equating "33 million Pakistani Gujjars" to mean "33 million Muslim Gujjars" is not sound reference work. Based on the scholarly sources I have looked through, I'm left with the impression that Muslim Gujjars should perhaps be merged into Gurjar in order to better present to readers what RS have to say on this topic; the sources I've collected here could also provide the basis for an article on Muslim Gujjars in Jammu and Kashmir, but there appears to be a dearth of sources that discuss Muslim Gujjars as a unitary group across national borders. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Basically in Pakistan & Afghanistan almost 99% all Gujjars are Muslim by faith there is no present record of any remaining Hindu Gurjars in these countries, so in the sources about pakistan or Afghanistan they actually discuss about Muslim Gujjars of Pakistan & Afghanistan, but I think merge is not a good solution because we also have separate article those even lack basic sources (example Jat Muslims, Muslim Rajputs, Muslim Khatris). Muslim Gujjars is an important article because out of 53-54% Gurjar/Gujjar population is follower of Islam religion remaining 48-46% are Hindus, on the other hands Jat, Rajput & Khatris are predominantly Hindu by faith minority groups are Muslim then sikhs. Sybercracker (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Basically in Pakistan & Afghanistan almost 99% all Gujjars are Muslim by faith there is no present record of any remaining Hindu Gurjars in these countries needs a source stating as much, or you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

For the claim that 53-54% Gujjars are Muslim by faith remaining are Hindus. Further also in the source of Population Geography: A Journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volumes 10 On page-7 mentioned as "Amongst Gujars, more than one-half (53%) are Muslims, 46.8% Hindus and 0.2%, Sikhs. Almost all the Ahirs (99.9%) are Hindus." So when a community is predominantly belong to Islam religion how merge will be a good decision? Gurjar page is for Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs Gujjars and also for historical background or origin of the community. Sybercracker (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay but I generally said when sources talk about Gujjars in Pakistan or Afghanistan they talk about Muslim Gujjars but without mentioning any religion. Sybercracker (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The framing used by RS matters: by having a separate article, you emphasize a shared identity in distinction from other related groups; this emphasis needs to follow RS. Swabians, for instance, are predominantly Christian, but there is no Christian Swabians because RS do not group together Christian Swabians as a unit for discussion in distinction from other Swabians or other Christians.Ditto Jewish Jews (but note that Christian Jews and Jewish atheism both have extensive coverage). Kipchaks#Religion describes the group divided between Tengrism, Christianity and Islam, but sources digging into their religious identity and intracommunal practices are scant so the text is summarized there rather than constructing separate pages for each denomination, because that's how RS describe Kipchak social organization. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Question for User:Rosguill - Do you wish to be a party in this case, or the volunteer mediator in this case? You are welcome to participate in either role. Please let me know which way you are participating. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  I guess I mostly wanted to point out that both the specific locus of the dispute (i.e., what is the population count of Muslim Gujjars?) and to a lesser extent the broader context for it (an article specifically on Muslim Gujjars) are currently resting on shaky evidentiary grounds, and that a stronger bibliography is needed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  I believe the merge of Muslim Gujjars into Gurjar is not a dispute here between me & the filer because "Anpanman11" created the article: Muslim Gujjars he himself opposes the idea of redirect/merge of Muslim Gujjars into Gurjar. Also, if there is a merit to merge Muslim Gujjars into Gurjar on the basis of lack in "stronger bibliography" then we also need to merge (Jat Muslims into Jats, Muslim Rajputs into Rajput, Muslim Khatris into Khatri) all of these articles not only lack in stronger bibliographic sources but also basic reliable sources. Another reason for I believe merge is not a solution when 53% Gujjars of entire community belong to Islam religion mainly living in Pakistan & Afghanistan. So merge will not represent the Muslim Gujjars population of Afghanistan, Pakistan in actual depth; in these countries, they mainly belong to setlled groups/classes, not to the Nomad class. But in the Himalayas regions of India (Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarkhand) Muslim Gujjars are mainly nomads divided into occupational subgroups ( Bakarwal, Van-Gujjar, Dodhi Gujjar). But as a merge is not a dispute here, we can later start a request for merging of (through WP:MERGEPROP) this article into Gurjar if other users have their rationales for the merge. Sybercracker (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk: The Importance of Being Earnest

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Becsh on 15:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:The Importance of Being Earnest (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Becsh (talk · contribs) Tim riley (talk · contribs) Graham Beards (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have made some small edits to the page, which were reverted. I took the matter to the talk page, explaining my reasoning behind each edit. Two editors, one of whom is Tim Riley (who has made extensive edits to the page), explained that we should reach a consensus. I therefore posted in the third opinion page, hoping to get a neutral response. The responder, Graham Beards, has said that my changes are trivial and to move on. However, this user supported Tim Riley on his talk page only yesterday in a discussion about the use of restored images. Graham has also made edits to pages Tim frequently edits, and has also edited the Earnest page in the past. In his reply, he said that the article has 'recently undergone an extensive review', but he was one of the people who contributed to the article. I believe that this might be a case of, at the least, bias in the third opinion sought. I am unwilling to protest Graham's involvement on the talk page due to separate issues of incivility from Tim, but thought it best to raise the matter here. As Tim has made it difficult to discuss the edits I wish to make and Graham has used the status of a third voice in what I believe to be a biased capacity, I think it best to take this further. I am not concerned with this incivility - I just want to take this to a higher level to avoid seeming like I am belabouring the point on the talk page, which will get on everyone's nerves. Thank you. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Gone to the talk page to discuss edit reversions - Talk:The_Importance_of_Being_Earnest Sought a third opinion, which was provided by Graham Beards (see above) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Determine whether this is an instance of bias or of multiple users coming together to ensure priority is given to the existing article, and review instances of reversion in the page's history to determine whether this is a case of ownership (whether by one person or multiple) Summary of dispute by Tim Riley Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Graham Beards Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk: The Importance of Being Earnest discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification on the user talk page is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ElijahPepe on 22:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) Grnrchst (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I sent the article 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East through the GAN process on May 16. The article was quickfailed by Grnrchst on July 21 for several reasons that involve one of three alleged issues, which I claimed were not WP:GACR at their talk page: The use of live feeds as citations. Vagueness and specificity in content. Formatting issues. I am disputing the review as having been improperly quickfailed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User talk:Grnrchst#2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Having a third person look over the review's adherence to good article criteria would be fine enough. Summary of dispute by Grnrchst In my review of the above-mentioned article, I outlined how it had failed to meet GA criteria for prose, reliability, broadness and neutrality. In particular, its overreliance on live reactions had filled the article with trivial details, and held it back from providing a broad, in-depth overview of the events or any enduring coverage beyond routine reports. The article’s unclear prose also raised more questions than it answered, often lacking critical context or contradicting other parts of the article, and the wording of certain sentences implied coincidences and omitted issues in a way that made it read as non-neutral. I also pointed out a number of formatting and grammatical errors. I concluded that the article was a long-way off from meeting GA criteria, and as it would require a near-total rewrite based on entirely different source material, I marked the article as having failed its review. ElijahPepe responded on my talk page, saying that I had made personal attacks against him that were worthy of reporting me to the administrators’ noticeboard and that I had closed the review based on "false assumptions". They said I had accused them of making changes they had not made, because I had asked "Did you not notice this?" in respect to a punctuation error; I had thought this was a benign question and I would have asked this of any nominator. Elijah also called me "near-sighted" for considering the article’s overreliance on live reactions problematic. He said that he was "vague on details either because no information exists or because it would veer into intricate and useless details", which I thought was an excellent summation of the problems inherent to the article. He also said it was acceptable that he omitted details and focused on trivial aspects of the event. He concluded our brief conversation by saying I had not been objective, because I said “I thought it was a long way off GA criteria” and stood by the conclusions I came to in the review. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC) 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I just had a look at the review. Note that technically, this was not a quick fail, even though the reviewer called it such. Rather, it was a full review against the criteria, and seems entirely within reason to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC) +1. There was actually no need for Grnrchst to provide anywhere near as much detail as was provided. I would have written essentially the closing summary and nothing else, so extensive are the problems. I suggest that this farcical section be closed and that ElijahPepe turn their attention to fixing the article's systematic issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC) This is the first time I've been notified about this discussion, as I was never given the DRN-notice required when opening up a request for dispute resolution. Do I still need to give my summary of this dispute? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC) I sincerely apologize, I believed you were notified by my use of {{U}}. My deepest apologies. Yes, you should provide your own reasoning and Jens Lallensack and AirshipJungleman29 should strike their comments until you have done so. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC) What happens now? I've given my summary. @Jens Lallensack and @AirshipJungleman29 both took a look at the review and verified it adhered to good article criteria. Over at the GAN talk page, @Kusma also looked at the review. How do we resolve this? --Grnrchst (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC) "Having a third person look over the review's adherence to good article criteria" was the nominator's original request; hopefully they are satisfied with a third, a fourth, and a fifth response. Or they might ask us to strike them for no well-explained reason. Who knows? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC) I asked you to strike your comments because you didn't receive the other side of the dispute. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Well the other side of the dispute has been posted. So how do we resolve this? What do you want out of this process? --Grnrchst (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC) I simply asked for a third opinion. Said third opinion has been provided already. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Then I see no need to keep this open. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC) The review seems a bit uncivil, lots of WP:AVOIDYOU needed. But I imagine it’s more frustration at a pretty obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS, which is an endemic problem here. Breaking news doesn’t contribute to notability, which nobody seems to understand at AfD. These sorts of topics should just sit in rough drafts waiting for secondary sources or at least ones dated to a bit after the event. We could have a WikiProject, WP:WikiProject News, where people list their drafts about current events in a sort of incubator waiting for these sources (benefit of this is that it’s more collaborative than the status quo and removes incentive to immediately publish news topics to take the pressure and onus off of the creator). Kowal2701 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC) There's some necessary context at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#Elijah Pepe's article creation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statement by non-moderator (Donald Trump in Middle East) DRN is not the forum to discuss a decline of a Good Article nomination. I inquired at the Good Article talk page as to what is the correct forum. The Good Article talk page is an appropriate forum to discuss the decline of a Good Article Nomination. On the other hand, renomination, either before or after making improvements to the article, is permitted. However, since there has been a comment, I am ready to permit civil discussion here for a reasonable period of time. I will not lead or moderate the discussion. By taking part in the discussion, editors are aware that the topic is a contentious topic, and should read the ArbCom ruling on American politics and the ArbCom ruling on Palestine and Israel. Be civil. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. This discussion may continue as long as it is productive. I am not moderating or leading, but I am watching. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Comments 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.

Poland

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by PJK 1993 on 18:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PJK 1993 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I would like to raise an issue regarding the factual accuracy of the information box in the Poland article. The reason why I'm brining up this topic here is because the information, which was inserted, not only is unsourced and remains so until today, it is simply total nonsense; a blatant case of WP:OR that was added in and now is being stonewalled into place. For years (going back to at least to 2012 [32]), the Poland information box stated that the historically accepted formation start date of Polish statehood was the "Baptism of Poland 14 April 966", then in February of 2024 [[33]] a user called FeldmarschallGneisenau edited the information box writing in that the formation start date was "Duchy of Poland c. 960". This change, not only had no source provided to authenticate the validity of the claim, none was provided since, and based on the article's Talk Page archive, a couple of discussions were made regarding this topic, however always some editor(s) stonewalled the change without providing a source to show it is a valid fact. Now, I understand that there are thousands of edit disputes on Wikipedia everyday, however when a blatantly dubious claim is kept in place and despite attempts to ask for proof none is provided, it becomes an issue that needs to be looked over by the higher-ups at Wikipedia. Such obvious misrepresentations hit at the very heart of Wikipedia and its accuracy. This is what one source (there are many others) says about "Baptism of Poland 14 April 966"[34] cited in the article's information box: "Mieszko accepted Roman Catholicism via Bohemia in 966. A missionary bishopric directly dependent on the papacy was established in Poznań. This was the true beginning of Polish history, for Christianity was a carrier of Western civilisation with which Poland was henceforth associated." Now, this fake "reference note" was included next to "Duchy of Poland c. 960" in the article's information box: "The dukes (dux) were originally the commanders of an armed retinue (drużyna) with which they broke the authority of the chieftains of the clans, thus transforming the original tribal organisation into a territorial unit." This says nothing to prove that the start of Polish statehood was in c. 960, and there is no source that will say so. This is a blatant misrepresentation that is being kept in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJK 1993 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? RfC was started on the article's Talk page. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? "Duchy of Poland c. 960" needs to be removed from the information box. This is blatant WP:OR and simply put it's false information, and no source was ever provided, which validates it. Poland discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pastirma

– New discussion.

Filed by Agent Albatros on 19:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Agent Albatros (talk · contribs)
• Grasshalm (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Aboukh and Pastırma are two dried meat dishes,one user says pastırma comes from aboukh,citing a book that says it is without any furher proof or citacion, despite none of the primary sources saying so, given the context it is very unlikely that these foods are related.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pastirma#%22Past%C4%B1rma_existed_in_ancient_Armenian_cuisine._%22_Really?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

move aboukh to a different page.

Summary of dispute by Grasshalm

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

Pastirma discussion

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

Western Sahara

– New discussion.

Filed by Nice4What on 23:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nice4What (talk · contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs)
• Skitash (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute regarding a sentence in the Western Sahara article. I am concerned that a sentence in the lead, that "The Polisario Front ... has won formal recognition for the SADR from 84 UN member states", could be misleading. The current wording could imply that 84 states currently recognize the SADR, when in fact 37 of the 84 states have since withdrawn recognition. Reliable sources that use the "84" number often include a disclaimer/explanation about states that have withdrawn recognition (including the source currently cited), but two editors do not want to include this context. I have proposed alternative wordings as a compromise (one that doesn't include any number, for example) but this has come to the point where dispute resolution is needed.

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

• Talk:Western Sahara#July 2025

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am hoping I can get a third opinion on a) whether the current wording, excluding the context that states have withdrawn recognition, may be confusing for readers, and b) should the article include the context that states have withdrawn recognition, as reflected in reliable sources.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton

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

Summary of dispute by Skitash

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

Western Sahara discussion

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