– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zsa Zsa Gabor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PromQueenCarrie (talk · contribs)
• Remsense (talk · contribs)
• Aybeg (talk · contribs)
• Beshogur (talk · contribs)
• Last1in (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It's never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 and 1991 autobiographies. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A few editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. I brought this to the NPOV noticeboard and was stonewalled.

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

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

In the past the dispute has gone unresolved due to mass unwillingness to even participate in discussion. In order for a firm consensus to finally be reached, many editors need to engage.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Also, please check whether there are any other editors who should also be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer Note - If there is an issue about the reliability as a source of Ms. Gabor's autobiography, that can be asked at the reliable source noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has added two editors, but still has not notified any of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three have since been notified. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [Please move or remove if this is not the right way to participate. My notes only apply to the Kemal Atatürk article; I have no problem with the info being included (with appropriate brevity to avoid UNDUE) in Zsa Zsa Gabor] Exclude -- As the nom notes, the argument over this possibly apocryphal dalliance has been ongoing for over a decade.

Sourcing: Gabor's 'tell-all autobiography' is the only primary source for this event. She claims to have been deflowered by Atatürk. All secondaries are derivative of that primary. None explore the merit of the claim. Gabor get nothing more than a brief mention in the only source about Kemal Atatürk. The others are about the 'Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World' [the title of one cite]. Zsa Zsa was a proto-Kardashian, so fluff pieces are arguably useful for her article. They simply are not reasonable sources on a man who had enormous impact on the modern world.

Substance: In what possible way does this illuminate Atatürk? What does the reader learn about an international leader and founder a modern state by discovering that he had a brief, consensual affair with a woman who famously quipped: When asked how many husbands she had had, she used to say: "You mean other than my own?"^[1] If the claim was that Atatürk took the virginity of, say, Rock Hudson or Rin Tin Tin, this would merit a mention; a tryst with a beautiful, famously promiscuous, female human just does not. It is wonderful gossip, great tabloid news, and cool trivia for pub night, but those are not what we're building.

I didn't fight to take it out until it again hit the Talk page. Policies, guidelines and essays are clear: The fact that this happened (a debatable statement itself) is not enough to warrant inclusion per BUTITSTRUE. This alleged tryst is not important to the subject of the article. Cheers Last1in (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two parties agree, and if at least two parties disagree about article content. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

I see two related but different questions about policies and guidelines that apply to the articles. The first is whether Gabor's autobiography is a reliable source for her account of the sexual encounter with Ataturk. That question can be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. This discussion will be paused if necessary to wait for an answer from RSN. The second is whether a mention of the reported affair is undue weight in the article about Ataturk.

An editor who had not originally been listed has made a statement, and so has been added to the list of parties to this dispute.

Are there any questions about policies, or about how this discussion may be conducted? If not, my questions are whether the editors agree to the ground rules, and what changes to the article are in controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with you moderating, as well as taking the discussion to the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

As for what I want to change in the articles (both Ataturk's and Gabor's), the phrasing doesn't really matter, I just want this to be acknowledged. If words like "claimed", "alleged", etc have to be used, that's fine by me. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me what does a claim that's only verified by Gabor's autobiograhpy contributes to Atatürk's relations with other 4 women that were known by everyone? I just want this to be acknowledged why? Are you Gabor? Beshogur (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is agreement that Gabor's account stating that she had a sexual involvement with Ataturk can be included in the article on Gabor. It also appears that there is agreement that that statement should be attributed to Gabor, not in Wikivoice. Is that correct?

It appears that there is disagreement about whether Gabor's account of the affair should be mentioned at all in the article on Ataturk, both because Gabor's account should not be considered a reliable source except about herself, and because it would be undue weight. Is that correct? If so, I will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All correct. No further questions. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Genocides in history (before World War I) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)
• Gawaon (talk · contribs)
• Cdjp1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The editor Cdjp1 has the Irish Famine listed as an example of a pre-WWI 'genocide' despite the fact that this is a fringe pov among academics. My position is that this topic belongs on the main Irish Famine article, and in fact there's already a detailed section there that covers the controversy quite well. Instead of participating in a dialogue on talk, this editor keeps expanding the section with obscure sources and in a way that seems to bolster the fringe view. It's been about 2 weeks since there's been any feedback and it's now clear the involved editors don't want to engage with this issue.

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

[[4]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally I'd like to come to an agreement on whether or not a genocide theory that's on the academic fringe and is more political than historical belongs in a list of historical genocides. I don't think so.

This discussion became a conflict due to the harsh words from Jonathan f1, including doubting that the added historians are worthwhile.

My opinion is the same: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away.

As I have no idea why I am involved in this dispute, as it is mainly a conflict between Cdjp1 and Jonathan f1, no further comment will be forthcoming from me. The Banner talk 03:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the discussion is often enough to blow up a disagreement into a conflict. And the "minor penalty" is not so minor as portrait by Jonathan F1. But I repeat my opinion from above: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away. The Banner talk 21:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area, so I'll stand by. Gawaon (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also notice, for what it's worth, that Jonathan f1 is permanently blocked from editing in the article namespace. Opening a dispute resolution case here might therefore be considered a case of bad faith. Gawaon (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I would like to clarify that despite the insinuation, the addition of the great famine pre-dates my work on the article. As I detailed in the talk page, as part of my wider work updating the page with some recent notable publications, I was planning to update the section with recent literature. Jonathan highlighted some of the minor authors that have existed in the section for quite a while, while seeming to ignore the additional citations from respected scholars in the field of genocide studies where their assessment/commentary is published in RS.

As per the criteria for the series of articles on genocides in history, they detail the varying frameworks used in defining and understanding genocides, and include various instances that are discussed within the literature.

On the note of it being "politically motivated" descriptor, this argument is touched on in the section referencing Mcveigh, who highlights that at the time of his writing there had been near zero analysis of Irish history using analytical tools of genocide studies, and how the response of of previous historians who claimed the description of events in Irish history as "genocide" were responding specifically to popular claims by political groups. As has started to be shown, there has been more recent literature that analysis events in Irish history as potential cases of genocide. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it's worth, I have no strong opinion on the specific inclusion of the great famine in the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to moving information to the great famine article, despite Jonathan's characterisation, it is based on Jonathan's suggestion that the information be moved there that it has now been moved. --Cdjp1 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the comments left by The Banner, who's quite concerned with my tone, and Gawaon, who brings up a minor penalty I received that's got nothing to do with this article, I think it's best these two not participate in the discussion. This should be about sources and rules, not personal critiques of me. The dispute was primarily between myself and Cdjp1 anyway.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as moderator for discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. See Be Specific at DRN. State in detail what you want to change about what is said about the opinions of historians on whether the Irish famine is considered to be genocide. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who is blocked from article space but is not blocked from talk space or project space is in good standing to participate in a discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to all the rules, and I'll try to make this brief.

The section in question contains a number of scholars who lack relevant backgrounds, and should be removed on the grounds that the theory's widely rejected by historians of Britain and Ireland. Neysa King was removed from the main Irish Famine article after myself and another editor realized she wasn't a professional academic (see talk). King nevertheless acknowledges that: '"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."'[5] Mark McGowan similarly notes: ""The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."[6] Cormac O Grada: "While no academic historian continues to take the claim of genocide seriously, the issue of blame remains controversial." (p. 4 [7]). Liam Kennedy: "“In the case of the Great Famine no reputable historian believes that the British state intended the destruction of the Irish people.."[8][9]

In addition to King (who is still cited in this article), Cdjp1 cited a couple of genocide scholars (who study famines in Africa), two lawyers with no academic background in Irish history (as noted in the article on the Great Famine, but not in this article), and the lonely voice of Robbie McVeigh. Cdjp1 needs to demonstrate that this view is held by more than a tiny minority of scholars with questionable backgrounds, otherwise we are dealing with WP:Fringe. Just to reiterate my position again: Equating the Irish Famine with genocide is a fringe pov, should not be listed as an example of a pre-WWI genocide, and the recent additions Cdjp1 made to the Great Famine article in the genocide section (including linking it to the pre-WW1 genocides article) are undue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed as declined by the other editors. The other editors were notified of this thread four days ago but have not responded. DRN is voluntary, and they appear to be declining to take part. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, an RFC may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DinoGrado (talk · contribs) IDB.S (talk · contribs) Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Not Wlwtn (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Few users are changing the political party of former SriLankan PM Dinesh Gunawardene to his initial minor political party. but when he was appointed he was the leader of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna which has won the 2020 Sri Lankan general election. Reliable sources suggest that he is a member of then ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna but these users insists that his initial political party MEP as his party as the PM. However for the next PM Harini Amarasuriya the major political coalition she has contested is given as her party in the next entry. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_prime_ministers_of_Sri_Lanka#Dinesh_Gunawardena_Political_party How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Specifying a consistent policy considering reliable sources to name the political party of the prime minister in this page Summary of dispute by IDB.S edit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Obi2canibe edit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Not Wlwtn edit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by edit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka discussion edit 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.

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Titan2456 (talk · contribs)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

SheriffIsInTown added a large paragraph on the May 9 riots section under the History section of PTI, talking about one court order by a judge who implicated PTI's founder Imran Khan in starting the riots. I believe it is not WP:DUE, as it is lengthy and is not a significant event in PTI's history and is backed up by only one source. I have suggested either removing it entirely or heavily trimming it down. Sheriff has argued that it is to "balance" one of PTI's claims of a false flag operation in May 9, though the thing he is trying to balance is one sentence, while he is adding a heavyweight paragraph to "balance" it which is clearly an imbalance.

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

Talk:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf#May 9 riots ATC order

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute has reached a deadlock and SheriffIsInTown is arguing that removing it is simply 'censorship', so it would request an implementation/enforcement of WP:DUE, as well as a resolution, with an action taken with consensus to fix this lengthy, imbalanced and not due paragraph.

In August, they added a one-sided and unbalanced section titled “Crackdown against PTI,” which lacked neutrality. My aim was to add balance and neutrality to that section as a whole, not just one sentence. In my view, if the section includes details of the crackdown, it should also address the reasons behind it. They seem to want to keep only the details of the crackdown while excluding the context, which I believe is an attempt to censor information. I will oppose the removal of any reliably sourced content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as moderator if the editors are requesting moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and agree that you recognize that this is a contentious topic because the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan is applicable to Pakistani politics. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed due to lack of recent discussion. There has been no discussion on the article talk page in more than four months, so that the discussion on the article talk page is stale. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ryan T. Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Marspe1 (talk · contribs) Ttarta (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In debate over large content edits made to the page of Ryan T. Anderson. I am promoting this version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_T._Anderson&oldid=1230369906 Ttarta promotes this version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_T._Anderson&oldid=1244307532 See the line-by-line critique of his edit that I wrote here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_T._Anderson#Line-By-Line_Critique_of_Edit_Promoted_by_Ttarta Ttarta has threatened my account with action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marspe1#Warnings I am newish to Wikipedia and would appreciate assistance from experienced editors. I have tried to maintain the article in ideological neutrality and I sincerely believe that I have followed Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my abilities. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? We have engaged on the talk page with more heat than light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_T._Anderson#Line-By-Line_Critique_of_Edit_Promoted_by_Ttarta. I have added my concerns in detail to the edit he promotes. He claims that I am engaged in mere edit warring, am implementing a biased version of the article, and am in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. I am unsure of the validity of or deny the validity of each of these claims. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Calling balls and strikes on policy violations whether by myself or Ttarta, providing advice for future engagement and editing on Wikipedia whether or not I am indeed in violation, recommendations for how we can achieve greater consensus on the article content, and any other action that will ultimately place accurate information, free from loaded language and innuendo, on the text of Ryan's page. Summary of dispute by Ttarta edit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ryan T._Anderson discussion edit 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 yet notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] 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.

  – New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Southasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs)
• GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs)
• Simonm223 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Primarily determining the public figure/profile status of a person named Arsh Dalla. Both GhostOfDanGurney and Simonm223 are invoking WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:COATRACK for this figure despite me highlighting numerous sources reporting on this individual since at least January 2023-thus fulfilling the requirement laid out in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, sources in which Dalla has actively sought media attention by speaking to prominent journalists in which he himself confessed to killing people thus making him ineligible to be considered a low profile person as per WP:LOWPROFILE, and naturally these confessions would make the media report on him. In addition, there is significant precedence and a near ubiquitous norm in Wikipedia crime articles in which a person accused of a well documented crime, who has not attained any notability outside their alleged criminal activity, whose conviction status is pending or criminal proceedings are underway, is named, the allegations against them are openly discussed, and their backgrounds exhaustively discussed. Simonm223 contests that to discuss accusations against a person, we must first establish notability independent of any accusations of criminal activity, and if lacking, establish that they have been convicted of a crime, to proceed. I have yet to come across any policy page which outlines such criteria.

Also if a volunteer could clarify: how long am I allowed to make my section? And what are the rules for responding to others?

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Through neutral mediation

My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist.

Even if Dalla had a Wikipedia article, I would have still made that revert per WP:COATRACK/WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. I believe that section of the article already has sufficient (if not already overly sufficient) coverage on the unproven allegations of militancy (mostly via "Nijjar was friends with x, y, and z"). Adding this "breaking news" content on the arrest (just an arrest) of Dalla was unneeded piling-on (another "coat", per COATRACK). Similarly, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, specifically 1) WP:NOTGOSSIP, because Dalla and Nijjar's connection was also only alleged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the core of this dispute is whether a BLP can become a WP:PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of media attention for a crime they have not been convicted of. It is not disputed that Arsh Dalla has spoken to the press... Regarding the crimes he has been accused of in India and for which Canada has declined extradition. However this media coverage is only because of the high profile India has placed on him as the suspect of a crime. He is otherwise an unremarkable plumber from Surrey. In light of the strong language in WP:BLPCRIME regarding discussing unproven accusations against private people it is my contention that it is inappropriate to discuss him in a Wikipedia article or, frankly, at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]