Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Imran Khan	In Progress	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	34 days, 3 hours	WhiteTailedEagle (t)	9 days, 3 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days, 13 hours
Bengali dialects	New	Msasag (t)	13 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours
A*Pop	New	Zirthes (t)	9 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours
Heinrich Thannhauser	Closed	Kittymcooper (t)	4 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours
Homeland Force	Closed	~2026-41143-74 (t)	4 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours
Martha Reeves	New	FusionLord (t)	3 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours	FusionLord (t)	2 days, 7 hours
Anti-Hindu sentiment	New	Shahinshah121 (t)	3 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours
Greek military ranks	New	ThanmadGR (t)	1 days, 14 hours	None	n/a	ThanmadGR (t)	1 days, 9 hours
Superpower	New	George Ho (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Aaron Liu#top (t)	6 hours

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

Current disputes

Imran Khan

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

Summary of dispute by Burrobert

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTown

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

Imran Khan discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

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

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

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

Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

WikiEnthusiast1001

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

• To the Imran Khan#Economy section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

SheriffIsInTown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burrobert

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

First statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

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

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

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

First statements by editors (Imran Khan)

SheriffIsInTown

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

Burrobert

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

WikiEnthusiast1001

I want to add the following:

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

Second statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second statements by editors (Imran Khan)

Burrobert

I am in favour of A and C.

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

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

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

SheriffIsInTown

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

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

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

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

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

Third statement by moderator (Imran Khan)

The filing editor has asked to make four additions.

A is an addition to the Economy section.

B is an addition to the Military appointments section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third statements by editors (Imran Khan)

SheriffIsInTown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

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

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

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

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

Burrobert

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

SheriffIsInTown

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

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

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

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

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

Fifth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

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

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

Sixth statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

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

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

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

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

	Name of addition	Text of addition	WikiEnthusiast1001	Burrobert	SheriffIsInTown
A	To Imran Khan#Economy:	After his ouster, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that Khan's economic policies were a "mixed bag at best," but credited Khan for taking a "bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments.	Proposer	Apparently accepted	Wants to change wording to reflect Dawn source
B	To Imran Khan#Military appointments:	Khan appointed Lt. Gen. Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in November 2019.	Proposer	Agreed to.	See below.
C	Imran Khan#Post-retirement from cricket	In 1996, Khan won the most expensive libel case in cricket history when he successfully defended himself against a lawsuit brought by former England captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb.Jojo Moyes (31 July 1996). "Botham and Lamb bowled over by defeat in pounds 500,000 High Court test". The Independent. Botham and Lamb accused Khan of calling them uneducated racists in an interview with India Today's Shekhar Gupta. The case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", ended with a 10–2 majority decision by the jury in favour of Khan.	Proposer	Highly critical comment, but may be willing to agree
D	To Imran Khan#Relationship with the military:	In regards to the "Charter of Democracy" proposed by the incumbent government of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi told The Diplomat in June 2026, that though Khan might have compromised with the military to come into power in 2018, "now he has nothing to gain from any compromise – neither with the PML-N and PPP nor the military establishment	Proposer	Agreed to.	Does not agree

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

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

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

Sixth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

Burrobert

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

WikiEnthusiast1001

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

SheriffIsInTown

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

Seventh statement by volunteer (Imran Khan)

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

Seventh statements by editors (Imran Khan)

SheriffIsInTown

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

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

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

• I have another proposal for A, they can use the Express Tribune source cited by Rocha, which mentions the government rather than mentioning Khan by name, and add the content to Imran Khan government or Premiership of Imran Khan. It does not have to be included in Imran Khan. Due to length concerns, some content was split between the articles. That is the whole purpose of having separate articles, so we do not overload a single article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Bengali dialects

– New discussion.

Filed by Msasag on 07:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

File talk:Bengali dialects2.png#Issues with maps

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

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

Summary of dispute by Fylindfotberserk

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

Summary of dispute by Jacklincoln47

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

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

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

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

First statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

Is there an interest in moderated discussion about Bengali dialects? If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave alone.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

A*Pop

– New discussion.

Filed by Zirthes on 20:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

Summary of dispute by livelikemusic

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (A*Pop)

I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule A. It appears that there is an issue about the placement of an image. I have three questions. First, if there is an issue about the placement of an image, I am asking each editor to provide me with a link to either a version of the article or a sandbox copy of the article showing exactly where they are proposing that the image be located. Second, are the editors willing to accept my binding Third Opinion? (I will not provide a non-binding opinion, because that would make me non-neutral in any subsequent discussion.) Third, if there are any other content issues, please state what part of the article you want to change that another editor disagrees with, or what part of the article another editor wants to make and you do not want made.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (A*Pop)

I would like the image to be positioned as it is in this edit. I am open to a third opinion, I don't think this needs to be escalated any further as it is quite a minor dispute. Zirthes (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by livelikemusic (A*Pop)

First, if there is an issue about the placement of an image, I am asking each editor to provide me with a link to either a version of the article or a sandbox copy of the article showing exactly where they are proposing that the image be located.

I am proposing this location (which is also its current position) as per the most recently made edit to the article.

Second, are the editors willing to accept my binding Third Opinion?

I see zero reason not to accept your binding third opinion. Apologies if this is not where my response should be or if it should not be formatted this way. This is my first time (to my knowledge) participating in a WP:DRN discussion. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

A*Pop discussion

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

First statement by volunteer (A*Pop)

My preference is for the image to be positioned next to the Live Performances section, since that section refers to her performance at the Montreux festival.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Heinrich Thannhauser

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kittymcooper on 19:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Heinrich Thannhauser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kittymcooper (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An anonymous editor, who I think [also has a COI with Heinrich Thannhauser], keeps editing the pages for my distant cousins Heinrich and Justin Thannhauser making their paternal line Christian (no evidence) rather than Jewish (I have provided many sources). (Redacted) I don't think this information even belongs here. I [believe there is a COI] because we have [crossed paths and] had this discussion on a few genealogy sites. I think his motivation is to prove he is descended from the "noble" Thannhausers rather than the Jewish ones (Redacted). In my case, Justin was my grandfather's 2nd cousin and I visited his town house in NYC as a child. Our families were close. (Redacted) WP:OUTING text redacted, with paraphrases added to preserve meaning signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heinrich_Thannhauser&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? prevent unidentified editors from editing these entries? keep removing his unneeded additions? I really do not know and am quite frustrated I will email John what I wrote above Heinrich Thannhauser discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion at Talk:Heinrich Thannhauser is rather brief and appears to have been opened only yesterday. Bringing this here for formal mediation is likely premature. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC) I dont think it is premature. Everytime I remove his edits and explain, he puts them back. How many times can I do that? I have sources. He does not. I have had this problem with presumably the same person on several genealogy sites where I was able to get him barred from changing my family profiles. Kittymcooper (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC) That is not what this board is for; it is for mediated discussion between editors. For injunctions against edit warring, see WP:ANEW. But a likely response there will be that you have insufficiently established a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of your proposed changes and that discussion has not yet been exhausted on the talk page. Discussions on Wikipedia typically last at least a week, and can often last longer. Beyond waiting a bit more for further response from the TA, you can consider WP:3O as an appropriate next step. signed, Rosguill talk 06:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Homeland Force

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ~2026-41143-74 on 23:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Homeland Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ~2026-41143-74 (talk · contribs) Brat Forelli (talk · contribs) Dispute overview My argument is based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:WEIGHT. The academic, peer-reviewed sources that I provided analyze and define the coalition as "centrist" or "center". On the other hand, I provided two structured institutional analyses on international politics that qualify the position as Center - Center-left. On the contrary, the sources that qualify it as "leftist" are mostly passing and superficial mentions in journalistic articles that use the term as a quick shortcut for international readers. The sources that could actually be reliable equate the entire coalition to a predecessor faction with a more progressive tendency, which violates WP:RS and derives into WP:SYNTH, or they use generalizations like "to the left" of the political spectrum to polarize and differentiate the electoral options. Cases of identical articles using multiple URLs to inflate the number of sources are also observed WP:CITESPAM. The other user dismissed my academic sources and withdrew from the discussion, stating that they "were already done with this". I request a neutral evaluation. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Homeland_Force#Political_position_2 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I request that neutral editors evaluate the reliability and that of the sources provided by both sides in order to adequately define a specific political position, which takes into account WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Summary of dispute by Brat Forelli I, indeed, withdrew from the discussion, stating that they "were already done with this". It is very curious that the OP failed to mention why - the reason I did this is because of the IP user's LLM abuse. On 25 July, the user made an LLM-generated a talk page section. On 28 July, they created an ANI thread written by AI accusing me of various disruptions. On 30 July, they created another LLM-generated ANI thread about me. The user has been warned three times on their talk page for LLM misuse. On 31 July, the user created another talk page section of the article in question (Homeland Force). I responded, and the user's response was too LLM-generated, with obvious signs such as WP:AIPARALLEL (I did not just question a couple of sources; I challenged the nature of the remaining journalistic sources wholesale.) They have now seemingly admitted to using AI there. Given this I have created an ANI thread about this user, as they have used LLM past the three warnings ({{Uw-ai1}}, {{Uw-ai2}}, {{Uw-ai3}}), meaning they are now at "forth" {{Uw-ai4}} (i.e. block). Given the frivolous LLM-generated ANI threads against me, and replying to me using LLM, I will not engage with the user and refer to my ANI thread. Brat Forelli🦊 07:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC) This user is making noise with misrepresented accusations to avoid debating the reliability of the sources and getting to the bottom of the discussion. The use of AI by me has already been sanctioned and clarified, I received the appropriate warnings (this one being the last) and since then I have not used AI again. I am Argentine and my English is not perfect. I used AI to draft and better define my requests, unknowingly ignoring Wikipedia's rigorous and sensitive policies on this subject, I apologize for it. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the content. I suggest that only that be debated here (as it should be done). Regards. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Participation at DRN is voluntary, so if Brat Forelli declines to do so, there is no basis for further discussion here. At that point, your recourse for pursuing the content dispute further would be 1) continued discussion on the Talk page or 2) an WP:RFC. signed, Rosguill talk 14:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Homeland Force 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.

Martha Reeves

– New discussion.

Filed by FusionLord on 16:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Martha Reeves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FusionLord (talk · contribs)
• Sombodysomewhere (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Somebodysomewhere is reverting edits to the Martha Reeves page with giving reason or using the talk page topic created to discuss the edit. The nature of the content is if Martha Reeves should be called a politcian in his summary/introductary paragraph given that we have done so for entertainment celebrities who have been elected prior, during, or after their main careers such as Jerry Springer & Sonny Bono. She was elected as an Detroit City Council member from 2005-2009.

Source:

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

They do not use the talk page or interact with anyone concerning the content in contention, so perhaps a neutral third party can weigh in & decide either way.

Summary of dispute by Sombodysomewhere

I missed the talk page on my edit, that's on me. While I do believe identifying Marth Reeves as a politician because of one unsuccessful local term is misleading and incorrect, I didn't continue to undo the change after I was messaged by an actual user. I'm not sure why this was elevated to a dispute before I gave a response, the other user hit undo, sent me a message and brought it here in a day, without input from me. More to the point of the dispute, are we adding the term politician to someone's introductory sentence if they only served one local term from which she was regularly absent, and haven't been involved in politics before or since. My perspective is that its an inaccurate way to describe a person with only a little background in an area and by the same logic she would have many more titles as a secretary, actress, Sag-AFTRA board member, etc.

Martha Reeves discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Notification is required for all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I have just notified them on their user talk page. My apologies.FusionLord (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu sentiment

– New discussion.

Filed by Shahinshah121 on 23:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Anti-Hindu sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Shahinshah121 (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• IND123456 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page covers a sensitive issue. Not everyone agree that anti-Hindu sentiment or Hinduphobia is real. For some people, it is like anti-white racism. For others, questioning it is very offensive. Most academics have criticized it as a Hindu nationalist false claim. This has led to two linked problems.

1 - Numerous editors have tagged , removed content, and blocked the addition of new content about criticism of anti-Hindu sentiment. The criticism section is very small and not even mentioned in the lead. A lot of this is based on editors saying that they want only WP:RS, but the standards seem not justified. Editors have rejected self-published materials by established scholars, demanded no citations to any journalists that have criticized Hinduphobia, and refused to mention a Hindu American group that believes Hinduphobia is not real. Some editors have blocked academic sources because they don't like the scholar. All of this is on the talk page.

2 - Some of the same editors are preventing the removal of a section on social media that is sourced to one, self-published source by non-experts. One author is an undergraduate. I see a double standard. I am not sure how to move forward given that many editors seem emotional and angry about this.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment#Recent_updates, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment#failed_verification_tags, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment#removed_social_media_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I ask for help with setting standards for WP:RS that apply site-wide. I ask for adjudication of inserting more criticism and removing the social media section. I ask for help framing an issue where a group claims discrimination but many scholars think it is often false, like anti-white racism.

Summary of dispute by Toddy1

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

Not a suitable topic for DRN. As framed by Shahinshah121 this is a behavioural issue, not a content issue. The complaints that he/she made about other editors above mirror observations that the other editors have made about Shahinshah121's behaviour. The issues are across a number of articles, not just Anti-Hindu sentiment (for example: Hindutva, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, and Vikram Sampath). Shahinshah121 seems to believe that other editors are showing bad faith.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by UnpetitproleX

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

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

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

Summary of dispute by IND123456

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

Anti-Hindu sentiment discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Anti-Hindu sentiment)

I am ready to act as the moderator if this is a content dispute about what the article should say. It is not clear whether that is what is being requested. I will start by asking all editors to read the contentious topic rules for South Asia, and to advise editors that disruptive editing can be reported to Arbitration Enforcement, but that editors should read the boomerang essay before making any content report.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state whether you want to make any changes to the article that another editor disagrees with, or whether another editor wants to make changes that you disagree with. If you do not want to discuss the content of the article, you may consider asking policy questions at the Village Pump or asking for advice at the Teahouse. If you are here for moderated discussion of the article, please read DRN Rule D.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Greek military ranks

– New discussion.

Filed by ThanmadGR on 11:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Greek military ranks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cdjp1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The core issue is that Cdjp1 is blindly copying erroneous data from a 1988 commercial booklet, as if it were an official source forcing objective factual errors onto Wikipedia, claiming WP:VERIFIABILITY.

This blind copying has created numerous issues, such a major visual absurdity regarding the chevrons, where a Conscript Corporal is assigned two chevrons inside the OR-4 cell even though the user's own uploaded image for a Permanent Corporal correctly displays only one chevron.

The user is also using the book's publication year as an infallible source in other ways, as in restricting the infobox timeline to 1980-1988. For the Air Force, I cited presidential decrees from 1980 and 2000 containing identical photographic plates proving the insignia remained unchanged until 2004. He deleted this timeline and an image for Yposminias I created according to the regulations, saying that the 1990 Decree "doesn't specify patterns"—ignoring both the visual evidence of continuance and how Greek military regulations work via internal staff orders.

The rationale regarding the Navy is absurd; citing the time period as 1986–1988, the user negates the validity of the Ministerial Decree beyond Davis' publication, as if a commercial booklet was a more authoritative source than Greek Laws, Regulations, and the fact that save for the doubling of the PNCO U-shaped chevrons in 2004 and the introduction of EPOP insignia after 2001, the rest of the insignia remains unchanged till the coming into force of Law 5265/2026 (but that concerns "Current insignia").

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

I've extensively elaborated on how Greek Uniforms Regulations work and what the issues in Cdjp1's edits are; I've done my best to avoid Edit warring, restricting myself to a mere 11 edits which have been largely counteracted by 56 edits since the time I began participating in this page. I opened a previous DRN request which due to Force majeure was abandoned.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Αν independent mediator is needed to cease the the unilateral edit-piling and enforce basic and Greek military logic, taking into consideration the operational realities of the Hellenic Armed Forces. A ruling on the correct 1975-2004 infobox timelines and a resolution of any structural logic contradictions would be most welcome.

Summary of dispute by Cdjp1

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

My arguments remain the same, what matters is what's verifiable. If you provide no sources, as you didn't to begin with, we go with the sources available. As can be seen from the talk page comment, when you provided sources and pointed out those errors, I did in fact make the changes. Your repeated arguments of "it should be this way, because that is logical" actively works against our Policies and Guidelines, as I repeatedly explained. You have finally started to provide sources, and so the page has been updated in line with those sources, which are the majority of the 56 edits you highlight that I have made. This includes correctly formatting the referencing, providing links to digital copies of the documents referenced, and providing the exact pages within the documents that provide the information. I would say I am now at a loss as to why you think this needs to come to dispute resolution when the page is being updated in line with official government documents, but it seems to be because you want to ignore what the documents actually say and force in information that is not verified by the sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As an addendum, you state a previous DRN request which due to Force majeure was abandoned, why was I not informed of this, and what do you mean by Force majeure? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Unforeseen circumstances outside the scope of this debate, let alone Wikipedia. For that I owe you an apology. ThanmadGR (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, then no problem there. I hope it was nothing too bad for yourself, and I hope whatever it was is now resolved in a good outcome. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As a correction to my last comment, this relates to you claiming that we can imagine that the ranks were the same for almost 15 years, when the verified source actually said the previous legislation detailing the ranks had been appealed, but provided no indication of what the ranks were going forward. But I see you have today added a source for the claim of continued use of the ranks that is verifiable, so there is no issue there. So, I will revert to my statement that I am at a loss as to why you think this needs to come to dispute resolution, when you are providing verifiable sources, they are being kept in the article, and the information is being corrected to what the sources say. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue here like in the first place is not the Air Force, not even the timeline itself – I agree that that's more than resolvable. While I recognise the essence of your arguments and policy-wise, I will raise no objections, the main issue here to my eyes is Davies insofar it's used as a "reliable" (I've elaborated on Regulations and Standing Orders, so I'm not contesting the Accessibility criterion related to Davis' Verifiable Source characterization) source for the Army, has an erroneous result. I'm willing to keep searching for a Presidential Decree/Ministerial Decision for the Army (perhaps in vain), but I'd really like a to find a middle way here. ThanmadGR (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Greek military ranks discussion

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

Superpower

– New discussion.

Filed by George Ho on 18:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• 16dvnk (talk · contribs)
• GeogSage (talk · contribs)
• PaulRKil (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Aaron Liu (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-42408-01 (talk · contribs)
• asilvering (talk · contribs)
• Plumber (talk · contribs)
• Dunnowy123 (talk · contribs) (added, --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC))

Dispute overview

Ways to present China's "superpower" status have been debated still, especially since the previous RFC discussion (link) was closed as "no consensus". More than that, one version presenting other states—the US, the EU, the UK, for example—as merely possible superpowers has been questioned. Nonetheless, another version presenting the US and China as plausible "superpowers" has been also questioned.

After the previous DRN request failed, further back-and-forth discussions have been made as well as editing attempts. The dispute hasn't been still resolved. Even WP:NPOVN was tried, but the result has been low participation from uninvolved editors. Oh, and we editors have interpreted the "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV variously.

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

• Talk:Superpower#Another path forward?
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Superpower lede and content
• Talk:Superpower#Potential extant superpowers section?
• Talk:Superpower#UK is also an extant superpower?
• Talk:Superpower#Current framing is a worst of all worlds compromise and flies in the face of common sense
• Talk:Superpower#This discussion is spiraling out of control...

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The previous DRN request failed because I didn't follow Robert McClenon's instructions on proceeding this request. That matter was then resolved at WP:VPM (discussion link). Unsure whether Robert will volunteer this again, but I promise to follow any volunteer's instructions this time. Well, brace yourselves GeogSage's arguments about putting sources first before any other. Indeed, I want another RFC.

Summary of dispute by 16dvnk

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

Summary of dispute by GeogSage

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

I have stated this at length on the talk page, but will repeat briefly here. I do not believe that presenting anything as a definitive contemporary superpower is in line with Wikipedia policy or an accurate reflection of sources. I believe the dispute stems from editors who want to start from a particular POV and work backward to support it, rather than considering multiple perspectives we have available. I believe that this version of the article (current at the time of writing) satisfies policy and sources better than what the article had looked like, or the proposed changes made that use Wikivoice to describe some entities as accepted superpowers, by emphasizing the ambiguous nature of the topic and giving attention to reliable sources with differing opinions in each case. Specifically, I believe the following text addresses the dispute over how we present China:

"Today, scholarly discourse and public perception regarding superpower status vary widely. Commonly cited entities as candidates for extant superpowers, or current powers likely to be superpowers in the near future, include the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia."

The two main reasons are:

• WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED: There is no formal, agreed-upon definition for superpower or set of criteria that makes a superpower. This is established in multiple reliable sources, and I have put some of the quotes regarding this on the Wikiquote page I created for Superpower. As there is no formal definition, reliable sources make contradictory claims. In this case, we present the claims as opinions, not fact. I have included some of these sources in the article and can provide examples.
• WP:RS/AC: We lack a systematic review that states a consensus of what entities are superpowers, or any reliable source for what to include on such a list.

I believe that other editors disagree with this and want us to present some entities as accepted “extant superpowers”, focusing mostly on the question of should we include China and the US, or just the US, while presenting other entities mentioned in reliable sources as “potential superpowers.”

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PaulRKil

First and foremost, this dispute initially began over whether or not China was a superpower along with the United States. This has lead to the current state of the article where it lists China, the US, India, the EU, and Russia as "Commonly cited entities as candidates for extant superpowers" which flattens the countries into a single category. This version does not offer a compromise that satisfies the purpose of the article. This comes in the aftermath of an RfC that was closed as "no consensus" but further discussion in the talk page has solidified around China and the US being superpower nations. However, making those changes in the article have proven to be impossible due to an editors insistence on keeping all five nations as possible extant superpowers.

I have tried to make edits using contemporary scholarly, peer reviewed journals such as ones written by Jennifer Lind and David A Lake that assert that China and the US are the world's current superpower nations. These edits have been constantly reverted by the editor who has made the current version of the article. It should be of note, sources used are largely analyses in newsmagazines and sources from as long ago as 2010.

The editor behind these changes cites that this version satisfies Wikipedia's core content policies and NPOV but the editor is severely overstating every rule in order to justify the current version of the article. Wikipedia does not require us to dismiss scholarly conclusions as "opinion." It requires us to give weight to each assertion. Dismissing every scholarly claim about superpowers since 2024 as opinion misses how we are supposed to weigh experts. The fact that there is disagreement among sources does not mean that the article should be flattened in a way that makes it so every proposed candidate nation is placed into an undifferentiated list. We need to represent every viewpoint fairly and proportionately to their prominence in reliable sources and for something of this nature, we should be using contemporary scholarly sources, not equally weighing each with differing source quality.

Bottom line is this: while there is debate on what a superpower is, contemporary scholarly sources cite the United States and China as the world's current superpowers. India, the EU, and Russia are considered temporary superpowers to varying degrees. China and the US have challenges that threaten their superpower status and there are elements that are keeping Russia, the EU, and India from becoming superpowers. Anything short of that fails to properly state what are superpowers. PaulRKil (talk)

Summary of dispute by Moxy

Wikipedia:Does deletion help? - Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information on the academic debate currently ongoing . Even AI can find the debate...."Scholars debate whether China is a full superpower, a partial economic leader, or a fragile state. While some experts highlight its unmatched manufacturing and technological scale, others point to structural weaknesses, demographic decline, and limited global alliance networks as barriers to true superpower status"Moxy🍁 19:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aaron Liu

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

I think the current lede covers this well, even if it's weird that the way it satisfies DueWeight for China's elevated claim is by saying that they are also a "potential superpower" while the others are "extant [or] likely to be superpowers in the near future".

The current version adds the info on the debate to the lede:

Some contemporary sources have described China as a potential superpower due to its modern military, global influence, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, economic and manufacturing volume,[24][25] though opponents have challenged that assumption by citing its domestic challenges, such as an ageing and shrinking population, lack of skilled immigration, alongside international concerns of its soft power status due to human rights issues, lack of hard power capabilities through a global military alliance system, and the dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade.[26] This shift has been described as a move to bipolarity or a multipolar world, divided into spheres of influence based on geographic proximity.

In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ~2026-42408-01

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

Summary of dispute by asilvering

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

Summary of dispute by Plumber

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

A consensus exists on the talk page that reliable scholarly sources say there are two superpowers, the United States (since the 20th century) and China (since the 21st century). There is disagreement with this consensus by about a third of commentators, who believe only the United States is a superpower as of 2026. One editor is insisting there are no superpowers and is removing well-sourced scholarly information from the page in favor of news magazines. There is a very broad consensus against those edits. --Plumber (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dunnowy123

Consensus exists that the United States and China are currently the world's two superpowers, as explained above by a clearly majority of editors. One commentator appears to believe that there is no exact definition of a "superpower" and insists on broadening the definition to include the EU, India, Russia, and at one point, the UK, on the basis that some articles and media outlets have at varying times referred to these countries/entities as superpowers. However, editors have pointed out the age and weakness of these sources compared to the strength of sources pointing to the US and China as the world's current superpowers, and disagree that there is genuine debate about this point in 2026.

Superpower discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Superpower)

I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute if the editors agree to my moderation and agree to follow DRN Rule A. The moderator will ask the questions and the editors will reply with their statements. I will preface this discussion by saying that the article must summarize what reliable sources say. If all reliable sources agree on a point, such as whether either the United States or China is a superpower, we will say so, but I don't think that all reliable sources agree. In that case, we should summarize what the majority and the minority (or minorities) of sources say, or that the sources are divided. So I will ask each editor, first, to agree that we are following DRN Rule A. Editors who do not agree to DRN Rule A are asked not to take part in the discussion. I am asking each editor, second, to state what they think summarizes the opinions of the sources.

The objective of this discussion is to agree to text that summarizes what the majority of sources say and that also reflects what any minorities of sources say. We will not be making any statements in wikivoice.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Superpower)

Zeroth statements by George Ho

• Before filing another DRN request, I stood by my viewpoint that China shouldn't be considered a "superpower" just because others said so. Too bad recent reliable sources verifying my concerns have become much harder to find. Indeed, majority of recent sources have deemed China a "superpower". How the US, China, and other big powers should be present remains to be seen by especially two editors who have largely expressed their own arguments about the powers, including (but not limited to) the US and China.

Meanwhile, I think I have almost nothing further to say until involved parties will have either made some compromises or realized that brainstorming for another RFC would be the best way to go. Well... That's that, so I'll be reading further comments on the sidelines then. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oh, and for the record, I'll abide to the DRN Rules A this time. Thus, I may participate... but very minimally as possible (per above). --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by GeogSage

Responding to the moderator:

1. I agree to follow DRN Rule A.
2. I have stated what I believe to summarize the current sources above, and the link is to a version of the page that mostly reflects how I think we should approach this topic. The only real universal consensus I have found between sources is that there is no formal definition or consensus for what makes a superpower. All sources about why ____ is or is not a superpower is the result of the author choosing a definition/criteria, conducting an analysis, and then offering their opinion. Yes, in the case of China and the U.S. there are very strong cases to be made for why they are superpowers, however, these claims are demonstrably WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. Thus, I created the category "Possible extant superpowers," and listed several examples that are commonly brought up in the literature (ones I could verify with sources). This gives room for the case for/against to be elaborated on. It seems cut and dry. One source in particular I'd like to point to is an article titled Back to Bipolarity: How China's Rise Transformed the Balance of Power , in which the author makes a compelling case for why they believe China is a superpower. Within this article it states:

   Today is no exception—after four decades of China's economic rise, scholars and policymakers dispute the nature of the emerging system. Some say that unipolarity endures, that China will not become a “superpower” capable of overtaking the United States, or that Chinese power has peaked. By contrast, some see China as a peer competitor and the United States’ “pacing challenge.” Still others view the world as multipolar, pointing to Indian economic growth, Russian resurgence, and the emergence of other influential middle powers.

   This is one source in which the author believes China is a superpower, probably among the most favorable we have for that conclusion, and in it they acknowledge there is a divide among "scholars and policymakers." There are more sources, but this highlights how I believe the article must be framed in order to achieve NPOV. We can give the compelling case for why some people believe _____ to be a superpower, and balance it with the other nuanced opinions. In the case of China, we have books like China After Mao (book) by Frank Dikötter, which in a later interview on the topic with the Hoover Institute it states, "Dikötter contends that far from being a true superpower, China remains fundamentally fragile: an empire held together by repression, propaganda, and paranoia." We have an article in The Hill (newspaper) that states, "But China today falls far short of superpower standing." To be neutral, we can't pretend these opinions do not exist and state in Wikivoice that something IS a Superpower. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Some relevant quotes and sources, I can get more if needed:

Source	Quote(s)
"In a world of global competition, the US and China are tied as superpowers with opinion divided on Russia". Survey Result / News Detail. Gallup International. Retrieved 27 July 2026.	When asked whether they consider the US to be a superpower in 2030, 61 % say yes while 24 % say no. Across all 37 countries, 63 % agree that China will be a superpower by 2030, with 97 % of respondents in China agreeing and 54 % of Americans accepting the fact that China will remain a superpower by 2030. Despite President Putin increasing Russia’s footprint across much of the world and building deeper relationships with non-Western blocs such beyond the EU/US, 41 % of all countries surveyed accept that they will remain a superpower by 2030, while 42 % saying they will not. Beyond these three countries there is nobody else competing seriously – even the potential might of the EU bloc is questioned with only 33 % saying they will be a superpower, 48 % saying they will not.
Munro, André. "superpower". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2 May 2023.	Some scholars argued that the term superpower no longer captured its unchallenged global primacy, and alternative terms such as hyperpower, global hegemon, and empire were suggested in its stead. Despite significant setbacks in its economy, military enterprises, and diplomatic influence in the first decade of the 21st century, the U.S. remained the sole state with a clear preeminence in all sources of power. The question of American decline has been a common theme in the study of international relations. With the transformation of China into an economic powerhouse, there have been continued debates on whether it can be expected not only to dominate Asia but also to compete with the United States as another global superpower.
Kammerhofer, Jörg. "Superpowers and Great Powers". Oxford Public International Law. Retrieved 3 August 2026.	After the end of the Cold War (1947–91), the US became, for a while, the ‘sole surviving superpower’. At least as a measure of raw military power, this remains true, but there are several other contenders for (future) superpower-dom. If the European Union (‘EU’) were to match its foreign political potential to its economic power or if Russia could match its economic potential to its remaining military might, they could be considered superpowers. At present, however, for various reasons, no other State has superpower status and even the US is in danger of losing its status. Only China has a relatively clear path to superpower-dom in the medium term; it has been described as a ‘premature superpower’.
Karataş, İbrahim (20 May 2021). "The United States: Is It Still a Superpower?". Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi. 12 (30): 677–688. doi:10.21076/vizyoner.810814 – via dergipark.org.tr.	The study argues that although the US power is in decline, it is still a superpower thanks to its allies, friends, economic tools like US dollar and even its adversaries. While American scholars claim that the US is still the sole superpower, Chinese ones argue China is already a superpower. Also, Europeans fit the superpower title to the European Union (EU). In addition, Russiaand India are seen as candidates for superpowerhood.
"U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, scholars say". University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 2008. Retrieved 7 August 2026.	The United States remains a formidable but besieged global power, according to the editors of “From Superpower to Besieged Global Power: Restoring World Order After the Failure of the Bush Doctrine” “The book also rejects the counter liberal argument that the United States is, indeed, a superpower, which has used its material and human resources incompetently,” Kolodziej said. “According to this train of thinking, all that is needed is a better management of its soft and hard power to retain what is misguidedly assumed to be the continued superpower status of the United States.”
Magone, José M. (2026). "A new research agenda for the 'geopolitical' turn of the European Union". A Research Agenda for European Union Politics. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 1–24. ISBN 9781035302499.	The rise of China to the status of an economic and military superpower must be considered a significant factor in this regard. The EU cannot develop a friendly but separate identity from the foreign and defence policy of the United States, and in the long run this could further undermine the Union's ambitions to be a superpower sui generis. To this end, the EU has additionally copied legislation developed in the United States, further Americanising its policies. The European Union is thus transforming into a ‘normal’ superpower fighting for its interests.
Schuman, Michael (5 October 2020). "What Happens When China Leads the World". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-04-09.	What kind of superpower will China be? That’s the question of the 21st century.
Lind, Jennifer (October 1, 2024). "Back to Bipolarity: How China's Rise Transformed the Balance of Power". International Security. 49 (2): 7–55. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00494. ISSN 0162-2889. Retrieved February 26, 2026.	Today is no exception—after four decades of China's economic rise, scholars and policymakers dispute the nature of the emerging system. Some say that unipolarity endures, that China will not become a “superpower” capable of overtaking the United States, or that Chinese power has peaked. By contrast, some see China as a peer competitor and the United States’ “pacing challenge.” Still others view the world as multipolar, pointing to Indian economic growth, Russian resurgence, and the emergence of other influential middle powers. In fact, China is a superpower: one of the strongest countries in the world, with a large gap between it and the next most powerful state
Andrew Latham (2023-04-06), China: A great power but not a superpower	So, China is unquestionably a great power. But a superpower? No way.
Pierret, Laura (2025). "Book Review: Superpower Europe: the European Union's silent revolution". International Affairs, p. 101 (2): 736. doi:10.1093/ia/iiaf023.	In "Superpower Europe," Marc De Vos discusses the transformation of the European Union in recent years, focusing on shifts in EU membership, the market, and state intervention in the economy. De Vos argues that the EU is evolving into a geostrategic superpower and a state project, partially federalizing in the process.
Moravcsik, Andrew (2010). "Europe, the Second Superpower". Current History. 109: 91–98. Retrieved 27 July 2026.	In fact, the world today has two global superpowers. One is the United States- the other is Europe. Europe is the only region in the world, besides the United States, able to exert global influence across the full spectrum of power, from "hard" to "soft." Europe is the only region, besides the United States, that projects intercontinental military power. And European countries possess a range of effective civilian instruments for projecting international influence that is unmatched by any country, even the United States.
Ng, Damien (2022). "Assess the Proposition That India Will Become the Next Superpower". Journal of Asian and African Studies. 58 (7). doi:10.1177/00219096221084255.	Based on the analysis conducted, this study argues that the South Asian country’s hopes of rising into the league of superpowers will ultimately be dashed if its advantageous conditions are weakened by an inability or unwillingness to address some of its most pressing problems.
Jach, Anna; Kużelewska, Elżbieta; Legucka, Agnieszka (2023). "Russia Military Aspects of the Functioning of a Superpower". The Russia-Ukraine War of 2022 (1 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9781003341994. Retrieved 30 July 2026.	Russia sees itself as a superpower
Chance, Matthew (2026). "A key nuclear weapons treaty is ending. It's a sign of Russia's eroding superpower status". CNN. Retrieved 6 August 2026.	The breakup, back in 1991, of what US President Ronald Reagan once dubbed an “evil empire” left the Kremlin with less territory, less financial muscle and less influence around the globe. But Russia retained its clout in one crucial area. Its continued status as a nuclear superpower, on a roughly equal footing with the United States, guaranteed even a weakened Moscow a place at the top table of international diplomacy.At nuclear summits, the Kremlin’s leader could grandly sit across from the incumbent in the White House – just like in the glory days of the Cold War – to decide on matters of international security.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by PaulRKil

I agree to Rule A

I believe we need to consider age of the sources given. Anything prior to 2024 and certainly anything prior to COVID do not account for the major shifts we've seen in geopolitics and should be weighed with that in mind.

Contemporary scholarly assessments point to China and the United States being the two current Superpowers. The South Center in its 2025 journal Winds of Change Len Ishmael states the following

BRICS members have grown in stature on the global stage and the importance of the group has increased. China is a Superpower.

Similarly, Jennifer Lind in Back to Bipolarity: How China's Rise Transformed the Balance of Power (2024) explicitly puts forward that China is a supepower:

In fact, China is a superpower: one of the strongest countries in the world, with a large gap between it and the next most powerful state.

David A. Lake writes in The End of the Liberal International Order? Globalization, Deep Contestation, and the Future (2026) also states that China is a superpower.

As the LIO fades, we are in a new era of superpower competition between the USA and China, with Russia playing the role of spoiler and Europe standing on the sidelines.

With the exception of Winds of Change, these are peer reviewed academic journals. The South Center is an intergovernmental organization with 55 member states. This is a fraction of recent literature that states that China and the US are superpowers.

While there may be debate around what a superpower is, there is plenty of common consensus among researchers and academics about who is a superpower and each source gives reasons why China and the US country meets that criteria: by possessing an outsized economic, geopolitical, cultural, military, and technological power that far outpaces other nations. It is inappropriate not only for the article to not tell the reader which nations are commonly cited as superpowers, it is irresponsible for the article to also instead list the 5 nations in a single flattened category. PaulRKil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)