Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
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.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
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:
Open/close quick reference
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Evanescence | Closed | Widgetkid (t) | 17 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 9 hours |
| Ayyubid dynasty | In Progress | Nobedarê Dunav (t) | 13 days, 19 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 4 hours | KurdishFalconeer (t) | 18 hours |
| 2025 Africa Cup of Nations | In Progress | DimaMaghrib34 (t) | 3 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 hours | Liam788 (t) | 1 hours |
| Michael Shellenberger | Closed | PerpetualPomegranate (t) | 2 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 8 hours |
| Premier League Cup (football) | New | Snowflake91 (t) | 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 9 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Current disputes
[edit source]Evanescence
[edit source]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. An RFC is being used to resolve the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Another editor (MFTP Dan) and myself have found ourselves bordering on an edit war with Lapadite, who has repeatedly reverted edits to the page's timeline. There is no published guidance for how the order of band members is displayed in a timeline. MFTP Dan and I think it should be organized by instrument, which is the most common way it's handled on other rock band pages. Lapadite thinks it should be strictly by timeline, with instruments ignored for the purpose of band member order. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I came into the discussion as a neutral third party and tried to help, but to no avail. My impression is Lapadite is showing WP:OWNership, but I'd like someone more experienced to help us get to a good resolution. Summary of dispute by MFTP Dan[edit source]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Lapadite[edit source]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Widgetkid has repeatedly mischaracterized this, now here and previously on the Evanescence talk page in order to devalue my policy-based arguments. First, this matter stems from (the typical scenario on WP of) someone seeing a band article with a timeline image that's arbitrarily grouped by instrument colors, and copying that style onto other articles assuming that that is a correct, official standard. Consequently, a number of band articles become populated with the same timeline image style and it's then assumed that WP:OTHERCONTENT rules and all band articles must invariably follow this "preference" of a timeline image using a random grouping of members by instruments, despite there being no guideline about this or community consensus. Several years prior (circa 2022), MFTP Dan (formerly DannyMusicEditor) and I had discussed and disagreed on this; no further discussion was had or a community consensus. My position is simple, based on neutrality and taking subjectivity/bias out of it. A timeline is by definition a chronological order of events. Band members sections list members in chronological order (the order in which they joined a band). A supplementary image of the members list should reflect the same chronological order that members are listed in. Re-imagining a timeline image to group members by the colored instruments/roles makes it an arbitrary, subjective, non-neutral selection, instead of the image being what it's meant to be: a supplementary visual timeline of the members list, which is neutral, objective, as well as useful for readers; a chronologically-presented timeline image allows readers to see at a glance three things: the order in which each member joined (which readers instinctively expect to see when looking at a timeline), for how long each member played in a band (which also shows if a band's recent members or older members have lasted longer in the band), and what instrument(s) they used during their time in the band. Chronological order of members is inherently neutral and objective, not subject to interpretation or editor bias, and easy to digest and useful for readers. Per policy, WP content should be presented in a neutral way, which includes the structure of content. And, per policy, in the absence of a guideline community consensus should determine how to go about it. During the discussion on the Evanescence talk page, I recommended seeking a community consensus (such as an RfC) per policy, which Widgetkid repeatedly ignored (as well as implied WP's policies and guidelines don't arbitrate) and reverted the article again despite no change in the discussion. The chronology of this matter:
Evanescence discussion[edit source]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)[edit source]I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Two editors have made statements, but, if I am reading the statements and the history correctly, the two editors who have made statements agree with each other, and the other editor, who disagrees, has not made a statement. We will proceed with discussion, and if one editor does not participate, I will give instructions as to how to continue to proceed. Please read DRN Rule A, which is the ruleset that will be in effect for discussion. I usually start by asking the editors what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. I see that there is a dispute over the order of the musicians in the timeline. Are there any other parts of the article that are in dispute? I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. I am aware that I am probably asking the editors to restate what they have already stated. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Evanescence)[edit source]First statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)[edit source]I will remind the editors that we should comment on content, not contributors, and that Assume Good Faith is a basic guideline. Lapadite has stated their position, and has requested an RFC on how to organize the timeline. Making that request now is more useful than discussing at length and concluding that an RFC is needed. So I will prepare an RFC with the assistance of the parties. I am asking each editor to prepare a timeline in a sandbox, so that I can put the two timelines into the RFC for comparison. That is the next step. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Evanescence)[edit source] Here is my proposed version of the timeline, which follows the pattern of other rock band articles. WidgetKid Converse 21:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC) Second statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)[edit source]I have composed a draft RFC in a subpage. It is available for review at Talk:Evanescence/RFC on Timeline. Please review the draft RFC and let me know whether this correctly states the question. Please do not vote or comment in the draft RFC, because it is not a live RFC. When I launch it, it will become a live RFC and you may vote in it and comment in it. Please comment here, in DRN, on whether it states what the issue is. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Evanescence)[edit source]Belatedly here is my version of the timeline. Unfortunately I did not get enough time yesterday to address this. Widgetkid's is an acceptable presentation in my opinion, it is absolutely a leap in the right direction. I think we could go further, though. Often, touring members are temporary and do not join the bands they play with; in Evanescence's case, every one of them has gone on to join full-time. Traditionally, these temporary touring members are not added to the timeline, consistent with how the infobox represents touring members. I think this would be a smart preventative measure in case they got such a member to prevent confusion going forward by removing the "touring" tenure from the timeline, but keeping the note in the member list. Thus, my preference would end up looking something like this:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFTP Dan (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Third statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)[edit source]I see that there are slight difference between Timeline B and the timeline that is shown here by MFTP Dan and WidgetKid. Should I edit the draft RFC to change Timeline B, or is this a third proposed timeline, a Timeline C? I am assuming that this is a revised Timeline B, but I want to be sure. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Evanescence)[edit source]Fourth statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)[edit source]I am still not sure whether the editors want the RFC to consist of two options or of three. I have changed Timeline B. If there is a desire for three timelines, please provide both of them distinctly. The current version of the RFC is in Talk:Evanescence/RFC_on_Timeline. Please let me know whether you want either a third timeline or any tweaks. If there is a question about touring members, please let us know what the question is. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Evanescence)[edit source]Fifth statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)[edit source]If there are no objections or requested tweaks, I will launch the RFC. The current version of the RFC is in Talk:Evanescence/RFC_on_Timeline. Please let me know whether you want either a third timeline or any tweaks. Otherwise, we can either continue to discuss touring members, or we can close this thread and reopen it after the RFC is closed to discuss touring members. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Evanescence)[edit source]Sixth statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)[edit source]I had written Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Evanescence)[edit source]
|
Ayyubid dynasty
[edit source]
– 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
Users involved
- Nobedarê Dunav (talk · contribs)
- Jackhanma69 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A content dispute over the Origins section of the Ayyubid dynasty article. The disputed material, drawn from Encyclopaedia Iranica, concerns: 1. The historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group, described in Encyclopaedia Iranica as originally of Arab descent and subsequently Kurdicized, as relevant context for Ayyubid origins. 2. Minorsky's hypothesis, included by R.S. Humphreys in Encyclopaedia Iranica's Ayyubids entry, that the Rawādīya Kurds may descend from the Arab general Rawwād al-Azdī 3. The politically motivated Arab genealogies sponsored by some Ayyubid rulers, as described in Encyclopaedia Iranica Both editors agree the Ayyubids were Kurdish. The dispute is solely over whether this additional sourced material may appear in the Origins section with appropriate attribution. The opposing editor has repeatedly removed the material citing WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS, claiming a June 2025 Talk archive established consensus against inclusion. That archive consists of a brief exchange between a small number of editors with no clear final agreement. A Third Opinion was sought; the volunteer raised cross-article consistency concerns but did not address the genealogies point at all. An RFC was filed but expired without comments. Administrator Al Ameer son stated in a December 2020 discussion on this talk page that including Minorsky's theory with attribution and the Ayyubid-sponsored genealogies would not constitute undue weight. The opposing editor's own RFC response implicitly concedes the genealogies can appear somewhere in the article, arguing only about placement rather than excludability.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Someone preferably with experience in the topic area reviewing the Talk page discussion and assessing whether the proposed wording appropriately reflects Encyclopaedia Iranica with attribution and due weight, and whether the genealogies material in particular warrants inclusion in the Origins section given that its exclusion has never received a policy-based justification from the opposing editor.
Summary of dispute by Jackhanma69
[edit source]The core issue is due weight (WP:UNDUE), not whether the material can be included at all.The primary consensus, based on Ibn Khallikān and reinforced by modern scholarship, is that the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin (Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya from Dvin). This should remain the main statement in the Origins section.Boris James (2006, p. 48) explicitly states that the Rawâdiyya were Hadhbâni Kurds who took the name of their masters because they served them:“des Kurdes hadhbâniyya qui prirent le nom de leurs maîtres : Rawâdiyya” This is name adoption through service, not blood descent. The opposing editor has repeatedly ignored this key sentence while quoting other parts of the page.Minorsky’s 1953 hypothesis is highly tentative (“perhaps”, “tempting to think”, “somehow connected”) and has not become mainstream. Encyclopaedia Iranica presents it as speculation. Giving it significant space in the Origins section would violate due weight by elevating a 70-year-old minority view.
Ayyubid dynasty discussion
[edit source]Zeroth statement by volunteer (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]I am ready to conduct moderated discussion if the editors want moderated discussion. I am not sure that I am the right person to deal with this dispute, because one of the editors has requested someone with experience in the topic area. I will try to find a WikiProject where there can be discussion. In the meantime, please read DRN Rule A, which is the ruleset that we will follow until I find another leader or moderator. I will ask each editor to state, concisely, what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Identifying what the content dispute is will be useful either if I conduct moderated discussion, or if we find an editor with more experience.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for opening the discussion. Could you let us know how you would like to proceed? Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]I would like the Origins section to include the following material, drawn from Encyclopaedia Iranica, with appropriate attribution:
- First, that some Ayyubid rulers sponsored genealogies claiming noble Arab descent; Iranica explicitly describes these as politically motivated fabrications. This is historical fact about the dynasty's own self-presentation and has not been disputed on policy grounds by the opposing editor.
- Second, the historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group, which Iranica describes as originally of Arab descent and subsequently Kurdicized, as documented context for Ayyubid origins.
- Third, Minorsky's hypothesis, included by R.S. Humphreys in Iranica's Ayyubids entry, that the Rawādīya Kurds may descend from this Kurdicized Arab lineage, clearly attributed and framed as speculative.
The Kurdish identity of the Ayyubids is not in dispute and would remain the primary statement in the section. All proposed additions would be clearly attributed and secondary. The proposed wording was outlined in the RFC filed on 4 April 2026. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- The Kurdish tribal origin of the Ayyubids (Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya from Dvin) is the clear primary consensus based on Ibn Khallikan and modern scholarship. This should be the main statement in the Origins section. Minorsky’s hypothesis is highly tentative and outdated. The Arab genealogies are explicitly described by Encyclopaedia Iranica as politically motivated fabrications. Giving them prominent space in the Origins section would violate WP:UNDUE by elevating speculative or fictional claims over the established historical origin. Jackhanma69 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]The filing editor had requested a review by an editor with some experience in the area. I have requested assistance at two WikiProjects, and have not gotten it yet. It appears that we are in agreement that reliable sources agree that the Ayyubids were of Kurdish origin, and that is not the issue. The main question appears to be whether to include the Arab genealogies and to note that they are politically motivated fabrications, or not to mention them at all. Another question is whether to mention Minorsky's hypothesis, or whether it is considered outdated. Please clarify whether my understanding of the issues is correct.
Do the editors want to wait for someone with experience in the subject area, or do the editors want to begin moderated discussion? Discussion should be subject to DRN Rule D, because Kurds and Kurdistan is a contentious topic.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, your summary is largely correct (please let me know if this is the incorrect section to reply under), just one additional point:
- There is also a third element alongside the genealogies and Minorsky: the historical background of the Rawadiya/Rawwadid group, which Iranica [[3]] describes as originally of Arab descent and subsequently Kurdicized. This matters because it is the documented historical process that gives both the genealogies and Minorsky's hypothesis their context, without it, neither makes much sense to a reader encountering the Origins section for the first time.
- Regarding finding a volunteer with topic area experience, I had anticipated that might prove difficult given how specialized this area is. If no one comes forward, I am comfortable proceeding with your moderation. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input and for moderating.Yes, your summary is mostly correct. Both sides agree that the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin (Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya from Dvin, per Ibn Khallikān). The dispute is about whether to include:
- Minorsky’s 1953 highly tentative speculation about a possible indirect connection to the Rawwadids.
- The later Ayyubid-sponsored Arab genealogies (which reliable sources describe as politically motivated fabrications).
- I believe the Origins section should focus on the primary consensus. Minorsky’s hypothesis is outdated and extremely cautious (“perhaps”, “tempting to think”). Boris James (2006, p. 48) explicitly states that the Rawâdiyya were Hadhbâni Kurds who took the name of their masters because they served them.
- Jackhanma69 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]Second statement by volunteer (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]It appears that there is agreement that the mainstream viewpoint is the tribal Kurdish origin of the Ayyubids, and that there are three minority or fringe viewpoints:
- 1. Genealogies involving noble Arab descent, which are generally viewed as politically motivated fabrications.
- 2. The historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group, who are described by some as of Kurdicized Arab origin.
- 3. Minorsky's hypothesis.
Is the question whether to include the minority viewpoints? Can someone please restate Minorsky's hypothesis? I am not sure how it differs from the theory of Kurdicized Arabs. Is the question whether to include the minority viewpoints, or whether to omit them?
If the question is whether to include the minority viewpoints, then I see two possible solutions. The first is that a neutral editor can offer an opinion. I am willing to offer an opinion, but only if the editors agree to accept it. If I offer an opinion, and one of the editors disagrees, we will still need dispute resolution, but I will no longer be neutral, so I do not want that situation. The second is that I can formulate a three-question RFC, on whether to mention each of the three alternative viewpoints as a minority viewpoint.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Firstly I do want to flag one framing issue before we proceed, as it may affect how the dispute is assessed.
- The three elements are not equivalent in their scholarly standing, and I think grouping them together as "minority or fringe viewpoints" somewhat prejudges the question. The Arab genealogies are not a viewpoint about Ayyubid origins at all, they are a documented historical fact about the dynasty's own political behavior. Iranica explicitly calls them fabrications, which is exactly why mentioning them is appropriate: we would be documenting that the Ayyubids sponsored fictitious genealogies, not endorsing those genealogies. From what I know that'd be normal standard encyclopedic treatment of a dynasty's self-presentation, yet opposing editor never provided a policy-based reason for excluding them despite being asked repeatedly throughout this dispute.
- The Rawadiya background is similarly presented by Iranica as established historical fact, not interpretation. The opening sentence of the Rawwadids entry describes them as "a family of Arab descent" that became Kurdicized. That is the source's own framing.
- Minorsky's hypothesis is the one element that genuinely qualifies as a scholarly interpretation, and I have always been willing to present it as clearly speculative and attributed. Minorsky's hypothesis, as presented by Humphreys in Iranica, is essentially this:
- The Ayyubids descended from the Rawādīya, a Kurdish clan. But where did the Rawādīya themselves come from? Minorsky argues they may originally have been Arabs who became Kurdish over time. Specifically, he connects them to the Arab general Rawwād al-Azdī, who was governor of Tabriz around 815 AD. His descendants, Minorsky argues, gradually assimilated into Kurdish tribal society, hence "Kurdicized", and by the late 10th century had become the dominant clan within the Hadhbānīya confederation in Azerbaijan. One branch of this group eventually settled near Dvin, which is exactly where Shadhi, the Ayyubid progenitor, came from.
- Humphreys quotes this directly: "Minorsky argues that the Rawādīya Kurds should perhaps be connected to the descendants of the Arab general Rawwād Azdī, who was governor of Tabrīz ca. 200/815. These men, having become Kurdicized, emerge in the late fourth/tenth century as the paramount clan among the powerful Haḏbānīya tribe in Azarbaijan." The payoff of the hypothesis is this line from Humphreys: "If Minorsky's speculations are sound, then the fictitious Arab genealogies of the Ayyubids not only contain a kernel of truth but preserve an authentic folk memory."
- On the RFC idea, could you say more about how you envision structuring it? A previous RFC on this very issue expired without any comments, which is main part of why I pursued DRN. I want to understand whether a DRN-formulated RFC would work differently in terms of attracting participants before committing to that route. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]For the record, a third editor, @Donkeykong71818, has recently weighed in at the expired RFC thread at the Ayyubid dynasty talk page and independently reached a similar conclusion to mine. They also examined Minorsky's Studies in Caucasian History directly and quoted page 129, where Minorsky writes: "In my opinion, the clan to which Saladin's family belonged was somehow connected with the Rawwadi family whose name may have been simplified by non-Arabs into Rawadi." This is relevant because the opposing editor has consistently characterized Minorsky's position as mere speculation, but this passage shows Minorsky stating a concluded opinion rather than an open conjecture. It was also raised the point that primary sources, including Ibn Wasil, record that Ayyubid rulers themselves denied Kurdish ancestry and claimed Arab origin, which is directly relevant context for why the genealogies and Minorsky's hypothesis appear in Iranica's Origins treatment in the first place.
I raise this not to reopen the full dispute here but because it bears on the DUE question. The claim that including this material gives undue weight to a fringe view is difficult to sustain when this direct quotation from page 129 shows that Minorsky did in fact state a concluded opinion on the matter and primary sources support a similar conclusion. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Third statement by volunteer (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]Is there agreement that the Arab genealogies and the fact that they were politically motivated fabrications should be mentioned, or is there still disagreement about them?
Will each editor please state their opinion concerning each of:
- 1. Genealogies involving noble Arab descent, which are generally viewed as politically motivated fabrications.
- 2. The historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group, who are described by some as of Kurdicized Arab origin.
- 3. Minorsky's hypothesis.
If there is still disagreement about whether to mention either the Arab genealogies or the two hypotheses, I see two ways to resolve the dispute. The first is that a neutral editor can offer an opinion. I will only offer an opinion if the editors agree that it will be binding. Alternatively, I can prepare a one-part, two-part, or three-part RFC, depending on how many of the three matters are still in dispute. There was a question about a possible RFC, and I will try to answer it, but first please restate what the question is.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- To state my position on each element:
- On the genealogies: They should be included in the Origins section. Iranica documents that some Ayyubid rulers sponsored genealogies claiming noble Arab descent and explicitly describes them as politically motivated fabrications. Noting this is standard encyclopedic treatment of a dynasty's historical self-presentation. I would note that while the opposing editor has not provided a policy-based objection to their inclusion and his RFC response implicitly conceded they can appear somewhere in the article, in practice they have been removed in every revert alongside the other material. I would not consider this element resolved until there is explicit agreement they should be added.
- On the Rawādīya/Rawwādid background: Should be included. Iranica presents this as established historical fact in its Rawwadids entry, not as interpretation or minority view, and it provides necessary context for understanding both the genealogies and Minorsky's hypothesis.
- On Minorsky's hypothesis: Should be included but with clear attribution. Minorsky is one of the foremost authorities on the medieval history of the Caucasus and Azerbaijan, and his hypothesis appears not as a footnote but as a substantive part of Iranica's own Ayyubids entry, authored by R.S. Humphreys, one of the leading historians of the medieval Islamic world. The fact that Iranica incorporates it is itself evidence it is relevant to that topic. Furthermore, as a third editor recently noted at the RFC thread, Minorsky ultimately states a concluded opinion on the matter rather than leaving it as an open question.
- Regarding a potential RFC: I am actually open to that route and would prefer it in some respects, as a properly closed RFC carries more weight and provides more stable guidance for future disputes on this topic. My only concern is that the previous RFC I filed on this same talk page expired without a single comment, so I want to understand whether a DRN-formulated RFC would be structured or advertised differently in a way that meaningfully improves the chances of participation. If you are confident it would attract responses, I am willing to proceed that way. If not, I am equally comfortable with your direct moderation and would accept your assessment. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- The Encyclopaedia Iranica Rawwadids article does not support the claim that the Kurdish Rawād/Rawādīya tribe directly descends from the Rawwadid dynasty. It says the opposite:
- “There is some uncertainty over the correct spelling… It has been suggested that it is necessary to distinguish between Rawwād, the name of the Arab family and Rawād, a later Kurdish form… The confusion probably arises from the intermarriage of the Arab Rawwād family with the Kurdish tribe of Rawād.”
- The article explicitly treats the Kurdish Rawād as a pre-existing local tribe (part of the Hadhbani confederation) that the incoming Arab Rawwād family intermarried with. This led to the dynasty’s gradual Kurdicization. It does not state that the Kurdish tribe itself originated from the Arab dynasty.
- Minorsky’s view (which you are heavily relying on) is presented as a tentative hypothesis (“tempting to think”, “somehow connected”, “in my opinion”). Even Minorsky uses cautious language and acknowledges the alternative (name adoption through association).
- More recent scholarship, such as Boris James (2006, pp. 48–49), is clearer: the Rawādīya were Hadhbani Kurds who took the name of their masters (“des Kurdes hadhbâniyya qui prirent le nom de leurs maîtres : Rawâdiyya”) because they served as auxiliaries to the Rawwadids. This is name adoption through military service, not biological descent.
- Including Minorsky’s 70-year-old speculation with the weight you propose in the Origins section would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:CONTEXT. The scholarly and medieval consensus (Ibn Khallikan, Ibn al-Athir, Humphreys, etc.) is that the Ayyubids belonged to the Kurdish Rawādīya branch of the Hadhbani tribe.
- Your proposed wording overstates and selectively quotes the sources. Please stop misrepresenting Iranica as saying the Kurdish tribe “hails from” the dynasty when the article describes intermarriage between two distinct groups. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Arab genealogies (including Umayyad claims): These should not be added to the Origins section. Reliable sources, including Encyclopaedia Iranica, explicitly describe the genealogies sponsored by some Ayyubid rulers — which claimed noble Arab descent, sometimes linking to the Umayyads or other prestigious lines — as politically motivated fabrications. We document real history in the Origins section, not fictional propaganda claims that the sources themselves reject. Mentioning them here would give undue weight to fabrications and confuse readers about the actual origins of the dynasty.
- 2. Rawwādid background (originally Arab then Kurdicized): This detailed pre-history is not due weight in the Ayyubid Origins section. The established scholarly consensus, per Ibn Khallikan and modern historians like Boris James, is that the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin (Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya Kurds from the Dvin area). The deeper background of the Rawwadids belongs in their own article.
- 3. Minorsky’s hypothesis:
This is highly tentative and outdated. Minorsky does not claim the Rawâdiyya had blood descent from the Arab Rawwadid family. He only suggests the clan was “somehow connected” with the Rawwadi family and that the name may have been simplified. This has not become mainstream. Boris James (2006) clarifies that the Rawâdiyya were Hadhbâni Kurds who took the name of their masters through service, not blood descent.
- The Origins section must focus on the clear primary consensus: the Ayyubids were a Kurdish dynasty of tribal origin. Adding material about fabrications or old minority hypotheses would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Ayyubid dynasty)
[edit source]2025 Africa Cup of Nations
[edit source] – 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
Users involved
- DimaMaghrib34 (talk · contribs)
- Liam788 (talk · contribs)
- JBW (talk · contribs)
- Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
After the conclusion of the 2025 AFCON I decided to create maps, depicting the final results per country (as is normally done for these competitions) and added them to the article in different languages. In this map, I decided to show the Western Sahara as part of Morocco after the UN Resolution 2797 [4] and as the tournament was held in Morocco, which recognises the territory as Moroccan. This led to an edit war with the other user involved, constantly undoing my edits for all the articles where I've added the map. Not only did the user remove the maps for the 2025 AFCON, but also for other maps I created, for example, for the 1976 African Cup of Nations article, in which I depicted the historical borders as they were back then. I decided to undo his reverts, but this led to him reverting it back again. Keeping the three-revert rule in mind, I made a report and gave the user a warning for vandalism. Our arguments were discussed in several talk pages (mentioned below), but we couldn't get to an agreement and therefore resort to this noticeboard. Also, this issue was mentioned extensively at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the conclusion was drawn that RS confirm my stance in this dispute.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
User talk:JBW#Edit war, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2026_world_cup_qualification_map.svg#Moroccan_borders, [File talk:2026 world cup qualification map.svg#Moroccan borders], Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Map neutrality
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think a clear answer to the question of whether these maps can be used or not, and the arguments for this answer, would help resolve this dispute. Your general opinion on this matter (including the Sahara as Moroccan territory) and an answer on the file talk page of the 2026 World Cup qualification map would also help in setting a definitive course for future maps regarding this issue.
Summary of dispute by Liam788
[edit source]Denial of involvement by JBW
[edit source]I can't see any good reason why I am named as involved. My only connection to this, as far as I know, is that messages were posted to my talk page (now at User talk:JBW/Archive 86#Edit war), but I think anyone reading my response there will see that I was totally refusing to become involved in the dispute. Nor have I any intention of getting involved now. JBW (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
[edit source]As I said on thre talk page, we go by maps produced by the governing bodies. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
2025 Africa Cup of Nations discussion
[edit source]Zeroth statement by volunteer (2025 Africa Cup)
[edit source]I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is necessary, but we first need to determine whether there is a content dispute among the participating editors. Please read DRN Rule A, which will govern our discussion if there is discussion. I understand that one of the issues, or maybe the only issue, has to do with the inclusion of certain maps, because of the Western Sahara territorial dispute. I am asking each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If the issue is about the map or maps, please state whether you want to include the maps or exclude the maps. One of the editors who is listed has not edited in six weeks and is listed as being on a wikibreak. If the editors who are taking part in this discussion are in agreement about the maps, then we will close this dispute as having a local consensus, and will deal with a future content dispute in the future.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (2025 Africa Cup)
[edit source]Hello Robert McClenon,
I apologize for my late response. I was mostly active on French Wikipedia and only saw the notification recently.
Regarding the maps in question:
Western Sahara remains a disputed territory (16 February 2026) under ongoing United Nations processes, including the extension of the MINURSO mandate until 31 October 2026.
DimaMaghrib34's maps show Western Sahara as fully integrated into Morocco without any indication that the territory is disputed. In my view, this represents a specific political position and does not sufficiently respect Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (WP), particularly regarding cartographic neutrality. Recent UN resolutions also do not appear to settle the sovereignty issue.
I therefore support not using Dima's maps and using neutral versions that clearly indicate the disputed status of Western Sahara, for both the 2025 AFCON article and historical articles such as 1976.
Liam788 (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Michael Shellenberger
[edit source] – General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed without prejudice as incompletely filed. The filing editor has not listed any other editors. Also, there has not exactly been discussion on the article talk page, because the talk page has been dominated by one editor, the filing editor. The filing editor is advised to let other editors take part in discussion. The filing editor may file a new case here after discussion and after listing and notifying the other editors. However, since the filing editor is concerned about non-neutrality, the neutral point of view noticeboard might be a better forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Premier League Cup (football)
[edit source]
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The other user is keep on reverting the sourced content regarding stadium names, because they simply don't like the fact that some stadiums are using sponsorship names. They are adding factually incorrect information, still trying to enforce the usage of old, outdated name of the stadium which was used before 2021, even though this name has been permanently ditched by the club itself and none of the sources are using it anymore.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Premier League Cup (football)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
To support the usage of actually sourced content, not the user's archaic perferences. If all provided sources in the article calls the stadium as "Stadium A", the user should not change it to "Stadium B" just because they don't like it.
Summary of dispute by I dont like cricket I love it
[edit source]Premier League Cup (football) discussion
[edit source]- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Notification on the user talk page of each editor is required for all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)