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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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 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.
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).
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.
Closed as fizzled out. Neither editor has edited in the past week. I am closing this case for now. If one editor resumes editing the article, they may edit it boldly but not recklessly, and should be prepared to discuss on the article talk page with the other editor or any third editor. If the two editors resume editing and still or again have an article content dispute, they should discuss on the article talk page. If that discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, another request may be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2025 (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.
I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.
Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:
"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"
User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.
Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.
The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:
"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"
So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).
User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
Here is the quote in question:
"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"
User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.
"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."
User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:
Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. "The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."
and:
Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 "Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, [Urartu] was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."
It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?
Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: "Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."
It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.
To the previous point, there's also the following: "Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."
Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.
There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Wikipedia is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Wikipedia appropriate?
These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Skeptical1800, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.
I had reverted your recent changes based on WP:BRD and had removed content I added that you object to based on WP:ONUS, so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical1800, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a contentious topic. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.
I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:
Removal of content from the lead. Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".[10]
Removal of content from Urartu#Appearance_of_Armenia: The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".[78]
Removal of this content, or where it should be put: These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.[9]
Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your stalking of my activities on Wikipedia is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with.
Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:
Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
Article should not include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages unless the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the Language section. It should not be in the lead.
Article should not include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of WP:UNDUE as it contradicts numerous WP:RS included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.
Be civil and concise. A few of the statements here have not be civil. I will advise the editors again to comment on content, not contributors. If you want to make allegations of stalking or of misrepresenting sources, read the boomerang essay first, and then report the conduct at WP:ANI, but we will not discuss content here while conduct is being discussed anywhere. Please use some other term than saying that an editor is misrepresenting sources, which may imply intentional misrepresentation. If you think that another editor is misinterpreting sources, you may so that.
Do any of the content issues have to do with questions about the reliability of sources? I see statements that content was removed. If an editor removed content, or wants content removed, please state whether the removal is because of source reliability issues, or due weight, or other reasons.
Please reread DRN Rule D and again say whether you agree that we will only discuss content. Please also state whether there are any questions about source reliability, and what are any other reasons for removal of content.
There is no issue with the quality of sources (although some are outdated as they were published in 1980 or before). However, the editor is misinterpreting the Areshian source ("Bīsotūn, ‘Urartians’ and ‘Armenians’ of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya"), which was explained to editor more than once. Their interpretation of said quote is that "'The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds'". While the page and sources do not claim that Urartians were Armenians, outside of the context of the full source, this statement can be confusing, and lead to WP:RS, as it is widely accepted there was an Armenian presence in Urartu.
Editor removed information derived from the following source (which was published in the same collection as the Areshian source), that suggested some of the etymologies of Urartian kings' name could be Indo-European:https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu This source was published by Archaeopress Publishing.
Please note the abstract of the above source (emphasis mine): "Some names of Urartian kings have good parallels in the Balkans, the others are etymologisable in the Indo-European ground."
Editor also removed information saying some of the Urartian kings came from a region called Armarili, which may have been located near Lake Urmia in northern Iran or may have been located near Lake Van. The section that was removed was: "According to Sargon II, the hometowns of some of the Urartian kings were located in Armarili (or Aramali) district, which was probably located to the west of Lake Urmia (perhaps near modern Salmas, Iran) or near Lake Van." The following was the source: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/18115/1/Cifciali_May2014_18115.pdf This source is a thesis published by a doctoral candidate student from the University of Liverpool who is now Assistant Professor in Ancient History at Marmara University, and was a Senior Fellow at the Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, who has published several articles on Urartian archaeology.
Here is the relevant passage: Levine (1977a: 145, Fig. 1) considered the Ushnu/Solduz Plain as a possible location of Amarili, but Zimansky (1990: 16) proposed a northerly location and considered the Shahpur (Salmas) Plain -a location in the north-west shore of the Lake Urmia.
Another relevant passage from this source is here:
Further evidence in regard to events of this period may be found in Sargon II’s ‘Letter to the God Assur’, where two different noble families were mentioned, one in the city of Arbu being ‘the father's house of Ursa’(Rusa) and the other in Riar as ‘the city of Ishtarduri’ (Sarduri).
The following source was not included, but could be, as it supports the (removed) statement on page, that some of the Urartian kings came from Armarili: Riar (Rijar), city in the Urartian province Armarili and Arbu, Urartian city in the province Armarili. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_acta_iranica_51_2012.pdf
The above source was from an academic symposium about Urartu, co-chaired by Paul Zimansky, a Urartologist, whose work the editor has cited elsewhere.
The editor misinterpreted the Areshian quote in order to suggest there was no scientific evidence linking Urartians and Armenians. However, this is in direct opposition to numerous sources already on the page (as I have referred to in other comments in this discussion thread, using excerpts from Drews and Zimansky). I added this, which was removed, even after I changed the writing to reflect the editor's suggestions: "A 2022 study found that Urartian-era samples from Hasanlu Tepe in the Lake Urmia region of northern Iran possessed ancestry patrilineally related to earlier Bronze Age samples from Armenia. Both groups were discovered to be related to the Yamnaya culture, who are commonly thought to have been the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian, however, they also said it was possible the language spoken was a non-Indo-European language. However, the study found that Urartian-era individuals from Çavuştepe on the southeastern shore of Lake Van had increased Levantine ancestry and lacked the Indo-European-related ancestry found in contemporaneous individuals from Armenia and northern Iran. The researchers suggested these distinct genetic communities could indicate the presence of Hurro-Urartian and Armenian-speaking populations and their respective geographic positioning during the Urartian-era."
Here are the cited excerpts from the source (emphasis mine):
"An even more striking case is that of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu situated in the mountainous and geographically fragmented regions of eastern Turkey and Armenia where the linguistic landscape must have been complex in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The people at the center of this kingdom in the Lake Van region of Turkey (Çavuştepe) and its northern extension in Armenia, were strongly connected by material culture, and were buried only ~200km apart, yet formed distinct genetic clusters with little overlap during the kingdom’s early (9th-8th c. BCE) period (Fig. 2). The Van cluster is in continuity with the pre-Urartian population (~1300BCE) at neighboring Muradiye also in the Van region, and is characterized by more Levantine ancestry and the absence of steppe ancestry. It contrasts with the cluster of Urartian period individuals from Armenia which have less Levantine and some steppe ancestry like the pre-Urartian individuals of the Early Iron Age (1). Our genetic results help explain the formation of linguistic relationships in the region. Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon."
Also this:
"When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran (~1000BCE), we observe that the Hasanlu population possessed some of Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry, but to a lesser degree than their contemporaries in Armenia. The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)." [...]'"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there".
The editor's rational for removal was that the area in question (northern Iran) was not part of the "core" Urartu. However, numerous sources consider this region to be Urartu, and this is the same general region where some of the Urartian kings were said be to be from, according to Sargon II (as previously discussed in above sources). In fact, the Radner source calls Armarili "a Urartian province."
Lastly, the inclusion of Hurro-Urartian potentially being connected to Northeast Caucasian languages is fine. The editor cited an excerpt from Zimansky. However, the full quote must be included (i.e. including the last two sentences). I have highlighted the last two sentences of the quote in question, which was repeatedly omitted: "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet yearlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."
Leaving the last two sentences of the above quote out give the impression that a Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection to Northeast Caucasian languages is far more certain than the full quote implies.Skeptical1800 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to start over, by asking, first, whether there is still an article content dispute. At the outset, I asked each editor what changes to the article were at issue. User: Bogazicili listed three sentences that had been removed from the article. User:Skeptical1800 provided six bullet points, four of which were about sources (two to include, two to exclude) and one of which was general. Then when I asked whether there were questions about the reliability of sources, they provided 1400 words.
Is there still an article content dispute? Do the editors agree that we can start by discussing the removal of the three sentences?
User:Bogazicili identifies three issues: first, three removals; second, wording of new additions, and third, some questions of moving material between the lede and the body. I will ask Bogazicili to restate briefly what the three removals were (I know that we have already seen them listed above), and to explain briefly what they want to add, and to explain the lede-body issues briefly. I will ask Skeptical1800 to explain briefly why they made the three removals, no more than 100 words for each removal. We can then decide, concerning the three removals, whether compromise is possible.
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.
A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea".
Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC.
Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
My argument was basically that this constitutes WP:COATRACK as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope. Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice (Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources), and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Wikipedia's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Content dispute relating to the lead of the article. The current lead gives the impression that is emphasising the connection between the Charyapadas and Bengali. The previous lead edited by myself provided a more balanced opinion using more recent, reliable sources that there is differing opinions regarding the language of the Charyapadas: [1]
I have raised this to 3rd opinion however no consensus has been reached. The other editor is now also trying to prevent edits made with reliable sources being added to the main article body.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
We need at least a few other editors to provide their opinion on both the current and previous versions of the article to help resolve this content dispute.
I have already cited half a dozen reliable sources and added quotations.
I believe the issue is not as contentious as my fellow editor is making it out to be. This editor removed this source of Ramawatar Yadav, and added unsourced content. He is persistently pushing unsourced/original research. I requested for wider discussion here. Another editor Orientls rejected this POV, But he is edit warring to re-add it. No editor is able to verify the content he is pushing, and it seems like misrepresentation of source. Scholars generally agree that Charyapada is the ancestor of three languages- Assamese, Bengali, Odia. Some scholars even include Maithili. But these opinions can not be said to be contradictory because as per scholars these languages are related to each other, or Dialect continuum. I have again quoted from reliable tertiary sources, as due weight can be easily determined from these. Please check Talk: Charyapada #DUE and TERTIARY source. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - It appears that a Third Opinion was provided. The editor who provided the Third Opinion should be included in any discussion. Also, the filing editor says that "consensus has been reached". Is that based on the Third Opinion? I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time, but any discussion should include all of the editors who have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m one of the volunteer mediators here at DRN. Thanks for providing some context on this dispute. I’ll await the other editor to post a brief summary here first, but noting my intention to take a look at this one pending that. As there’s a disagreement about the lede section, this might end up being an ideal one to use my workshop method to draft proposed revisions, but I’ll wait for the other editor. Thanks! StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!19:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this is a contentious topic with scholarly opinion divided along ethnic lines regarding the question of which particular contemporary language has the best claim to being the successor to the language that the Charyapada was written in. I wasn't able to discern myself what the appropriate weights ought to be for the different points of view (although there is quite a bit out there saying that Bengali should take it) so I suggested that they get into a mediation over it. It seems like the article already acknowledges the nuanced reality of it, how the Charyapada had contributions of authors from a variety of different dialects and vernaculars of the day, and in a time when the languages of the region had yet to differentiate into the forms we see today, making it a bit difficult to pin down a decisive answer to the contemporary dispute. I think it's important to distinguish between the original oral tradition that it probably started out with (these were chants or songs) in a variety of different vernaculars, before being ultimately written down in a particular language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuductive (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the "Private life" section, which discusses subject's marriage and extramarital relationships, concludes: "Less savory encounters are alluded to by the young woman who said, 'Promise me that whatever happens I shan't have to go home alone in a taxi with Malcolm Sargent.'" The implication of this passage is uncertain. Given the context of both article and cited source, it could either imply that the subject was a persistent womanizer or that his behavior was possibly criminal. Unfortunately, sources are also vague on this matter and open to interpretation. It seemed to me that the passage could be removed based on MOS:EUPHEMISM, MOS:WEASEL; or that the accusations needed to be substantiated or at least attributed, rather than presented in wikivoice. My edits were reverted by two other editors; in the article talk page, another has voiced their objections to my concerns. If I'm wrong on this matter or if my behavior has not been conducive to collaboration, I'm ready to apologize to other involved editors and refrain from making any further edits to this article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A proposal to either keep the passage in question as is, eliminate it, or help provide a reworded compromise version that appeases the concerns of everybody involved.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The article attempts to summarize Sargent's reputation as a cad who would, for example, touch women sexually in taxis, or at least this was such common knowledge at the time that women were afraid this would happen. It is true that the press of the time was not explicit in reporting what, exactly, Sargent did to these women, but the article summarizes the sources at no more than appropriate length (and probably more ink would be warranted about Sargent's reputation as a "bounder", but it would also suffer from the vague way in which such allegations were reported in the press of the day). Deleting the sentence would be highly misleading. The person who initiated this DRN has been requested more than once to supply any better/clearer sources that they can find, but apparently they have not found any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We have provided the complainant with an impeccable corroborative second source for the allegation that women feared to go in taxis with Sargent. The description "Less savoury" (not "savory", which is a herb) was added in March last year by an editor who has not been invited to the present discussion. The previous text (drafted by me, I think) was "More casual" but the alteration seemed and still seems to me appropriate. We cannot know precisely what Sargent was guilty of but the sources are wholly clear that it was something reprehensible and non-consensual. The complainant falsely claims in his/her last edit summary not to have access to the cited source despite being informed that it is available in the Internet Archive. (Chronological sequence of exchanges: that edit summary came before the complainant was told where to go to find the source.) Tim riley talk09:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The passage reflects the sources, which is all we can do as editors. If the sources do not go into the details, we can’t just make them up to satisfy one editor’s needs. Removal would be a poor step. These are matters that are reported in more than one source, so it would be dishonest of us to censor this aspect of the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to try to facilitate the resolution of this dispute. I will start by asking my usual opening question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or any activity intended to resolve a content dispute, is to improve the article. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. It appears that the main issue is how to summarize Malcolm Sargent's reputation for what in the twenty-first century would be called sexual harassment.
"Less savory encounters are alluded to" needs to be clearly explained per WP:EUPHEMISM. However, both sources that I've consulted (one of which is cited in the article) at best only possibly imply "sexual harassment". One which was presented in the talk page states that Sargent was a "terror to women", but this occurs in a section titled "Extramarital liaisons", the implication then that this remark was in reference to his indefatigable womanizing. The use of "bounder" in the cited source suggests as much (adultery was viewed far more negatively in Sargent's time). Affirming or even implying one interpretation over the other, however, is WP:SYNTH.
Ideally, the passage would be reworded so as to adhere strictly to what the sources say and let the reader make up their own minds. Something like: "According to the music critic Michael Kennedy, Sargent was 'a terror to women'. In a letter to George Lyttelton, Sir Rupert Hart-Davis recalled a young woman he once met at a party who approached him with a request: 'Promise me that whatever happens I shan't have to go home alone in a taxi with Malcolm Sargent'."
No other questions at this time. There were other disputes in the talk page, but this was the biggest one. I'm confident that if this is resolved, the others can be worked on in amicable collaboration. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only editor who has commented is User:CurryTime7-24, who has made what seems to be a reasonable suggestion to state exactly what the sources say that two people said about Malcolm Sargent. Does anyone disagree? If no one disagrees, I will close this discussion by saying that there is a rough consensus (one-to-zero is a rough consensus) to change the wording as proposed.
I can wait a few more days for the other editor to chime in, although their edit history suggests that they contribute sporadically and, therefore, may not reply in a timely fashion. Even if they do, the problem at hand remains: their edit merely replaced one euphemistic phrasing and synthesized implication with another. My proposed alteration is clear, adheres strictly to what the sources say, and eliminates any persuasive language or synthesis. Aside from this, I have no further questions and concerns. All other outstanding issues can be resolved amicably in the article talk page. If not, we can always come back to the DRN. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. Have I missed something, or has User:Tim riley missed something? Tim riley writes: I should feel unhappy if the editor who made the change to which CurryTime724 objects, User:Hugh7, were not consulted before his/her addition is reverted. I don't see any edits by Hugh7 either to the article or to the talk page. Please provide me with a diff or a link to the edit that CurryTime7-24 is taking issue with.
I asked if I had missed something. I missed something, and was shown something that I had missed. It was one edit, almost a year ago. I will add User:Hugh7 to the list of participants and invite them to this discussion.
I will again ask whether there is any objection to the wording proposed by User:CurryTime24-7, which maintains verifiability.
For full transparency, please note that this previously occurred. I do not know if it is relevant, and I do not know if it is proper procedure to provide this or not. But I figure it is better to over communicate than under communicate. Delectopierre (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Taylor Lorenz (a journalist) left traditional media to focus on her substack recently. She's had a substack for a long time. I noticed that the article said 'launch' her substack, so started a conversation about that on the talk page. I didn't get much engagement, so I went ahead and made the change from 'launch' to 'focus.' (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1268665510&oldid=1268399409)
Awshort seems to believe that this shouldn't be the case, and manually reverted citing a number of a policies, without participating in the talk page conversation.
I changed it back, asked them to participate, and Awshort has told me it cannot be 'focus on'.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Perhaps someone can help us have a conversation about the merits of wording it one way vs. another without anyone throwing policies and not specifying their relevance? Honestly, I'm not sure though.
Summary of dispute by delectopierre
Awshort keeps moving the goalposts. First telling me that I'm using a primary source which is not okay. I showed them that it is okay in this instance. Rather than replying with anything of substance, they then said something like 'actually it's a BPL violation, I'm reverting it.'
I asked them to revert their reversion and post a thread here so that we could discuss with someone's help.
At different times they've made reverts during conversations on the talk page, and then justified it post hoc with BPL. The fact that that type of reversion requires controversial material doesn't seem to be part of the policy they care to abide by.
I would also like to note that they were participating in other conversations on the talk page during that time, so they had plenty of opportunity to weigh in on the talk page discussion, rather than unilaterally making a change.
Summary of dispute by Awshort
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I wasn't notified on my talk page, but noticed the ping for this from the talk page. I'm unsure where we should discuss the issues with the article, since DP's issue is with wording and my issues are with othermaterial in the article that I feel has DUE issues as a whole and any attempts to edit it to be more neutral are reverted. I recently brought it to BLPN here but it ended up being DP and I discussing it with no outside help.
If you could mediate a discussion, that may help reach a common ground between us.
03:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous discussion archived
Taylor Lorenz original discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Is this primarily an issue about the choice of words? There are two editors in this dispute. A Third Opinion might be a quicker way to resolve this dispute if both parties will agree to the advice of a third editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that it’s primarily about policies. I am open to discussion with the other editor about word choice, and invited them to share their thoughts on it. Delectopierre (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DelectoPierre: The moderator suggested we go for a third opinion. As far as I can tell, there isn't really mediation here so I posted to a noticeboard to speed up the process for both of us, since Robert is busy. If I am wrong in my application of policies, I would like to know. If an outside opinion can provide guidance in how you are reading policies and agrees/disagrees with that reading, it seems like it would help.
I am willing to try to facilitate a solution to this dispute. Before we take any further action on this dispute, I am asking each editor to read the policy on biographies of living persons. I am asking each editor to make a brief statement as to what they think the issue or issues are. If there is a policy question, please ask the policy question concisely. If there is an issue about wording, I will ask my usual opening question, which is what wording in the article you want to change that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what wording in the article you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. Once each editor states what they think the issues are, I will have a better idea whether DRN is the forum for this dispute, and, if so, how to proceed.
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (Taylor Lorenz)
There are two seperate issues - the Substack section and the Harassment section. Delecto wants the wording in the substack section to read that she left to "focus on" her Substack under WP:PRIMARY (reasoning being that existence of archives on her site of past posts are "a straightforward, description of facts") I think it should reflect what multiple reliable sources and Lorenz herself labeled it as, which was that she left to "launch" her Substack, and using the before mentioned description relies on synthing and not sourcing. Does using research such as this justify ignoring what RS state, or would policy suggest we repeat what multiple reliable sources state?
The harassment section (prior discussion here) has a header that fails NPOV (coordinated attacks), is only supported through sources that are either WP:SPS or fail WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and gives undue focus to a WP:MINORASPECT of the subject. (This is not including the Carlson information) Would removing it under WP:NOCON until the NPOV issues are resolved be within policy, since it involves a BLP and the requirements for following npov are more strict? The alternative I suggested to fold the material into the article to be more neutral was rejected by Delecto previously.
Awshort (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I have read the BPL policy again, per your request Robert McClenon.
Here are the policy questions, so far as I can tell:
1. Is a primary source -- in this instance, the existence of blog posts prior to Lorenz's announcement of her substack launch -- a sufficient reliable source to word her wiki article 'focus on' vs. 'launch' regarding her substack. I say yes, Awshort says no.
I will note here the distinction between a product release and a product launch. See eg: 1, 2, 3.
2. Does WP:BLPREMOVE apply to the wording of focus on vs. launch? My reading is that it only applies to potentially contentious material, which I read as contentious to the subject of the article (as opposed to contentious on wikipedia, as that standard could then be applied to anything that was challenged on WP.) Awshort says BLPREMOVE applies (as they applied it) and I say no.
3. It would be helpful to have some clarification about consensus on talk pages. In both instances that Awshort mentions, my perspective is that during active conversations, Awshort made changes. To me, the fact that there was a conversation ongoing, implies by definition was not a clear consensus yet. I need to double check, but I recall that they were both conversations just between the two of us.
4. In both the harassment section debate, and the debate about the wording of Lorenz's substack, Awshort removed something from the article that had implied consensus and then said that the burden/onus was on me if I wanted it back in the article. Can you provide some feedback on if this is the correct use of policy? I believe that once something has implied consensus, ONUS/Burden shifts, so long as the material doesn't violate other policies.
This content dispute is about a biography of a living person, and has been described as having two parts. One part, which has to do with the phrasing to describe her effort on her blog, is an issue about possible synthesis. The other part has to do with the harassment section and is a biographies of living persons issue. I will be opening a thread at the biographies of living persons noticeboard about the issue about harassment. Please discuss there.
While we are waiting for advice from BLPN, we can discuss the issue of the wording about the blog. I have two questions for User:Delectopierre. The first is what the policy issue is that they mentioned above. The second is what their reply is to the statement by User:Awshort about synthesis amounting to original research.
Regarding the BLP section, my question would be: what will the BLP thread question be? I ask because Awshort's statement -- in my view -- contains supposition and I want to ensure the framing of the question is agreeable to all parties.
I think that my zeroth statement may suffice as a reply to @Awshort's statement about synthesis, for the most part, with the following exceptions:
Delecto wants the wording in the substack section to read that she left to "focus on" I think that 'focus on' is more accurate, however I am open to discussion about which might be better stylistically, for accuracy. etc. That said, my experience is that @Awshort would not discuss the pros/cons of the wording, and rather claimed it could not be 'focus on' on policy grounds that I do not agree with, detailed above.
The sources that Awshort claims we must use in this post, and in their statement above, all attribute their reporting to statements by Lorenz. See below (emphasis mine). Doesn't that make these WP:PRIMARY as well?
"Lorenz, who is leaving the newspaper to launch the publication, says that it will "cover technology from the user side," in contrast to traditional coverage of social media."
"Taylor Lorenz, the high-profile tech columnist for The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that she was leaving the publication to start her own subscription newsletter on Substack."
"Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post technology columnist, announced Tuesday that she is leaving the paper to launch a new publication on Substack, bringing to a close a 2½-year stint"
Additionally, prior to making my change (from 'launch' to 'focus on') I started a discussion about this exact topic on the talk page. Rather than participating in the discussion (despite participating in other discussions on the talk page) Awshort reverted my changes to the wording. I'd just like to note that this conversation should have happened there, before their changes were made. It is quite frustrating for me to have Awshort revert my changes whether I use the BRD method (for the harassment section) or attempt to discuss proposed changes first on the talk page. In both instances, Awshort cited many policies, but from my perspective, wasn't engaging in a substantive discussion.
Lastly, Awshort continues to make modifications to additions I've made on the Lorenz article. Can I request a moratorium while we're going through this process? From my perspective, it seems like an edit war, as this is the second time they have gone through and made changes to this specific sentence, with different reasoning each time. Given that I have attempted to discuss our differences, and extended an olive branch, but have been met with what I experience to be Wikilawyering, I would like to request a moratorium while in this process, at a minimum. Delectopierre (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I saw your post at BLPN after posting this reply. Given that you did not provide any framing, just pointed to the dispute, I am completely fine with it. Again, apologies for the delay. Delectopierre (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Extended an olive branch" by asking another user to check in with them before making edits to anything they have added/edited is WP:OWN behavior. No one is obligated to check in with another editor before making edits, and I don't get how they think it is acceptable to ask someone to do that. I've been accused so far of moving goalposts, Wikilawyering, and I would respectfully ask Robert to either close this so that we can start a conduct discussion on ANI, or emsure that Delecto sticks to content issues.
The edit I made was to reflect what a source said, and I didn't remove anything. If Delecto has a problem with editors ensuring accuracy of material they add, then I believe this needs to be discussed on a suitable noticeboard. Fixing a misquote to accurately reflect what someone states in the proper context shouldn't be that big of an issue.
I am placing this case on hold because I do not intend to mediate it any further. If another volunteer at this noticeboard is willing to take over, they may be able to help. I see that there is bad blood between User:Delectopierre and User:Awshort, and that Delectopierre has reported Awshort to WP:ANI for harassment a second time. I am aware that this is said to be an unrelated topic, but I am not ready to try to handle a content dispute between two users when there is also a conduct dispute between them. Either another volunteer who will take this case, who either knows how to work with hostile editors, or who does not care about the hostility between editors, or no other volunteer will take this case, in which case it will be archived while it is still on hold. I advise the editors to discuss the BLP issue at BLPN, and to read the boomerang essay before filing any more reports at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. I've collapsed the prior conversation and while I'll review, prefer a fresh start. I'll need a day to review the discussions and then will come back with my thoughts/next steps. Thanks! StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!20:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
As said at WP:RSN, I want to include the sentence "in the fifteenth century, the mathematician al-Kashi was the first to give a general proof for any triangle with the introduction of trigonometry" that has been reworded by the volunteer who answered me, with the 2 sources that have been dubbed reliable there, Jacobolus disagrees with that.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said repeatedly, I believe this statement to be factually inaccurate. The previous statement was unacceptably vague and also in my opinion misleading. Wikaviani: you should try actually engaging with my arguments on the talk page instead of constantly changing the subject, edit warring to re-insert your preferred new text without consensus, and now venue shopping. I doubt anyone who stops by here is going to have significant familiarity with the history of trigonometry. If you want more eyeballs, it's more useful to ask for help somewhere like WT:WPM where the participants are knowledgeable and interested about mathematics (though few if any are mathematical historians). But for anyone reading here, the context is:
Well, I already told you that it's quite odd how you say the opposite of what reliable sources say about the works of these scholars. All your comments at Talk:Law of cosines are pure speculation and based on your POV. The works of those scholars are in Arabic, a language that I do not speak and, besides, humbly, analyzing primary sources is the job of secondary sources, a task that is beyond my competences. Also, with all due respect, I'm not inclined to continue to discuss with someone who repeatedly accuses me of political agenda, this kind of remarks are deterring and non constructive, sorry. I came here because I was advised to do so at WP:ANEW.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)14:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I've participated a tiny bit at Talk:Law of cosines; I agree with jacobolus here, pretty much. The proposed statement is not backed up by adequate sources, and it is just about as vague and confusing as the one it replaced. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I shot an email to Glen Van Brummelen asking for his thoughts about this question. I have gotten email replies from him in the past, but he's pretty busy and my questions to him weren't completely trivial, so I don't have any particular expectations for a reply (but I'll keep my fingers crossed). –jacobolus(t)18:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The proposed statement is not backed up by adequate sources" : The sources seem to be ok according to WP:RSN.
"The statement is just about as vague and confusing as the one it replaced" : I can understand that "suitable for modern usage", that is used by Pickover though, might be a bit vague, but I really don't see any vagueness in this new statement. Again, as I asked you at Talk:Law of cosines, if that sentence is not convenient for you, why don't you propose another one ?---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)18:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "a bit vague"; it's completely free of content and meaning. I have no idea what Pickover was trying to say. Phrasing like with the introduction of trigonometry is obscure and unhelpful, too. Why doesn't the proposition in Euclid qualify as "trigonometry"? Why is the dividing line between trigonometry and not-trigonometry drawn at al-Kashi and not either earlier or later? How does any reader benefit from having an assertion about "the introduction of trigonometry" or "modern usage" dropped into the article, when the article already explains what al-Kashi actually did? It seems to me that you are asking for little tweaks of phrasing or word choice, but there's no way that little tweaks of phrasing or word choice can fix a sentence that is fundamentally unclear and extraneous. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Firstly, please stop flooding this noticeboard with your comments, you should have posted your comments at Talk:Law of cosines.
Secondly, I will say it for the 3rd time, if you disagree with that specific sentence, please go ahead and make another proposal. Finally, Euclid never used trigonometry in his works, because the law of cosines requires trigonometric functions like cos and sin that were introduced in India about 10 centuries after Euclid's lifetime, ask Jacobolus, he seems to be an expert in the study of primary sources, not me, I go by what reliable published sources say. I will not comment or answer to any other post of you guys here before an uninvolved volunteer steps in. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)19:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as "trigonometry" is quite subjective, but often the dividing line is put at Hipparchus (mostly as transmitted to us in Ptolemy's Almagest) who, it is thought, synthesized Mesopotamian arithmetical/metrical methods related to arc lengths with Greek geometrical ones. However Hipparchus's (and Ptolemy's etc.) work was based on chords rather than sines, so some people might move their concept of "modern" trigonometry to medieval India, the Islamic Golden Age, Renaissance Europe, or even to the 18th century, since there has been significant change through time and across cultures in concepts, methods, notation, and point of view. –jacobolus(t)19:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are presuming that a proposal is necessary. I have proposed no alternative because I do not share that presumption. I do not believe that any sentence of the sort that you are calling for is either necessary or warranted. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - Two editors, the filing editor and another editor, are listed here. However, three editors took part in the discussion at the article talk page, and the third editor has also offered an opinion here. Is there a reason why the third editor was not listed in this filing? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - Okay. The filing editor was advised to try DRN. Another editor has offered an opinion. Is there a reason why their opinion is being ignored by the filing editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of XOR’easter was expressed 8 days ago and no other comment from that editor was posted at the article’s talk page until today, several hours after I filed this report, this is why XOR’easter isn't listed here. Besides, another opinion was expressed at WP:RSN by the volunteer who handled my request and the phrasing of the sentence has been changed in the meantime.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)20:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Law of cosines)
I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion if the editors are ready for moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to these rules. Be civil. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and the editors will answer my questions. Address your answers to the moderator and the community. Do not make any reports or inquiries at other noticeboards.
I have forgotten all the higher math that I learned in college. I have not forgotten the math that I learned in high school.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state exactly what language in the article you want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what language you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not explain why you want to make the change or why you disagree with the change. We can discuss that later. For now, tell me and the community what language in the article there is disagreement about.
In my opinion, the current text of Law of cosines § History discussing Jamshīd al-Kāshī's contributions are sufficient and don't need to be extended by further claims of al-Kashi's priority. What I aimed to do in writing the current version of this section is explicitly describe/explain what al-Kashi did and how it relates to earlier work, and let readers draw their own conclusions.
I believe it is problematic to say that al-Kāshī was any of:
"first" to prove this relation (not true, a clear proof found in Euclid, and in many other sources in between Euclid and al-Kāshī – and in my opinion al-Kāshī's text does not constitute a "proof" per se)
"first" to use it to solve triangles (not true, that was done many centuries earlier, e.g. by al-Bīrūnī)
"first" to use it as part of a systematic description of ways of solving any arbitrary triangle (not true, we can find this e.g. in Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī's book, and there might be even older sources I don't know about)
"first" to explicitly involve sines and cosines, or "trigonometry" (not true, we can clearly find that also in al-Ṭūsī's book)
"first" to make the statement "modern" (undefined and in my opinion substantially misleading, since notation and conventions have changed dramatically and the form of the typical 20th–21st century presentation is substantially different)
I do not believe the sources given for adding statements to the effect of any of the above were adequate, and in some cases were being used to make claims not found in the sources. I reverted addition of such sentences primarily because I think such claims are inherently problematic (with or without sources), but in general I am opposed even to adding claims along the lines of "so-and-so author says that al-Kāshī was first to XYZ", because I don't think they are helpful to readers, and may be misleading.
I even think it's problematic to say that al-Kāshī was the "first" to write this as a single trigonometric formula, since al-Kāshī himself does not claim any priority or state that his presentation is novel, and claiming that he was first is not a provable claim (though it might be disprovable by discovery/closer examination of earlier documents); it is entirely plausible that earlier authors already wrote the same thing in roughly the same manner, in books that are no longer extant or remain unrecognized in some obscure archive of ancient manuscripts. In general, claiming "firsts" in the history of science is a risky business, and such claims are often falsified by new historical research.
I think we should stick to what is known, and explain it, instead of speculating about things that are unknowable, to give readers the clearest idea we can of the state of current historical knowledge. Statements along the lines of "Euclid's Elements contains the statement A. This was used for B by al-Bīrūnī. al-Ṭūsī recommended a systematic method including C. al-Kāshī wrote this in form D. Viète turned sentences of prose into a more concise notation of form E." Etc. Readers can make up their own minds about what the relationship is between these different approaches, we don't need to tell them what interpretation to make. –jacobolus(t)19:20, 7 February 2025 (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.
User JPratas has been reverting my edits and those of another user called "Joséángel006" despite referencing credible sources including his own sources that he is using to revert the edit of myself and the other user (Joséángel006). The issue at hand is as follows: JPratas has been refusing to acknowledge that the term "thousands" is well-documented in the case of the famous Holocaust rescuer Aristides de Sousa Mendes concerning the number of visas issued.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please look at the evidence provided on the talk page. You will see exact quotes given from multiple reputable historians, including from one of JPratas' main sources (Avraham Milgram).
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispute is about whether the article should say that Aristides issued an undetermined number or thousands of visas. Recently I had the opportunity to have a look at many reliable sources regarding Aristides de Sousa Mendes, which I quoted on the Talk page of the article.
Thank you for taking a look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joséángel006 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to facilitate moderated discussion between editors if they are ready for discussion. Please read DRN Rule C and indicate whether you agree to these rules. Be civil, comment on content not contributors, and do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask questions, editors will answer. Do not make any reports / inquiries at any other noticeboard. - skully! (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 36th season of Simpsons some episodes are released exclusively on Disney+, but they are part of season an must be listed like standard episodes, like it is now. Those aren't movies or shorts, they're episodes with regular production codes and normal episode lenghth, they just aired on a different platform. If some sources just list and count the network episodes, let them do that. Another user (U-Mos) says they must be separated.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I suggested Lado may wish to proceed with dispute resolution here as he was not satisfied with the previous third opinion, kindly provided by Sophisticatedevening, which indicated that the substance of my bold edit (listing the Disney+ episodes below those broadcast on Fox) should stand. I believe I've been clear at the linked talk page why this change is supported by the weight of secondary sources, which crucially show that the four episodes in question were an entirely separate commission to the Fox broadcast season, in addition to their separate release/marketing. Sources differ on the episode numbering within the season, as has been shown through the talk page discussion. I am happy to adjust for Lado's objection to listing the episodes under the term "specials", per this version (currently reverted, as Lado re-engaged with the discussion). U-Mos (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick additional note following Lado's edit to the dispute summary: I do think that's a very straw man argument and a misrepresentation of the matter. I am not and at no point have suggested that these episodes shouldn't be listed as part of the main episode table at this article, as the version link above shows. U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change anything, only did dispute overview most сlear to understand. The version link shows separated episodes, not as regular episodes, like they are listed know. Lado85 (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have made statements, and that is enough to begin moderated discussion. I am asking the editors first to read DRN Rule A. You will be assumed to have read and agreed to the rules if you post after the time of this posting. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community.
I understand that this is a dispute about the list of episodes, about some episodes that were aired on Disney rather than on Fox. What exactly is the issue? It isn't obvious to me what the issue is, which may mean that it has not been stated clearly, and needs to be restated in what may otherwise seem to be excessive detail. Is one editor asking for the Disney episodes to be listed in a separate article, or is one editor asking to break them out from the listing of the other episodes and list them in a separate block under the main list of episodes? Please state exactly how you want these episodes listed. What exactly do each of the two editors think was the opinion of Sophisticatedevening? Please state why you agree or disagree with the Third Opinion.
Disney+ episodes must be like they are now, they are regular episodes. They just aired on a different platform. The source that was provides by U-Mos (Rotten Tomatoes) just lists and counts the network episodes (based on FOX page list). It can't be used as proof (like another sources with same lists). Lado85 (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is between [2] (my version) and [3] (Lado's version). Both versions list all episodes in one table in this article; my version places the Disney+ episodes below the others, underneath a heading (originally "Specials", now adjusted to "Disney+ episodes" in response to Lado's point that no sources describe them as "Specials"). I believe that this reflects the secondary sources cited in the article, that clearly demonstrate the separate commissioning, promotion and release of the episodes by different networks, i.e. that the Disney+ episodes are distinct from the Fox broadcast season. My understanding of the third opinion is that it supports my version, stating that "a reasonable compromise is to have them at the bottom under 15" (15 here refers to the most recent broadcast episode, "The Flandshees of Innersimpson"). U-Mos (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And still, there is no source, that proofs this episodes must be placed below the others. This is only U-Mos's own opinion. No one more supports this version. The sources, you arl talking counts only the network episodes, but this isn't proof that Disney episodes are not regulars. They aren't movies or shorts, they're episodes with regular production codes and normal episode lenghth, they just aired on a different platform. Lado85 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this is a dispute over how to arrange the listings of the episodes in the table. Disputes over the formatting of tables are often remarkably intense, but do not really affect the accuracy of the information in the encyclopedia, and so are good candidates for a Third Opinion. I will again ask each editor to restate what they think was the Third Opinion of User:Sophisticatedevening, and also to state why they agree or disagree with the Third Opinion. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and do not respond to the post of the other editor. Please answer my questions.
Am I correct that the two versions also differ in the Number in Season, because one version includes the Disney episodes in the numbering, and the other does not assign them numbers within the season?
I disagree with Third Opinion of User:Sophisticatedevening, she said episodes must be removed at all if there is no sources, that confirmed any version. I provided sources when all episode are listed together.
Disney episodes have regular in season an overall numbers and regular production codes. Only difference is airing network.
I broadly agree with the third opinion. Sophisticatedevening states that the episodes should be mentioned in the article, which I certainly agree with. They then suggest the "reasonable compromise" of listing the episodes in question at the bottom, which concurs with my version (linked above). They then discuss the sources and notion "official" information, in light of the most recent direction of the talk page discussion at that time, emphasising that secondary sources should be retained. My understanding is this relates to the information I was discussing at the talk page, that the four episodes were commissioned separately by Disney+ (currently cited to [4] in the article, with [5] also discussed in the talk page). Reflecting that information in the presentation of the article was my aim with this edit.
You are correct that the numbering of episodes in the season differ between the two versions. Currently, the episodes are numbered chronologically by release date, with Disney+ episodes numbered 10, 11 and 14. My edit marks these episodes (as placed below the broadcast episodes) with an "X" in place of an episode number (as they do not sit within the Fox broadcast season), and amends the numbering of the Fox broadcast episodes accordingly (e.g. "The Falndeshees of Innersimpson" becomes episode 12, rather than episode 15). I did not alter the overall episode numbers (778, 779 and 782 for the Disney+ episodes). We have established on the talk page that sources differ on these episode numberings: some count only the Fox broadcast episodes, some match the current version of the article, and at least one combines the Christmas two-parter (Disney+ episodes) as a single "episode 10". Given these discrepancies, I consider the consistent and clear information regarding the episodes' commission/release to be of greater importance. I am happy to discuss this aspect further. U-Mos (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am about to ask the editors at WikiProject Television for their comments on the formatting of a television season episode list when there were different networks for a season. This referral will be less intensive of volunteer labor than a Request for Comments. After I see how that referral progresses, I will decide whether to put this discussion on hold, to close this discussion as referred to the WikiProject, or to resume discussion following input from the WikiProject.
Closed as premature. The request for a Third Opinion was declined both because there had been more than two editors, and because of inadequate previous discussion. The requirement of prior lengthy inconclusive discussion is also applicable to DRN, and there still has not been lengthy discussion. The filing editor also has failed to notify the other editors; a reminder would be in order if that were the only issue, but more discussion is needed. Resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Bell number. If further discussion does not resolve the issue, a new request can be filed here. I am willing to offer a Fourth Opinion (or Fifth Opinion, if another editor joins the discussion at the talk page) in place of mediation if a new request is made. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2025 (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.
I think the word "genji-ko" written in Bell number#History is MOS:UL, so I rewrite "medieval Japan" as "medieval Japanese incense art which is called Kōdō, but this rewrite is reverted because "I don't think it's relevant to this particular article that the parlor game in question is part of a broader Japanese tradition of discerning incense scents (the topic of the link) and so I think that going on about this irrelevant material is an unneeded and unwanted distraction from the article ". I hope know applicable conditions of MOS:UL in historic trivia in mathematics article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
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.
Yesterday, I rewrote and significantly expanded the article on the composer William Walton's Second Symphony. Because nearly the entire article was new (see the page statistics), it seemed acceptable to use the citation style that I'm familiar with, although to be honest this was not a matter I had considered beforehand. Earlier today, another editor disputed the rewrite and the use of a new citation style at the article. They also deleted the entire new article, in favor of the previous one. I contacted the editor at their talk page, then later brought the matter up at the article talk page at their suggestion. In the meantime, they deleted the newly rewritten article once more. As I was preparing to solicit a third opinion, a previously uninvolved editor sent me an edit-warring warning. For context, I am also currently participating with these same editors in another ongoing discussion at the DRN.
While posting this, I learned that the other editor also deleted the new version of the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Determining whether or not the newly rewritten article needs to be jettisoned because of the citation style. If the new version is acceptable, then help is needed to determine whether the new citation style can remain, be replaced, or modified.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is ridiculous. There has been no real effort on the talk page into coming to a suitable conclusion. There is no need to waste other people’s time without expending a little effort first. - SchroCat (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been placed on hold.
– New discussion.
– Discussion in progress.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.