Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	21 days, 9 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	1 days, 8 hours	Thought 1915 (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Tuner (radio)	In Progress	Andrevan (t)	17 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 21 hours	Kvng (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	12 days, 15 hours	NotAGenious (t)	9 days, 11 hours	Moxy (t)	8 days, 12 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	8 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 1 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	4 hours
Instant-runoff voting	Closed	Closed Limelike Curves (t)	6 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours
NDIS	New	ItsPugle (t)	4 days, 12 hours	None	n/a	ItsPugle (t)	4 days, 12 hours
Talk:2024 United_States_presidential_election# Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election	Closed	Goodtiming8871 (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 21:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Reverse racism

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Sangdeboeuf on 06:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Reverse racism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs)
• Scoundr3l (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two-part issue, where another user and I are at loggerheads over (1) whether "reverse discrimination" is a legitimate alternative name for this article, to be placed in bold in the first sentence, and (2) whether the article shows systemic bias requiring use of the {{globalize}} template.

I've pointed out that "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence of the first paragraph", and that multiple published sources treat "reverse discrimination" as a synonym of "reverse racism", i.e. a "significant alternative name" for the topic. Scoundr3l says this is too ambiguous, given that another article has Reverse discrimination as its title.

For the "Globalize" issue, I've pointed out that sources describing the topic focus on the U.S., and that the article should reflect these sources per Due and undue weight. I don't think one user's unproven hunch that the article is plagued by systemic bias is enough reason to indefinitely deface the article with a cleanup tag. Systemic bias is by definition not a question of this or that article being skewed; it's about the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors and under-representing those topics for which reliable sources are not easily available (i.e. online) or available in English. Well, part of the answer to that is to seek out alternative sources. I've asked several times (1st) (2nd) (3rd) (4th) for published sources that describe non-U.S. viewpoints, but none have been provided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I think I have exhausted the possibilities of talk page discussion given that my repeated requests for information have been largely ignored. Scoundr3l has twice listed the dispute at WP:3O, but no one decided to take up the issue, and the listing was removed. How do you think we can help? I think moderation from an experienced user would help all parties articulate their concerns more clearly in order to arrive at a solution based on Wikipedia's core content policies.

Summary of dispute by Scoundr3l

(1) Regarding the alt title: "Reverse discrimination" is the subject of another article. As far as anyone can tell, that article covers the only definition of the term. I asked for clarification on the scope of the article. Sangdeboeuf replied with the opinion that the two terms have similar, but different scopes. I agreed. I attempted to remove the alt title and further define the article "reverse racism" to differentiate it from the "reverse discrimination" article. Those changes were reverted and Sangdeboeuf seems to have contradicted the previous opinion by now insisting they are the same thing. My position is that using it as an alt title on the "reverse racism" page is needlessly ambiguous, even if some sources do, because it's the same term covered by the other article. In the best interest of the readers, the articles should attempt to disambiguate them.

Note: there is an ongoing merge proposal for the two articles, which we've both participated in, as well as a merge suggestion that was closed as "Keep".

(2) Regarding the globalize tag: This was added by me because I feel that that lede of the article almost exclusively discusses US politics, despite the article having relevant subsections for the US and abroad. I think the lede should summarize the worldview, as much as possible, and the US can be discussed in detail in its relevant subsection. I made that clear in my discussion and I offered open-ended suggestions for how we could begin improvements. Sangdeboeuf's response has been nothing short of hostile. They've made no attempt to understand or engage in the issue, answer simple questions, or participate. Their stance has been "I disagree", which I can't be expected to account for, but I expect any reasonable editor could see a good faith effort to begin working on improvements. After one of the many removals of the template without action or engagement, a 3rd party editor re-added the tag and Sangdeboeuf still insists on removing it without discussion.

After it became evident that this was not a collaborative environment, I sought out a 3O twice. No responders. Participation in the article is low and probably hasn't been encouraged by stonewalling and ownership-like behavior. The only 3rd party participation so far was the re-addition of the globalize template.

Talk:Reverse racism discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Robert McClenon: Would you be able to open this one up? MrClog (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I will try to facilitate discussion. I have opinions on this subject, but will keep my personal opinions in check, because I have an even stronger opinion that Wikipedia needs to present the neutral point of view on issues where many people are not neutral. Please read the ground rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in contentious areas. Overly long posts do not help to resolve issues, although they make the poster feel better, so be concise. Discuss article content only, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve the article.

Will each editor please state, in one or at most two paragraphs, what the issues are? I understand that there may be a suggestion to merge this article with reverse discrimination, but that should be outside the scope of this discussion, because there is a consensus-based procedure for merge discussions. Is there an issue about defining the scope of the topic and the article? If so, please state it concisely. If there are other content issues, please state them concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• Yes, first and foremost there is an issue of scope. Presently, the article does not define what 'reverse racism' is. It begins immediately by contextualizing how the term is used in Affirmative Action debates, which is inadequate, if not incorrect, as a definition. The source themselves state that the concept dates back to the Reconstruction era and it is often used outside of those contexts, such as bloc voting discussions. I offered instead to define it as situations where "typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged groups." This definition is modeled after the one in Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society and similar (but distinct) from the definition used at reverse discrimination. That will allow us to set the scope of the two articles apart and discuss the broader subject outside of the American Affirmative Action debate (though it can still be discussed with due weight). And finally, the alt title is unnecessary and confusing, probably owing to those scope issues. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'll reiterate what I wrote above, minus the "globalize" issue, since that discussion was closed by an uninvolved user.

  The issue, as I see it, is that since multiple published sources treat the terms reverse discrimination and reverse racism as equivalent, both terms should be given in the lead section or paragraph per WP:OTHERNAMES, preferably in bold text. Whether a separate article with the title Reverse discrimination exists is irrelevant; anyone can create an article with any title. We should simply follow what sources say, and use hatnotes or a disambiguation page to deal with any ambiguity as needed.

  In terms of the article's scope, I think it's preferable to give context up front rather than just the literal meaning of the words reverse racism, precisely because it's a non-neutral term (à la white genocide or great replacement). The crucial points to cover are that (1) it's a concept used as a political strategy, and (2) it specifically refers to anti-white discrimination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The worldview of the article is still an issue. The globalize discussion that was closed was off-topic conversation about the inclusion of the tag, not really useful to anyone. As the issue was already in DRN, there's no value in re-opening it, but that doesn't mean the issue has disappeared or been resolved. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Editorial comment: Do not reply to the posts of other editors, and do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The parties are here because they are presumably requesting facilitation because back-and-forth discussion merely restated the two sides.

Is there agreement that there is a scope issue? I am neutral, but I see a definition issue at the beginning, which is that the topic is reverse racism, but there is no initial definition of what is meant by racism in the first place. Do we need to start by defining racism? Please answer in one paragraph.

Can each party provide a one-paragraph (preferably two or three sentences) proposed lede paragraph? Provide this separately from the answer to the above.

There have been comments about a global view. I can see that the concept of reverse racism is likely to be different in different countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, India. Will each of the editors please comment in one paragraph about whether they think that the article needs to be expanded to be global? If yes, is it currently focused on the United States?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• A lot of sources take for granted that "reverse racism" is self explanatory, at least within the context they are discussing, so they don't bother to specifically define it. But it does need to be defined for our article. I don't think we necessarily need to define 'racism' in this article, but we should at least link to that article, if possible.

  My proposed lede:

  Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination in which typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged racial groups. The concept has been used to portray color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, such as affirmative action, as a form of anti-white racism.

  If it's too wordy, we can cut down on some of the "or"s. I've also offered to include "concept" or "In political discourse," in the lede sentence, as part of our previous discussion.

  Regarding worldview, the article is presented as universal, but focused almost exclusively on the US. It relies too heavily on sources discussing American politics and makes little effort to present the term outside that context. By last estimate, 6 of the 7 sentences in the lede mentioned the US specifically, either in text or piped link. This is excessive considering it repeats a lot of what's already in the US subsection. Similar discussions have been brought up about India on the Reverse Discrimination talk page. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is any problem with the article's scope. Giving a simple definition of racism in the lead section would only confuse matters in my view, because (A) racism does not easily fit under a single definition, and (B) the topic is not a form of racism at all, according to the sources. This is explained in the second paragraph of the lead.

  I think the existing lead paragraph, Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is a concept often associated with conservative social movements that portrays affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality as a form of anti-white racism, whereby gains by racial minorities result in harms to the white majority, gives a workable definition of the topic and places it in the appropriate context. It could probably be broken into parts to avoid a run-on sentence, though.

  I think the article already represents a global worldview as represented by the existing sources. Most of the high-quality sources I've seen focus on the US, so that's where the article should also focus. I think any expansion needs to be justified with published sources (I haven't seen any sources that specifically discuss the concept of "reverse racism" in India). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

Hmmm. It appears that one editor is basically satisfied with the definition, the scope, and the globality, and the other editor thinks that the definition should be revised and the article should provide more information about the problem outside the United States. Are you (each of you) willing to compromise on the definitional statement? Are you (each of you) willing to compromise on including or not including other countries? Are there any other issues that need to be discussed and are not being discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

• My last edit to the page, adding "whereby gains by racial minorities result in harms to the white majority", was an attempt to incorporate the other editor's concerns in defining the scope of the topic. I'm open to further compromise if it can be shown to be faithful to published sources. Ditto for including other countries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Naturally willing to compromise, but I'd need details on the proposed compromise. I'd also ask Sangdeboeuf to stop editing the lede while it's under discussion as it's making it difficult to characterize what we're talking about and it's introducing more errors. The only thing that doesn't appear to be addressed is the alt title. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

I don't see any editing of the lede since we started discussion. (If I did, I would fail this discussion, because the mediation rules state that no one shall edit the article while discussion is in progress, but it appears that the editors have read that.)

Since it appears that the editors are making some progress toward compromise, I will change the rules and encourage the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion as to the wording of the lede sentence for four days or so.

Are there any other issues that the editors think need to be resolved? As to whether to tag the article, we already know that we do not want the article tagged. If it needs improvement, it should be improved here, rather than tagged as needing improvement.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

• As stated, I'm satisfied with the contents of the current lead sentence, though happy to entertain other suggestions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• this change was introduced since the discussion started. I'm genuinely curious which of the concerns it was meant to address as it doesn't add a definition, worldview, or address the alt title. It's just a tossing of the word salad. It's also factually inaccurate as it needlessly introduced "racial minority" and "white majority" which are not requisite to reverse racism (see: South Africa). We've engaged in a back and forth since mid February and come no closer to a compromise than when this began. If we could have resolved this by now, I'm sure we both would have. What we really need is a third opinion. It's also unclear what you mean by "tag" in regards to the alt title. Scoundr3l (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't add a definition". It describes the scope of the subject according to those who use the term. What other definition would you like to include? As to the majority/minority issue, you may have a point; what if we just said "white people"/"black people" instead? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

I stated the ground rules on 28 March. They said not to edit the article. The lede sentence was tweaked on 29 March. How do you expect to arrive at a compromise if you are ignoring the mediation instructions?

I suggest the use of a Request for Comments. Will each side please state what their version of the lede sentence should be. Please also identify any other issues.

Fifth statements by editors

• That was an oversight on my part that was nonetheless intended as a compromise edit. I even said as much under "Third statements by editors" above. However, if an RfC is recommended I'd be fine with that as well.

  I think the existing lead sentence is good but could be split into two, such as Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism. The concept is often associated with conservative social movements and perceptions that social and economic gains by black people in the U.S. and elsewhere cause disadvantages for white people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• To reiterate the issues: (1) the current lede sentence is not a definition. It's inadequate to handle the most basic uses of the word, such as "To vote for a Negro only because he is a Negro would be reverse racism" -Jackie Robinson, New York Times, discussing bloc voting. Or "Accusations of 'reverse racism' haunt an American professor" -The Economist, discussing tweets by Sarah Jeong. The over-reliance on the wording of only a few sources (and ignoring others) has needlessly skewed the scope of the article in favor of one preferred context, at the expense of others. There's no reason to try to make the article fit into a definition if it doesn't fit. It's not the definition.

  My proposed lede:

  Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination in which typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged racial groups. The concept has been used to portray color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, such as affirmative action, as a form of anti-white racism.

  This definition fits all appropriate uses of the term, including those used by the AA sources, and still provides context for how the term is used in Affirmative Action debates. Providing an adequate definition is not an issue of neutrality. The term means what it means and there are no "non-neutral" exceptions to NPOV.

  Second (2) is the alt title. The purpose of alt titles is to ensure coverage of all significant names for the article content, and vice versa. The subject of "reverse discrimination" is already covered. Using this alt title means we now have two articles about "reverse discrimination". As you said, there is a consensus-based procedure for merging articles. That proposal has already been rejected and it appears that it may be rejected again. This bypasses the process by disrupting the scope of another article. Alt title should be removed if and until consensus changes for a merger.

  RfC wouldn't be my first choice. After all, this is just a disagreement between two editors. I feel like it's already been protracted enough. But if nobody else is willing to offer their opinion here, it'll do. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

Okay. If the editing of the article after moderated discussion started was an innocent mistake, the editors can resume trying to talk to each other about a proposed lede that will be acceptable to both parties. I will observe and let there be back-and-forth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

I would refer to my latest comment where I propose a slightly modified lead paragraph. Otherwise I'm satisfied with the lead paragraph as it stands. Will entertain any alternative suggestions.

Meanwhile, what should we do about problematic edits like this one, which introduce questionable content into the lead section? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• With all due respect, we've both already stated our issues, our proposals, and our reasoning several times now and they don't appear to have changed much. If we could have resolved this with back-and-forth, we would have done it on the talk thread that began in February and we wouldn't need dispute resolution. Just for the sake of variety, I think we should hear what you think and then I'm sure we'll have better luck coming to an accord with some new information rather than just repeating this all over again. As for the new edit, it doesn't appear related to this conversation. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Scoundr3l: true, talk page discussion went nowhere, which is why I brought the issue to this more structured forum. Do you have nothing to add about my latest proposal? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, with the threading this can be confusing but I was actually saying that I think we should hear from @Robert McClenon: or someone else. I appreciate the change in forum, but if it's still just you and me repeating ourselves, it isn't moving us forward. Your current proposal has all the same problems as when we began: it uses an inappropriate alt title, it doesn't define the term, and it's factually incorrect to the scope of the subject. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Can you substantiate those claims? What do you suggest as a better lead sentence/paragraph? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I've already substantiated it several times in my previous statements, and proposed a better lead. See previous statements. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the last edit was not related to this discussion, as Scoundr3l says, I've removed the questionable material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator

This is getting troublesome, in that we keep seeming to have this resolved, and then it isn't quite finished. Let's try one more time. Will each editor, one more time, please provide their proposed wording of the lede sentence? If we can't get agreement, I will throw it to an RFC. If you don't want that, just agree to something.

By the way, I have requested that the page be semi-protected for between one and two more months due to repeated edits (and I haven't looked at whether they are plain vandalism, fancy vandalism, or socks) by unregistered editors that have to be reverted. Some of it is POV vandalism.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors

• My proposed lead sentence is Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism, to be followed immediately by The concept is often associated with conservative social movements and the belief that social and economic gains by black people in the U.S. and elsewhere cause disadvantages for white people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• I agree this is getting troublesome. This is the third time you've asked us to provide our proposed lede, we provide it, you offer no further input, and say we're getting close to a resolution. If you aren't going to participate, please just close this so we can take it to an RFC. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Casualties of_the_Iraq_War#2006_Lancet_paper

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Darouet on 19:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War#2006 Lancet paper (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet (talk · contribs)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)
• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)
• Jrheller1 (talk · contribs)
• Mr Ernie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns how Wikipedia should present the number of Iraqi Casualties of the Iraq War. Editors at the article appear to agree that epidemiological surveys are the most robust method for determining the number of casualties that have occurred in a war zone, and these are available for the Iraq War. However, there are five major epidemiological studies of mortality resulting from the Iraq War, and these have different findings. Three studies have produced higher estimates (Lancet 2004; Lancet 2006; ORB 2008), one has produced a lower estimate (IFHS 2008), and one has produced an intermediate estimate (PLOS Medicine 2013).

Two editors, User:Snooganssnoogans and User:TheTimesAreAChanging, argue that available scientific commentary demonstrates that the Lancet 2004 and Lancet 2006 studies are contested and probably unreliable, and have placed text in the lead of the article stating that these studies "are disputed in the scientific community."

Three editors, User:Thucydides411, User:Jrheller1 and myself User:Darouet argue that available scientific commentary shows that the Lancet 2004, Lancet 2006 and PLOS 2013 studies are instead the most reliable, and that the lead text is misleading.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There are an abundance of sources and a long history of talk page discussion all of which have not resolved this dispute. Those discussions have included this recent one [1], and other discussions on the talk page and in the archives.

How do you think we can help?

I have had good experiences with dispute resolution in the past, where level-headed and experienced volunteers have required all participants to base their arguments in available sources and to permit both compromise and progress. There is good evidence that editors in this dispute are intelligent, interested in the subject, and can therefore contribute to a strong article that adheres to sources.

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans

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

The section on the Lancet study is an extremely comprehensive summary of the academic debate surrounding the study. The section is lengthy because the study is extremely notable and controversial in the field/topic of war death estimates. The section contains both criticism and praise for the study. Unlike Thucydides11, who has repeatedly sought to remove every single study criticizing the Lancet study, I have fully welcomed all studies that hold a favorable view of the Lancet study and would never dream of removing relevant peer-reviewed research under any circumstance. The simple fact is that academics dispute the Lancet study: many recognized experts say it's deeply flawed whereas other recognized experts praise it. Even the lead author of the Lancet study, Gilbert Burnham, later published an article which revised the old estimate, producing a far lower estimate of war deaths.[2] I cannot emphasize just how bizarre it is to describe criticism of the Lancet study as fringe when not even the lead author of the Lancet study stands by the Lancet study anymore.

There are several claims made by Thucydides11 below that are false or misplaced. First, the claim that the section solely cites one scholar who disputes the Lancet study is false; by my count, there are at least 28 recognized experts cited in the section as critiquing the Lancet study, most of whom are published in peer-reviewed academic outlets. This includes giants in the field of quantitative social science and conflict research, such as Andrew Gelman, Lars-Erik Cederman and Nils Petter Gleditsch. Second, the claim that citation counts reflect WP:DUE is misplaced, given that damning critiques of popular studies rarely get anywhere close to the same citations as the popular studies. For example, Ashworth et al.[3] points out rudimentary methodology errors in Pape's 'Strategic Logic of Terrorism', yet Pape's article has been cited 20x more.[4] Broockman and Kalla's[5] exposure of LaCour's fraudulent study ended LaCour's career, yet LaCour's study has been cited 2x more (despite the immediate debunking).[6] What matters is whether content is by recognized experts or published in peer-reviewed academic outlets, not whether it's been cited a bunch. Furthermore, the 2008 critique of the Lancet study was awarded "article of the year" by the Journal of Peace Research, clearly demonstrating that this is not some minor insignificant quibble that somehow got past peer-review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Thucydides411

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

The article should reflect the scientific consensus, with minority views receiving less weight. One tool for establishing what the scientific community thinks of the various studies is to look at citation counts. Snooganssnoogans and TheTimesAreAChanging have objected to this method, but citation counts are an important measure of how other scientists view a work. The 2006 Lancet study, by Burnham et al., has been cited over 700 times ([7]). Snooganssnoogans has objected that famous junk studies (such as the notorious MMR vaccine-autism study) can also rack up large numbers of citations. In order to make sure that Burnham et al. is not simply "notorious," Darouet went through the most highly cited papers that cite Burnham et al. If Burnham et al. is junk, then those papers should say so. Instead, the three most highly cited paper that cite Burnham et al. do not criticize it (Wang et al. (2016), Adhikari et al. (2010), Kassebaum et al. (2015)). A relatively recent survey article in Annual Reviews (a well respected, high-impact journal), Levy & Sidel (2016), directly states that "these studies [Burnham et al. and Roberts et al.] have been widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians". That establishes the dominant scientific view on the subject.

So what does our article say? The lede first lists a range of casualty estimates, and then refers to "Other estimates, which are disputed in the scientific community, such as the 2006 Lancet study". Yet the 2006 Lancet study is referred to by the Annual Reviews survey as "the most rigorous". The lede sets out a dichotomy, between "disputed" estimates and those which are, by contrast, not disputed. This dichotomy does not exist, and if anything, goes in the opposite direction - the Burnham et al. study is actually considered one of the most rigorous estimates, not one of the least. How does Snooganssnoogans justify making this dichotomy? By citing, over and over again, criticisms published by the same researcher, Michael Spagat (Snooganssnoogans disputes this, but we can go through the sources one-by-one). These criticisms routinely have low citation counts, yet they utterly dominate the section on Burnham et al. (six of the seven paragraphs), and are additionally scattered throughout other sections of the article. Michael Spagat alone is mentioned by name a stunning 29 times throughout the article. This is completely out of proportion to the reception he has received in the scientific community, as evidenced by citation counts, how highly cited papers that cite Burnham et al. view the study, and what review articles on the subject state.

If you want an idea of what I think is appropriate, take a look at this diff: a neutral lede, and a short description in the section on Burnham et al. about how review articles characterize the study.

Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging

For the record, I used to accept the 2006 Lancet survey and credit Snooganssnoogans with changing my mind on that topic. (See, e.g., "Moreover, the Lancet estimates for Iraq War deaths are probably valid"—TheTimesAreAChanging, December 1, 2016.) While the study has many critics, I now agree with Darouet and Thucydides411 that singling it out for criticism in the lede is not appropriate. However, Thucydides411 recently deleted 23,000 bytes of sourced text from Casualties of the Iraq War, including both criticism and strong support for the Lancet. As I explained on the talk page, this large-scale deletion did not seem constructive to me because it removed all consideration of the relative merits of the Lancet and IFHS studies in favor of a short general summary from two review articles, one of which is more than a decade old. I do not wish to continue edit warring with Thucydides411 and Darouet, who I respect as much as I respect Snooganssnoogans, but I contend that a significant amount of the content that Thucydides411 deleted had encyclopedic value and that his edit went well beyond "trimming Spagat," as he might put it. If you compare the two versions, you'll see that the scope of the purge is rather dramatic, with the subsection dedicated to the 2006 Lancet study being reduced from one of the largest in the article to one of the shortest, in keeping with Thucydides411's stated preference to devote roughly comparable coverage to all estimates of Iraq War casualties rather than devoting significantly more space to the Lancet in particular. As mentioned, I don't want to keep edit warring the 23,000 bytes of content back into and out of the article, but I would have preferred a more measured approach than simply deleting all criticism of the Lancet. I had previously created a paragraph detailing Tirman et al.'s defense of the relative merits of the Lancet study versus the IFHS study in an attempt to balance the article, but with SPECIFICO dropping out of the discussion and Mr. Ernie joining Darouet, Thucydides411, and Jrheller1 it appears that the numerical balance has now shifted in favor of the other side in this dispute, and it's not clear how amenable this new bloc will be to a compromise in light of Darouet's and Jrheller1's determination that all academic criticism of the Lancet is FRINGE and UNDUE respectively.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jrheller1

I agree with Thucydides411's assessment. I attempted to edit the article in July 2018 to remove some of the excessive Spagat references, but they were immediately edit-warred back by Snooganssnoogans. Since then, Snoogans has continued to add still more Spagat material.

Spagat and his co-workers have enough publications and mentions by mainstream media that there could be a separate article about their work. But their work should only be mentioned in passing in "Casualties of the Iraq War" so that it does not distract the reader from the viewpoint of the majority of experts that must be presented by "Casualties of the Iraq War". Jrheller1 (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mr Ernie

I will not be able to participate in this DR, due to RL circumstances the next 2 weeks. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Casualties of_the_Iraq_War#2006_Lancet_paper discussion

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

The necessary preconditions have been met, because there has been discussion at the talk page, and notice has been given.

Is this a dispute where the parties are seeking assistance in reaching a compromise, or is the dispute an A-B (this or that) question? If it is the latter. a Request for Comments is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

We're seeking assistance in reaching a compromise. There are some very basic issues (e.g., "What is the dominant scientific view on the 2006 Lancet study?") that we disagree on at the moment. Going through these questions in a structured manner would help. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: thanks for your question: I don't think this will be resolved through a simple this-or-that RfC. The question of how to accord due weight to comments critical of the dominant Lancet epidemiological surveys, and how to describe those surveys themselves, involves many aspects of this article. For this reason dispute resolution would be preferred.

Mr Ernie would you like to be included in this process or would you rather recuse yourself? -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: thank you for initiating the discussion. I'll ping other editors shortly and will plan to make my statement below within 36 hours. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Hey @Snooganssnoogans, Thucydides411, TheTimesAreAChanging, and Jrheller1: I have made my opening statement below. -Darouet (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

First statement by interim moderator

I will try to get some progress made on this. Please read the rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I don't know anything about this dispute other than that there is a war and wars have casualties. I understand that there are five studies. Is there a question about how much weight to give to each study? Can the conclusions of each study simply be stated without trying to rank them? Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph statement of the issues, within 48 hours? Do not comment on each other's statements. Address your comments to me and so to the community.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Thank you Robert McClenon for initiating this process. I believe the issue is not how much weight to accord the different studies, but rather how much weight is being accorded to the minority position — and above all to Michael Spagat's work — that the Lancet studies are unreliable. Instead, the two Lancet papers and the PLOS paper are widely considered the most rigorous studies of Iraqi casualties arising from the Iraq War. This consideration can be seen in their extraordinarily high citation counts, their positive and authoritative treatment in those citations, and in reviews by other authors. This 2016 Levy and Sidel Annual Reviews text summarizes the Lancet studies: "...widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians; we agree with this assessment and believe that the [PLOS] study is also scientifically rigorous... [Iraqi civilian deaths] in fact, may have been underestimated by these scientifically conservative studies." I believe that we should note these studies are more rigorous. I do think that your suggestion — omitting judgement in the lead — could be one that brings compromise. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that any particular study should be given more space in the article than another. I also don't think it's necessary to rank the studies (except for the body counts, which the scientific literature notes undercount casualties). One major problem, right now, is that the lede does effectively rank the studies, by dividing them into two categories: one category is used to come up with a range of casualty estimates, while the other category is called "disputed." However, the sources that the lede terms "disputed" (the Lancet studies) are precisely the studies that the scientific literature indicates are the most rigorous. The Lancet papers are the studies with the largest numbers of citations, and which are explicitly stated to be the most rigorous in review articles, yet in the lede and in the subsections on the Lancet studies, they're singled out for criticism. This is not reflective of how the scientific community views the Lancet studies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This is actually very simple: a large number of peer-reviewed studies and expert assessments dispute the 2006 Lancet study. Even the lead author of the 2006 Lancet study authored a separate study which considerably downgraded the casualty estimates. As a result, it is accurate to describe the Lancet study as disputed (because that is what the academic literature shows). On Wikipedia, we reflect that there is a dispute between reliable sources when there is one per WP:NPOV. Darouet and Thucydides411 repeat two falsehoods (which have been corrected multiple times, incl. here): (1) that all the critiques of the Lancet study are essentially by one academic (I count at least 28 recognized experts) and (2) that references in the academic literature to the Lancet study have been overwhelmingly positive (at this point, Darouet and Thucydides411 have only managed to find two such studies - when there are dozens of studies / expert assessments cited in the Wikipedia article that harshly critique the Lancet study). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

I will repeat my previous suggestion that perhaps this can be resolved by a compromise wording that completely or almost completely avoids commentary on the merits of the various studies but simply summarizes the studies. Is this general approach satisfactory to the editors? If so, does each editor have a suggestion for how to do this?

If any editor sees another or a different issue or has a different approach, please state it concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

How is it a compromise to remove description of the state of the academic literature on the subject? That's the crux of the disagreement! Many studies and academic assessments sharply criticize the Lancet study, and the lead author of the Lancet study has published a separate study with a downgraded casualty estimate (i.e. not even the lead author of the study stands by it!). There is no commentary on the "merits of the various studies". The text simply notes that the Lancet study's findings have been "disputed" (which is indisputably correct and reflective of the academic literature on the subject). If there is a disagreement between reliable sources, Wikipedia policy instructs us to reflect that disagreement (i.e. stating that the veracity of the study is "disputed"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the approach that you give would be appropriate for the lede. The different survey-based estimates of mortality should be put on an equal footing in the lede. This is what I attempted to do in an earlier version of the article, which had this paragraph in the lede:

Estimates of Iraq War casualties range from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to over a million (per the 2007 Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey). Other survey-based studies covering different time-spans find 461,000 total deaths (over 60% of them violent) as of June 2011 (per PLOS Medicine 2013), and 655,000 total deaths (over 90% of them violent) as of June 2006 (per the 2006 Lancet study). Body counts — which underestimate mortality — counted at least 110,600 violent deaths as of April 2009 (Associated Press). The Iraq Body Count project documents 183,249 – 205,785 violent civilian deaths through Feb. 2019.

The question of what to do in the body of the article is a separate one, as part of the dispute centers around how much weight to give criticism of the Lancet studies by Michael Spagat, and whether his criticisms are representative of how the wider scientific community views the Lancet studies (I think it's clear that they aren't, and I'd be happy to talk about the sources that back up that assessment). Maybe we can talk about that once we've decided how to present the different estimates in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

It is clear that what we are trying to do is to find a neutral way of stating what the various opinions and studies are, which includes that there have been other studies critical of the Lancet study. Can each editor please propose their wording that assesses the various studies neutrally? We can then try to pull them together. Each editor should submit their own wording, within 48 hours. Use as much length as you think is necessary, remembering that it should be read by a reader who is new to the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

. .

Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Bhaskarbhagawati on 11:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Kamrupi Prakrit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Kamrupi dialect (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs)
• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Aeusoes1 (talk · contribs)
• Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the issue extensively with them at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#Removal_of_reliable_sources,
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Bhaskarbhagawati_and_Kamarupi,
• Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit
• Talk:Kamrupi_dialect

How do you think we can help?

The issue started back in 2012, when original old article Kamrupi was divided into Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors including Aeusoes, "citing lack of sources". Their chief argument was modern languages/dialects cannot have history. Since then i have added numerous sources but they dismisses and persistently deletes them, even though wp:rsn said they are reliable to use on the subject. I need wp:drn advice on the dispute.

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

The dispute is not about whether Kamrupi dialect is a "modern speech which lacks history", but whether Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit are synonymous and equivalent.

That they are different was first pointed out by Kwamikagami around June/July 2012 and he tried to split the article in two 501823544. There was a brief tussle between Bhaskarbhagawati and Kwamikagami over moves, with Bhaskarbhagawati trying to move it to Kamrupi Language, which was eventually deleted. I agreed with Kwamikagami, and backed it up with two references (Sharma 1978 and Goswami 1970). Both these works are seminal and comprehensive enough and they name the two articles as they stand today. Bhaskarbhagawati at first tried to move the article, and then attempted a merge that failed. And since then his attempt has been to either insert "Kamrupi language" through citations in the lede or templates above it; or dig up references whose wordings seemingly implied that the modern dialect and the pre-1250 language are the same. Bhaskarbhagawati continues his attempt to merge the two, as he admitted here 890529414.

The phrasing "modern speech which lacks history" is very recent, just a few days old. Even if this was the issue, then all the modern dialects in the dialectal continuum included in the Kamatapuri lects and the Assamese language too deserve their share of history.

Chaipau (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aeusoes1

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

I was brought to the issue in 2012 by a request for a third opinion regarding whether Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit are referentially equivalent. I teased out the mutual claims that Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau made, and realized that the former editor had relied on cherry picked, misunderstood, or unauthoritative quotes to claim that the two were the same. Reliable sourcing instead indicates that the 12th century Prakrit was likely a precursor language to what amounts to a modern-day dialect continuum. As is typical for dialect continua, a few language divisions have been made that are linguistically arbitrary, but still recognized as valid for sociohistorical reasons. In the same way that we don't consider Latin and Italian to be the same language, we wouldn't consider the Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit to be the same, even though they are clearly related, because of the political, cultural, and linguistic changes that have happened since the 12th century.

I explained this to Bhaskarbhagawati, but he disagrees with this assessment. He has so far not provided any convincing evidence that we should change the presentation in the article to reflect his belief that the two are referentially equivalent. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kamrupi Prakrit, Talk:Kamrupi dialect discussion

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

To support the statement that Kamrupi language do have history, i have provided references with full quotes from eminent local linguist, which are at [8] and [9].भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources by me (Bhaskarbhagawati)

Keep discussion concise until moderated discussion begins. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p.4 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup. Sukumar Sen, Ramesh Chandra Nigam (1975), Grammatical sketches of Indian languages with comparative vocabulary and texts, Volume 1, p.33 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup. Kaliram Medhi (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66. The language of the pre-Vaisnava and Vaisnava was the dialect of Western Assam while the language of the modern literature is that of Eastern Assam. This latter has been accepted by the common consent as the literary language of the country. Political power thus determined the centre of literary activity and also of the form of literary language. Golockchandra Goswami (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication, Gauhati University. p. 11. The Eastern and Central dialects may be regarded as uniform to a certain extent in their respective areas, while Western Asamiya is heterogeneous in character, with large regional variations in the east, west, north and south. There must have been in early times as well, diverse dialects and dialect groups as at present. But then, there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature including the Buranjis written in the Ahom courts. This was because the centre of all literary activities in early times was in western Assam; and the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region. In the later period, however, even though the centre of literary activities moved to eastern Assam in the Ahom period, the writers continued to accept and use the existing model of the literary style of that time.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion, but not in the last three days. The editors should resume discussion on an article talk page. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, it can be resumed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not going to work, Robert. There hasn't been discussion in the last three days because we've been discussing at ANI, where I had brought up the dispute because Chaipau and I believe that the real problem is disruptive practices on Bhaskarbhagawati's part. We have been tasked with using DRN as a gesture of good faith. Bhaskarbhagawati specifically has been explicitly instructed not to discuss the matter in the talk pages[10][11] until we go through the DRN process. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I agree with user:aeusoes1, for the exacting requirements set on us at ANI. Also, over the years, since 2012, we have been stuck with the central question because of the different incarnations it takes (the latest is the "lack of history" phrasing). DRN should probably avoid falling into this trap of never ending cycles of discussions. Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and others, consider opening this thread, there are editing restrictions on article and talk, until issue is resolved here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Since this case is being referred to this noticeboard from WP:ANI, it is particularly important that the editors follow the rules, because otherwise this case will go back to WP:ANI, possibly with my recommendations for a block or a lock. Please follow the rules at my statement of the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. I am not familiar with the details, but I understand that the issue has to do with how old the language is; I expect the editors to be able to inform me of all of the details, just as the article should inform readers of everything that is written by reliable sources. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to my questions. Every editor is expected to reply to my questions within 48 hours.

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe the issues are, and what the article should say? Be concise, because the article should be concise.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Thank you Robert McClenon, the precise dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature. Until 2012, original article was saying later, which was subsequently divided into Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi Prakrit by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors citing lack of sources. Since then, relevant sources from eminent local linguists with full quotes are added to support its original position.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect currently states that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese, citing Goswami's (1970) A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese. I think this is correct. Kamarupi Prakrit, Assamese language#History, and KRNB lects identify the time that Assamese (which includes dialects like Kamrupi) began differentiating itself from its ancestral language and surrounding varieties as around 1250. We thus already reflect that Kamrupi has a history by indicating the mother language that Kamrupi comes from, and we also already identify the body of literature that reflects this history. What we don't (and shouldn't) do is refer to Kamarupi Prakrit as merely an earlier form of Kamrupi, since there are a number of varieties also descended from Kamarupi Prakrit. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator

I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. Does anyone claim that the older language and the modern language are the same, or is there agreement that there has been linguistic evolution? If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours.

Second Statements by Editors

To be precise, Kamrupi dialect is a modern dialect of the Assamese language. It is established that Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved. It has evolved, after 1250, on the one hand into a group of lects (called Kamatapuri lects) that cluster together and on the other hand into Assamese language, which is also a cluster of lects or dialects. Thus, Kamarupi Prakrit → KRNB (Kamatapuri, Rangpuri, etc lects) + Assamese (Kamrupi, Goalparia, etc. dialects). Chaipau (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Too long, didn't readRobert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No author has claimed that the Kamrupi dialect has not evolved. One of the references cited by Bhagawati above is Goswami 1970. Here are examples of the evolution specific to Kamrupi dialect: Final vowels are dropped: OIA (-a) > MIA (-a) > Kamrupi (-zero) (Other such examples are given in Goswami, p51-55) In Kamrupi the initial stress results in loss of vowels in the interior. This is one of the major difference between Kamrupi and eastern Assamese as well as with MIA. For example badli (Kamrupi), vatuli (Sanskrit), baduli (standard Assamese) (Goswami p67). A celebrated examples is pumpkin gourd: kumra (Kamrupi), kusmandaka (Sanskrit), Kumhandaa (Prakrit), komora (Standard Assamese) (Goswami p66). Note that the "d" in Sanskrit and Prakrit are transcribed with the retroflex flap. The dative -lai which are seen in the Caryas (meru shikhara lai, Carya 47) (Goswami 1970, p230) is not found in Kamrupi but found in Standard Assamese. Thus, Goswami himself has recorded that Kamrupi dialect has evolved further away from Kamarupi Prakrit than some other dialects of Assamese language have in some sense. Chaipau (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC) There are some issues with above editors statements, which i like to clear: Aeusoes wrote: Kamrupi dialect currently states that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese, citing Goswami's (1970) A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese. I think this is correct. As both the editor is quoting Goswami (1970) as primary source, rightly so as he wrote extensively and exclusively on the subject (some of his relevant works), the full quote of him is Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p. 4. Kamarupi Prakrit, Assamese language#History, and KRNB lects identify the time that Assamese (which includes dialects like Kamrupi) began differentiating itself from its ancestral language and surrounding varieties as around 1250. The current articles stated above has Chaipau as original contributor, the spelling "Kamarupi Prakrit" was used for first time in Wikipedia by Chaipau in 2012, based on few lines from non-linguistic work (Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978), Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Guwahati, Assam:Gauhati University, p.xxv), which says modern Assamese language is derived not directly from Magadhi Prakrit but from Kamrupi Prakrit i.e. Western Assam dialect (Datta, Bīrendranātha (1999), Folkloric Foragings in India's North-East, Anundoram Borooah Institute of Language, Art, and Culture, p. 134.). The modern Assamese language more appropriately Standard Assamese language is mid nineteenth century phenomenon based on eastern/Sibsagar dialect of Assam, which works are available since later part of nineteenth century (Kaliram Medhi (1936), Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language, Sri Gouranga Press, p. 66.). The so called KRNB is itself Kamrupi dialect, which reached North Bengal with shift of political entity (Toulmin, Mathew W S (2006), Reconstructing linguistic history in a dialect continuum: The Kamta, Rajbanshi, and Northern Deshi Bangla subgroup of Indo-Aryan, p.14 ). Here i have linked the two works Chaipau has quoted. The Kamrupi Prakrit is one of many names used for Kamrupi language (Madhumita Sengupta (2016) Becoming Assamese: Colonialism and New Subjectivities in Northeast India, Routledge, p. 100), there is need to ascertain the most appropriate title. We thus already reflect that Kamrupi has a history by indicating the mother language that Kamrupi comes from, and we also already identify the body of literature that reflects this history. Here i quote Goswami (1970), p.4 again, it says Kamrupi language itself is first Indo-Aryan language spoken in Assam (thus there is no question of another pre-1250 language), so the mother language of Kamrupi language is Magadhi Prakrit, which was used further west. (Radhakrishna Choudhary (1976), A Survey of Maithili Literature, Page 16). What we don't (and shouldn't) do is refer to Kamarupi Prakrit as merely an earlier form of Kamrupi, since there are a number of varieties also descended from Kamarupi Prakrit. I have discussed above that KRNB used in North Bengal itself is Kamrupi, whereas eastern/Sibsagar dialect (on which standard Assamese language is based) descended from Western Assam dialect/Kamrupi (Bīrendranātha Datta (1999). Folkloric Foragings in India's North-East. Anundoram Borooah Institute of Language, Art, and Culture. p. 134.). Chaipau wrote:To be precise, Kamrupi dialect is a modern dialect of the Assamese language. I like to refer to Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p. 4. as above again to address this confusion. It is established that Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved. It has evolved, after 1250, on the one hand into a group of lects (called Kamatapuri lects) that cluster together and on the other hand into Assamese language, which is also a cluster of lects or dialects. Thus, Kamarupi Prakrit → KRNB (Kamatapuri, Rangpuri, etc lects) + Assamese (Kamrupi, Goalparia, etc. dialects). I have addressed this above. No author has claimed that the Kamrupi dialect has not evolved. One of the references cited by Bhagawati above is Goswami 1970. Here are examples of the evolution specific to Kamrupi dialect: Final vowels are dropped: OIA (-a) > MIA (-a) > Kamrupi (-zero) (Other such examples are given in Goswami, p51-55) In Kamrupi the initial stress results in loss of vowels in the interior. This is one of the major difference between Kamrupi and eastern Assamese as well as with MIA. For example badli (Kamrupi), vatuli (Sanskrit), baduli (standard Assamese) (Goswami p67). A celebrated examples is pumpkin gourd: kumra (Kamrupi), kusmandaka (Sanskrit), Kumhandaa (Prakrit), komora (Standard Assamese) (Goswami p66). Note that the "d" in Sanskrit and Prakrit are transcribed with the retroflex flap. The dative -lai which are seen in the Caryas (meru shikhara lai, Carya 47) (Goswami 1970, p230) is not found in Kamrupi but found in Standard Assamese. Thus, Goswami himself has recorded that Kamrupi dialect has evolved further away from Kamarupi Prakrit than some other dialects of Assamese language have in some sense. For above OR, i again like to point to Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p. 4. There are further issues which i like to address. It is claimed above that old/ancient language i.e. prior 1250 (the date seems to be based on Toulmin 2006 thesis who had hardly written about Assamese language) is unattested, in contrast there are deluge of literary activities in old Kamrupi dialect, such as eight century voluminous works like "Dakabhanita" which was composed in Barpeta of modern Kamrup region (Abhay Kant Choudhary (1971), Early Medieval Village in North-eastern India, A.D. 600-1200:Mainly a Socio-economic Study, Punthi Pustak (India), page 253). The local eminent linguists do said that modern Kamrupi dialect spoken in Kamrup/Western Assam dialect/Western Asamiya is same as the first ever Indo-Aryan language used in Assam with voluminous ancient literature, by chance it remained as dialect (Goswami, Upendranath (1970). A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese. Guwahati: Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam. p. 14). Some of the sources are : Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p.4 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup. Sukumar Sen, Ramesh Chandra Nigam (1975), Grammatical sketches of Indian languages with comparative vocabulary and texts, Volume 1, p.33 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup. Kaliram Medhi (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66. The language of the pre-Vaisnava and Vaisnava was the dialect of Western Assam while the language of the modern literature is that of Eastern Assam. This latter has been accepted by the common consent as the literary language of the country. Political power thus determined the centre of literary activity and also of the form of literary language. Golockchandra Goswami (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication, Gauhati University. p. 11. The Eastern and Central dialects may be regarded as uniform to a certain extent in their respective areas, while Western Asamiya is heterogeneous in character, with large regional variations in the east, west, north and south. There must have been in early times as well, diverse dialects and dialect groups as at present. But then, there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature including the Buranjis written in the Ahom courts. This was because the centre of all literary activities in early times was in western Assam; and the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region. In the later period, however, even though the centre of literary activities moved to eastern Assam in the Ahom period, the writers continued to accept and use the existing model of the literary style of that time. List of references 1 List of references 2 Thus, i have discussed the two sources Goswami (1970) and thesis of Toulmin (2006) used by both the editors and pointed towards other relevant sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours in less than 300 words. Be clear, concise, and civil. If the issue is how to accommodate different statements that are not inconsistent, this can be worked out. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

I am rephrasing the statements of dispute for better clarity. The disputes are:

• Is first Indo-Aryan language of Assam, India/attested ancestral language of modern Assamese language, and the Kamrupi dialect is the same language ?
• Is the sources supporting the above need to included (currently deleted) in the article ?
• Is both the articles Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect which were divided in 2012, can be merged as per majority sources ?

The relevant sources for any academic consensus, i.e. Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, an work agreed on by both the parties and other relevant sources are included in "Second Statements by Editors" for reference of moderator.

The other party has yet to produce sources which says opposite of "Kamrupi dialect is first Indo-Aryan language of Assam which is also the ancestral language of modern Assamese language", so there appears no contradiction between sources as of now.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is the nature of the dispute. You can even see that reflected in Bhaskarbhagawati's most recent edit in which he changes "modern dialect of Assamese" to "modern language" and "the historical language spoken in Kamarupa" to "the old language" mischaracterizing the modern dialect as its own separate language and Kamarupi Prakrit as simply an ancestral form of said language (rather than an ancestor language to a number of varieties).

I know of no sources that put forth the claim that Kamarupi Prakrit and the Kamrupi dialect are the same language. The main source that Bhaskarbhagawati wishes to quote from, Goswami (1970), clearly indicates that they are separate in its very title. The notion of actually merging the articles also doesn't make sense, given that Kamarupi Prakrit is also the ancestor language of e.g. Assamese and Bengali and we certainly aren't going to merge all of those into one article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to equate the pre-1250 unattested language kamarupi Prakrit and the modern kamrupi dialect, dialect of Assamese language. This cannot be done since Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved into different languages and dialects. Kamrupi dialect is just one of these dialects. This is the position of most standard linguists: Grierson, Chaterji, Kakati, and Masica. No author supports Bhashkarbhagawati's position. Goswami (1970) too has clearly shown that the Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved and Kamrupi dialect is a dialect of the Assamese language. Chaipau (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati wishes Wikipedia to say that the early Kamarupi Prakrit is the same language as modern Kamrupi dialect. As Chaipau points out, Kamarupi Prakrit is the minimally-attested ancestor of a number of related modern languages and dialects, including modern Kamrupi dialect. Authorities do not generally treat it as being "the same" language as modern Kamrupi dialect. Bhaskarbhagawati seems to be eager to right a great wrong, namely that "effort here by Chaipau is to cement his point that said speech" (modern Kamrupi dialect) "is mere dialect which entirely lacks history." I don't think that's an appropriate reason to urge the merger of two articles about distinct languages, certainly not to belabour the subject at such extreme length with quotations dredged from Google and (as in the collapsed section above) repeated and attributed to different authorities. (Nor, by the way, do I see any effort to belittle the literary achievements of mediaeval / modern Kamrupi dialect.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderators

It appears that User:Richard Keatinge was not a previous party to this discussion and is trying to help resolve this. Unless he objects, I will add his name to the list of volunteers and will let the discussion continue under his moderation. I may chime in as a participant. I thank User:Richard Keatinge for assisting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

Robert McClenon neutrality issue may be arise if Richard Keatinge made moderator of the current thread. He was an oppposite party in an recent dispute involving me (see:Talk:Assamese_people, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_259#Dravidian_ethno-linguistic_group_in_ancient_Assam,_India and others), and is next in line as party, as said dispute supposed to brought in here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, need to clarify that user:Richard Keatinge was the WP:3O in the discussion in its entirety. Chaipau (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

Okay. I will continue as moderator, and have added User:Richard Keatinge as a party.

We are in agreement that Kamrumpi Prakrit is a historic predecessor of modern Assamese, of which Kamrupi dialect is a form. What are the points of difference, then? Will each editor please state concisely what they see as the points of difference? Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

Thanks to Robert McClenon and Bhaskarbhagawati; indeed it's much better if I don't try to moderate this discussion. As for the differences between ancient Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern Kamrupi dialect, I will leave any detailed description to the relevant articles and to the reliable sources, accurately represented by Chaipau and aeusoes1. It might indeed be helpful to have a comparison, possibly in the Kamarupi Prakrit article, between what is known of Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern dialects. But I am not equipped to provide anything of the sort. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Before i point the differences, i like to clear some previous statements of editors. Aeusoes wrote Kamrupi is ancestoral language of Bengali language and Assamese language, i like to inform that ancestral form of Bengali is Radhi, not Kamrupi. Chaipau wrote that Richard Keatinge is wp:3O in entirety, but he was wp:3O in 2017 dispute, after that he was involved as full fledge party in other articles talks and wp:rsn.

There are several point of difference, first the spelling "Kamarupi Prakrit" (first used in 2012 by Chaipau after division of common article) is based on few lines of a non-linguistic work, whereas reliable linguistic sources calls it by different names (Kamrupi language, Old Kamarupi dialect, Kamrupi Apabhramsa etc, see References 1, References 2). The second point of difference is presentation of article, other party claims Kamrupi dialect as modern form of language (their point against merger) based on sole source, but it don't say anything of such. The reliable source talks of its antiquity, and its present dialect status not due to linguistic reasons but political (loss of prestige etc, see Goswami (1970), p.4, Goswami (1970), p.14).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, user:Robert McClenon.

• The major point of dispute was whether Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are same. As you suggest above I think we have resolved this issue.
• The minor points of dispute relate to WP:POINT, where:
  • Name spellings, Kamarupi vs Kamrupi. We are using Kamarupi for the Prakrit because that is the spelling used by the author (Sharma) who most comprehensively specified it first, and because the Prakrit is an MIA language where phonetics demand the use of the extra a. Using Kamrupi for the Prakrit would suggest a modern language. (I am striking this out since this is reacting to other editors on an issue that has been newly introduced into the discussion. 20:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC))
  • Packing the lede of the two articles with text and extended (and often repeated) citations that suggest the two articles are equivalent. Examples of these citations are in the TL;DR above.

IMHO, the minor points could be resolved on the basis of the major point of dispute.

Chaipau (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism in_Europe

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by JPratas on 13:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Fascism in Europe (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JPratas (talk · contribs) ec1801011 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an ongoing dispute on if the Portuguese Uniao Nacional should or should not be listed under "European regimes often described as fascist or being strongly influenced by fascism". Sources say the regime was non-fascist. Similar discussion was held at the article on [12] and some other related articles, etc... Have you tried to resolve this previously? Call in an established editor. Rjensen (talk · contribs) An historian. How do you think we can help? Bring another external opinion. Talk:Fascism in_Europe discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Genesis creation_narrative#User:Oldstone_James_edits

– New discussion.

Filed by Oldstone James on 19:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Genesis creation narrative#User:Oldstone James edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oldstone James (talk · contribs)
• ජපස (talk · contribs)
• Dimadick (talk · contribs)
• Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs)
• PiCo (talk · contribs)
• Theroadislong (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article makes a claim, in WP:VOICE, that reading the Genesis story as history is misreading it, which is contradicted by many reliable sources (which give numerous concrete examples of literal readings) and even the article itself ("It can also be regarded as ancient history"). The editor defending the current version claims that there is no contradiction in the article, and they also claim that the sources I have provided to them do not show examples of literal reading.

Note that misreading is defined as "the act or an instance of interpreting something incorrectly", meaning the phrase "misreading the Genesis story as history" does not imply that the Genesis story is history; instead, it implies that the Genesis story wasn't intended to be read/interpreted as history.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have changed my proposal following criticism by other editors

How do you think we can help?

I think a WP:3O may resolve the issue, as only two editors, me and jps, have expressed an opinion on my most recent proposal. Otherwise, if more than one volunteer responds to this request, a new consensus can be built.

Summary of dispute by ජපස

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

This is a premature filling. Suggest withdrawing. If not, I will support a topic ban for tiresomeness. jps (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dimadick

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

The dispute started on April 19, with an argument on whether Biblical literalism is a "misreading" of the Bible or not. User:Oldstone James argues that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth may have been the intention of the Book of Genesis' unnamed writers of the 1st millennium BC, while User:PiCo uses a source to support that this creation myth was never intended to be a history text. Much of the subsequent argument is on whether specific statements should be attributed to specific opinionated sources in the article (for example "Bruce Waltke states/cautions...), or whether they should be repeated in Wikivoice as facts, per Explanation of the neutral point of view. Personally, I quoted the Due and undue weight policy on contradictory sources, and suggested that it is essentially a debate of the creation myth's historicity. Dimadick (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Epiphyllumlover

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

I strongly disagree that Oldstone James is being tendentious. In general practice on Bible related articles on Wikipedia, the content of the article summarizes either the Biblical information or the modern scholarship. Usually the less important, niche subjects summarize the Biblical information and the more important ones summarize modern scholarship. Oldstone James is looking to shift the article somewhat away from the latter and more towards the former. The several other editors won't let him do this on the grounds that if he does, it will be promoting Creationism, which is generally considered a fringe scientific position on scientific articles in Wikipedia. This is a misreading of the WP:Fringe policy due to the fact that this an article about a Bible story instead of a scientific article. However, due to the multiplicity of editors backing this proposition, the article currently reflects this misreading of WP:Fringe.

On the talk page, I suggested that Oldstone James could write a new section for the article reflecting the missing point of view. He declined, preferring to make even a more modest adjustment, stating "A simple solution to this problem would be to simply rephrase the two controversial statements that reading historically is misreading so as to avoid WP:WIKIVOICE." This is a much more minor tweaking than I suggested to solve the problem. In fact, it barely changes the position of the article at all and if I were him I would say it wouldn't be worth my time.

If Oldstone James was being tendentious he would be insisting for more broad changes rather than more minor ones. As for the criticism of his sources, this is an example of someone playing mind games. His sources are fine, and the view he is using is already dominant on many of the more minor-importance Bible topic articles without any feuding.

My opinion is that, however well-sourced the current page is, the claims it makes are very strong on one particular POV, such that using WP:WIKIVOICE is highly inappropriate. As such it prevents effective expansion of the article with other points of view.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PiCo

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

Summary of dispute by Theroadislong

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

Talk:Genesis creation_narrative#User:Oldstone_James_edits discussion

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

User is being tendentious. One of the sources clearly says "If the reader misjudges the genre of the text in front of him , the result is a misreading." [13] page 142. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Just note that I am not arguing for changing the line that you have quoted. Explaining why you believe I am being tendentious may also help.^Ol^Ja 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: You seem to be involved in the dispute, and I have thus added you to the list of involved editors and gave you a space to send in a summary of the dispute. --MrClog (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

As is says at the top of this page, "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums" This is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oldstone James. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion you are referring to has anything to do with the dispute here. The discussion at WP:ANI is about my general conduct; the discussion here is about specific content.^Ol^Ja 21:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The ANI discussion is about a proposed topic ban from all creationism articles, broadly construed. Genesis creation narrative is a creationism article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that if ANI rules against Oldstone James and we decide in his favor, you will have two wikipedia procedures contradicting each other. To resolve this problem, I offer to make the relevant changes in the event Oldstone James is given a blanket ban and we resolve this dispute along the lines of what he is asking for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James is now under a self-requested one month block and cannot respond here. See his talk page for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Genesis creation narrative is a creationism article." No, it is not. We have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism and it has not added this article to the ones that concern it. And its talk page contains no notification on this dispute. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

FTFY: [14]. jps (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Max Blumenthal#Trujillo

– New discussion.

Filed by Jamez42 on 12:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Max Blumenthal#Trujillo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jamez42 (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)
• GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the Max Blumenthal article a disagreement started almost two weeks ago regarding an addition of content. The disputed is regarding opposite versions regarding a New York Times article, which the Wikipedia article states that it "vindicated the journalist analysis, who had reached the same conclusion weeks earlier".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Three different versions of the content have been included. However, there's still no consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Uninvolved editors can help providing insight or other point of views, as well as solutions.

Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging

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

Summary of dispute by GPRamirez5

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

Talk:Max Blumenthal#Trujillo discussion

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